Some of their teaching are had to belief

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/luther-christ-gave-keys-to-peter.html

This link will show the rebuttal to the claim that Christ had Peter the man in mind rather than Peter’s Confession as the Rock upon which His Church would be built. Here is a relevant excerpt from that particular link:
*Who is the Rock of Matthew 16? Luther states:

The Lord then says, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock will I build my church.” In St. John 1 :42], he calls him Cephas, “You shall be called Cephas,” Keph in Hebrew, Kepha in Chaldean, and Petros or Petra in Greek, Rupes in Latin, all of which mean rock in German—like the high rocks the castles are built on. Now the Lord wants to say, “You are Peter, that is, a man of rock. For you have recognized and named the right Man, who is the true rock, as Scripture names him, Christ. On this rock, that is, on me, Christ, I will build all of my Christendom, just as you and the other disciples are built on it through my Father in heaven, who revealed it to you.” In plain German one would say, “You say (on behalf of all) that I am the Messiah or Christ, the Son of the living God; very well then,* I say to you, you are a Christian, and I shall build my church on a Christian.**” For in German the word “Christ” means both the Lord himself, as one sings, “Christ the Lord is risen, Christ ascended to heaven,”127 and he who believes in the Lord Christ, as one says, “You are a Christ.” Thus Luke in Acts 11 :26] says that the disciples in Antioch were first called Christians, which is why names have survived such as, “Christians, Christendom, Christian faith,” etc. So here our Lord gives Simon, son of Jona, the name “man of rock” or “Christian” because he, from the Father, recognized the rock, or Christ, and praised him with his mouth on behalf of all the apostles.

From this it is clear enough that by the building of his church on the rock or on himself, Christ meant nothing else but (as was said above, from the apostles Peter and Paul) the common Christian faith, that whoever believes in Christ is built on this rock and will attain salvation, even against all the gates of hell; whoever does not believe in Christ is not built on this rock and must be damned, with all the gates of hell. This is the simple, single, certain understanding of these words, and there can be no other. This the words clearly and convincingly prove, and they agree with the words in the last chapter of Mark [16:16], “He who believes and is baptized will be saved,” and with John 11 :26], “Whoever believes in me shall never die.” Yes, I say, remember well and mark diligently that the Lord in Matthew 16 does not speak of laws, Ten Commandments, or the works we should or could do, but of the Christian faith or the work of the Father, which he, with the Son and the Holy Spirit, performs in us, namely, that he spiritually builds us on the rock, his Son, and teaches us to believe in Christ, that we might become his house and dwelling, as is proven in I Peter 2 :4–7] and Ephesians 2 :19–22].

Further, “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:19Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)]. The Lord wants to provide well for his churches, built on him and believing in him. Because they should preach and confess the gospel before the whole world and govern on the basis that Christ Jesus is the Son of God, he wants to have their words honored and not scorned, as though he were speaking personally from heaven. Now he who hears the gospel from the apostles or churches and does not want to believe should be sentenced to be damned. Again, if he should fall after he has believed and will not convert back to faith, he should be sentenced in the same way—he should keep his sins and be damned. On the other hand, he who hears and believes the gospel, or turns from his sins back to faith, should have his sins forgiven and should attain salvation. And he will consider such a verdict in heaven as if he had spoken it himself. See, these are the keys of the kingdom of heaven and they should be used to give eternal retention and remission of sins in the church, not just at the time of baptism, or once in a lifetime, but continuously until the end—retention for the unrepentant and unbelievers, remission for the repentant and believers.

And here remember once again, and write it upon your heart, that the Lord does not speak here of laws or the works we should do, but of his works, namely, of retention and remission of sins. To retain or forgive sins is the work of the divine majesty alone. But he wants to perform and accomplish these works of his through his church; that is why he says that whatever it will bind or loose on earth should be bound or loosed by him in heaven. That is why, too, the two items follow one another in the Children’s Creed, “I believe in one holy Christian church, the communion of saints, forgiveness of sins”; so, where the church is, namely, the building on the rock, there are the keys to the forgiveness of sins. [LW 41:314-315]
Thank you, that teaching isn’t that hard is it?
 
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/luther-christ-gave-keys-to-peter.html

This link will show the rebuttal to the claim that Christ had Peter the man in mind rather than Peter’s Confession as the Rock upon which His Church would be built. Here is a relevant excerpt from that particular link:
*Who is the Rock of Matthew 16? Luther states:

The Lord then says, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock will I build my church.” In St. John 1 :42], he calls him Cephas, “You shall be called Cephas,” Keph in Hebrew, Kepha in Chaldean, and Petros or Petra in Greek, Rupes in Latin, all of which mean rock in German—like the high rocks the castles are built on. Now the Lord wants to say, “You are Peter, that is, a man of rock. For you have recognized and named the right Man, who is the true rock, as Scripture names him, Christ. On this rock, that is, on me, Christ, I will build all of my Christendom, just as you and the other disciples are built on it through my Father in heaven, who revealed it to you.” In plain German one would say, “You say (on behalf of all) that I am the Messiah or Christ, the Son of the living God; very well then,* I say to you, you are a Christian, and I shall build my church on a Christian.**” For in German the word “Christ” means both the Lord himself, as one sings, “Christ the Lord is risen, Christ ascended to heaven,”127 and he who believes in the Lord Christ, as one says, “You are a Christ.” Thus Luke in Acts 11 :26] says that the disciples in Antioch were first called Christians, which is why names have survived such as, “Christians, Christendom, Christian faith,” etc. So here our Lord gives Simon, son of Jona, the name “man of rock” or “Christian” because he, from the Father, recognized the rock, or Christ, and praised him with his mouth on behalf of all the apostles.

From this it is clear enough that by the building of his church on the rock or on himself, Christ meant nothing else but (as was said above, from the apostles Peter and Paul) the common Christian faith, that whoever believes in Christ is built on this rock and will attain salvation, even against all the gates of hell; whoever does not believe in Christ is not built on this rock and must be damned, with all the gates of hell. This is the simple, single, certain understanding of these words, and there can be no other. This the words clearly and convincingly prove, and they agree with the words in the last chapter of Mark [16:16], “He who believes and is baptized will be saved,” and with John 11 :26], “Whoever believes in me shall never die.” Yes, I say, remember well and mark diligently that the Lord in Matthew 16 does not speak of laws, Ten Commandments, or the works we should or could do, but of the Christian faith or the work of the Father, which he, with the Son and the Holy Spirit, performs in us, namely, that he spiritually builds us on the rock, his Son, and teaches us to believe in Christ, that we might become his house and dwelling, as is proven in I Peter 2 :4–7] and Ephesians 2 :19–22].

And here remember once again, and write it upon your heart, that the Lord does not speak here of laws or the works we should do, but of his works, namely, of retention and remission of sins. To retain or forgive sins is the work of the divine majesty alone. But he wants to perform and accomplish these works of his through his church; that is why he says that whatever it will bind or loose on earth should be bound or loosed by him in heaven. That is why, too, the two items follow one another in the Children’s Creed, “I believe in one holy Christian church, the communion of saints, forgiveness of sins”; so, where the church is, namely, the building on the rock, there are the keys to the forgiveness of sins. [LW 41:314-315]
My FRIEND,

Your opening remarks and Lutheran advertisement {wen site} are the weaking of any and all positions the differences in our faith beliefs.

Biblically Read please and make note of the SINGULAR tense words chosen by Jesus {GOD} Mt 10:1-8; Mt 16:15-19; John 17:17-20; Acts 20:28 {DOUAY BIBLE}, and Eph 4:{1-7]

Historically: GOD has always chosen just one MAN to lead: Abram, Moses, the Judges, the kings, & the Prophets; Jesus ONLY followed His Own example from the OT times

Logically: Jesus {GOD} Choose just one man

[1 ] catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

[2] equip.org/article/jesus-peter-and-the-keys-a-scriptural-handbook-on-the-papacy/

If he had not done so; Jesus {GOD} would have been OK with his One God, Faith and Church ending with the deaths of the Apostles.

As a “Scholar”, show us please just where in the bible {Sola Scriptura} GOD even one time approved,competing sets of faith beliefs:shrug:

AND if the RCC is NOT the one true church /faith, then which of the many competing faiths and churches is; BASED upon what evidence my friend?

God Bless you

PJM
 
My FRIEND,

Your opening remarks and Lutheran advertisement {wen site} are the weaking of any and all positions the differences in our faith beliefs.

Biblically Read please and make note of the SINGULAR tense words chosen by Jesus {GOD} Mt 10:1-8; Mt 16:15-19; John 17:17-20; Acts 20:28 {DOUAY BIBLE}, and Eph 4:{1-7]

Historically: GOD has always chosen just one MAN to lead: Abram, Moses, the Judges, the kings, & the Prophets; Jesus ONLY followed His Own example from the OT times

Logically: Jesus {GOD} Choose just one man

[1 ] catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

[2] equip.org/article/jesus-peter-and-the-keys-a-scriptural-handbook-on-the-papacy/

If he had not done so; Jesus {GOD} would have been OK with his One God, Faith and Church ending with the deaths of the Apostles.

As a “Scholar”, show us please just where in the bible {Sola Scriptura} GOD even one time approved,competing sets of faith beliefs:shrug:

AND if the RCC is NOT the one true church /faith, then which of the many competing faiths and churches is; BASED upon what evidence my friend?

God Bless you

PJM
First off, man, all of this is really a matter of faith. What Jesus says to Peter in the singular is elsewhere said to all the Apostles in the plural, as Luther points out in his Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope bookofconcord.org/treatise.php.

The One True Faith is in all the Christian churches,* everywhere.* The evidence for this is in the fruit that they have produced: bringing millions of souls from the darkness of secularism and paganism to the Light of Christianity. I just happen to agree with the doctrine taught by that branch of the Christian faith that is organized under the name of the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod. You agree with the Roman Catholic Church’s take on doctrine. Same Christian faith, two Christian Churches.

You’re going to give me proof texts from a Catholic source and yet tell me that my counter- arguments from a Lutheran website weaken my position ( and note how I avoid calling your sources " Catholic advertisements")? Isn’t that a little one- sided? Shouldn’t I expect to be permitted the same latitude your apologists assume for themselves when they engage in debate?

You address concerns that are meaningless to me, as a Protestant. All the churches carry the kernel of God’s Holy Truth in them. The message of the Holy Scriptures is identical and enduring, although certain churches may emphasize certain aspects of this message. The Rock of Peter’s Confession stands fast in every Christian denomination. We all confess the Lordship of Jesus Christ. We all read and teach out of Holy Scripture, although our distinctives may differ. We all work toward the coming Kingdom of God and we all face the attacks of the Devil, the world and our own sinful flesh on a daily basis.

We all have access to the Holy Spirit whenever we call upon Him for help and guidance. Call me " FRIEND," mock my designation as " Scholar" if you wish. Pick apart and flush everything I said as meaningless and irrelevant. Be well and may your ministry to reach the lost who need the comfort and light of the Gospel be a successful one. Time to get back to the church. Our new minister is being installed today and it’s time to help get the space ready. May the peace of Christ be with you.
 
:
;/QUOTE]

The Immaculate Conception.

**A SINGULAR honor chosen by GOD as a meritorious reward **

Papal infallibility.

John 17:17-21 & 18:18
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven.
The precedents were: 2 Kings 2: 8-14 & Exo. 5: 22-24
Implied as a meritorious act** initiated by GOD **

Mary as " Queen of Heaven."

Based on Luke 1:26-36; 46-52; & Jn 19: 26-27 {as the MOTHER of GOD and the most perfect human being in the history of Creation

Non- attendance of Mass on Sundays and other HDOs as a mortal sin.

Exo. 20:8, 31:14 and the 3td Commandment

Clerical celibacy

This is a Church PRACTICE, not a doctrine, not a dogma

Purgatory

Based on the love and Mercy of God & it is biblical when one actually is ABLE to understand the bible & God’s fervent desire tat "ALL souls be saved} CONDITIONALLY

Job.17: 4 “Since thou hast closed their minds to understanding, therefore thou wilt not let them triumph.

2nd. Cor. 4:3-4 “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.

Lev.22: 21 “And when any one offers a sacrifice of peace offerings to the LORD, to fulfill a vow or as a freewill offering, from the herd or from the flock, to be accepted it must be perfect; there shall be no blemish in it.

Rev. 21: 27 “But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”

Mt. 5: 26 truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.

Matt.5: 48 “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Heb. 2: 10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.

Job.17: 4 “Since thou hast closed their minds to understanding, therefore thou wilt not let them triumph.

2nd. Cor. 4:3-4 “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.

Plenary Indulgences

The entire issue of Indulgences falls under the God given authority of THE {all of} the Key’s to heaven single gate.** Mt. 16: 18-19, Jn 17:17-20; Mt 28:19-20 & Mt 7:13**

Take NOTE of the singular tense words CHOSEN by Christ “[18] And I say to YOU: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build MY church, {SINGULAR} and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. {SINGULAR} [19]And I will give to YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever YOU shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever YOU shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven

Mortal sins as opposed to venial sins. Why the distinction? A sin is a sin.

1 John 5: 16-17 “[16] He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. [17] All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

Catholic and Orthodox Churches as the " only true churches," while other Christian bodies are referred to as " ecclesial ( doesn’t that mean churchly?) bodies, but not really churches."

To HAVE the 7 Sacraments validly requires Direct, PROVABLE succession; therefore none of the Protestant churches, each with their OWN sets of Faith beliefs. Thus ONLY the Catholic and Orthodox have them validly. The RCC also and alone has them licitly.

I get closed Communion and I respect that.

Thank you

Veneration of saints beyond that of imitating their examples and honoring their lives ( prayers to saints, various pilgrimages).

Thanks for using the correct term {rather than “worship”}. The HAIL MARY, the most frequent Marian prayer is solidly biblical:

**Hail Mary, [Lk. 1:28]
Full of Grace [Lk. 1:28]
The Lord is with thee [Lk 1:27]
Blessed are you among all women [Lk 1:42]
And Blessed in the fruit of your womb: Jesus [Lk. 1;42]
Holy Mary [Lk.1: 28]
Mother of God 1:35
Pray for us sinners [our catholic petition]
Now and at the hour of our death
Amen” ****

& for the record while it is correct to claim that we Catholics “pray to” Mary & and the Saints; it is FAR more enlightening to understand that what we ARE doing is praying THROUGH Mary and the Saints {intercessory prayer} as ALL prayer is intended to END with God. Amen!

The BVM’s house in Israel being transported angelically to Loretto.

Sorry, I know nothing about this. Not denying it, just never heard of it.🤷

Its neither a Doctrine or a Dogma, so it is an optional belief.

Reverencing the Host outside of the actual Sacrament of Communion.

**Here my friend the term WORSHIP is appropriate, as is GOD; it is Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity; that so many do not belief this is amazing and the clearest evidence of the Holy Spirit intervening to BLOCK right understanding. READ Literally John 6:46-58, Paul 1st Cor. 11:23-30
**

**EACH of these topics is worthy of in depth discussion, space does not permit that here. ANYONE wishing to discuss any of these topics please contact me.
**

Thanks and God Bless you
 
Awwww shucks:)

I just wish to discuss any doctrins. dogmas or practices of the RCC that you finf strange or bewildering:D

GBY

PJM
I find it bewildering that God timelessly “exist”. When nothing substantial, neither matter nor created spirit existed, and presumably (according to Theologians) neither space nor time exist, God “exist”. I also find it bewildering that God is (to me) incomprehensible, and that God has the Nature He has. I have tried to imagine what eternity, infiniteness, timelessness, absoluteness, simplicity, and perfection (Divine) are, but can’t get an image of those as clearly as I can a paper bag, a clock, a crow, a pond, rain, and a hamburger.
 
Thank you, that teaching isn’t that hard is it?
When you rewrite the sentence and redefine rock of course I see the confusion. You just can’t rewrite the sentence to say what you want it to.
 
I find it bewildering that God timelessly “exist”. When nothing substantial, neither matter nor created spirit existed, and presumably (according to Theologians) neither space nor time exist, God “exist”. I also find it bewildering that God is (to me) incomprehensible, and that God has the Nature He has. I have tried to imagine what eternity, infiniteness, timelessness, absoluteness, simplicity, and perfection (Divine) are, but can’t get an image of those as clearly as I can a paper bag, a clock, a crow, a pond, rain, and a hamburger.
All these objects are comprehensible to some degree or another.
You can see them, perhaps touch them, hear them, taste them. Yet you are not them, right? Despite your sensory perceptions and experiences of an-other thing, you are not that other thing. You are uniquely your own “I am”. It would be foolish to say “I am a rock because I know what it is”.

Same with an-other person. You can know a person, even intimately, yet you are not that other person. You are uniquely a human being. (even though in marriage you might be as “one flesh”, you are still your person, and the other is an-other person. )

You have a degree of comprehension of another person because that other person is a creature like you. So even though that person is an-other, you have much in common.
Consider that a person who is different from you is not as comprehensible as someone who is similar to you. As we have differences between us we might have trouble knowing each other.

But:
When we speak of God, we speak of God as radically and infinitely other. Our experience of him will always be as a creature/creator. There will always be the element of mystery with God, things that are hidden from us because we are creatures.

So to make a long story short, I think your struggle with mystery is a good thing, as it portrays a healthy respect for God’s incomprehensible majesty.
 
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/luther-christ-gave-keys-to-peter.html

This link will show the rebuttal to the claim that Christ had Peter the man in mind rather than Peter’s Confession as the Rock upon which His Church would be built. Here is a relevant excerpt from that particular link:
*Who is the Rock of Matthew 16? Luther states:

The Lord then says, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock will I build my church.” In St. John 1 :42], he calls him Cephas, “You shall be called Cephas,” Keph in Hebrew, Kepha in Chaldean, and Petros or Petra in Greek, Rupes in Latin, all of which mean rock in German—like the high rocks the castles are built on. Now the Lord wants to say, “You are Peter, that is, a man of rock. For you have recognized and named the right Man, who is the true rock, as Scripture names him, Christ. On this rock, that is, on me, Christ, I will build all of my Christendom, just as you and the other disciples are built on it through my Father in heaven, who revealed it to you.” In plain German one would say, “You say (on behalf of all) that I am the Messiah or Christ, the Son of the living God; very well then,* I say to you, you are a Christian, and I shall build my church on a Christian.**” For in German the word “Christ” means both the Lord himself, as one sings, “Christ the Lord is risen, Christ ascended to heaven,”127 and he who believes in the Lord Christ, as one says, “You are a Christ.” Thus Luke in Acts 11 :26] says that the disciples in Antioch were first called Christians, which is why names have survived such as, “Christians, Christendom, Christian faith,” etc. So here our Lord gives Simon, son of Jona, the name “man of rock” or “Christian” because he, from the Father, recognized the rock, or Christ, and praised him with his mouth on behalf of all the apostles.

From this it is clear enough that by the building of his church on the rock or on himself, Christ meant nothing else but (as was said above, from the apostles Peter and Paul) the common Christian faith, that whoever believes in Christ is built on this rock and will attain salvation, even against all the gates of hell; whoever does not believe in Christ is not built on this rock and must be damned, with all the gates of hell. This is the simple, single, certain understanding of these words, and there can be no other. This the words clearly and convincingly prove, and they agree with the words in the last chapter of Mark [16:16], “He who believes and is baptized will be saved,” and with John 11 :26], “Whoever believes in me shall never die.” Yes, I say, remember well and mark diligently that the Lord in Matthew 16 does not speak of laws, Ten Commandments, or the works we should or could do, but of the Christian faith or the work of the Father, which he, with the Son and the Holy Spirit, performs in us, namely, that he spiritually builds us on the rock, his Son, and teaches us to believe in Christ, that we might become his house and dwelling, as is proven in I Peter 2 :4–7] and Ephesians 2 :19–22].

Further, “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:19Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)]. The Lord wants to provide well for his churches, built on him and believing in him. Because they should preach and confess the gospel before the whole world and govern on the basis that Christ Jesus is the Son of God, he wants to have their words honored and not scorned, as though he were speaking personally from heaven. Now he who hears the gospel from the apostles or churches and does not want to believe should be sentenced to be damned. Again, if he should fall after he has believed and will not convert back to faith, he should be sentenced in the same way—he should keep his sins and be damned. On the other hand, he who hears and believes the gospel, or turns from his sins back to faith, should have his sins forgiven and should attain salvation. And he will consider such a verdict in heaven as if he had spoken it himself. See, these are the keys of the kingdom of heaven and they should be used to give eternal retention and remission of sins in the church, not just at the time of baptism, or once in a lifetime, but continuously until the end—retention for the unrepentant and unbelievers, remission for the repentant and believers.

And here remember once again, and write it upon your heart, that the Lord does not speak here of laws or the works we should do, but of his works, namely, of retention and remission of sins. To retain or forgive sins is the work of the divine majesty alone. But he wants to perform and accomplish these works of his through his church; that is why he says that whatever it will bind or loose on earth should be bound or loosed by him in heaven. That is why, too, the two items follow one another in the Children’s Creed, “I believe in one holy Christian church, the communion of saints, forgiveness of sins”; so, where the church is, namely, the building on the rock, there are the keys to the forgiveness of sins. [LW 41:314-315]
This all glosses over the fact:
In the Gospel we have one man who happens to be the Eternal Son of God in human flesh, speaking directly to another man. He is not constructing a parable.
In that person to person conversation, Jesus says “You are”.
Personal pronoun “You”.
And gives Simon a new identity as a person which endures to this day.
 
I find it bewildering that God timelessly “exist”. When nothing substantial, neither matter nor created spirit existed, and presumably (according to Theologians) neither space nor time exist, God “exist”. I also find it bewildering that God is (to me) incomprehensible, and that God has the Nature He has. I have tried to imagine what eternity, infiniteness, timelessness, absoluteness, simplicity, and perfection (Divine) are, but can’t get an image of those as clearly as I can a paper bag, a clock, a crow, a pond, rain, and a hamburger.
That and the Trinity are the perfect Mysteries:)

BUT, from human logic it seems to ME {personally} that God HAD to exisr from all time, as the Universe could not have:
  1. Always existed
  2. willed itself into existence
Isaiah 55:6-10 offers an explanation:) of sorts

[6] Seek ye the Lord, while he may be found: call upon him, while he is near. [7] Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unjust man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God: for he is bountiful to forgive**. [8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. [9] For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts. **[10] And as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return no more thither, but soak the earth, and water it, and make it to spring, and give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater"

While not the answer, this seems to nevertheless be the only solution avail to us?

Thank you and God Bless

PJM:
 
Well, sir,
I note and appreciate that you try to answer all my questions and it’s quite obvious that you put a lot of time into your responses. The Catholic claims to universal primacy are plenteous to the point of being bewildering. Your posts are well and carefully put together and perhaps mine aren’t as grand as yours are ( or those of your comrades, who rightfully bolster the claims of your church). I note that you set your standards that obviously differ from my own to quite an extent. Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, Mennonites and Reformed folks all understand the Gospel differently, although it is the same Gospel that we seek to follow. Saying that Protestants follow the Gospel in their own way, not God’s, can easily be echoed back from Protestants to Catholics.

We are commanded by Scripture to appeal to God for our needs, not St. Francis of Assisi, not St. Valentine, not St. Barbara or St. Claire. I won’t bother to present evidence that I know will be rejected out of hand as irrelevant because that would be an unwholesome waste of everybody’s time. Note the sources I have tried to present. My fellow Protestants are in accord with them while the Catholics object to them. Why should I upset myself by taking it upon myself to sacrifice the necessary time and resources to show the Confessional point of view when I know those resources will be declared irrelevant and my Scriptural quotations " cherry- picking?"

I’ve already spent more time on this reply than I should have and ( as I said), I’m sure that every word will be picked apart. You can’t overwhelm somebody with words and then accuse them of being wrong when they respond with identical tactics. You can certainly try, but it’ll have no impact on which church they choose to attend on Sunday morning. As someone who descends from people who fought the British during the Revolutionary War, I am proud of the Constitutional clause that provides for our religious freedom. Seeing that freedom questioned by online apologists whose church flourishes in this country because of that very freedom hits me as being quite ironic. Unsubscribed.
 
Prayers to Saints are intercesory prayers. Its the same as if asking a friend or a loved one to pray for you. You are still in the Communion of Saints when you die.
 
That’s all for now. I must get to work.
I have a hunch that this thread is going nowhere fast. But in a nutshell: things that some Catholic or other posted on the Internet, I don’t necessarily believe. Official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church I do believe.
 
I have a hunch that this thread is going nowhere fast. But in a nutshell: things that some Catholic or other posted on the Internet, I don’t necessarily believe. Official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church I do believe.
Yea:o

I didn’t get the response I thought it would attrack, BUT hey, that’s a GOOD thing

Thanks

PJM
 
I can’t speak to what the intention of this thread was, but I would like to say that I think some of the resentment that Catholics feel toward Protestants is understandable (not to be confused with justified).

There are probably many things that could be said on this score, but I’ll just offer one (which I’d bet many have never really thought about): When a Protestant first starts thinking about Catholic teaching and says “That makes sense, but I’ll have to think about it”, we Catholics tend to view this positively; but when a Catholic first starts thinking about Catholic teaching and says “That makes sense, but I’ll have to think about it”, we view that negatively. (Some might say that the former is viewed as progress whereas the latter is viewed as delinquency, but I think that may be a bit to colloquial.)
 
I can’t speak to what the intention of this thread was, but I would like to say that I think some of the resentment that Catholics feel toward Protestants is understandable (not to be confused with justified).

There are probably many things that could be said on this score, but I’ll just offer one (which I’d bet many have never really thought about): When a Protestant first starts thinking about Catholic teaching and says “That makes sense, but I’ll have to think about it”, we Catholics tend to view this positively; but when a Catholic first starts thinking about Catholic teaching and says “That makes sense, but I’ll have to think about it”, we view that negatively. (Some might say that the former is viewed as progress whereas the latter is viewed as delinquency, but I think that may be a bit to colloquial.)
Not to budge in or sound attacking. But wouldn’t one understand some resentments Protestants have towards Catholics as well? (Again not always justifiable)
 
Not to budge in or sound attacking. But wouldn’t one understand some resentments Protestants have towards Catholics as well? (Again not always justifiable)
Yes, i can really understand. I myself am guilty of making fun of Protestant communion service and rock concert worship so I can relate.
 
Not to budge in or sound attacking. But wouldn’t one understand some resentments Protestants have towards Catholics as well? (Again not always justifiable)
Yes, I can certainly agree with that. But what I said particularly
There are probably many things that could be said on this score, but I’ll just offer one (which I’d bet many have never really thought about): When a Protestant first starts thinking about Catholic teaching and says “That makes sense, but I’ll have to think about it”, we Catholics tend to view this positively; but when a Catholic first starts thinking about Catholic teaching and says “That makes sense, but I’ll have to think about it”, we view that negatively. (Some might say that the former is viewed as progress whereas the latter is viewed as delinquency, but I think that may be a bit to colloquial.)
applies more to Catholics feeling resentment toward Protestants ISTM.
 
True. You just made me wonder a bit. All cool:)
In retrospect I guess I didn’t really need to bring in “resentments”. But that aside, I’d be very interested to hear what you or other Protestants think about my point. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top