Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[fred_conty]

What do you think Pope Leo X would have done if Cyprian had lived in his day and had the same conflict over baptism by heretics as he did with Pope Stephen? Would he have just acquiesced as Cyprian called local councils to support his opinion versus the Pope’s.

If Augustine was alive today and wrote that as Jesus was God He had no mother that he would still be considered a doctor of the Church?

Similarly, if John Chrysostom wrote now that Mary was guilty of the sin of pride(superfluous vanity), would he still be called a doctor of the Church?

Or what about John of Damascus rejecting most of the deutercanonical books and saying Mary was purified by the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation so that she could carry Jesus?

Then there is Justin Martyr and his belief in premillenniumism?

These are just some examples of ideas that didn’t result in the author’s condemnation at the time but would be viewed as heretical today.

Hi,

That is the point well made. They made doctrinal mistakes, and sometimes later in their life they realized this and then corrected it. Or it was made at a time when doctrine of some article of faith was discussed in different ways by scholars. And of course because of the theological freedom allowed they were not viewed as heritical(yet).

 

[hn160]

Ah, very good. Now we have a putative practice that contradicts Scripture.

My response: the Church does not teach that eating meat on Lenten Fridays is a sin. The sin lies in disobeying one’s Mother, who has proposed a discipline upon Her children and her children decide that they need not follow that which Mother has deemed best.

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 10:16[/BIBLEDRB]

Does your church keep holy the Sabbath on Friday evenings at sundown until Saturday evenings at sundown?

But your Mother is the Papacy who declared that eating meat on Lenten Fridays is a sin. It certainly not Scripture or commanded by God. With Lutherans it is part of the Christian freedom whether to fast or not. My wife and I choose to fast.
I was under the impression that Lutherans celebrated the Lord’s Day on Sundays, which is the day, declared by the Church–the Catholic Church–to celebrate.

 

[Bluegoat]

Decree of nullity.

GKC

How about “woman problems”.

 

[fred_conty]

Were such definitions really necessary? Why did it become necessary to believe something that had not been necessary before? Did God change what truth was necessary because the Church defined something. If the Apostles were lead into all truth, why are necessary truths still being defined 1900 years later?

My view is that pride became more prevalent and men could not countenance someone having different views from them so those in power defined their beliefs as necessary and the others were excluded.

Hi, thanks for the question.

Good point. Why make definitions that weren’t necessary? Or why make them at all?

They are made because it is important to know truth. One truth is based on another truth in a snowballing fashion.

For instance. Is Jesus a man or God? Or God in a man? Or a fanthom as God’s tool? Or only a prophet? 1 person? 2 persons? 3 persons? 2 wills? 1 will? I intellect, 3 intellects? Do we adore him? Is he the son of the true God, or only created?

Now from this come different faiths based on this fundamental truth: Jewish, Protestant, Orthodox,Morman, Jehoviahs Witnesses, yes and even the unmentionables, us Catholics.

And why can’t we just keep it simple so there is only agreement. It was meant to be, but
“to error is human”.​

Were those who were in power taking advantage of the weaker?

In history, there is always political imbalances, especially where the person in power is trying to gain more power and is indifferent to the means used. There are all types of twists to this. But if you are referring to controlling doctrine, I would guess that there may have been. But was wrong doctrine passed and not corrected if this did happen, I am not aware of any.​

For the sake of Christ, I willingly accept my weaknesses and my trials, for when I am powerless then I am strong. (hymn)

 

[GKC]

How about “woman problems”.

Vague.

And leading him to seek a decree of nullity.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lovesa,

I am honestly having just a bit of a problem following your progression here. So, let me just move from concept to concept just to make sure I am understanding your position.

Surely, the Church gets its power from God, but if the evidence is found in the Bible with the Bible not being the source of church authority, why is Biblical proof turned to to prove these points? Is it, then, being used also as a historical document?

1- The Church gets its power from God. Agreed.

2- There is evidence in the Bible that clearly identifies Peter as having authority given to him by Christ. The Bible also identifies how Peter lead the Apostles and opened new doors that others have since followed. Here are some references:
"Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32).
Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28).
On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).
It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17).
An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).
He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41).
He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23).
He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11).
It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48). " Here is the link where there is a lot more information catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp

3- I have really lost your logic here. There have been previous posts identifying that the Canon of Sacred Scripture was not approved until 400AD. There were many documents - but no one had identified which were inspired text and which were not. This determination took place under the guidance of the Spirit of Truth and with the authority of the Catholic Church. This means, prior to this date - there was no Bible as we commonly understand that term today. Yes, the Bible is a historical document - but, it is much more than that. For the 400 years before the Bible was developed into the form we have today - there was an organized group of Christians, called Catholics. These are the ones who braved the murderous persecutions of the Roman Empire and not only held the Faith - they spread the Faith. What we are looking at is Apostolic Tradition - teachings inspired by God (same God who inspired the Bible) that united these Catholics.
Lovesa;7851137:

What would have been accomplished? Simple; the church would have been given authority to declare the Arians heretics (not arguing the weren’t) without due debate, etc.

Please read the following material on the First Council of Nicea (325AD): newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm I think you will find that there was an abundance of debate.

Also: no arguments on my side about Christ as Truth. However, if the early church leaders were in any way corrupt, they could have been acting out of the influence of Christ.

Each and every ‘early church leader’ - and, each of their followers - were corrupt! Each was born in sin and carried the effects of Original Sin with them through out their lives! Additionally, I am quite confident that each of these men at least one time in their lives voluntarily and willfully broke the law of God and actually sinned. What is of note is that notwithstanding all of this corruption and sin - God was/is able to preserve His Church from teaching error. Even the most corrupt leader giving the worst public scandal (that should pretty much cover everything) NEVER official taught error.

And, I think that is the take-home message

 

[Lovesa]

1- The Church gets its power from God. Agreed.

2- There is evidence in the Bible that clearly identifies Peter as having authority given to him by Christ. The Bible also identifies how Peter lead the Apostles and opened new doors that others have since followed. Here are some references:
"Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32).
Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28).
On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).
It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17).
An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).
He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41).
He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23).
He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11).
It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48). " Here is the link where there is a lot more information catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp

3- I have really lost your logic here. There have been previous posts identifying that the Canon of Sacred Scripture was not approved until 400AD. There were many documents - but no one had identified which were inspired text and which were not. This determination took place under the guidance of the Spirit of Truth and with the authority of the Catholic Church. This means, prior to this date - there was no Bible as we commonly understand that term today. Yes, the Bible is a historical document - but, it is much more than that. For the 400 years before the Bible was developed into the form we have today - there was an organized group of Christians, called Catholics. These are the ones who braved the murderous persecutions of the Roman Empire and not only held the Faith - they spread the Faith. What we are looking at is Apostolic Tradition - teachings inspired by God (same God who inspired the Bible) that united these Catholics.

OK. So, my question can be broken down as follows, starting with the following assumptions.

1. The church gets its authority from the Holy Spirit, not from the Bible.
2. The Holy Spirit and the church compiled the bible and give it its authority.
3. The church existed for some time before the Bible, and was led by the apostles and Sacred Tradition. These things are what kept the church going.

Based on these assumptions, I wonder this: Why does the church use the Bible to argue for its authority? Is it only the events documented therein that give it its authority, or does the divinely inspired nature of the Bible somehow contribute to the vailidity of apostolic succession? Considering that I have repeatedly heard that the Bible does not give the church its authority, but the other way around, why use the Bible to argue for apostolic succession? Is this just a way to talk to protestants on their own terms? Is this a way to show that apostolic tradition, while not deriving its power from the bible, is in the Bible and does not contradict it?

I’m not sure why Bible verses are seen as so important on this matter when the Bible seems so downplayed in the debate when it comes down to where the authority of the church comes from. If the Holy Spirit gave the church its authority, and this is evidenced historically, why prove it any other way? And, if the Bible got its authority by the Spirit-led compilation of the church, what precisely is its function in regards to capital T tradition? Is it equal to it, at least? If a thing absolutely cannot contradict Scripture, and this authority is appealed to so often, how can it be seen as not giving the church its authority, when this is the advice almost invariably (in my experience) turned to?

It seems to me odd that one would claim that an organization that gives a book its validity is not given its validity by that book, all the while citing said book as evidence.

Does that make sense?

Please read the following material on the First Council of Nicea (325AD): newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm I think you will find that there was an abundance of debate.

Glad to hear it.

Each and every ‘early church leader’ - and, each of their followers - were corrupt! Each was born in sin and carried the effects of Original Sin with them through out their lives! Additionally, I am quite confident that each of these men at least one time in their lives voluntarily and willfully broke the law of God and actually sinned. What is of note is that notwithstanding all of this corruption and sin - God was/is able to preserve His Church from teaching error. Even the most corrupt leader giving the worst public scandal (that should pretty much cover everything) NEVER official taught error.

And, I think that is the take-home message

Sure thing. The only debate left is whether they taught official error. This, protestants would argue, is where we differ.

 

[PRmerger]

Simple; God says we can confess directly to him.

God says we’re supposed to confess sins directly to him? ONLY? Can you provide the verse for this please?

Of course we can confess sins to him. It just doesn’t say anywhere in Scripture that we can’t confess to a priest.

Thus, confessing to a priest is NOT contrary to Scripture.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

Let’s face it, Bluegoat, no argument I can make will ever be good enough. I give you dates, facts and documentation and you dismiss them because they are not in keeping with the position you have established.

If I understand you, there are multiple answers - but, basically, the ‘Early Church’ is an abstraction. It’s existence is difficult to prove because, while we may have a starting time (about 32AD and recorded in Matt 16:18) it ceased to exist as “…a unified body” at some unknown date.

One of the few attributes of the ‘Early Church’ is that it was undivided - but, this is an apparant illusion because in the list of churches you provided you include the ‘orthodox Church’ (and I am guessing you meant the Eastern Orthodox Church) which revolted from Rome in 1054 (catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp).

What ever you have studied about the ‘Early Church’ has been an illusion. Since you appear to be evading there is no sense in my continuing on this path.

The Early Church is not only a historic reality - the Church founded by Christ on Peter as recorded in Matt 16:18 and happened about 32AD - but a living reality today. In some superficial physical aspects, it looks nothing like the Church founded by Christ. It is headquartered in Rome (Christ lived His entire life in what is now modern day Israel, except for a brief time in Egypt) There are phones and televisions - and the pope even has an e-mail address! But, when we look beyond the exteriors - we find consistent doctrinal teaching for the past 2000 years:

Baptism is required - and infants are baptized!
Christ is REALLY PRESENT (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) in the Eucharist
There is one leader - and we affectionately call him ‘Papa’ or Pope
There is an established clergy with Holy Orders in a recognized hierarchy
The Pope and his brother bishops make up the teaching authority of the Church
Men can confess their sins to a priest and have God’s Word that they are forgiven

While I could go on, I will stop here. All of these elements - found in the Early Church, recognized and defended by the Early Church Fathers and continuing on to this very day are found in the Catholic Church.

And, that is the way it is.

God bless

You haven’t given me facts and documentation, you’ve given me the same old “Church founded on Peter” stuff.

It’s a bit strange to say that I won’t accept any argument - do you feel that you would?

I’ve spend considerable time looking at Catholicism, and I’ve pretty much moved on. There is a point at which one moves on. If you had something new to say, then I would certainly consider it, but I haven’t seen anything different than in any other thread here at CAF - and none of it is as good as I could find in a decent Catholic apologetics book.

In fact, most of it has been stuff about how infant baptism is important, or the Eucharist, or similar things which seem almost like non-sequiters. Or statements - not evidence - that the Church always accepted the modern implications of the papacy. I have the distinct feeling that you have no real idea what I believe, or my Church community, and so you think these statements will be somehow enlightening to me. But you know, unless you really listen and have a good grasp of where a person is coming from, your apologetic attempts are likely to fail. You don’t really think that only the Catholic Church believes in the Real Presence, or has infant baptism?

I’ll tell you something that would interest me, if you could produce it. Show me in the Early Church where the Pope had the power to appoint and depose bishops of his own accord. I would perk up my ears at that kind of evidence.

 

[Lovesa]

God says we’re supposed to confess sins directly to him? ONLY? Can you provide the verse for this please?

Of course we can confess sins to him. It just doesn’t say anywhere in Scripture that we can’t confess to a priest.

Thus, confessing to a priest is NOT contrary to Scripture.

I don’t mean to imply that confessing sins to a priest is contrary to scripture. The sticky area comes when one absolutely must confess their sins to a priest, by peril of being unforgiven. While forgiveness may be withheld, the condition seems to be that forgiveness from said person is requested. Confession is never said to be mandatorily to a priest, and to say that if one does not confess to a priest they are not forgiven seems to contradict the very nature of forgiveness as presented in scripture.

So, no, God does not say we may confess ONLY to him, but we do not HAVE to confess to a priest.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Agreed. A lot of the old arguments I myself used I don’t buy these days. For example, “Rome has spoken. The case is closed.” Most apologetics folks use that as definitive proof that Augustine was a fan of papal infallibility. In the time of Augustine, a local synod could debate a heresy or a matter of discipline or punishment for clergy, etc. If they could not arrive at a decision, had what they saw as unfair judgments by pastors, etc. they could appeal to the partriarch of their jurisdiction. The folks in Egypt could have an unresolved crisis and appeal to the Patriarch of Alexandria. When he ruled, one could just have easily have said, “Alexandria has spoken…” or if someone in Asia Minor was accused of heresy or imprudence and there was a controversy, they could appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople and after his ruling one could say, “the Patriarch of Constantinople has spoken. Case closed.” Did Rome ruling on an issue as a tie-breaker or a final arbiter mean they were holding a supreme jurisdiction over the entirety of Christendom? Rome was respected. As the place of Peter and Paul’s martyrdom, the original capital of Old Rome, the seat of Imperial power, they were often a final arbiter and their wisdom was held in high regard. Look at some of the Orthodox rulings Rome made for centuries. They had venerable, wise pronouncements and built up a reputation that was much-deserved…But universal and able to install or remove bishops all over the world at will? I often wonder why men like Constantine convened councils if the pope really encapsulated the entire process in his office as pope? Heck, I don’t know…

You haven’t given me facts and documentation, you’ve given me the same old “Church founded on Peter” stuff.

It’s a bit strange to say that I won’t accept any argument - do you feel that you would?

I’ve spend considerable time looking at Catholicism, and I’ve pretty much moved on. There is a point at which one moves on. If you had something new to say, then I would certainly consider it, but I haven’t seen anything different than in any other thread here at CAF - and none of it is as good as I could find in a decent Catholic apologetics book.

In fact, most of it has been stuff about how infant baptism is important, or the Eucharist, or similar things which seem almost like non-sequiters. Or statements - not evidence - that the Church always accepted the modern implications of the papacy. I have the distinct feeling that you have no real idea what I believe, or my Church community, and so you think these statements will be somehow enlightening to me. But you know, unless you really listen and have a good grasp of where a person is coming from, your apologetic attempts are likely to fail. You don’t really think that only the Catholic Church believes in the Real Presence, or has infant baptism?

I’ll tell you something that would interest me, if you could produce it. Show me in the Early Church where the Pope had the power to appoint and depose bishops of his own accord. I would perk up my ears at that kind of evidence.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

We need to find out if GKC is getting butter with that popcorn!

Why not supply some documentation to go with this rant?

God bless

There no Roman Rite till Trent and the Suburbicarian Church of Rome metamorphosed in to the Holy Roman Church and turned itself in to a Sect!

As far as I have been taught the Anglican Church used a mixture of British and Western!

 

[fred_conty]

Lovesa, Hi,
Your idea was:
God says we can confess directly to him. While confessing a sin against another person is advised in scripture, to whom does one confess sins where there is noone harmed but the sinner? The idea that it has to be to a priest seems contrary to Scripture.​

In summary, why confession?

1. because we can go to God
2. because sometimes the sin harms the sinner only
3. because it is against scripture.

---

1. Yes we can and should go to God every time. But the will of Christ is to go thru the normal channels of forgiveness which He set up before He ascended into heaven.
   Breathing on them, “whose sins you forgive they are forgiven”.

I believe in I Timothy or I James, there is a distinction made about sin. Some are sins and some are described as deadly. Now the catholic teaching on baptism is that the soul becomes the temple of God with God’s own life because we are God’s adoptive son, and thereby drives out all sin, since sin and God are incompatable. A deadly sin after baptism is detestable to God, and God’s life leaves and thereby the soul becomes dead spiritually. The other ones that are not deadly, are weaker and tho it harms the love of God, is not sufficient to drive out the life of God.

The Catholic teaching has been, the deadly sins are to be forgiven using the ordinary way Christ left his Church. That is why He left this power with his church otherwise what good would it be to say those words if he didn’t intend them to be used?​

Every sin is a sin against our redeemer and does an injustice to Him. There really is no such thing as a sin only doing damage to oneself only.

Every sin harms the church we belong to, because we are all one body and what harms one member harms the body, which is that of Jesus Christ on earth in the church.

When we are holy and close to God, we influence others for the good. And the reverse holds true. So we do affect others depending on our sins or virtues.

How does a murderer ask pardon of what he did to the victim when they are no longer alive? He can’t as pardon because the victim is dead. Then is that deadly sin to stay with him without forgiveness for that reason? No because the sin is against God who created all life which is sacred and only He can forgive since He alone created all human life and has the right to all human life. So He can be asked for forgiveness since He is the creator, and is necessary to do so, tho the victim cannot be asked for forgiveness.​

Because it is in scripture, the power to forgive was given to his church, which would be meanless if this power were not intended to be used.​

“When I fall on my knees with my face to the rising sun, O lord have mercy on me.”
(hymn)

 

[GKC]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

We need to find out if GKC is getting butter with that popcorn!

Why not supply some documentation to go with this rant?

God bless

A healthy, low fat substitute.

seamus’ documentation can be … unusual.

Bring it on, seamus.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t mean to imply that confessing sins to a priest is contrary to scripture.

The sticky area comes when one absolutely must confess their sins to a priest, by peril of being unforgiven. While forgiveness may be withheld, the condition seems to be that forgiveness from said person is requested. Confession is never said to be mandatorily to a priest, and to say that if one does not confess to a priest they are not forgiven seems to contradict the very nature of forgiveness as presented in scripture.

Yet you’ve also said that it’s not contrary to Scripture to confess one’s sins to a priest.

So where’s the problem? In the mandatory nature of it? Well, it’s not really “mandatory”, in the way you’re understanding it.

So, no, God does not say we may confess ONLY to him, but we do not HAVE to confess to a priest.

Well, then, this is quite consonant with Catholic teaching Lovesa. As I stated earlier, our venial sins are forgiven during the Penitential rite at Mass.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure why Bible verses are seen as so important on this matter when the Bible seems so downplayed in the debate when it comes down to where the authority of the church comes from.

The Bible is not “downplayed” in the debate. We just don’t use it as our only source of the Word of God.

In fact, we can and do use Scripture to prove the infallibility of the Church:

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture
Originally posted by Randy Carson

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 18:15-18
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Q: If the Church has the authority to bind and loose on earth in a manner that is also true in heaven, then assuming that there is no error in heaven, can the Church err on earth?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

Luke 10:16
“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Q: If the Church speaks with such authority that those who hear the Church are actually hearing Christ and such that anyone who rejects the words of the Church are rejecting Christ Himself, can the Church ever be allowed to speak error on behalf of Jesus?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error, would this indicate that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Note: GKC has changed his screen name to Orville

A healthy, low fat substitute.

seamus’ documentation can be … unusual.

Bring it on, seamus.

GKC

 

[hn160]

Lovesa, Hi,
Your idea was:
God says we can confess directly to him. While confessing a sin against another person is advised in scripture, to whom does one confess sins where there is noone harmed but the sinner? The idea that it has to be to a priest seems contrary to Scripture.​

In summary, why confession?

1. because we can go to God
2. because sometimes the sin harms the sinner only
3. because it is against scripture.

---

1. Yes we can and should go to God every time. But the will of Christ is to go thru the normal channels of forgiveness which He set up before He ascended into heaven.
   Breathing on them, “whose sins you forgive they are forgiven”.

I believe in I Timothy or I James, there is a distinction made about sin. Some are sins and some are described as deadly. Now the catholic teaching on baptism is that the soul becomes the temple of God with God’s own life because we are God’s adoptive son, and thereby drives out all sin, since sin and God are incompatable. A deadly sin after baptism is detestable to God, and God’s life leaves and thereby the soul becomes dead spiritually. The other ones that are not deadly, are weaker and tho it harms the love of God, is not sufficient to drive out the life of God.

The Catholic teaching has been, the deadly sins are to be forgiven using the ordinary way Christ left his Church. That is why He left this power with his church otherwise what good would it be to say those words if he didn’t intend them to be used?​

Every sin is a sin against our redeemer and does an injustice to Him. There really is no such thing as a sin only doing damage to oneself only.

Every sin harms the church we belong to, because we are all one body and what harms one member harms the body, which is that of Jesus Christ on earth in the church.

When we are holy and close to God, we influence others for the good. And the reverse holds true. So we do affect others depending on our sins or virtues.

How does a murderer ask pardon of what he did to the victim when they are no longer alive? He can’t as pardon because the victim is dead. Then is that deadly sin to stay with him without forgiveness for that reason? No because the sin is against God who created all life which is sacred and only He can forgive since He alone created all human life and has the right to all human life. So He can be asked for forgiveness since He is the creator, and is necessary to do so, tho the victim cannot be asked for forgiveness.​

Because it is in scripture, the power to forgive was given to his church, which would be meanless if this power were not intended to be used.​

“When I fall on my knees with my face to the rising sun, O lord have mercy on me.”
(hymn)

All sin is sin in the eyes of God. All we need to do is to confess our sins in corporate confession or private confession to the pastor/priest who acts in the stead and command of Christ to pronounce forgiveness. All we have to do is accept this forgiveness and repent.

 

[CMatt25]

So where’s the problem? In the mandatory nature of it? Well, it’s not really “mandatory”, in the way you’re understanding it.

Well, then, this is quite consonant with Catholic teaching Lovesa. As I stated earlier, our venial sins are forgiven during the Penitential rite at Mass.

So then PR can I get on my knees tonight and confess directly to God what the Catholic Church calls a mortal sin resulting from me missing a weekday HDofO and any other mortal sins the Church says I have committed, and I can then receive the Holy Eucharist this coming Sun?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’d have to confess being a Cleveland Indians fan!

So then PR can I get on my knees tonight and confess directly to God what the Catholic Church calls a mortal sin resulting from me missing a weekday HDofO and any other mortal sins the Church says I have committed, and I can then receive the Holy Eucharist this coming Sun?