Protestants, why are you not Catholic?

[SoMissCatholic]

What’s the most problematic “single issue” that keeps you from converting to Evangelical Christianity?

First and foremost because it is not the Church (or should I say churches) founded by Jesus. Equally as important though is because I would not be able to receive Him body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist each Sunday.

 

[josie_L]

Part One: as it’s been said MANY, MANY times Luther DID NOT REMOVE any books from the bible. In fact, as it has been pointed out, the Luther translation has 74 books.

Part 2: I prefer to be led by the Holy Spirit and God’s Word, and not some excommunicated monk or a Pope.

Forgive me for asking what is the 74th book, i.e., we have 73 books. And are you saying that these 8 books are considered divinely inspired, i.e., part of the canon? Because last I checked they were considered Apocrypha.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Forgive me for asking what is the 74th book, i.e., we have 73 books. And are you saying that these 8 books are considered divinely inspired, i.e., part of the canon? Because last I checked they were considered Apocrypha.

The 74th book is the fragment of the Letter to the Laodiceans. Lutheran translated it but didn’t consider it canonical. It was in some editions of the Vulgate as well.

 

[josie_L]

That is what some–I will be honest it is just a few–RCs do to other RCs that they feel do not tow the line.

It’s interesting the parent religion of the CC was Judaism that has at its core rigorous religious engagement. Remember how Abraham negotiated with God over Sodom. I will say that again, Abraham negotiated with God. Yet the CC shuts the door to mere discussion on many topics.

This is coming from a guy who compared our Church to the Mormon religion (which is not even Christian so that’s saying a lot). Moreover, there are Protestants that are equally if not more aggressive than their Catholic counterparts. The CC no longer views Protestants as heretics but separated brethren, yet there are still some Protestant denominations with such deeply held prejudices that they still view our Church as the “whore of Babylon” and our pope as the “anti-christ”.

 

[josie_L]

The 74th book is the fragment of the Letter to the Laodiceans. Lutheran translated it but didn’t consider it canonical. It was in some editions of the Vulgate as well.

Thank you, but do you consider these books apocrypha or divinely inspired?

 

[Randy_Carson]

And please also indicate the bit of the Bible that teaches that the pope has access to the Treasury of Merit and can dispense it on behalf of the church to remit time in Purgatory.

Sure thing.

The Church recognizes that Christ and the saints are interested in helping penitents deal with the aftermath of their sins, as indicated by the fact they always pray for us (Heb. 7:25, Rev. 5:8). Fulfilling its role in the administration of temporal penalties, the Church draws upon the rich supply of rewards(1) God chose to bestow on the saints, who pleased him, and on his Son, who pleased him most of all. The rewards on which the Church draws are infinite because Christ is God, so the rewards he accrued are infinite and never can be exhausted. His rewards alone, apart from the saints’, could remove all temporal penalties from everyone, everywhere. The rewards of the saints are added to Christ’s—not because anything is lacking in his, but because it is fitting that they be united with his rewards as the saints are united with him. Although immense, their rewards are finite, but his are infinite.

(1)These rewards are referred to metaphorically as “the treasury of merits.” A merit is anything that pleases God and moves him to issue a reward, not things that earn “payment” from God. Humans can’t earn anything from God, though by his grace they can please him in a way he chooses to reward. Picturing the saints’ acts under a single, collective metaphor (such as a treasury) is biblical: “It was granted her [the Bride] to be clothed with fine linen, bright and pure” (Rev. 19:8). John tells us, “[F]or the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.” Here the righteous deeds of the saints are pictured under the collective metaphor of clothing on the Bride of Christ, the Church. Jewish theology also recognizes a treasury of merits. Jewish theologians speak of “the merits of the fathers”—the idea being that the patriarchs pleased God and inherited certain promises as a reward. God fulfills these promises and ends up treating later Jews more gently than they would have been treated. The idea of “the merits of the fathers” is essentially the same as the Catholic concept of the “treasury of merits.” Both postulate a class of individuals, the Old Testament patriarchs on the one hand and Christ and the saints on the other, who have pleased God and whom God chooses to reward in a way involving lesser temporal punishments on others.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Thank you, but do you consider these books apocrypha or divinely inspired?

No, I don’t consider them equal to the rest of scripture. I consider them valuable for reading though, I especially like Sirach.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Where does Scripture plainly teach that I MUST make an auricular confession before a priest to receive forgiveness of my sins, and yet still be punished for those sins in purgatory (unless I subsequently obtain an indulgence for the same) - that is of course unless I make an act of “perfect contrition” (and even this is only sufficient if I am about to die)?

Where does scripture plainly teach that Jesus is fully God and fully man? Or that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit share one nature? It doesn’t. But we figure some things out by reasoning.

That said, confession to a priest was not taught explicitly by the written Word of God but by the LIVING men to whom that Word was entrusted - the Apostles and Bishops of the Church. And we see glimpses of this here:

James 5:13-16
13 Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. 14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.

Here the word of God tells us to call the elders (the Greek word is presbuteroi, or “presbyter”, from which the English word “priest” is derived). So, in this context, James is telling us to send for the priests who will pray over someone who is sick, and if he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Recalling the passage from Leviticus above, we see there is a strong parallel between the priests of the Old Testament who made atonement for sin and the presbyters or priests of the New Testament to whom we confess sins for forgiveness. But this sounds like blasphemy! Can men really forgive sins? This same question is asked in the New Testament.

Mark 2:5-7
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Who can forgive sins but God alone? This question is often asked by those who seek to deny the sacrament of confession. However, note that this question is asked by the scribes who did not accept Jesus. Those who quote this passage find themselves on the side of those who rejected the Messiah. There’s more to the story, however; let’s consider the same incident from the book of Matthew.

Matthew 9:1-7
1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!” 4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

The Bible teaches that God had given the authority to forgive sins “to men”. Note that this is not “to a man” but “to men” – plural. So, it is not only Jesus who has authority to forgive sins – “men” have this authority, also. This sounds like a “hard teaching”…is there confirmation of this in the Bible?

John 20:21-23
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

How did God send Jesus into the world? With the authority to forgive sins as we saw in Matthew 9:6. How does Jesus send the Apostles? In the same way that the Father had sent Him…with the authority to forgive sins as we have just seen in John 20:23. How could the Apostles obey the commandment of Jesus to forgive sins unless they heard these sins confessed? Thus, scripture records that people did confess their sins aloud.

Acts 19:18 (New International Version)
18Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds.

Finally, we find that the Apostle Paul himself forgave the sins of others acting in persona Christi or “in the person of Christ” – just as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the sacrament of reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 2:10
10To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (KJV)

And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. (Douay Rheims)

Consequently, the NT doesn’t have to contain specific instruction on confession because those who wrote it and those who received it were familiar with the practice of auricular confession that they had been living out for many years before the NT was written.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

And here is what some of those early Christians wrote concerning confession:

Irenaeus

[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between two courses (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).

The Church has the power of forgiving sins. This I acknowledge and adjudge (ibid. 21).

Hippolytus

[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your Royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles. . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

[A filial method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, “I said, to the Lord, I will accuse myself of my iniquity” (Homilies in Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian

The Apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord "*. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at: the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to his body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him (The Lapsed 15:1-3 (A.D. 251]).

Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . I beseech you, brethren; let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord (ibid. 28).

Sinners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of Communion. [But now some] with their time [of penance] still unfulfilled . . . they are admitted to Communion, and their name is presented and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the Eucharist is given to them; although it is written, “Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” * (Letters 9:2 [A.D. 253])

Firmilian*

“The power of forgiving sins was given to the apostles and the churches which these men, sent by Christ, established and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place.” (Epistle to Cyprian 75:16, [A.D. 255]).

John Chrysostom

Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.” Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding: but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? “Whose sins you shall forgive,” he says, “they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21-23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).*

 

[josie_L]

No, I don’t consider them equal to the rest of scripture. I consider them valuable for reading though, I especially like Sirach.

Thank you again, for the clarification, i.e., it’s in your Bible but it’s not actually part of the Bible. Technically, you have 66 books, correct?

 

[josie_L]

No, I don’t consider them equal to the rest of scripture. I consider them valuable for reading though, I especially like Sirach.

Why don’t you believe it is scriptural, i.e., when did you learn that it wasn’t scriptural?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Thank you again, for the clarification, i.e., it’s in your Bible but it’s not actually part of the Bible. Technically, you have 66 books, correct?

The letter to the Laodiceans is not in any bibles anymore. It was removed by both Protestants and Catholics.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Why don’t you believe it is scriptural, i.e., when did you learn that it wasn’t scriptural?

The letter to the Laodiceans was always debated. Although its in the fulda manuscript it is basically rejected by all, and its removal doesn’t effect scripture at all ie its most lines are cited from other Pauline epistles, and presents no theology.

 

[josie_L]

The letter to the Laodiceans is not in any bibles anymore. It was removed by both Protestants and Catholics.

I meant the deuterocanonical books too, i.e., they are not divinely inspired according to Protestants/Lutherans! I don’t think we Catholics ever had Laodiceans in our book.

 

[josie_L]

The letter to the Laodiceans was always debated. Although its in the fulda manuscript it is basically rejected by all, and its removal doesn’t effect scripture at all ie its most lines are cited from other Pauline epistles, and presents no theology.

You did not refer to the deuterocanonical books, i.e., the 7 books that are apocrypha. So I’ll ask again why don’t you consider them scriptural and when did you discover they were not sriptural? Thanks.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I meant the deuterocanonical books too, i.e., they are not divinely inspired according to Protestants/Lutherans! I don’t think we Catholics ever had Laodiceans in our book.

Laodiceans was in some editions of the vulgate. It was removed for good at Trent.

As for why we don’t accept the deuteros it mainly has to do with their omission from the Hebrew bible. There are other reasons as well, namely that they have been debated since the beginning. We prefer not to say what is NOT canon and go with what IS. That’s why Protestants have an open canon and Catholics have a closed canon.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

You did not refer to the deuterocanonical books, i.e., the 7 books that are apocrypha. So I’ll ask again why don’t you consider them scriptural and when did you discover they were not sriptural? Thanks.

I don’t consider them scripture for lots of reasons. Namely that there is far from a consensus of the church regarding their canonicity.

I cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint an exact date and time I learneded they were not scripture. Probably a year or so ago. Frankly they weren’t that important to me, even when I was a Catholic. Although I do like Sirach.

 

[JonNC]

Thank you, but do you consider these books apocrypha or divinely inspired?

A blog worth reading regarding the traditional Lutheran handling of scripture, including the Derterocanon and Prayer of Manasseh.

latifhakigaba.blogspot.com/2010/02/did-luther-throw-out-books-of-bible.html

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Jon,

I am working now with a devout Lutheran family who is displaced from a more active church life because of some of the same issues Catholics have.

I will try to read your link when I get time…

PS…Hope you are up and about now!!

 

[JonNC]

You’re welcome, Kathleen. Thanks for the kind hope on my behalf. It has been a long recovery effort, but my fifth graders (I’m a teacher) have been a great and patient help.

Jon