Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[CMatt25]

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

That’s not even a venial sin Gurney. I came out of the womb that. 22-11 my friend! .667 baseball! :extrahappy:

 

[guanophore]

You have to prove that a catholic Sect that originated at Trent, in 1545 substantiates its claim to be one of the two One, Holy Catholic Church in its entirety!

This is a very interesting notion I have not heard before. Can you show me where I can find more information about this 'sect"?

 

[guanophore]

Thank you for your fine post. I wanted to take issue with a small part:

Who wrote the NT? That would be Catholics. Even Luther used a catholic version for his translation? Who’s Bible do you suppose they were using in the catholic churchs Ignatius spoke about? Someone else’s? Its the Catholics Bible. We allowed you to copy it and of couse that became 10% corrupt immediatly.

The Scriptures were removed without permission, against the Teachings of the Apostles. You are right, they were corrupted, mistranslated, and misused to teach false doctrine. But none of this was “allowed” by the Church. The reason the Church has been so protective of the Scriptures is to prevent the very fragmentation that occurred when they were removed from the Sacred Traditions that produced them.

 

[guanophore]

Because it seems to them that the Church is in error, and has introduced contrabiblical beliefs. Whether or not this is true it open for debate, but that’s the belief.

Can you be more specific?

The relevance I see is the idea that there is an actual person in a leadership position–somebody who will continue into the future. I haven’t seen that elsewhere.

Do you mean you do not see the Apostolic succession? Apostles, ordaining bishops to replace them?

Here’s where we differ. The Lutheran church beliefs that they are quite seperated. Elsewise everyone in the Church visible would be saved, which is not always so.

Actually, this is not a difference. Catholics don’t believe everyone in the visible Church is saved either.

We believe that Jesus mystical body and his visible Church are one, but we cannot always know who is “in Chrsit” at any given time. We know that sin separates people from God, and therefore, from His One Body, the Church. But we cannot read the hearts of others. All we can do is know them by their fruits. If they appear to be in the visible Church, yet beear rotten fruit, then we must assume that they are not rooted in the Vine.

After all, salvation comes from faith*, and certainly there are members of the church visible, who, through lack of faith, are not members of the church invisible, and there are people not joined with the church visible who are members of the church invisible by merit of faith.

Yes, I see your point. But we would consider that such persons, posessed of a form of Godliness (church attendance) without the power thereof, are not in right relationship with God, and therefore, not with the Church, either.

*I think the protestant (esp. Lutheran) idea of sola gracia is often exaggerated. Yes, salation by faith, not works, but there are other venues, as someone has pointed out. There is communion, baptism, confession, etc. However, all these things are a product of faith, and they come from a faithful person. In the same way that these things save, they are useless without faith, so that the doctrine is reduced to sola gracia for ease of conversation, etc., as well as to give all credit to God. Sola gracia is certainly not a denial of the importance of works, for faith without them is dead.

Yes. This is one area where the Catholic and Lutherans are in agreement.

Perhaps, but that is where the split comes in, I think. The tradition seems to contradict.

Can you explain how you see that?

 

[guanophore]

They couldn't if they believed it was preserved by succession, granted. However, if the succession was broken somewhere along the line, they very well could.

If the succession was broken somewhere along the line, then Jesus did not keep His promises to guard and protect His Church.

He preserved his word in it, sure. The question is whether or not this Word is also in the form of Peter's so-called successors. If it is not, then the only Word that can be counted on for sure is scripture.

What might you mean by “the form of Peter’s so called successors”?

Do you mean, the form by which the paradosis is passed?

Do you mean you don’t really think Peter has successors?

Besides, all the Apostles ordained bishops, and all the bishops are charged with the preservation of the Word in faith. It is not limited to the successors of any one Apostle.

If the “only word that can be counted on for sure is scripture” then God failed to keep His promises.

Isa 55:10-11

10 "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
and return not thither but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

1 Thess 2:13

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

God’s word then did not accomplish the task for which it was sent, and He did not preserve the Word at work in the believers.

The question is how much He intervened. The Lutheran Jesus isn’t as hands-on as the Catholic one, it seems to me. He stops major heresies, but otherwise lets people go on as they will.

Please read the letters to the Churches in Revelation, and tell me if the impression you have of our Chief shepherd is one of intervention, or “absentee landlord”.

But they didn’t see themselves as rewriting the Apostolic faith, only restoring it to purity.

I agree. I don’t think they intended to depart from the doctrine of the faith. However, that is always the result when one departs from what the HS has already revealed to the Church.

Is the meaning of various words so important, in comparison to the major truths of the faith? It doesn’t seem to me that words that aren’t even in the Bible matter so much. For instance, the word sacrament is nowhere in there, yet there are disputes as to what constitutes one. Is this matter of semantics so important, when both churches use all 7…things…while referring to them with different titles?

Yes, it is. The doctrine of the faith is preserved in the meaning of the various words. This is how Jesus taught the Apostles to understand His teachings, and the Scriptures. We are not at liberty to change the meaning of the terms handed down to us from the Apsostles.

Yeah; I’ve been wary of that for a little while. I’m not the best Lutheran in the world, but I can’t call myself Catholic either. It leads to weirdness when people ask what I am.

I think that will disappear when you can resolve what seem to you like contradictions.

We actually had a talk about that in confirmation class, when I was in 8th grade. “Catholicism seems tempting 'cause of its claims to being all perfect and whatnot, but it’s actually not as perfect as it claims.” It was like a sex ed talk in tone, and it was so weird. Like claiming infallible truth was like sex, and marriage was death and heaven, so claiming infallibility before god explained everything at death was like premarital sex. Tempting, but kids, you’ll get diseases!

I think it is time for you to do some of your own research into this “sex education”.

It occurred to me I could be more easily Catholic than another kind of Protestant, for the very thing you note.

God will guide you, dear one. I am glad you are here.

 

[guanophore]

The issue has come up before, but how is eating meat on Lenten Fridays a sin? I’m aware of it not being “doctrine” exactly, but how does one reconcile that with the above passage? I have no problem with the tradition of abstaining, but the threat of sin for such a thing?

The sin would be one of disobedience. When the bishop decides on a certain course or discipline, we are to unify ourselves so that our prayers will be more powerful. If a fast is called, then we all need to get on board. This principle is well defended in scripture.It is just like the instructions given by the Council of Jerusalem to the Gentiles in mixed communities with Jews about not consuming blood, or meat sacrificed to animals.

Heb 13:17

17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Also, the Bible says to keep the Sabbath holy. I understand that. However, what gives the church the authority to declare new sins, such as the “mortal sin” of not attending church on a Holy Day of Obligation?

LOL. It is not a “new sin”, but the Church does have the authority to declare such things, especially when they are putting the faithful at risk of falling from the faith.

Heb 10:23-25
Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

The Apostles taught that isolating ourselves from one another would make the fires of our faith go out,and that we need to consistently come together to worship and encourage one another to keep our faith strong.

Are these new instances of the Sabbath, and, if so, what gives the church the authority to declare such things when this is nowhere in the ten commandments?

No, these are not new “instances”. But, at the time the Apostles taught that we should not neglect the assembly, the Church had not yet been separated from the synagogues. Early Christians were all Hebrews, and attended Synagogue on Saturday, and Christian assembly on Sunday. Later, when they were ejected from the Synagogues, half the Empire continued to meet on Sat. and the other half on Sun. The Church finally had to choose one, and chose Sunday as “the Lord’s Day”

This is what the authority to bind and loose means - to legislate.

Also is the issue of confession as an obligation, which many protestants find opposed when the bible talks of confessing these things to God.

There is no separation here, either. The priest is acting in the person of Christ. It is not as if we confess them to anyone other than God. God instituted the sacrament of reconciliation so that we can be healed of shame.

Note that if “your brother sins against you”, tell him his fault. What of sins that impact no one but the sinner, such as missing church intentionally, etc.?

This is a very good question that is worthy of it’s own thread. Suffice to say that this is not true. All sins wound the whole Body of Christ.

I wish I could remember the other things that bother me, but they’re slipping from my mind right now. Will keep trying to remember, though.

Oh, I am sure they will come back, until they are gone.

 

[guanophore]

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!

This is some kind of strange and fantastic falsehood. The Roman Rite has been in existence since the late second century, when the primary language of the Empire ceased to be Greek.

You have also misunderstood, and/or misapplied the meaning of the term suburbicarian.

Your comments certainly clarify why you remain in separation, though, from the successor of Peter.

 

[guanophore]

They named a new authority that was roughly the equivalent of an Archbishop, not one with universal ordinary authority. The attitude of the Orthodox is similar.

GKC

Are you saying you think the Orthodox support the supplanting of persons within the Apostolic succession with temporal rulers?

 

[guanophore]

So, the church is one's mother, and, therefore, must be obeyed? And, since the church has the authority described in the above passage, they are allowed to promote disciplines that contradict what the Bible says we can do?

Yes, the Church is our Mother, and she has the authority to make disciplines. None of them, however, can contradict the Scripture. Since the Source of the Scriptures and the disciplines are the same, they cannot contradict.

The discipline, then, is the thing that must be obeyed.

Let me ask you this, Lovesa. When you read the account of the pastoral instructions written to the disciples after the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, do you think the flock was expected to obey them?

Anyway, Lutherans tend to take that to mean that if they reject the gospel, they reject Jesus. Not arbitrary laws.

None of the disciplines or pastoral instructions of the Church are “arbitrary”. You will find this out if you continue to study what they are, and why they exist. All are for our spiritual benefit.

No; we don’t keep it Friday-Saturday. We do, however, celebrate one day a week, in the spirit of the tradition. The idea of days of obligation–say, on Wednesday or Thursday–seems wrong.

I have always felt the same way. For me, it is a joy and a privilege to gather with the Church, and to have the opportunity to worship Him in sprit and in truth.

However, this term was used to help the faithful understand their spiritual responsibilities, especially for those who are shirking them.

This. ^

 

[guanophore]

Simple; 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.

There is no such thing as a sin that does not harm the whole body. But this is why I keep saying that many suffer from a deficient understanding of the Church. When we join the members of Christ (ourselves) to sin, we join the whole body to sin. This is one reason the Church is in such bad shape today.

Easy; the man does not need to forgive those sins because they have been confessed directly to God. However, the sins confessed have to do with sins against others, and these others must forgive.

I think it might be best to take the issue of confession to another thread. You can use the search tool to find one that is already open, or if you need help to open one then one of us can help you.

 

[guanophore]

There are indeed protestant clergy who give absolution to those present. Actually, I think they all do, if you mean the collective confession in the liturgy “I confess that I am by nature sinful, and that I have…” At my church, we can even ask the pastor for private confession, that is, like in the Catholic church, if we feel really plagued by something. It’s just the pastor at my church doesn’t like doing it so he’ll act like you’re being a major pain if you ask.

Maybe, in his heart, he knows he has not received the authority from the Apostles to do ths?

 

[guanophore]

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?

Yes. Such definitions have always been made in defense against heresy.

How could anyone say the definition of the Trinity was not necessary?

How could anyone say it was not believed until it was developed?

Defnition - the clarification of the once for all divine deposit of faith will be necessary until He comes again. though I must confess, many of the modern heresies seem to be resurections of the old ones.

 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.

If this were true, then one would have to say that the Apologies written by the ECF’s originated in pride, which they clearly do not.

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were very clear about defining and describing their faith in the face of rampant heresies. Irenaeus was also very clear that the other views were excluded.

 

[Protestant101]

In this entire thread what of significance has been said for the protestant church existing prior to 1500. None, its a historical fact it didn’t. It also a historical fact of how little the protestant church has accomplished since the USA was founded. We just have about another 200 denominations from little to no belief or futher in heretical thinking. Long as you disagree with the CC you seem to think that makes all this OK. When in fact only the opposite is true.

If there is something of significance to debate here by all means lets get to it. I see passing vague comments by Protestants, None of which prove the point of the OP. Which “YOU” proposed. Thus it becomes your responsibility to prove it.

God Bless, Gary

I posted some Scripture to support my point from Hebrews 11. it names many people who like many Christians “by faith” walked with God and were called by God; and while we are on the topic of what Churches were in the Bible; both OT and/or NT; we can note that Roman Catholic was not once named therein. Guess you missed all that.

 

[guanophore]

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?

The Scriptures are witness to the Truth. They are inspired, and inerrant. I think it is more a matter of the validity of the apostolic succession instituted by Christ having testimony in the Scriptures.

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?

1 John 5:7-9
7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree. 9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God that he has borne witness to his Son.

The Church has testimony from the Spirit that God placed within her, the washing with the Word (Scripture) and the blood of Christ, shed in giving her birth, and the blood of the martyrs, who died in witness to her authenticity.

Eph 5:25-27
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

Three that witness.

 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?

Lovesa;7853431:

 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.

It is not true that Catholics “downplay” the bible. The fact that we dont subscribe to Sola Scriptura does not mean we consider Scripture unimportant. They are two strands of one divine revelation: Sacred Tradition + Sacred Scripture.

If the Holy Spirit gave the church its authority, and this is evidenced historically, why prove it any other way?

Because the Apostles taught that everything must be done in accordance with the Holy Scriptures.

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?

The bible is authoritative because it’s primary author is God. The compilation by the Church is also an action of the HS. The HS working in and through the Church =Sacred Tradition. The Scripture, being a product of Sacred Tradition (it is what the Apostles’ taught committed to writing) is an inspired and inerrant witness to the action of the HS in the Church.

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?

As an authoritative witness, the Scripture most certainly is a pillar and foundation of the Truth. The reason it cannot be separated from the One Faith that produced it is because it can also be used to develop and support ideas that are not of Christ. We see this running rampant in the early heresies. Irenaeus gives copious examples of how Scripture was misused this way.

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.

Yes, if this were the case, it would be odd. But it is not. The validity of Scripture comes from the primary author (God). The book then bears witness to the Church through which it was produced by God. It is the most common example of an infallible action.

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

Well, since we have not gotten to any errors yet, you may come to find that you don’t have any differences, when it is all said and done.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This being the case, why are you still here?

Sometimes it seems that one’s actions may speak louder than one’s words.

 

[guanophore]

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?

Of course you can, and most American Catholics do exactly that. In fact, I venture that most of them don’t even make such a confession, and receive anyway.

The Apostles taught that this simple prayer was insufficient for mortal sins, and that is why most American Catholics receive in a state of unworthiness, eating and drinking condemnation upon themselves.

We cannot know the hidden intentions of our hearts, and despite our best efforts to make a perfect confession, because we are limited in knowing our own inclinations toward sin, we fall short. In confession, we can receive absloution in spite of these secret attachments to sin,and the grace to break away from them. This is how Jesus set it up to work.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

I have really done the best I can do. Your expressed desire to ‘move on’ while remaining on CAF is noteworthy.

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.

Have you ever noticed that there is no specific biblical reference giving Paul the authority to ordain bishops. We find that Paul appoints Titus the first bishop of Crete, and Timothy as the first bishop of Ephesus. And, these are not the only two! (Titus 1:5 and 2Tim 4)
These are men with the ‘fullness of the priesthood’ in that they can ordain other men to be priests and bishops. I have yet to hear anyone criticize Paul for the actions he took during his Missionary Journeys in establishing the Chruch throughout the world.

We now come to Christ’s action in Matt 16 - and, apparently because it contradicts the free and willful actions of those leading the Protestant Revolt - it is declared that the Son of God’s clearly spoken words were misunderstood or that He does not have the power to put Peter in charge! What identifies this as a flase teaching is that the Early Church Fathers carried on with their understanding of the Successor of Peter being in charge.

Oh, and did I mention that the group Christ founded became known as the Catholic Church by 108AD. And, for those who claim that this name was appropirated by a rogue group and that this “Early Church” somehow ceased to be - where is your proof? The proof would have to be two-fold: 1- Christ lied in that the Chruch He founded on Peter is no more and 2-Surely there is a biblical record for such a major event.

Ultimately, it is up to all of us to work with the Grace of God for this is how we will be judged. To the best of my knowledge you have all the information available to you to make an informed decision. Faith does not have its foundation on knowledge.

God bless

 

[GaryTaylor]

I posted some Scripture to support my point from Hebrews 11. it names many people who like many Christians “by faith” walked with God and were called by God; and while we are on the topic of what Churches were in the Bible; both OT and/or NT; we can note that Roman Catholic was not once named therein. Guess you missed all that.

The “church” is a community of disciples who received their unity through Faith in Jesus Christ as the one sent by the Father, and then they are drawn into Jesus Mission to lead the world toward the recognition of God, and in this way to redeem the World. This is not a new program but a 2000-year old one.

“The spirit of truth will guide you to all truth”

The disciples didn’t proclaim themselves, buy they say what they have heard. They represent Christ as Christ represents His Father. No need to re-hash the story of Peter you remember it. And the Last Supper

They follow the guidence of the Holy Spirit, the same as they do today in the “apostolic succession” “The spirit of truth, will guide you to all truth”.

Being sent is the characteristic of Christs disciples, they are bound to His word and to the power of the Holy Spirit. The early church was able to recognize this form of “apostolic succession”. This mission isn’t something self-generating or man-made. It was a matter of being incorperated into the “WORD” that existed from the begining. “Into the communion the witness was called forth by the Spirit!”

The Greek word for succession is “diadache” referes to structure and content, which point to the continuation of the mission of the witnesses, but also to the context of their testimiony. To the WORD that is handed down and which the witness is bound by the spirit. And so has been through time

Together with “Apostolic Succession” the early church discovered, [it did not invent] the further elements fundamental to Her unity.

The unity of the three constitutive elements of the church, the sacrement of succession, scripture, and the Rule of Faith [the Creed] is the guarentee that the WORD can resound authentically, and that tradition is maintained. And it has done exactly this despite the rational of man. That can’t stop it. This was placed in motion by God through Jesus Christ many years ago. If you don’t get with it, then you automatically stand opposed to it.

The Three Pillars which John speaks of in the community of disciples, of the Church, but with its referrences to Trinitarian Faith and to “being sent” lays the foundation for the Apostles.

Just as Jesus is sent by the Father the Disciples are sent by Jesus. The universality of Jesus mission is made visable, it concerns not just a limited circle of chosen ones, its scope is all of creation. The world and its entirety.

Through the disciples “Apostolic succession” the world as a whole is to be formed free from its alienation, it is to rediscover unity with GOD. The present World has to disappear, it must be changed into GODS WORLD. That is precisely what Jesus mission is, which His dsiciples are called to through “apostolic succession”. Leading the world away from its conditions in mans alienation, to God, his Church and away from his destructive self called Himself.

So this can once again become Gods World, so Man can become fully Himself by becoming One with God. This transformation comes at a price, which is the Cross. It is the price of Christs witnesses. For what else is the CHURCH if not the community of Disciples which came from God to Jesus to the Disciples. Who received their unity in Jesus Christ through “apostolic susseccion” The Unity they are drawn into is from the Father to the mission of Jesus to lead the Wordl toward the recognition of GOD! And in this way to redeem the World.

The END is not to be equated with “Cosmic Disasters” But the History of Humanity. The end while terminating the Old incomplete Evil. It is to be understood as the last resort at consummation in GOD.

The Church is clearly defined in Scripture through Jesus Christ and His best points. If your point is the “Catholic” word doesn’t appear till Ignatius its rather a mute point. The Church existed then through the disciples and it has continued and it continues to continue. As foretold “Till the End of Time”. Through the Creed, the Sacrements, Succession, and the discipleship of Jesus Christ from His Father tomthose chosen by Him!

The only aspect missing are those not hearing the message of the Father to the Son to the Disciples. To complete Gods Church on Earth. Not to fracture and splinter in human error and thinking which s(name removed by moderator)ly can’t survive. Only one thinking can survive. And those Keys are held by those who hear the Voice of Jesus Christ and are His Apostles.

How could any of this exist anywhere if Luther chose to walk away from the WORD, to create His own word incomplete and void of the original succession of GOD=CHRIST=Apostles? Incomplete of the message of the Holy Spirit which lives in this succession of Gods chosen disciples. His was exactly why he was called a heretic. And its appaarent is his words and work . Have you read this mans works? They are a road-map for a psychology student.

Its lacking not a little bit, but completely. There’s but One Church, One Truth. This isn’t MacDonalds or Burger KIng and have it Your Way.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Lovesa]

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 Lutheran church teaches all sins are equal, with a couple exceptions. Also, the only thing that can drive God out of one is persistent, unrepentant sin, or disbelief.

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.

Isn’t it? That’s what I’ve been repeatedly told.

Do you mean you do not see the Apostolic succession? Apostles, ordaining bishops to replace them?

Oh, I can see the apostolic succession all right. I’ve just never seen it in the Bible before.

Actually, this is not a difference. Catholics don’t believe everyone in the visible Church is saved either.

All right; glad that’s cleared up.

We believe that Jesus mystical body and his visible Church are one, but we cannot always know who is “in Chrsit” at any given time. We know that sin separates people from God, and therefore, from His One Body, the Church. But we cannot read the hearts of others. All we can do is know them by their fruits. If they appear to be in the visible Church, yet beear rotten fruit, then we must assume that they are not rooted in the Vine.

Yes, I see your point. But we would consider that such persons, posessed of a form of Godliness (church attendance) without the power thereof, are not in right relationship with God, and therefore, not with the Church, either.

So why is the word church in the Bible, it seems, always taken to mean the visible church? Are they so insiperable it’s impossible that the Bible could refer to the invisible church on its own, without also meaning the visible?

 

[Lovesa]

Can you explain how you see that?

I’m honestly not quite sure where to p(name removed by moderator)oint the exact errors most people point out. Many Lutherans could point out qualms with Mariology or the saints, etc., but, like I’ve said, I’m not like most Lutherans and really don’t have qualms with all that.

The notion of “works” is actually the thing protestants* most often bring up when expressing disbelief that Catholicism is right. It’s not so much the idea of doing good works; it’s the church prescribing works for everyone to do. It seems to take away from the grace of God when everyone must do X, Y, and Z in order to follow the traditions of the church, rather than following the spirit of those traditions.

*the ones I know

If the succession was broken somewhere along the line, then Jesus did not keep His promises to guard and protect His Church.

That would seem to be the Catholic viewpoint, yes. However, since protestants believe the truth lived on, one way or another, the dissenters were, then, whom Christ was guarding.

What might you mean by “the form of Peter’s so called successors”?

Do you mean, the form by which the paradosis is passed?

Do you mean you don’t really think Peter has successors?

If I thought Peter had valid successors to this day, I would be Catholic.

As it is, I’m fairly sure the church broke off at one point or another from the successors Peter, at one point, had. I don’t know when; I’ll have to do more research on that.

Besides, all the Apostles ordained bishops, and all the bishops are charged with the preservation of the Word in faith. It is not limited to the successors of any one Apostle.

If the “only word that can be counted on for sure is scripture” then God failed to keep His promises.

Isa 55:10-11

10 "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
and return not thither but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

1 Thess 2:13

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

God’s word then did not accomplish the task for which it was sent, and He did not preserve the Word at work in the believers.

It is seen as a fulfilled promise, though, because God’s Word, because of human fallibility, is seen only to proceed from the Bible. If the message of His Word is sent out, it will not return empty. My mother quotes this all the time, as do many protestants. However, by the Word they mean “the Bible” or “Scripture” or “the Message”.

Please read the letters to the Churches in Revelation, and tell me if the impression you have of our Chief shepherd is one of intervention, or “absentee landlord”.

Not really, no. However, we’re still talking about “bible times”, which most protestants count as an exception from Jesus’ sudden “hands-off” policy.

Not defending this view, by the way, just pointing it out.

Yes, it is. The doctrine of the faith is preserved in the meaning of the various words. This is how Jesus taught the Apostles to understand His teachings, and the Scriptures. We are not at liberty to change the meaning of the terms handed down to us from the Apsostles.

So, why is there such a split on this issue? If protestants started calling baptism, say, “the holy bath”, would protestants and Catholics suddenly be split on this issue?

(I mean where some denominations are not already split. Lutherans, for example, agree with Catholics on all baptismal matters from what I’ve seen.)

I think that will disappear when you can resolve what seem to you like contradictions.

That’s what I’m hoping.

I think it is time for you to do some of your own research into this “sex education”.

I intend to.

God will guide you, dear one. I am glad you are here.

Here’s hoping.