Split: Another Tradition Debate

[Mannyfit75]

And why were Protestants forced to separate? How can your church have a problem with us for separating when YOU are the ones responsible for it!?! So now I can’t partake of communion because I and other Protestants have tried to honour God and revere His Word? That’s what it all comes down to.

Both the CC leaders and the Reformers are much to blame. Everyone had a part in the separation as much as the next Christian.

Catholics honor God by receiving Him in Holy Communion weekly, (daily if they have time).

 

[mercygate]

I see. No problem. But the reason the Catholic church won’t let me take communion there is not because they care about me. It is because they want to control me and because as I’ve said, they don’t believe I’m a Christian.

The Catholic Church wants to control you? I think your vision may have been distorted by the toxic levels of anti-Catholicism that prevail in some Protestant circles. You already know that the Church considers Protestants Christian. Control you? If that is how you see the Church’s care with the most precious treasaure she holds in trust from Our Lord himself, then please step back, take a deep breath, and look again. If you believed what the Catholic Church believes about this Sacrament, you would exercise a measure of “control” over who receives it. In the early Church, people were not even allowed in the room with it until after baptism.

Don’t worry, I don’t take that as a snipe.

Thanks. It wasn’t a snipe but could have been seen as one.

It is a legitimate question. No, we encourage people to be in the faith before they take communion. But we don’t stop anyone.

Why do you “encourage people to be in the faith” before receiving communion? Do children of Baptist families receive communion before they are baptized?

I think one reason I am fighting this so much is because I never clamed that it WASN’T the body and blood of Christ. I am not decided on this because I believe it to be an important truth and I don’t want to decide the wrong way.

Hmmmm. Interesting. You are right: second only to the salvific power of the Incarnation, this is arguablyTHE most important truth.

John Smythe is probably writhing in his grave at the thought that one of his spiritual sons might be flirting with the idea that the Lord’s Supper is anything other than a simple commemoration.

But you can relax. In order to have the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ present in the Holy Eucharist, several things must be in place: the Apostolic Succession through which Holy Orders are transmitted through the laying on of hands (see Acts), the intention to confect the Sacrament as Our Lord intended it, and the words of Consecration (Mt., Mk., Lk). Only those churches whose holy orders trace their apostolic lineage back to the Upper Room (the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches) retain the ability to do that.

 

[scylla]

There is. The exception is Jesus.

We must also affirm that Jesus is fully man and fully God and fully without sin.

Amen.

Since we are in agreement there that Jesus is fully God and fully man without sin then to not have sin does not rule out man not having sin.
Not having sin therefore does not make one not a human.
And you agree that “all have sinned” is not an absolute as there is at least one exception.
I agree with you there, have I mis-represented any truth here?

The Ark had no sin as it wasn’t a living being. Mary did so she needed a Saviour.

So every living being requires sin? A Catholic would affirm that Jesus was the saviour of Mary as Salvation is only through Jesus and He can do whatever He wants.
He is God, we do not limit Him and have to affirm His power.
A Savior redeems the world and removes sin.
Now all we have to agree on is if God knew Mary would bear Jesus as a son.

I’m sorry you see it that way. I see it as standing on truth. To affirm that Mary is sinless is to deny Jesus and His special place in the grand scheme of things, for Protestants. That is how serious it is…(and I mean this with all respect; I am just trying to get a point across).

It is not about thinking Mary is God or any crazy idea like that, it is about affirming the deity of Jesus.

The deity of Jesus requires the non-deity of anyone else. To say Mary was sinless is to ascribe deity to her.

A Catholic in no way affirms that sinlessness requires the status of being a deity and I don’t think you do either.
Are Angels deities? Are people in heaven deities? No they are created beings without sin as God has made them sinless.
And I would agree with you that the deity of Jesus requires the non-deity of anyones else, no Catholic believes that Mary is a deity.
A Catholic would see things differently as saying that the ability to remove or create without sin is fully possible with God.

If I’m wrong, I’m blaspheming God. But I’m not. Seriously though, how could you suggest that I would be blaspheming Scripture when you don’t put Scripture in the same place that Protestants do?

Why do you say I do not place the Holy Scripture in the same place. I believe it is 100% true and the Word of God. It must be respected and never misrepresented or we blaspheme God. This is the seriousness we as Catholics take Scripture. This is why we are so nuts about it not being mis-represented as it is the Holy Word of the Lord.
So if you are not wrong you are claiming an infallible interpretation, is this correct? You are 100% right when you proclaim so in representing the Holy Word of God and stating that no other interpretation is correct.
I am not baiting you I just want to make sure I understand your stance, and the seriousness of this.

Please for the sake of truth, just say that is your interpretation and how you understand it.(at least just in case)

For the sake of common courtesy, I will agree to disagree. I will not, however, be baited into saying it is “my” interpretation and how I understand it. This is the best I can do.

I cannot agree to disagree as a Christian I have to give an answer to the hope that lies in me. I must stand up for truth. So please clarify, and please don’t be insulted I am serious as the Holy Word of God must be represented as such and not just opinion.
So it is blasphemy as you said or truth(which you must affirm) but we cannot agree to disagree which is why I asked you to state it is opinion, but that is to relegate scripture to just a suggestion and not really the Word of God.
(I really was just trying to illustrate the seriousness of the Scripture)

In Christ
Scylla

 

[mercygate]

And why were Protestants forced to separate? How can your church have a problem with us for separating when YOU are the ones responsible for it!?! So now I can’t partake of communion because I and other Protestants have tried to honour God and revere His Word? That’s what it all comes down to.

Sigh. Forced? No serious Catholic denies that there were serious problems in the Church that needed to be addressed at the time of the reformation. Nobody denies that. There were ABUSES. The abuses did not invalidate what was right and true about the faith and about the Church. Most of the Church remained under the Apostolic umbrella at the time, so you can hardly say that anybody was “forced” to separate unless he was a heretic.

You can’t partake of communion, not because you “honour God and revere His Word” but because you (or, more precisely, your tradition) reject important points of His Word.

I fail to understand your attitude that there is a ‘problem’ with closed communion. Why in the world would a Baptist WANT to receive Communion in the Catholic Church. Everything in Baptist theology rejects the very notion of the Catholic Sacrament – rejects the very idea of a Sacrament, rejects Holy Orders.

At what point in history did Baptists stop having closed communion? My guess it was some time in the mid-20th Century or later. Actually, I would be interested in knowing that.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I cannot agree to disagree as a Christian I have to give an answer to the hope that lies in me. I must stand up for truth. So please clarify, and please don’t be insulted I am serious as the Holy Word of God must be represented as such and not just opinion.
So it is blasphemy as you said or truth(which you must affirm) but we cannot agree to disagree which is why I asked you to state it is opinion, but that is to relegate scripture to just a suggestion and not really the Word of God.
(I really was just trying to illustrate the seriousness of the Scripture)

It’s getting late. I will try to answer your questions tomorrow. I wanted to comment on this though.

One can’t win with you people. I tried to be charitable and you come back for more. If you want me to be blunt I will. If you believe Mary was sinless you believe a heresy. You may not be doing it intentionally but you are nonetheless. The only sinless person was Jesus. That’s all there is to it. How can you blatantly mock his deity and assert that another human being was sinless? I have as much passion for the truth as you do but I tried to be courteous. And if you believe in the seriousness of Scripture you would reject that nonsense about Mary and you would reject any other authority but Scripture. Rant over.

 

[scylla]

I will make no more comments until you come back and make some comments.

Have a good night and it was enjoyable chatting with you.

May God Bless and keep you,
Scylla

 

[Mannyfit75]

**

It’s getting late. I will try to answer your questions tomorrow. I wanted to comment on this though.

One can’t win with you people. I tried to be charitable and you come back for more. If you want me to be blunt I will. If you believe Mary was sinless you believe a heresy. You may not be doing it intentionally but you are nonetheless. The only sinless person was Jesus. That’s all there is to it. How can you blatantly mock his deity and assert that another human being was sinless? I have as much passion for the truth as you do but I tried to be courteous. And if you believe in the seriousness of Scripture you would reject that nonsense about Mary and you would reject any other authority but Scripture. Rant over.**

It’s not heresy. You may see that the way, but we Catholics don’t, either do the early Christians. You might as well call the ECF heretics too because the believe Mary is sinless.

We don’t think we are mocking Jesus deity at all. In fact, God preserved Mary from sin and keep her immaculate from the moment of her conception. Thus God did saved her.

In the OT, the Ark is pure. Nothing can touch it or they will die. Mary is the New Ark, and when Joseph was told that her son is the Son of God, a Jew would not that touching a woman who have God in her womb would be discrete God himself. Protestants try to put the Bible in the modern context as it is see it today.

Catholics interpret the Bible in the context the Bible was written by the original writers.

Christians are not meant to interpret the Bible on their own. 2 Peter warns us against self interpretation of the Bible.

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.
But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory now and to the day of eternity. (Amen.) 2 Peter 3:15-18

As much as the idea of interpreting the Bible myself, I rather interpret it the way the Catholic Church interprets it, or else I put myself in error or heresy.

 

[Church_Militant]

One can’t win with you people.

That’s right the truth will not be denied, suppressed, or overcome.

I tried to be charitable and you come back for more.

What? We are supposed to just collapse and deny our most holy faith just because of your fallible and errant arguments against he truths that have been held by the original Christian church for 2,000 years? Just because you have a Bible and spout some verses we are supposed to accept what you tell us as gospel?

Do YOU accept everything that everyone who has a Bible in hand and preaches to you says? Obviously not… Why should I or any of us be any different than you are?

If you believe Mary was sinless you believe a heresy

Bunk. Can you prove to me from the Word of God that Mary sinned? Has a newborn infant sinned? Can a mental retard sin if he is 32 years old and has the capacity of a 5 year old child? How does your “All have sinned” apply to these cases?

You may not be doing it intentionally but you are nonetheless. The only sinless person was Jesus. That’s all there is to it.

I have a very close buddy who recently lost their 2 year old son to a congential disease, can you sit there at that keyboard and tell me that Romans 3:23 means that that child was not sinless? Yet your literalist interpretation that some preacher taught you says that that child did. Think about that. There is no way that that verse can apply to that child, can it?

Moreover, if we live without sin in our lives then by whose power is that accomplished? Not our own naturally. Then maybe you can begin to comprehend what the Greek really means when the angel says “Hail, full of grace”, which is a better translation of the text.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

(LINK)

How can you blatantly mock his deity and assert that another human being was sinless? I have as much passion for the truth as you do but I tried to be courteous.

No Catholic dares to mock the diety of Our Lord and you are wrong to assert that. I have already shown you that your interpretation of Romans 3:23 is fallacious.

You have no need or excuse to be discourteous to anyone here. You are welcome to your opinion regardless of my refutation of it. You need to back up and calm down and either deal with the facts or stay out of debates like this one because you seem to get offended that a Catholic would know the Word of God well enough to refute you when you put forth beliefs that are not supported by the Word of God without having to do theological and intellectual gymnastics to accept those interpretations. I know, I was non-Catholic for over 34 years. (Read my testimony).

And if you believe in the seriousness of Scripture you would reject that nonsense about Mary and you would reject any other authority but Scripture.

This is pretty much where you become offensive because you are frustrated that what you think is a great case is rejected and refuted by guys like me who have obeyed the New Testament injunction to." Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15) and have rejected the errors of Protestantism and other non-Catholic religions and can now explain and defend our Catholic faith as God Himself gives us the grace.

If you find all that frustrating then all I can say to you is the same thing that Our Lord said to St. Paul there on the Damascus Road. “And when we were all fallen down on the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me in the Hebrew tongue: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.” (Acts 26:14)
Pax tecum,

 

[Church_Militant]

" Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)

BTW, did you notice that St. Paul doesn’t tell Timothy to study just the Bible.
In fact he doesn’t specifiy at all.

Yet in other places he tells Timothy to keep to the traditions that have been passed down to him.

Sola Scriptura… the Bible alone… It’s just not there my friend.
Pax tecum,

 

[Mannyfit75]

Some Catholics don’t consider Protestants to be Christians. My mistake was to assume they all don’t.

That’s the first I heard. I know many Catholics do consider Protestant Christians. I do consider Protestants as Christians. They are like separated brothers and sisters in Christ. It is Christ that makes one a Christian.

As another Catholic Apologists here pointed out to you the Catechism of the Catholic Church do consider Christians not in communion with the Church in Rome as Christians.

I do however, heard that many Protestants do not consider us Catholics as Christians.

 

[Philthy]

Maybe it was pride.

Maybe, perhaps…most certainly the possibility exists if Im not mistaken. I guess we will never know…

hoosierdaddy:
But it was also a sense of humour. I suggest you buy one.

I’ll consider it - I suggest you grow up in the mean time. Dodging your error and then undermining the reverance that Catholics have for receiving Communion on an Apologetics forum isnt funny at all. And attempting to attribute it to my failings is juvenile.

hoosierdaddy:

You don’t know me from Adam. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong.

Just so we’re clear: are you saying that you weren’t wrong or that you admitted somewhere in your last post? I didnt see an admission anywhere. No doubt it’s my lack of humor which prevents me from seeing it.

hoosierdaddy:

I wasn’t introducing a new topic for debate Einstein. I was using my sense of humour. The topic was related though; if we are Christians as well, then according to our unity in Christ we are welcome to partake in communion at your church.

And how, exactly, is their humor in the fact that you disagree with the Catholic position on receiving Communion? Was it humorous like your insinuation above that I am stupid by calling me Einstein? Is that also your idea of inoffensive humor? I would love to hear that explanation from you or from anyone else that saw the humor in it.

hoosierdaddy:

As for my credibility you are hardly the judge of that.

I am the sole judge of your credibility as it pertains to my opinion of your writings - I didn’t mean to imply anything beyond that.

hoosierdaddy:

Oh yeah…I think it was your pride that lead you to respond the way you did.

I can respect that opinion as your own even if I dont understand the basis for your arriving at it. I perfectly willing to simply apologize for anything I said that offended you. I was simply pointing out that the method of communication that you used had the capability of appearing as someone who wasnt prepared to admit when they were wrong and was attempting a cheap shot instead of an apology. If I was mistaken in my assessment I apologize.

 

[ddmason]

“Trinity” found in scripture? The word “Trinity” may not be written in scriputre as a word but the divine nature of God as the Father, Son, and holy Spirit sure is and you can not argue it isn’t. My mother in law is a JW (God help her) and this is there stupid argument also. “Well, the word trinity isn’t in there, so…” Water for example has three states right? Water, vapor and gas but it is from one source. I am not sure how more elementary it can be when describing the Trinity.

Matt 28:19 “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit.”

What do you think Matt said here? Trinity means three as the Father is revealed to us through him, the Son, and the holy Spirit. It’s that simple. The holy Spirit is mentioned as “he” and “teaches”. It’s God given to us through the holy Spirit. Jesus could not be with us so he sent the holy Spirit to be with us unitil the Second Coming. What else would guide us?

 

[MariaG]

I am just marking this thread. I don’t think I “lost” it, but since I believe the moderators transferred one of my posts from a different thread here , I thought I should mark this thread and read it. No time now, just making a subscription.

Maria

 

[seek]

. . The only sinless person was Jesus. .

How 'bout Adam and Eve?

 

[ddmason]

Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

 

[mercygate]

“Trinity” found in scripture? The word “Trinity” may not be written in scriputre as a word but the divine nature of God as the Father, Son, and holy Spirit sure is and you can not argue it isn’t.

Co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial? If John Henry Newman could not demonstrate from Scripture alone that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person, I cannot imagine anybody else can either. We just assume that it’s there because we see the word “spirit” associated with God the Father – but nowhere is it shown in Scripture that the Spirit is a co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial Person. It doesn’t demonstrate that about Jesus either.

 

[MariaG]

Do YOU accept everything that everyone who has a Bible in hand and preaches to you says? Obviously not… Why should I or any of us be any different than you are?..
…

You have no need or excuse to be discourteous to anyone here. You are welcome to your opinion regardless of my refutation of it. You need to back up and calm down and either deal with the facts or stay out of debates like this one because you seem to get offended that a Catholic would know the Word of God well enough to refute you when you put forth beliefs that are not supported by the Word of God without having to do theological and intellectual gymnastics to accept those interpretations.

I know, I was non-Catholic for over 34 years. (Read my testimony).This is pretty much where you become offensive because you are frustrated that what you think is a great case is rejected and refuted by guys like me who have obeyed the New Testament injunction to." Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15) and have rejected the errors of Protestantism and other non-Catholic religions and can now explain and defend our Catholic faith as God Himself gives us the grace.

…

Pax tecum,

Hoosier,

I cut out much of Church Militant’s post, but I wish to highlight a few things.

And the first one is the point about scripture. God tells us to test the spirit. We should be like those who checked against scripture what Paul was teaching.

We have done that and continue to do that. We have scripture. We have interpretation of that scripture. Your interpretation disagrees with ours. So what are we to do?

Test the spirit. Pray for the leading of the Holy Spirit. Study the Scriptures. Study the writings of the Early Church and see who they agree with. They do not agree with you, so we reject your interpretation of scritpure. If you wish for us to reconsider, you need to bring more to the table than your own testimony but you also need to bring testimony from a source other than your own claims.

Many of us are reverts or converts. We came to the Catholic Church only after diligently studying scripture. It was through scripture, the Holy Spirit, and God’s grace that we were able to penetrate the lies of Satan about the teachings of the Catholic Church. To see reflected in scripture AND in the early writings of the Church the teachings of the Catholic Church.

It is interesting that most “ex-Catholics” freely admit they never “heard” the gospel while in the Catholic Church, never read the bible, never went to a bible study. Never had a relationship with Christ.

Yet those who used to be Protestant all claim to have had a vibrant and alive relationship with Christ, studied scripture and went to bible studies yet still became Catholic.

Many have claimed those here cradle, convert and revert are not your average Catholic. Maybe they are right. But what you will not find here are many Catholic Christians who do not read their bible, study diligently, and search the Scriptures.

Respectfully,
Maria

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Just so we’re clear: are you saying that you weren’t wrong or that you admitted somewhere in your last post? I didnt see an admission anywhere. No doubt it’s my lack of humor which prevents me from seeing it.

I did nothing wrong. If I had I would have acknowledged it.

Your lack of humour and your ultra-sensitivity with a dash of ignoring what I actually said, prevents you from seeing it.

You may respond however you wish. I am not in the mood to argue with you.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Hoosier,

I cut out much of Church Militant’s post, but I wish to highlight a few things.

And the first one is the point about scripture. God tells us to test the spirit. We should be like those who checked against scripture what Paul was teaching.

Amen! Yet, some would call me a heretic for doing that.

We have done that and continue to do that. We have scripture. We have interpretation of that scripture. Your interpretation disagrees with ours. So what are we to do?

Consider the possibility that you could be wrong?

Test the spirit. Pray for the leading of the Holy Spirit. Study the Scriptures. Study the writings of the Early Church and see who they agree with. They do not agree with you, so we reject your interpretation of scritpure. If you wish for us to reconsider, you need to bring more to the table than your own testimony but you also need to bring testimony from a source other than your own claims.

How do you know the early writings weren’t lies? Because in all honesty, the things some of you have come up with are so far from Christianity, they can’t be trustworthy. See my thread on purgatory and we’ll debate that I reject your interpretations because they disagree with Scripture. I do bring testimony from another source. The Bible. Please check out Psalm 119. I’m not so much trying to convert you to Protestantism. It is you that has to convince me. I am only defending my beliefs. You can disagree with them all you want, but you have to convince me that your beliefs are correct.

Many of us are reverts or converts. We came to the Catholic Church only after diligently studying scripture. It was through scripture, the Holy Spirit, and God’s grace that we were able to penetrate the lies of Satan about the teachings of the Catholic Church. To see reflected in scripture AND in the early writings of the Church the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I have a hard time accepting this when some of your beliefs are against Scripture. You’re not saying the reformers were spreading the lies of Satan are you?

It is interesting that most “ex-Catholics” freely admit they never “heard” the gospel while in the Catholic Church, never read the bible, never went to a bible study. Never had a relationship with Christ.

Is this something to be proud of?

Yet those who used to be Protestant all claim to have had a vibrant and alive relationship with Christ, studied scripture and went to bible studies yet still became Catholic.

They couldn’t handle the mocking and bullying perhaps?

Many have claimed those here cradle, convert and revert are not your average Catholic. Maybe they are right. But what you will not find here are many Catholic Christians who do not read their bible, study diligently, and search the Scriptures.

**And you will not find a Protestant who does not read their bible, study diligently, and search the Scriptures. **

Respectfully,
Maria

 

[Randy_Carson]

**

I have a hard time accepting this when some of your beliefs are against Scripture. You’re not saying the reformers were spreading the lies of Satan are you?

**

By leading people out of the ONLY Church founded by Jesus Christ? Yes, they absolutely taught lies. Here are a couple of quotes from Luther:

Against the Catholic Bishops **
“It were better that every bishop were murdered, every [monastery or convent] rooted out, that one soul should be destroyed … But if they will not hear God’s Word, but rage and rave with bannings and burnings, killings and every evil, what do they better deserve than a strong uprising which will sweep them from the earth? And we would smile did it happen. … All who contribute body, goods and honor that the rule of the bishops may be destroyed are God’s dear children and true Christians.” (from Against the Falsely Called Spiritual Order of the Pope and the Bishops)

Against the Jews
“Know, O adored Christ, and make no mistake, that aside from the Devil, you have no enemy more venomous, more desperate, more bitter, than a true Jew … let their synagogues be burned, their books confiscated, that they be forbidden to pray to God in their own way, and that they be made to work with their hands, or, better still, that the princes expel them from their lands, and that the authorities – magistrates as well as clergy – unite toward these ends.” (from Against the Jews and Their Lies)**

Nice guy, eh?