Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[gurneyhalleck1]

Your absence was keenly missed by me, Meghan. I always enjoy your insights and find your knowledge of history and theology impressive. You have a balanced attitude and are abundantly fair to all faiths from my readings of your posts. I think you’d make a great Anglican somedays, a great Orthodox the other, but despite your charity to Catholicism I don’t see you Catholic. The more I read of history myself, sadly, I can’t buy into Catholicism. It’s honestly history that has done more damage to my Catholic beliefs than anything. I can’t do like Scott Hahn and try to “make” it fit my worldview…I’m too intellectually honest and so are you…

No, I haven’t really said anything about them, because that hasn’t been the topic of the discussion.

Which is why I can’t figure out on why I keep getting lectured about what are my presumed Protestant deficiencies. It makes me very testy. Why not just talk about the topic, rather than trying to prove that people are stupid for not being Catholic? I am pretty sure that never wins people over.

I really don’t have disdain for Catholicism, though there are a few things in it I think are quite wrong. As I am sure Catholics think of other Christians. Not, for the most part, things that have been discussed here.

But I do get very frustrated with the implication that anyone who isn’t Catholic doesn’t know anything about history, or the history of the Church, or the Fathers. I spent four years at university dedicated to studying the writings of the early Church, and when people dismiss the possibility that I could actually have reasons not to be Catholic, and try to make points playing language games, it really gets my back up. (And in my experience, Catholics and pretty much any educated Christians understand that the case for Catholicism, or another Christian position, is not simple and clear-cut and obvious.)

Anyway, this whole discussion seems to have made me angry, which is why I stopped posting at CAF for a while. That may have been the better decision.

 

[hn160]

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.

If you want to know what Lutheran ( at least LC-MS ) believe, read the Book of Concord - The Lutheran Confessions which can be found at dev.bookofconcord.org/.
By the way, I like coming to this site because I learn a lot about Roman Catholic theology, one other site that I visit is dominated by evangelicals and they don’t seem to like Lutherans because we are too Catholic.

 

[Lovesa]

Oh my gosh, Lovesa. You certainly came to the right place. I hope you stay here on the CAFs a lonnng time and read and learn and dialogue!

I’m hoping to learn a lot.

Many Catholics here are very, very good at expressing and explaining the faith correctly. Accept what you read here with a greater credence than what you hear at the lunch table from a teenage girl, but, again, be judicious about what you believe.

True, true. Unfortunately, the girl was a college junior, so I think she’s about 23, but I’m still not keen on her authority.

And no worries on being judicious; I research everything I hear before I decide to belive or disbelieve. After all, one hears the nuttiest stuff.

While I cannot speak on her behalf, I will say that in my experience Catholics tend to jovially mock the aspects of our faith that are secularly most controversial. I have heard many people joke about confession. I assume we do it in order to either avoid confrontation about things with those that would give it, or to seem more secular.Of course, there is also the possibility of the person simply being ignorant.

That’s true. I do the same thing myself, sometimes, because most of my friends at school are Catholic or agnostic, and it leads to weird conversations sometimes. Like when I started feeling called to religious life, and my friends started acting funny, so when they asked why I said “Nobody hits on a nun. ” and “They wear sweet outfits, amiright? ” Not at all why, but it made it less awkward.

Keeping that in mind, she also told me that one should confess a sin “unless you’re pretty sure you’ll do it again”. That doesn’t seem right to me.

 

[PRmerger]

Keeping that in mind, she also told me that one should confess a sin “unless you’re pretty sure you’ll do it again”. That doesn’t seem right to me.

One should confess sins that she is sorry for. * That’s* the criterion, not whether “you’re pretty sure you’ll do it again” or not.

 

[PRmerger]

If you want to know what Lutheran ( at least LC-MS ) believe, read the Book of Concord - The Lutheran Confessions which can be found at dev.bookofconcord.org/.

Very good. Thanks for the link.

 

[Bluegoat]

Your absence was keenly missed by me, Meghan. I always enjoy your insights and find your knowledge of history and theology impressive. You have a balanced attitude and are abundantly fair to all faiths from my readings of your posts. I think you’d make a great Anglican somedays, a great Orthodox the other, but despite your charity to Catholicism I don’t see you Catholic. The more I read of history myself, sadly, I can’t buy into Catholicism. It’s honestly history that has done more damage to my Catholic beliefs than anything. I can’t do like Scott Hahn and try to “make” it fit my worldview…I’m too intellectually honest and so are you…

AW shucks.

Maybe I am just getting to be a curmudgeon. I’m about half way through my husband’s away -from-home leg, too, and I tend to start to get a bit tired the second half of it, which makes me a grump. I probably need a girls night out.

 

[GKC]

Your absence was keenly missed by me, Meghan. I always enjoy your insights and find your knowledge of history and theology impressive. You have a balanced attitude and are abundantly fair to all faiths from my readings of your posts. I think you’d make a great Anglican somedays, a great Orthodox the other, but despite your charity to Catholicism I don’t see you Catholic. The more I read of history myself, sadly, I can’t buy into Catholicism. It’s honestly history that has done more damage to my Catholic beliefs than anything. I can’t do like Scott Hahn and try to “make” it fit my worldview…I’m too intellectually honest and so are you…

History…

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

What does Scott Hahn do to make history fit, anyway? I’ve never read him.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Scott Hahn tries to attach everything to Catholicism…He digs into the Old Testament and draws all these conclusions about everything relating to the papacy and the Church, everything is a prefigured vision of the Vatican

I have a few of his books that I bought when I first got Catholic fever. For about five years now I can’t stand Hahn’s voice, his books, or his shows. He grates on my nerves like crazy…

What does Scott Hahn do to make history fit, anyway? I’ve never read him.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

what’s with these one word GKC posts? Next you’ll just use the initial letter of words!

“H…”

History…

GKC

 

[GKC]

what’s with these one word GKC posts? Next you’ll just use the initial letter of words!

“H…”

I’m getting close to 6000 posts.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

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.

I will certainly concede that this is a mystery that lies beyond my human comprehension. SInce I have limited understanding of the nature of the human soul, sin, and redemption, I have to rely on what has been revealed by God.

1 John 5:13-17

13 I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. 14 And this is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have obtained the requests made of him. 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.

In this passage, the Apostle is talking about being able to trust God to provide whatever we ask (within the confines of His will for us).

He goes on to say that we can pray for one another for reconciliation of sins that are not mortal.

But, asking for forgiveness or praying for our selves, or having others pray for us is is insufficient in the case of mortal sin. So, does that mean if I commit a mortal sin, there is no hope for me? I know from other passages that this is not the case.

1 John 1:9-10
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

James 5:13-17

13 Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

I read that forgiveness can be obtained through confession, and that we are commanded to confess our sins in the presence of the presbyters (who have been given the authority by the Apsotles to retain and remnit those sins). Through this kind of confession, I can be raised up, healed, and my sins forgiven.

Why did God set things up this way? Because that is what is best for us. He created us, and He, more than anyone, knows the damage caused to us by sin. He knows the best remedy.

Refusing to use it is like saying “I know the Dr. says that particular cough syrup is a complete cure for my cough, but I don’t like the taste of it, and I don’t see why it is mandatory that I take it”.

 

[guanophore]

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?

The Church does not teach that we can know who goes to hell. What we do know is that sin causes death, and we need to be constantly cleansed of it, and the effects of it. Only God can judge the condition of a person’s heart at the time of death. People can try to avoid the treatment for sin (spiritual leprosy), though, by kidding themselves into believing they will get around to it. We need to “run” to be cleansed, and not tarry.

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.

Yes, but I think this is good. It would not suffice to make a superficial decision, or one that was not fully informed. In the early Church, those who were interested were in the catechumenate for three years before they were baptized, just so they could be sure.

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?

And there were no divisions. All those who were not members of the visible church were considered heretics and apostates.

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.

Lutherans must make this distinction, because if they did not, they would have to return to the One Church founded by Christ.

 

[KathleenGee]

I studying Catholic Church history…am now approaching the 900’s, and my impression so far is that there are so many Christians killed, their churches and settlements destroyed, an ongoing cycle…from the Roman emperors to the invading barbarians, to the popes working in tandem with Christian emperors to laymen of power running the Church.

Constant upheaval…pendulum swing back and forth…holding on to faith is struggle…if the outward society is at peace, then trouble begins inside the Church…my focus is the apostolic faith and sacraments, and the primacy of Peter in the middle of so much diversity…be it even witness or counterwitness of faith

 

[guanophore]

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.

Wow. And I thought Catholic catechesis was abysmal!

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.)

But the assumption has to be made that God was unable to use anyone faithful for 1500 years. If God was watching over His One Body, how is it He could not empower anyone with a spirit of boldness? And, how is it that the historical record show that there were many that had the spirit of boldness?

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.

Only one? Once? what about the successors of the Apostles all over the world? If the example of Sodom can be used, then would not God preserve that small handful of faithful, even if all the others fell from grace?

Eph 5:28-33
28 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church; 33 however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

How is it that Christ would allow His Bride to STARVE! Giving her no nourishment to sustain her in her sojourn here on earth?

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.

One what basis does the modern Lutheran come to the conclusion that there are no successors of the Apostles that are faithful to their obligations? That don’t follow the Holy Scriptures?

I can understand why those in Europe at the time of the Reformation would have been discouraged by what they saw. There were a majority of corrupt leaders, it seems. But the idea that God was unable to preserve ANY of those who consecrated themselves to HIm just seems outlandish.

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.

Ok, but this position requires the assumption that there was no one, ever, anywhere in the whole 1500 year period that was faithful to Christ, that was interested in preserving His Teachings, that was devoted to the Scriptures and the life of holiness.

It seems to me that such a position is impossible to reconcile with the historical record.

:rolleyes: 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.

Yes, I understand this position. But, as I said above, it assumes that there were absolutely no faithful Catholics through which the Truth could be preserved. That Jesus preserved no remnant of faithful, until the Reformaiton?

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.

Yes. And Catholics believe that it was His perfection that preserved the Church, in spite of all those over time who have abandoned her Holy Teachings. Because He is perfect, the doctrines He gave to the Church are perfect. There was never a need to change the doctrines, because they are preserved infallibly by His Holy Spirit. Men, though, are always in need of Reform.

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.

I agree with you, but the point I am trying to make is that there was no written record to preserve from Adam to Moses. The word of God was kept by oral tradition. God had a people so trained in oral tradition by the time Christ came that it was second nature to them.

After all, God can speak through the mouth of a donkey. If He could not find one single faithful believer in 1500 years it seems that He is a dismal failure as a shepherd.

 

[guanophore]

PRMerger I have acknowledged I am human numerous times and have said I am not infallible.

Yes, you have. The inexplicable part, though, that she is inquiring about, is why you put more confidence in your own fallible and human position than what God has revealed to mankind through His Church.

 

[guanophore]

I like that!

Yeah, it sounds nice, but really it is a smokescreen that denies the seriousness of departing from the Teaching of the Apostles. Under this spiritually sounding exterior is a strong commitment to relativism and persistence in direct disobedience to the Apostolic faith. It is a cover for a belief system that denies we can know what God requires of us, and therefore, we can each go our own way, justifying it with “informed conscience” Don’t fall for it!

 

[guanophore]

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?

Not entirely. She really should confess, before something worse happens. However, a firm purpose of amendment is one requirement for the remission of sins, and it does not seem like she really had that.

I’m not so sure that the teachers were inventing falsehoods, as that they believed they were telling us the truth. Someone who does not understand praying to Mary and the saints might mistake it for worship, for instance. Anything that isn’t grace alone is mistakenly taken to mean that works get you into Heaven. And so on. Besides that, some of our teachers were still very Reformation-happy, and believed that the abuses had never been corrected, only that Luther and others had made the Catholics act secretive about it.

That makes sense.

I think I am more like you. I would be ashamed to teach something I had not researched myself, and was confident were true, or as accurate as I could be about it.

 And yes, we did learn quite a bit about other religions. Even now, I don't see why it would be a bad thing necessarily, if one learns only truths. After all, if one defends one's own faith only, how can they explain their religion to others unless they know where the other person is coming from? Understanding other people's religion was seen as a way of promoting understanding and providing for more informed debate, if we ever found ourselves in a debate.

For instance, if talking about Christianity with a Buddhist, we’d know what Buddhism is about. That way there wouldn’t be tedious explanations going back and forth, just dialogue.

Yes. One of the reasons I am here on CAF is I learn a lot about what other Christians believe, and why.

 & yes, it is a paranoid thing to make up things about other religions. However, no matter how misguided and untruthful our teacher could occasionally be when talking about other religions, in the end the point was to foster understanding. The warnings against other religions were his effort to show that, while he was willing to tell us about other religions, he did not want us thinking that they had it right, so he'd pause to explain why the religion was wrong at the same time as he was telling about it. Good intentions gone wrong, in other words.

Yes. There are plenty of Catholics like this too.

 

[guanophore]

Therein lies a problem some might have Tantum. The Catholic Church take lets say Jn 20:23 and then seemingly to some proceed to add to Scripture by turning it into the ONLY manner in which to confess mortal sins.

Such a statement is based upon several false premises, leading one to a false conclusion. For one thing, the premise that all the revelation of God is confined to the Scriptures, and the CC does not have the authority to 'add" to them.

Not only was there no attempt made to make to make the New Testament a complete compendium of the faith, but the entire NT was ADDED by the Catholic Church. This being the case, if the CC did not have the authority to 'add to scripture" we would not have a NT.

Third, the Church does not teach that the only manner in which mortal sins can be forgiven is if they are confessed to a priest.

Conclusions based upon such erroneous ideas are bound to lead to error.

Yet remember the words from the Lord’s Prayer I asked PRMerger about in which we pray, “Forgive us our trespasses”?

And Matt 6:14 For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences.

And James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.

Yes, and all these things are true, and important. However, it is important to take them in context. For example, the context of confessing to “one another” is:

James 5:14-15
Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;

The “elders” in Gk. called “presbyters” is translated “priests” in English. So, when one has called for the priests, and confession takes place, with the sacred annointing with oil, the sins are forgiven. Priests also confess to other priests.

If one is going to confess their sins to another, does it not make sense to do so with the person who has the authority to retain or remit? Don’t worry, CMatt. It is a rhetorical question. I know you don’t really believe they have that authority.

I am just showing it the way Catholics believe so the readers will understand.

I have no problem with someone confessing to a priest as an option.

This is very generous of you CMatt. It is important that you have allowed the ways of God to be optional.

This is much better than forbidding them all together.

But what I rather currently do is this. Matt 6:6, But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee. And then I recite The Lord’s Prayer and ask God for forgiveness.

Yes. This is a good way to avoid doing things the way God set them up, and still assuage your conscience that you are right with Him, and right with the Church, while in a state of disobedience.

 

[CMatt25]

1 John 5:13-17
In this passage, the Apostle is talking about being able to trust God to provide whatever we ask (within the confines of His will for us).

He goes on to say that we can pray for one another for reconciliation of sins that are not mortal.

But, asking for forgiveness or praying for our selves, or having others pray for us is is insufficient in the case of mortal sin.

1James 5:13-17

13 Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

I read that forgiveness can be obtained through confession, and that we are commanded to confess our sins in the presence of the presbyters (who have been given the authority by the Apsotles to retain and remnit those sins). Through this kind of confession, I can be raised up, healed, and my sins forgiven.

I read a brother perhaps is not being told to pray for his brother’s mortal sin and to expect it to suffice. But no where in the 1Jn passage you offered am I reading we can not pray for our own mortal sin for forgiveness. In the James passage I read Anointing of the Sick.

.