Questions for any Protestants

[benhur]

benhur;12586070:

Then throw in the towel. Christ’s Eucharistic Sacrifice of Himself and Crucifixion for us was not salvific, and we are doomed. There’s nothing we can do to be saved.

Words have meaning.That is not what I said. Did Christ “eucharist” ? Calvary is salvific. That is what God/Jesus offered,sacrificed. Very specifically. He offered. He sacrificed. And we do what now ? Sacrifice ? I think not. Not in that “sense”.

 

[benhur]

You just contradicted yourself. If you don’t need a mediator, you don’t need God the Son to mediate for you to God the Father.

Agree. Seems like a contradiction except for the fact that Jesus is God (and man). So God is His own mediator. Both scriptures apply and do not contradict.

 

[benhur]

Let me answer with an analogy. Does eating a family dinner make you part of the family? No.
Does attending and participating in the family dinner make you part of the family? No.
When you are introduced to the father of the household by his son, as his son’s spouse at the family dinner, does that make you part of the family? Yes.
That last bit is what Jesus does perpetually for his Church.

Good. Then participating in a Mass does not save, just like participating in a service/sacrifice of OT did not save. It is not done at Mass. You meet the Father in regeneration, and some would say baptism, but not a memorial or re-presentation of Calvary.

 

[benhur]

Where do we offer any Sacrifice.

In the 1% of the Mass that is not scriptural or of earliest tradition, earliest. Words have meaning as I have been telling Syro. “Pray that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God the Almighty Father…May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands,… we bring you these gifts” Does that sound OT ?

 

[benhur]

Yes On the day of Pentecost the people said what shall we do to gain eternal life. Peter said confess your sins and be Baptized.

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you, for the remission of sins". Rinnie, where do you see sacramental confession ? I see receiving the gospel and sacramental baptism at most. This is universal to us all. What is not universal is confessing to a priest thereafter (baptism).

 

[benhur]

SyroMalankara;12586117:

What in the world are you talking about. Please read what I said before you attack me. I said quote: There is nothing WE CAN DO.

We are saved through Jesus Christ, he did it all.

Now because of his death we can be saved. But now that he made it POSSIBLE for us to be saved we have things we must do. Confess, be baptized, receive the Eucharist, etc.

But nothing we can do, that was not made possible by Christ and his grace. It is now by the Power of the Holy Spirit we can continue to follow and be led by him. Without God we can do Nothing.

I think Syro got posts mixed up. Did not attack but said exactly the same as you. Even liked your post that said we all share much in common.

 

[benhur]

Maybe. But he defiinitely understood the basis for absolution in persona Christi (in the person of Christ):

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)

Thank you, and for both versions. Don’t think it fits exactly as you see it (as in His stead sacramentally). Most versions have as “in His presence”, or “in His sight” like as my witness ( a bit like some would come to say “swear on a bible” like as a "witness’’ to hold your words to the fire or like “this is serious what i say or do”. To confirm, to prove, as Paul says in vs 8 and 9, lest Satan gain advantage vs 11. Forgiveness is a big deal amongst us. I see the Corinthian admonition, not just for "officers’ but as “do as I do” for he says “whom ye forgive”. Any true Christian forgiveness is ‘‘divine’’, and the Lord is not absent from the place. Thank you for letting me expound. Words do have meaning and it seems the KJV may lead one to think of “officers” having this responsibility but not sure it excludes all brethren.

 

[benhur]

You admit you follow traditions?!?! Unbiblical ones?!?! PROTESTANT BLASMPHEMY!!! Seriously though, yeah this passage is very much pushed aside by non-Catholics. How do you know Paul never heard a confession btw? Just because scripture does not say “Paul heard confessions” does not mean it did not happen. We have reason to believe The Early Church practices The Sacrament of confession because it is recorded and you also dismiss “John 20:21-23” that says God gave The apostles the authority to forgive sins. I Or how is your interpretation of that passage different than The Early Church? How were they wrong and your interpretation right?

BTW, your “We do all follow some traditions” Is not good enough. The apostle Paul said to follow what we were taught both orally and written. The traditions that these new denominations come up with (It would be great if you could tell me what traditions you speak of?) might not be in line with what The apostles taught. It has to be something The Early Church taught. Like apostolic succession or The True presence of Christ in The Eucharist.

Thank you LB. It would be nice for me to tell you what traditions i meant, just as it would have been nice for Paul to do so also.

To some early church is 500 AD or even 900 AD . To others it is 50 AD or 100 AD. For sure everything Catholic can be said to be *early *then. Peter first exercised this authority or keys when he said , “repent and be baptized… for the remission of sins”. WE all agree on at least that.

That is right, pandoras box is open when Tradition has equal authority to scripture, for as you say, some traditions of P’s are tough to swallow historically, and i would add as are some of the CC etc…

 

[kenmiller]

You just contradicted yourself. If you don’t need a mediator, you don’t need God the Son to mediate for you to God the Father.

Christ is God - Holy three in one

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

Thank you LB. It would be nice for me to tell you what traditions i meant, just as it would have been nice for Paul to do so also.

To some early church is 500 AD or even 900 AD . To others it is 50 AD or 100 AD. For sure everything Catholic can be said to be *early *then. Peter first exercised this authority or keys when he said , “repent and be baptized… for the remission of sins”. WE all agree on at least that.

That is right, pandoras box is open when Tradition has equal authority to scripture, for as you say, some traditions of P’s are tough to swallow historically, and i would add as are some of the CC etc…

Just because you do not like the idea of Tradition and Scripture being equal does not mean that it is not so. Many claim to go by scripture only because they claim we can come up with all kinds of crazy things if tradition is included, but that is exactly what happened when new denominations got formed every day and each interpret scripture their own way and pick and choose what they want to believe a certain passage means EVEN when historically recorded evidence shows that Christians believed otherwise in documents as early as the first century (For example It is believed that The Didache might have been written before The book of revelations and was almost included in scripture but it was decided not to because it was not written by a apostle) THAT is what opened pandoras box. Personal interpretation of scripture, which is what is at the heart of Protestantism. I use to be a protestant too btw, so it is not like I have not seen both sides of the fence.

It does not matter first century or 6th century. The point is that The Early Church was Catholic. Some would argue not Catholic but Orthodox. Lets say, for the sake of argument that it was either Catholic or Orthodox, but it was definitely not protestant no matter how much some people want to believe that it was. That is the difference between Catholic Traditions, not matter how hard they are to swallow and Protestant traditions. P. tradition did not even exist back then.

 

[JMM1957]

Just because you do not like the idea of Tradition and Scripture being equal does not mean that it is not so. Many claim to go by scripture only because they claim we can come up with all kinds of crazy things if tradition is included, but that is exactly what happened when new denominations got formed every day and each interpret scripture their own way and pick and choose what they want to believe a certain passage means EVEN when historically recorded evidence shows that Christians believed otherwise in documents as early as the first century (For example It is believed that The Didache might have been written before The book of revelations and was almost included in scripture but it was decided not to because it was not written by a apostle) THAT is what opened pandoras box. Personal interpretation of scripture, which is what is at the heart of Protestantism. I use to be a protestant too btw, so it is not like I have not seen both sides of the fence.

It does not matter first century or 6th century. The point is that The Early Church was Catholic. Some would argue not Catholic but Orthodox. Lets say, for the sake of argument that it was either Catholic or Orthodox, but it was definitely not protestant no matter how much some people want to believe that it was. That is the difference between Catholic Traditions, not matter how hard they are to swallow and Protestant traditions. P. tradition did not even exist back then.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think you meant that it was mentioned only to St Peter. St. Peter received the keys for the Church. That doesn’t mean only Peter exercised the keys, or that the rest of the Church is excluded from the keys.

Jon

Suppose that a young couple is struggling to pay all of their bills and support a couple of kids. There are doctor visits and shopping trips and so many after school activities. Their one, old car is worn out and constantly in need of repair.

One Christmas (cue music), the couple’s parents chip in together to buy them a new car. No more being stranded by the side of the road; no more unexpected repair bills, no more carpooling with neighbors and friends. The gift of that second car benefits the whole family.

But you know that Dad holds the keys on behalf of them all.

 

[Randy_Carson]

pandoras box is open when Tradition has equal authority to scripture

It may appear to be the case when you do not understand

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

 

[rfournier103]

pandoras box is open when Tradition has equal authority to scripture

Traditions like the canon of the Bible?

Protestantism turns it’s nose up (that was the absolute nicest way I could get my point across) at Tradition BECAUSE when Protestantism was founded - THEY HAD NO TRADITION. They were starting from scratch, and looked for any way they could to distance themselves from that evil, vile Catholic Church.

This is the way I like to look at it…

Think of the Bible as what lawyers call “STATUTORY LAW.” It is binding, written down in our law books, and drawn up by elected lawmakers; as the Bible is binding and was drawn up but the best and brightest of Christ’s Apostles/disciples. The only difference between our secular statutory law and our spiritual statutory law is that the Holy Bible cannot be amended.

Sacred Tradition’s equivalent would be what lawyers like to call “CASE LAW.” Laws that are implemented as a direct result of a judge’s ruling yet EQUALLY binding as statutory law.

For example… have you ever wondered where the MIRANDA WARNINGS came from? The Miranda Warnings (also known as “Miranda Rights”) came from a case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966. As a result, ALL police must advise a subject in their custody of his Miranda Warnings before questioning.

Sacred Tradition is like that. The Church fathers over time adopted a handful of customs for the benefit of praise, worship, or glorifying God in some way that has become “Sacred.” Since almost all of our Sacred Traditions have some basis in Scripture; one has to be RALLY nit-picky to pull some kind of tradition completely out of left field that has absolutely no grounding in Scripture.

I thought this thread was about the Sacrament of Penance?

 

[eightydeuce82]

Thank you LB. It would be nice for me to tell you what traditions i meant, just as it would have been nice for Paul to do so also.

To some early church is 500 AD or even 900 AD . To others it is 50 AD or 100 AD. For sure everything Catholic can be said to be *early *then. Peter first exercised this authority or keys when he said , “repent and be baptized… for the remission of sins”. WE all agree on at least that.

That is right, pandoras box is open when Tradition has equal authority to scripture, for as you say, some traditions of P’s are tough to swallow historically, and i would add as are some of the CC etc…

So have you ever read into Jewish tradition? Jews hold the Oral tradition just as high if not higher than the written. The Talmud is and has been used to teach people the faith since Moses. It explains things better than scriptures which can be difficult to understand. What makes you think its different with the NT scriptures? In fact lets put that to practice…whats the number now with bible alone christians? 30,000-40,000 denominations and independant churches? Right there is your proof that just reading the scriptures is NOT how this was intended to be. Also what makes you think the apostles and the early church set up anything that differed so much from Judaism? The Jews never used a sola scriptura method because they knew what it would do (create division based on individual interpretation) So they had the Talmud (oral teaching or tradition). No different than catholics. Have you ever wondered why jews have such an easy time becoming catholic? I bet you have never even considered it. Your to busy pitting the OT vs the NT.

 

[greypiper]

I never would have asked my Protestant pastor that because I believed my sins were already forgiven by God. It never would have occurred to me to ask a human to forgive my sins when God had already done so by dying on the cross.

Doesn’t St Paul to tell us to confess our sins to one another? Why at all, if they are already forgiven?

 

[benhur]

Doesn’t St Paul to tell us to confess our sins to one another? Why at all, if they are already forgiven?

Paul does not say confess sin to each other but “faults” and not be be forgiven, but so that we can pray for one another and be healed ,with victory over our fleshly inclinations.
“Confess your **faults **one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. James 5:16”

 

[benhur]

So have you ever read into Jewish tradition? Jews hold the Oral tradition just as high if not higher than the written. The Talmud is and has been used to teach people the faith since Moses. It explains things better than scriptures which can be difficult to understand. What makes you think its different with the NT scriptures? In fact lets put that to practice…whats the number now with bible alone christians? 30,000-40,000 denominations and independant churches? Right there is your proof that just reading the scriptures is NOT how this was intended to be. Also what makes you think the apostles and the early church set up anything that differed so much from Judaism? The Jews never used a sola scriptura method because they knew what it would do (create division based on individual interpretation) So they had the Talmud (oral teaching or tradition). No different than catholics. Have you ever wondered why jews have such an easy time becoming catholic? I bet you have never even considered it. Your to busy pitting the OT vs the NT.

The Torah does not revolve around the Talmud, but vice versa. The Talmud is authoritative because it is a derivative of the Torah and only when it is not a “private” interpretation, that is apart from God’s interpretation/intent. Otherwise it is still Talmud/Tradition, but in error causing hindrance to Truth.
Jesus clearly demonstrates this .

 

[benhur]

Traditions like the canon of the Bible?

Protestantism turns it’s nose up (that was the absolute nicest way I could get my point across) at Tradition BECAUSE when Protestantism was founded - THEY HAD NO TRADITION. They were starting from scratch, and looked for any way they could to distance themselves from that evil, vile Catholic Church.

This is the way I like to look at it…

Think of the Bible as what lawyers call “STATUTORY LAW.” It is binding, written down in our law books, and drawn up by elected lawmakers; as the Bible is binding and was drawn up but the best and brightest of Christ’s Apostles/disciples. The only difference between our secular statutory law and our spiritual statutory law is that the Holy Bible cannot be amended.

Sacred Tradition’s equivalent would be what lawyers like to call “CASE LAW.” Laws that are implemented as a direct result of a judge’s ruling yet EQUALLY binding as statutory law.

For example… have you ever wondered where the MIRANDA WARNINGS came from? The Miranda Warnings (also known as “Miranda Rights”) came from a case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966. As a result, ALL police must advise a subject in their custody of his Miranda Warnings before questioning.

Sacred Tradition is like that. The Church fathers over time adopted a handful of customs for the benefit of praise, worship, or glorifying God in some way that has become “Sacred.” Since almost all of our Sacred Traditions have some basis in Scripture; one has to be RALLY nit-picky to pull some kind of tradition completely out of left field that has absolutely no grounding in Scripture.

I thought this thread was about the Sacrament of Penance?

Case Law also said negroes were what ? Case Law also said Jews could not work on Sundays. etc. etc. etc.

We all love Case Law, even Tradition, but only when it is in line with Truth and Spirit.

 

[benhur]

Suppose that a young couple is struggling to pay all of their bills and support a couple of kids. There are doctor visits and shopping trips and so many after school activities. Their one, old car is worn out and constantly in need of repair.

One Christmas (cue music), the couple’s parents chip in together to buy them a new car. No more being stranded by the side of the road; no more unexpected repair bills, no more carpooling with neighbors and friends. The gift of that second car benefits the whole family.

But you know that Dad holds the keys on behalf of them all.

He can’t be driving two cars at the same time . Each car has it’s own key and its own driver. That Christ is shown to have the keys in Rev. shows that there are at least two sets, so why not 3 or twelve ? ?