R
Rock7
Guest
I am much interested in converting. I would be frightened of the negative reaction it would cause in my family.
- Status
R
Rock7
Guest
When I reach full adulthood, I am considering attending RCIA-have any former Protestants had to deal with a negative reaction my grandmother believes that Catholics are eternally dam***. I also fear my mother will think she failed me?
J
josie_L
Guest
Jon, I said that Luther’s actions were non-tradition/novel because his translation of the Bible did not include the deuterocanonical books as scriptural, i.e., divinely inspired books in every sense of the word. St. Jerome included the deuterocanonical in the Vulgate Bible because he put his view aside and followed the Church’s authority,i.e., they were not considered “apocrypha”. Furthermore, there were no bibles before Luther/reformation that did not include these books as part of the canon. And there were also no councils that denied these books as scriptural. Jesus (and the apostles) also quoted from these books in the N.T. It was not “Catholic” what Luther did.
J
josie_L
Guest
How old are you Rock7?
Gotcha. Luther included them, his own personal opinion (permitted by the Church) that they were apocryphal in his preface. Apparently, he put this personal opinion of them aside and included them. Though I am not sure regarding your claim that no Bible before Luther didn’t include them, I will assume you are right. And to my knowledge, it wasn’t until the early 1800’s that this happened.
No ecumenical councils ever affirmed them, either, which is why Catholic liberty allowed people to dispute them. I’ve never used the argument regarding their quotation in the NT by Jesus or others. Luther’s was not not a Catholic viewpoint, either.
Jon
J
josie_L
Guest
Yes, Walt I do agree with this, but the Bible is not as clear as we would like it to be (that is why we have Apostolic succession). Just recollect the story of the man (eunuch) who needed help understanding scripture, and then Philip (apostle) came along to help him interpret.
B
bubbawanda
Guest
And thats worked very well and still does.
S
SoMissCatholic
Guest
You might want to check your Bible on that statement, friend, as the following verses do not agree with your personal interpretation.
First, nowhere does the Bible say that Baptism is merely a “symbolic” act…that passage simply does not exist.
Second, let’s see what the Bible does say about Baptism:
Ezek 36:25-27, it says, “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses…a new heart I will give you and a new spirit I will put within you…and I will put My spirit within you…” Here, in the Old Testament, we have a foreshadowing of New Testament baptism.
Now, let’s see if the New Testament corresponds to what we just read in Ezekiel. Acts 2:38, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Note that there is no symbolic language here…this is real! The Book of Acts says, “Be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins.” Ezekiel says, “I will sprinkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean from your uncleanness.” The Book of Acts says, “…and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Ezekiel says: “…and I will put My Spirit within you.” Do you begin to see how God, in the Old Covenant, was preparing us for what He gives us in the New Covenant?
Acts 22:16 - “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins…”.
1 Cor 12:13 - “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” What body was that? The Body of Christ.
1 Ptr 3:21: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you…”
Scripture simply does not support the non-Catholic notion that Baptism is symbolic. Scripture does very directly and very clearly support the Catholic teaching that Baptism saves us; that Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ; that Baptism washes away sin; and that through Baptism we receive the Holy Spirit…just as the Catholic Church teaches!
Source.
If Baptism has nothing to do with forgiveness as you claim, then how do you deal with the above verses, which explicitly and plainly state that Baptism “wash[es] away your sins” and “now saves you”?
Also, I agree with you (and so does the Catholic Church) that we are forgiven because of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. However, this forgiveness is given to us initially through the grace received in the sacrament of Baptism. We see this in Colossians 2:11, “In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.”
1
1rocky1
Guest
SoMissCatholic…well it is not my interpretation of what baptism is, but it is what the bible clearly teaches & it is your misunderstanding due to a lack of studying it out. Baptism in the sense of being immersed in water is a public statement of ones acceptance of Christ. The baptism you are referring to has to do with being baptized in Christ…when you are immersed it is symbolic of what Christ did in His death & resurrection, ie, it is symbolic of dying to ourself & being resurrected in a new life as the bible says. When we accept Christ as our Lord & Savior all our sins, past, present & future are forgiven. Don’t make accusations without reading totally what I have said. The statements made are not my personal interpretations but are the accurate interpretation based on a careful word study which apparently you have not done.
By the way nowhere in scripture can you find a basis for infant baptism. Baptism is after the fact of receiving Christ as one’s personal Lord & Savior & is a public acknowledgement of such.
How is a Catholic saved?
Shalom
Walt
By the way nowhere in scripture can you find a basis for infant baptism. Baptism is after the fact of receiving Christ as one’s personal Lord & Savior & is a public acknowledgement of such.
How is a Catholic saved?
Shalom
Walt
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
No…no…no you wrote that wrong. It is call the bookofcommonprayer.
Josie(love the name) the Bible is clear. You go by the Catholic interpretation and I respect that.
Very well if I may say so myself.And thats worked very well and still does.
B
bubbawanda
Guest
A bad teacher can suck the fun out of anything. A bully for Christ is still a bully. Im sorry this happened to you. A good pastor and supportive congregation can cure a host of ills.
By the way we Episcopalians carry the Book of Common prayer and revised lectionary and sometimes the bible. The Catholics carry the Roman missal which has the biblical text already in there. We are trying to avoid carrying a backpack of books to church.
Hopefully some day you will find a pastor who really can call you to peace. Thats what its really all about.
B
bubbawanda
Guest
1
1rocky1
Guest
JonNC…if the references found in the book of Concord reflect what the scriptures say then why do you need the Book of Concord why not just the Holy Bible, which was written before the Book Of Concord by men inspired by the Holy Spirit ?
Shalom
Walt
Shalom
Walt
To help the people understand the faith. It is the teaching role of the Church to set doctrine and catechize people into the faith. It has been the role of the Church for, essentially, 2000 years, to preach the word and administer the sacraments. Part of preaching the word is teaching the faith. In the early Church, this was critical because there was no proliferation of scripture, other than by word of mouth. And even when the availability of writings started to grow, the Church was still the place where the faith was taught because few had access to writings, and fewer still could read. The Church taught by preaching and teaching, it also taught with artwork and other forms of iconography.
For Lutherans, during the time of the Reformation, the Lutheran reformers felt it necessary to present our views of some of the abuses and problems not only regarding the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but also of the dramatic departures from the historic teachings of the Church Catholic in the Reformed/Calvinist, Anabaptist, and other Reformation era movements not connected to the Lutheran Reformation. These documents moved forward as not only a doctrinal statement, but also a teaching tool, most notably the Small Catechism, intended for fathers to use in the home to teach their families, but also the Large Catechism.
Jon
J
josie_L
Guest
Transubstantiation was not dogmatized until after the schism, does this mean that the Catholic Church did not hold this to be true or to be part of the deposit of faith, i.e., doctrines and/or matters of faith were dogmatized when heresies arose. The same could be said about the deuterocanonical books, i.e., they were contested by the reformers and as such the Catholic Church had to respond via an ecumenical council to ensure their validity as scripture (there was no ecumenical council prior to this because there was no movement within the Church that contested these books). And there is a difference between having these books in the Bible as apocrypha and having them in the Bible as scripture, that is, although they were in the Bible they were not part of the Bible.
p.s. The deuterocanonical books were mentioned in the 7th ecumenical council and at Florence.
J
josie_L
Guest
Well, I did provide scripture so as to “back up” my Catholic point of view (Philip the apostle interpreting scripture for the eunuch who could not understand what he was reading). And I think that if the Bible were that clear we would not have hundreds of denominations claiming to have the correct interpretation.Josie(love the name) the Bible is clear. You go by the Catholic interpretation and I respect that.
p.s. And flattery will get you nowhere (although I like my name too).
shaw:
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
lol…Ok I hate your nameWell, I did provide scripture so as to “back up” my Catholic point of view (Philip the apostle interpreting scripture for the eunuch who could not understand what he was reading). And I think that if the Bible were so clear we would not have hundreds of denominations claiming to have the correct interpretation.
p.s. And flattery will get you nowhere (although I like my name too).
The NT concept would have been vague to anyone reading it. Just because Philip was interpreting does not mean only the Apostles could do so.
For the record, the Catholic’s interpretation is not much different that TEC’s. We just kind of do not create doctrines from stuff that is not there and rather tend is go by the Creeds.
J
josie_L
Guest
lol…Ok I hate your name
Actually, it could not be scripture from the N.T. as there was nothing written down yet. It was O.T. scripture.The NT concept would have been vague to anyone reading it. Just because Philip was interpreting does not mean only the Apostles could do so.
Well, I wouldn’t say TEC didn’t “create doctrines from stuff that is not there”
I am not certain when transubstantiation began to take hold. I know that consubstantiation is part of catholic thought by the thirteenth century (Duns Scotus), but I don’t know how early Aristotelian metaphysics started. I can say that the Orthodox never accepted it, and I as a Lutheran have never seen an ECF quote on the Eucharist I disagree with.
I’ve already told you that our confessions refer to them as “scripture”. That a council mentions them does not close them in the canon. If you want to argue that Luther was wrong in his opinion, fine. But you can’t historically argue that this opinion was novel, or not permitted, as neither is the case.
Jon
EDIT: it is important that I point out that neither of our communions accept consubstantiation. I only mention it as a reference point regarding Aristotelian metaphysics.
1
1rocky1
Guest
SIMPLEAS…God does not call us to a specific religion but He draws us to Himself thru Jesus. As Jesus stated “no man comes to the father but thru me”…John 14:6. after Jesus calls us to Himself & we accept His free gift of salvation then we are to find a church where HIS word is taught. We are also admonished to study & show ourselves approved, to rightly divide the word & to test the spirits. Pray for a spirit of discernment to find a church where the bible is rightly divided & taught.
Shalom
Walt
Shalom
Walt
- Status