Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[ESMDHokie77]

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.

(…)

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

(…)

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?

Different types of sins: 1 John 5:16-17

Apostolic Succession: Act 1:20!!! :knight1:

I ask you this, why would they refer to the invisible Church and not the visible one?

 

[Lovesa]

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.

So, from the Catholic view, do we still have to abstain from consuming blood, etc.?

As I recall, another passage said they could eat meat sacrificed to idols, as the idols had no power.

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.

Interesting. I shall have to look into that some more.

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.

So, they have the authority to have everybody meet. OK.

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.

Concurred.

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.

While they all wound the Body of Christ* they don’t all directly impact a person. For instance, if I skip church, what harm does Joe Smith suffer?

a Lutheran belief as well

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

I hope so.

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.

OK; good.

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?

He’re we’re at another Lutheran belief I can’t really defend. I knew a teacher in high school who could throw out passages about how, after the Bible was done being written, Jesus was done revealing stuff people ought to do, but I don’t speak to him any more and can’t find the passages on my own.

So, yeah, they were expected to obey them. Because it was still “bible times”.

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.

I guess I don’t mean “arbitrary”. I’m looking for a word like it, though. “Meant well but introduced without authority” I guess. It’s seen as wrong to introduce laws other than the 10 commandments and Jesus’ own two-fold commandment.

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.

Agreed.

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

Understood. It’s when one adds “obligations” that protestants get squicky.

 

[Lovesa]

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.

I agree all sins harm the whole body. However, how does one confess to “the whole body”? That sounds hard.

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.

Concurred.

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

That, or he’s just kinda lazy. Our pastor has always intimidated me, anyway, so I try not to talk to him whenever I can. I’ve seen other pastors more willing to do it, but they’re not at my church so I don’t have easy access to them.

 

[Lovesa]

Different types of sins: 1 John 5:16-17

I can see different types of sin, yes, but the Lutheran would just say that the sin that leads to death is

1. deliberate and done in a way that indicates lack of faith or imminent falling-away
2. ceasing to believe in God and/or not believing in Christ

Apostolic Succession: Act 1:20!!! :knight1:

Y’see, this is one of the quotes they didn’t show us as “fake proof” in confirmation class, so I’m left on my own to refute it. (Whee!)

Looking at the context around the passage, they are picking a successor for Judas, and thus restoring the number of disciples to twelve. This would be taken by a Lutheran as an incident being contained within itself, and having significance to modern life only in that the twelve were allowed to continue their ministry at full strength by divine providence.

I can see where one would find apostolic succession in it, however.

I ask you this, why would they refer to the invisible Church and not the visible one?

It would refer to the invisible church to show that God protects all believers, not necessarily those bound in a particular institution. It also provides for an acknowlegement of the occasional split betwen the visible and invisible church and seems to read (for Lutherans) more logically in places.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes. This is one of the departures from Apostolic Teaching, which classified sins as mortal (unto death) and non-mortal (venial). Mortal sins drive God out of a person, and we are in agreement that final impenitence is the only one that can’t be forgiven.

1 John 5:16-17
16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

The Apostles taught that prayers were insufficient for mortal sins. Confession is necessary.

Luke 12:47-48
47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. 48 But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

The gravity of one’s sin is also predicated upon how much a person knows. If one does not know any better, they still may commit a sin, but their degree of responsibility for it is not as serious as the one who does it with full knowledge.

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

It would be difficult to find another explanation for the passage in John referencing mortal sin, especially since auricular sin was the practice at the time.

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

Do you see it now? This is really better addressed on another thread. I think it would be hard to relate it to this topic.

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?

The Body of Christ is a unified whole, so the term Church includes everyone. That means the ones from the OT that are saved, those saints who have gone on before us, those that are being purified for heaven and those that are still on earth. Only God knows who they all are. We know that He intended to have a visible Church, and yet, there are people who are saved that are not members of the visible Church.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Neither did Luther. Have you considered that these “errors” may not, in fact, exist? I say that because there are a lot of misunderstandings about what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, and in some places, outright lies.

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.

For us there is no dichotomy. If one is in Christ, then one will follow His commandments. One of those commandments is to obey the authorities He has placed over us.

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.

Obeying them gives us an advantage in the spiritual walk.

Heb 13:7

7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith.

If such obedience resulted in the outcome of eternal life, we are wise to imitate their faith.

*the ones I know

ARe you saying you know Catholics who do not participate in the spirit of obedience as commanded here in Hebrews? Not sure what your asterik is referencing here.

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.

Can you think of a biblical basiss that justifies such dissent?

1 Tim 5:17-18

17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;

Rebellion and separation would mean that there were NO elders that were obedient to God. Do you think that is really the Truth?

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

And how would you be able to tell? How could a “valid successor” be identified?

How could any successor of the Apostles be identified? Or don’t you believe there are any?

 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.

I commend you to it. May I suggest you begin with the disciples of the Apostles, whose beliefs and practices are found in the writings Early Church fathers? They are free online.

The martyrdom of Polycarp is a very interesting short story.

 It is seen as a fulfilled promise, though, because God's Word, because of human fallibility, is seen only to proceed from the Bible.

Basically what you are saying here is that Jesus’ promises are weaker than the fallibility of man. That man’s ability to mess things up is more powerful than God’s ability to keep His promises.

 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".

Yes, and Catholics believe this too, but God’s Word is not confined to the Scriptures. He placed it equally in His Church. Therefore, if He did not preserve it, He must be weak, or disinterested, or lied to His fledgling Church about the Spirit leading them into all truth.
If the Church went off the rails, then Jesus did not keep His word.

 :o 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.

I am glad you are not defending this view, because it is really quite indefensible. I pose you this quetstion. One what basis can any of us trust what is written in the book of Genesis? Since none of it was committed to writing until the time of Moses, how was the story of God’s interaction with mankind preserved from Adam to Moses? If God is unable to preserve His Word in oral tradition, how can any of those accounts be taken as inspired?

 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?

Many Protestants do stiil cling to the Apostolic Teaching that baptism is the holy bath (washing of regeneration). There is unity of faith among us in those that do. Those who have rejected this part of the Apostolic faith have committed wounds to unity. This is why I say there are deficiencies. Each denomination has rejected some part of the Apsotolic faith.

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

Yes. Most of the high church protestants do, like Anglicans.

 That's what I'm hoping.

Our prayers are with you.

 

[guanophore]

So, from the Catholic view, do we still have to abstain from consuming blood, etc.?

No, this is an abstinence discipline just like the fasting disciplines during lent.

As I recall, another passage said they could eat meat sacrificed to idols, as the idols had no power.

Exactly!

Good memory. However, even though there is nothing intrinsically wrong with eating the meat the disciples were to refrain from doing so to avoid giving scandal to others. This is all spelled out in Corinthians where Paul uses this to explain the principle of expediency.

While they all wound the Body of Christ* they don’t all directly impact a person. For instance, if I skip church, what harm does Joe Smith suffer?

We can’t always know the spiritual ramifications of our disobedience. People may be affected we don’t even know. If we walk in obedience, God will use our obedience also in ways that we don’t know. We are obligated to be witnesses to our faith - light and salt. It is a great honor to participate in the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

Think of it this way. If you heard Jesus was appearing at the convention center, would you go?

He’re we’re at another Lutheran belief I can’t really defend. I knew a teacher in high school who could throw out passages about how, after the Bible was done being written, Jesus was done revealing stuff people ought to do, but I don’t speak to him any more and can’t find the passages on my own.

So, yeah, they were expected to obey them. Because it was still “bible times”.

And what would change, between 100 AD and 382 AD, when the New Testament canon was closed? Or, are all those centuries still “bible times”.

And even if they are "bible times’, where in the bible does it say we should stop obeying the authorities appointed by Christ after the documents were written?

I guess I don’t mean “arbitrary”. I’m looking for a word like it, though. “Meant well but introduced without authority” I guess. It’s seen as wrong to introduce laws other than the 10 commandments and Jesus’ own two-fold commandment.

Ok, I see what you are saying. Yes, it is important to distuingish between God’s commandments, and the traditions of men (rules and laws). For example, St. Paul believed celibacy was the best lifestyle

1 Cor 7:12-13

12 To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

However, he distinguishes between his own rule for himself and the fact that God has not commanded this of everyone.

Understood. It’s when one adds “obligations” that protestants get squicky.

I understand this, especially in the light of the corruption at the time of the Reformation. Things were being pandered as “religious duty” that were not of God. There are some that are, however:

1 Tim 5:3-5

3 Honor widows who are real widows. 4 If a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn their religious duty to their own family and make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God.

How are we to know what it means to carry out our religious duty to our family? This is some of the Teaching of the Apostles, how our religious duties are to be met.

James 1:27
27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

What exactly does it mean to “keep oneself unstained from the world”? Catholics find the answers to this in Sacred Tradition. It is part of the Apostolic instruction that followed baptism in the early church.

I agree all sins harm the whole body. However, how does one confess to “the whole body”? That sounds hard.

It quickly became impossible. In the beginning, the church was small, and confessions were held in front of the whole assembly. This soon became impractical for many reasons that exceed the scope of this thread.

The priest acts in the person of Christ not just on behalf of Christ, but on behalf of the whole Church. Therefore,when we participate in reconciliation, we can be reconciled to the whole Church.

That, or he's just kinda lazy. :shrug: Our pastor has always intimidated me, anyway, so I try not to talk to him whenever I can. I've seen other pastors more willing to do it, but they're not at my church so I don't have easy access to them.

This is a shame, but there are poor shepherds in every place. I don’t think the Reformation would ever have occurred if the shepherds had remained faithful in serving the flock of God.

 

[CMatt25]

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.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What I think guan was getting at, Matt, is that you ‘can’ (meaning you are physically ABLE) do just that–get down on your knees and ‘confess to God directly’ your mortal sins without going to the priest. Sadly, modern Catholics today have lost a sense of sin from various causes, and have not received adequate and ONGOING instruction in the importance of the sacrament of penance and the necessity for mortal sins to be confessed to a priest.

As guan noticed, those Catholics who might perfunctorily think, “man, maybe I shouldn’t have had sex with my girlfriend tonight, well God will understand I’m sorry for it”. . .and then goes off blithely to ‘take’ communion the next Sunday without any further thought. . .and possibly more than one sexual encounter as well. . .‘can’ (physically/mentally) bypass the priest and (mistakenly) conclude that they’ve both made adequate ‘confession’ as well as ‘received absolution’. The danger of course is that since such practices usually lead to fewer and fewer ‘examinations of conscience’ and a more and more blunted understanding, pretty soon the person doesn’t even think of the sin (unless he is awakened at 3 p.m. by a tornado warning or something that ‘focuses his mind’ temporarily) and so doesn’t ‘bother’ to confess, or does so with the increased sin of PRESUMPTION. Because, “hey, I’ve confessed this before, I’ve always been forgiven, I’ll be forgiven now because I deserve it”. . .notice how all this is me-me-me and nothing, really NOTHING, focused on GOD or SORROW!

 

[guanophore]

I can see different types of sin, yes, but the Lutheran would just say that the sin that leads to death is

1. deliberate and done in a way that indicates lack of faith or imminent falling-away
2. ceasing to believe in God and/or not believing in Christ

Yes, these are among the three elements we have from the Apostles distinguishing a mortal sin.

Deliberate =freely chosen (not coerced)

With full knowledge

Grave matter (an action that is very serious)

 Y'see, this is one of the quotes they didn't show us as "fake proof" in confirmation class, so I'm left on my own to refute it. (Whee!)

Maybe it is not necessary to do so? What does your reading of the text tell you? Did God give the Apostles authority to choose successors, or not?

 Looking at the context around the passage, they are picking a successor for Judas, and thus restoring the number of disciples to twelve. This would be taken by a Lutheran as an incident being contained within itself, and having significance to modern life only in that the twelve were allowed to continue their ministry at full strength by divine providence.   I can see where one would find apostolic succession in it, however.

Yes, I agree. So, let’s move on to other instances? New thread? We are really hijacking CMatt’s topic here.

2 Tim 2:1-2
:1 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Here we have four generations of Apostolic Succession. Paul ordained Timothy a bishop, and instructed him to choose faithful men, who would in turn teach others. What Timothy has heard is the “paradosis” the sum of God’s revelation to the Church.

It would refer to the invisible church to show that God protects all believers, not necessarily those bound in a particular institution. It also provides for an acknowlegement of the occasional split betwen the visible and invisible church and seems to read (for Lutherans) more logically in places.

The Church of God is a divine institution. He did not found “churches” but only One Church. He intended unity in that Church.

The visible Church is never “split” from the visible. We may not always recognize those who are members of Christ’s Church,but because the Body is one, and the Church is One, they are all in unity together.

Eph 4:4-7
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord,** one faith**, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Eph 5:23-24
23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

He does not have “bodies” (plural).

 

[CMatt25]

What I think guan was getting at, Matt, is that you ‘can’ (meaning you are physically ABLE) do just that–get down on your knees and ‘confess to God directly’ your mortal sins without going to the priest. Sadly, modern Catholics today have lost a sense of sin from various causes, and have not received adequate and ONGOING instruction in the importance of the sacrament of penance and the necessity for mortal sins to be confessed to a priest.

As guan noticed, those Catholics who might perfunctorily think, “man, maybe I shouldn’t have had sex with my girlfriend tonight, well God will understand I’m sorry for it”. . .and then goes off blithely to ‘take’ communion the next Sunday without any further thought. . .and possibly more than one sexual encounter as well. . .‘can’ (physically/mentally) bypass the priest and (mistakenly) conclude that they’ve both made adequate ‘confession’ as well as ‘received absolution’. The danger of course is that since such practices usually lead to fewer and fewer ‘examinations of conscience’ and a more and more blunted understanding, pretty soon the person doesn’t even think of the sin (unless he is awakened at 3 p.m. by a tornado warning or something that ‘focuses his mind’ temporarily) and so doesn’t ‘bother’ to confess, or does so with the increased sin of PRESUMPTION. Because, “hey, I’ve confessed this before, I’ve always been forgiven, I’ll be forgiven now because I deserve it”. . .notice how all this is me-me-me and nothing, really NOTHING, focused on GOD or SORROW!

Tantum yes I got what Guan was saying about being able to. But it’s the “necessity for mortal sins to be confessed to a priest” that I struggle with.

 

[Lovesa]

Yes. This is one of the departures from Apostolic Teaching, which classified sins as mortal (unto death) and non-mortal (venial). Mortal sins drive God out of a person, and we are in agreement that final impenitence is the only one that can’t be forgiven.

Neat! I had actually heard, from some, that if one is in a state of mortal sin, and, before they get to confession (fully intending to go) they get, say, hit by a bus, they go to hell.
I take it this is not the case?

1 John 5:16-17
16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

The Apostles taught that prayers were insufficient for mortal sins. Confession is necessary.

Luke 12:47-48
47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. 48 But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

The gravity of one’s sin is also predicated upon how much a person knows. If one does not know any better, they still may commit a sin, but their degree of responsibility for it is not as serious as the one who does it with full knowledge.

It would be difficult to find another explanation for the passage in John referencing mortal sin, especially since auricular sin was the practice at the time.

Do you see it now? This is really better addressed on another thread. I think it would be hard to relate it to this topic.

I agree; it is very hard to relate to this topic. I’m pretty sure I can see it, though, but it seems to me to require more research before I form a definite opinion.

The Body of Christ is a unified whole, so the term Church includes everyone. That means the ones from the OT that are saved, those saints who have gone on before us, those that are being purified for heaven and those that are still on earth. Only God knows who they all are. We know that He intended to have a visible Church, and yet, there are people who are saved that are not members of the visible Church.

So how can the visible church be the only one consistently referred to in the NT? How is it that the people in the invisible church and not in the visible seem to get no mention? Is it because they were such a small group back then?

The premise of Lutheran theology rests in part on that distinction, a distinction that has been stressed ever since I started going to a Lutheran gradeschool at seven.

 

[araiceil]

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.

Your “stuff” and “non-sequiturs” happen to be our Sacred Sacriments and Traditions. The fact that they are unimportant to you does not excuse your dismissal of them. They (especially the Eucharist) are of the utmost importance to us and therefore (I feel) deserve a little more reverence from you then the glib dismissal you give them here.

I have the distinct feeling that you have no real idea what I believe, or my Church community,

And therein lies the crux of the issue. We as Catholics have really no idea what one Protestant to the next believes. Your lack of a central authority makes this impossible, as does the belief of many Protestants that Scripture and God’s Law are theirs to interpret as they see fit.

So many times have I had Protestants insist that I explain to them what I believe and why. Considering that the Canon of my belief has been unchanging for so long, shouldn’t it be for you (collective, not singular) to explain to me why you DON’T believe what I do and why?

 

[PRmerger]

Tantum yes I got what Guan was saying about being able to. But it’s the “necessity for mortal sins to be confessed to a priest” that I struggle with.

The Church only proposes the teachings of Christ–she does not impose them.

So, in the sense that she says it is a “necessity” it is really a necessity that must come from within one’s own incentive. It is never imposed, and thus “mandatory” in an external manner.

So, as you struggle to come to an understanding of the Church’s teachings, Matt, as do I, I wonder why you default to your own position as being the correct one? That is, “I struggle with why the Church teaches this, therefore she is wrong until I can understand her rationale.”

Wouldn’t it be more prudent, given the words of Christ and the fallibility of our human reason, to default to: I struggle with this teaching, but will concede it is correct until proven otherwise?

 

[PRmerger]

And therein lies the crux of the issue. We as Catholics have really no idea what one Protestant to the next believes. Your lack of a central authority makes this impossible, as does the belief of many Protestants that Scripture and God’s Law are theirs to interpret as they see fit.

Indeed. One really cannot know what a Protestant believes, as there are 30,000+ (now comes the indignation at the mention of this statistic–and rightly so, for it is an obscenity!) different presentations of what Protestants believe.

So we must be forgiven for not knowing what it is that a non-Catholic poster professes. For unless she has revealed it here, we certainly cannot simply “search the Scriptures” for her beliefs.

 

[PRmerger]

Neat! I had actually heard, from some, that if one is in a state of mortal sin, and, before they get to confession (fully intending to go) they get, say, hit by a bus, they go to hell.
I take it this is not the case?

Are you stating that the Catholic Church teaches that she knows who goes to hell, Lovesa?

 

[Lovesa]

Neither did Luther. Have you considered that these “errors” may not, in fact, exist? I say that because there are a lot of misunderstandings about what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, and in some places, outright lies.

Cetainly. After all, at school we were taught:

1. Catholics think works get you into Heaven.
2. If you don’t confess every single sin, even if you just forgot, you go to hell.
3. They worship Mary.
4. They worship statues, pictures, etc.
5. They think anybody who isn’t Catholic is going to hell.

And more, even. I tended to do my own research, though, because it seemed to me hideously biased. We also learned the worst lies about Buddhists, Muslims, Shintoists, etc.

For us there is no dichotomy. If one is in Christ, then one will follow His commandments. One of those commandments is to obey the authorities He has placed over us.
If such obedience resulted in the outcome of eternal life, we are wise to imitate their faith.

Exactly; I think Lutherans often lose sight of that in trying to distance themselves and keep from seeming “too Catholic”.

ARe you saying you know Catholics who do not participate in the spirit of obedience as commanded here in Hebrews? Not sure what your asterik is referencing here.

As much as I know Catholics who don’t participate in the spirit of obedience (a Catholic ex of mine who continually tried to get me into bed and who skipped mass to go out comes to mind) I was qualifying that I can’t speak for all Lutherans, because even Lutherans have spats amongst themselves. Hence our synods.

Lutherans*
*the ones I know

Can you think of a biblical basiss that justifies such dissent?

1 Tim 5:17-18

17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;

Rebellion and separation would mean that there were NO elders that were obedient to God. Do you think that is really the Truth?

It wouldn’t so much mean that there were NO elders obedient to God, only that none of them spoke up. After all, Sodom only had a few obedient. (Yeah, some do make that comparison.)

And how would you be able to tell? How could a “valid successor” be identified?

How could any successor of the Apostles be identified? Or don’t you believe there are any?

I believe that, once, there was a successor, and that he was identified by his leading people to Christ and his adherence to the Bible, not contradicting it and using it in truth.

From a Lutheran view, no one today fulfils those qualifications, so the best thing is, even if there is a successor, to act as if there is none.

I commend you to it. May I suggest you begin with the disciples of the Apostles, whose beliefs and practices are found in the writings Early Church fathers? They are free online.

The martyrdom of Polycarp is a very interesting short story.

Will do.

Basically what you are saying here is that Jesus’ promises are weaker than the fallibility of man. That man’s ability to mess things up is more powerful than God’s ability to keep His promises.

No. Only that Jesus promises never ever infringe on free will, and that if errors arise as a result of free will, Jesus allows it. He can stop error; he chooses not to.

Yes, and Catholics believe this too, but God’s Word is not confined to the Scriptures. He placed it equally in His Church. Therefore, if He did not preserve it, He must be weak, or disinterested, or lied to His fledgling Church about the Spirit leading them into all truth.
If the Church went off the rails, then Jesus did not keep His word.

One can say that if the church went wrong, Jesus did not keep his word, all day. However, the Lutheran belief remains that the church did not go wrong; it simply had to break away from the main establishment of the church. The church at large ceased being the church, even if it was a great deal larger than those who posessed the truth.

Not saying that this means that the argument is absolutely correct. It’s just seen as wrong that Jesus would ever not keep His word. After all, He’s God and God is perfect.

I am glad you are not defending this view, because it is really quite indefensible. I pose you this quetstion. One what basis can any of us trust what is written in the book of Genesis? Since none of it was committed to writing until the time of Moses, how was the story of God’s interaction with mankind preserved from Adam to Moses? If God is unable to preserve His Word in oral tradition, how can any of those accounts be taken as inspired?

One would trust them because God would defend the book from error, steering Moses as he wrote. So, if Moses had incorrect facts (and, in a Lutheran view, he probably did), God kept him from writing them down.

Our prayers are with you.

Thanks.

 

[Lovesa]

Are you stating that the Catholic Church teaches that she knows who goes to hell, Lovesa?

Me personally? No. I hardly think that is possible, nor have I heard a Catholic claim that.

It is, however, what a lot of protestants are told, whether in school or just growing up. It took me researching on my own to learn otherwise, but that is what a lot of protestants believe.

So I’m just pointing out one of the things protestants are taught that aren’t necessarily true. It is untrue, correct? From what I’ve read recently about the matter that is hardly the case.

ALSO: I’ve seen that attitude in Catholic friends, unfortunately, when I can’t quite tell if they’re joking or not. One girl at lunch at school, for instance, said she’d better confess sleeping with her bf the night before “lest [she] get hit by a meteor”.

Can I take it she has it all wrong?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Tantum yes I got what Guan was saying about being able to. But it’s the “necessity for mortal sins to be confessed to a priest” that I struggle with.

Why? I mean, Scripture not only speaks of binding and loosing for the apostles, it also speaks of taking one’s sins to the church and confessing to others.

So. . .what would you rather do? Confess to a priest, or stand there and tell everybody in your parish? I mean, it’s going to be the priest who ‘does something about it’ anyway. . .even in the ‘early christian’ times, going to the church meant you were going to a gathering with people AND priest, not just ‘people’. And since the people were led by the priest, HE was in charge of what to do.

 

[araiceil]

Cetainly. After all, at school we were taught:

1. Catholics think works get you into Heaven.
2. If you don’t confess every single sin, even if you just forgot, you go to hell.
3. They worship Mary.
4. They worship statues, pictures, etc.
5. They think anybody who isn’t Catholic is going to hell.

And more, even. I tended to do my own research, though, because it seemed to me hideously biased. We also learned the worst lies about Buddhists, Muslims, Shintoists, etc.

.

This is such a fascinating thing to me! I went to Catholic School my entire life, and never once can I remember even 5 minutes of time devoted to what other religions practice or believe.
(and Lovesa, yours is not the first time I have heard accounts such as this)

We were tought what WE believe. We were tought, at times (though in my opinion not often enough) how to defend what WE believe. never was I once taught what other denominations believe (other than the general definitions ie. Jews are still waiting for the Messiah, Buddhists follow the teachings of Buddha, etc).

Can anyone explain this to me? If you feel that your beliefs have the fullness of Truth, why the need to attack and (at some times) invent falsehoods against the beliefs of others? It seems a paranoid way to live.