Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[Per_Crucem]

Lutherans are confessional otherwise they are not Lutherans. How is the full-communion or Lutherans and Anglicans [either Provoo Communion or Called to Common Mission] jettisoned our traditions?

The LWF is in fellowship with communions that not only deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, they exchange altars with them (PCUSA, RCA, UCC, etc); in fellowship with communions that deny that baptism gives life and the forgiveness of sins; it openly affirms that practicing homosexuals can minister the flock and even marry; denies the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ (in spe, if not in re; read the ELCA’s statements regarding salvation), et al.

No. I don’t want Rome to cave to the ELCA or any other liberal group of churches on anything. If you want to reunify with Catholics, then become Catholic and accept their teachings. I know all of that looks harsh, perhaps, to your eyes. The fact of the matter is, though, is that when liberal minded Christians start talking about the need to reunify with Rome, my radar goes off that what is really being said, is they want Rome to change the teachings of Christ on the role of women, life, and sexuality. All of which the Papacy teaches rightly and always will.

 

[PRmerger]

1. Sirach 3:3 states that “Those who honor their father atone for sins” While I there does not seem to be any problem from the verses before or after this, this verse appears to be saying that instead of begging God for forgiveness, I can simply do some good works and my sins will go away.
2. Another verse with a similar message is Sirach 3:30. It states “As water quenches a flaming fire, so almsgiving atones for sins.”

So what it appears that you are saying, Honorius, is that you have the message of the gospel from other sources (like Oral Tradition), and then that which conforms to this message ought to be included in the Bible.

Is that your position?

1. Tobit 8:2-3 seems to advocate magic/sorcery by the Angel Raphael telling Tobit to burn a fish liver and heart to drive away demons

So would it be acceptable to you to discard the books in the NT in which the early Christians seemed to be advocating magic/sorcery by touching the handkerchief of Peter, or walking where his shadow fell, in order to achieve a cure?

 

[PRmerger]

And they shouldn’t, either. I don’t want Roman Catholics to accept evangelical doctrine just for the sake of unity.

You are absolutely correct, Per Crucem. We should not vitiate truth for the sake of unity.

I want them to accept evangelical doctrine because they believe it.

This is similar to arguments presented in Monotheistic religious dialogue. Some Jews and Muslims may be encouraging us to deny our doctrines for the sake of union with them–after all, don’t we all believe in One God?

Of course, just as we Catholics tell the Muslims and Jews, “We embrace you where you have gotten it right–there is indeed only One God who is Creator of All–but we cannot forsake the truth of Christ for the sake of unity”…

…we also tell Protestants, “We embrace you where you have gotten it right–Jesus Christ did atone for our sins and the Bible is the Word of God–but we cannot forsake the truths of Catholicism for the sake of unity.”

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The LWF is in fellowship with communions that not only deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, they exchange altars with them (PCUSA, RCA, UCC, etc); in fellowship with communions that deny that baptism gives life and the forgiveness of sins; it openly affirms that practicing homosexuals can minister the flock and even marry; denies the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ (in spe, if not in re; read the ELCA’s statements regarding salvation), et al.

No. I don’t want Rome to cave to the ELCA or any other liberal group of churches on anything. If you want to reunify with Catholics, then become Catholic and accept their teachings. I know all of that looks harsh, perhaps, to your eyes. The fact of the matter is, though, is that when liberal minded Christians start talking about the need to reunify with Rome, my radar goes off that what is really being said, is they want Rome to change the teachings of Christ on the role of women, life, and sexuality. All of which the Papacy teaches rightly and always will.

Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, period! Yes, we invite other Christians who are baptized to receive Mass with us. Just because others may not believe exactly as Lutherans doesn’t mean that they are not Christians. I don’t know of any Lutheran who denies Baptism gives life and forgiveness. Lutherans and Catholics together declared our mutual belief on Justification, so I have no idea what you are referring to.

Women ordination and the application of the Gospel regarding same-sex marriage are issues that Lutherans/ Anglicans are bringing to the Roman Catholic Church. Francis has already stated that the Church can not be divisive; there are much more important issues we all face as Christians than to exclude and judge others.

 

[PRmerger]

Francis has already stated that the Church can not be divisive; there are much more important issues we all face as Christians than to exclude and judge others.

Then I assume that you will permit Muslims to read the Koran at your Lutheran services? Or do you exclude them?

The Catholic way is to welcome them to the Table, but to ask that they conform to Christianity.

 

[PRmerger]

The word, “Trinity” seems absurd if you have not read the Bible; but if one reads the Bible, one can understand it.

Absolutely not. One receives the dogma of the Trinity from the Church.

As the JWs will tell you, quite astutely, “If you were raised on a desert island and a Bible fell into your lap, you would never glean the dogma of the Trinity from reading it.”

And they are absolutely correct about this.

 

[cmodrmac]

Do you mean we don’t accept that in a general sense, or with respect to what Rome says about human sexuality?

I was referring to the general sense. Certainly the Episcopal Church is not bound by any Papal edict.

Article XIX in the Book of Common Prayer:
"As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome has erred, not only in their living and Matter of ceremonies , but also in matters of Faith

from 1789 version for USA

 

[Per_Crucem]

Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, period! Yes, we invite other Christians who are baptized to receive Mass with us. Just because others may not believe exactly as Lutherans doesn’t mean that they are not Christians. I don’t know of any Lutheran who denies Baptism gives life and forgiveness. Lutherans and Catholics together declared our mutual belief on Justification, so I have no idea what you are referring to.

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.

I don’t believe those who deny the efficacy of Baptism and the Supper are not Christians; but the fact remains that fellowshipping with them is an affirmation that their false doctrines about the Sacraments are just as acceptable as the doctrines affirmed in the Book of Concord. They’re not. They’re false doctrine. Affirming their false teaching vitiates and falsifies you’re own.

As for the mutual belief on justification; parse it as you will, but our doctrine and Rome’s doctrine are not equivalent. Roman Catholics know this. But I wasn’t talking about sola fide. I was referring to the LWF and other liberal church bodies universalism as it relates to salvation.

Women ordination and the application of the Gospel regarding same-sex marriage are issues that Lutherans/ Anglicans are bringing to the Roman Catholic Church. Francis has already stated that the Church can not be divisive; there are much more important issues we all face as Christians than to exclude and judge others.

He also made it clear that women will never be ordained. Nor will Catholics ever accept homosexual acts as anything other than intrinsically evil.

As for not being divisive, ““Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

We shouldn’t be divisive where there is no divide. But we must divide from sin.

 

[PRmerger]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/318/605/3a7.gif

Haha, ben! Well played! :bowdown:

 

[PRmerger]

This is a really good question, and it’s actually one of the factors that make it impossible for me to remain a non-Catholic Christian in good conscience. I am, if anything, more certain of the proposition “if Christianity is true, Catholicism is true” than I am of the proposition “Christianity is true.” The more initial assumptions one grants, the surer the following conclusions. So it’s often crossed my mind that if I were an agnostic considering Christianity, and acting as hesitantly (given the evidence presented to me) as I’ve done with regard to Catholicism, I would never become Christian.

The basic problem with answering your question is that I can’t put myself into circumstances radically other than my own. I can’t say what I would think if I were not brought up as a Christian. My very doubts about my faith are the doubts of someone who has tried since earliest memory to live as a Christian, to love God and neighbor, to believe in the Bible, etc. I can, however, look at other people who have become Christians. For instance, Bernard Nathanson seems to have become convinced that abortion was wrong on purely secular grounds, but this conviction eventually led him to Catholicism (this is the kind of thing I was talking about above when I spoke of explanatory power). Lewis (who admittedly was brought up Christian but then abandoned the Faith) was led back to Christianity by, among other things, his love of mythology, his experience trying to follow his conscience, his prior conversion to a form of Neo-Platonism, and the fact that he generally liked theistic books better than atheistic ones. (Lewis’s conversion story is, in my opinion, the classic case of an attempt to make a soft-rationalist process sound like something that fits hard rationalist criteria.) Conscience and Neo-Platonism were also important factors for St. Augustine, as of course was the influence of his mother. Dorothy Day experienced overwhelming gratitude at the birth of her daughter, and felt the need of someone to Whom she could offer that gratitude. A. N. Wilson returned to the faith because he found it hard to believe that Richard Dawkins had a more profound understanding of the universe than Bach (well, that’s my paraphrase–he might not put it that way).

I can read all of these accounts of folks who converted or reverted to Christian faith and say, “Yes, these are all factors that play a role for me too.” That’s as far as I can go, I think.

Edwin

'zactly.

And don’t forget Leah Libresco, an atheist whose conversion to Catholicism rocked the blogosphere.

Leah, prior to:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[benjohnson]

Haha, ben! Well played! :bowdown:

Thank you! I’m just a merge pawn compared to your royalty, dear Queen of CAF Moving Pictures

 

[Honorius]

Paul was talking about the Scriptures they had at the time, IOH - The Old Testament. And which Old Testament? Since about 70% of the quotes in the New Testament come from the Septuagint. In which case, not including the Deuterocanonical books would mean to take away some of the usefulness (Not self-sufficient, nor all encompassing) to teach, to refute, to correct, and righteousness training. Which would make these students, incompetent and ill-equipped for every good work.

Unless you can show how Paul included the 27 books of the New Testament when he wrote this?

There is another passage where God breathes in the New Testament:

John 20:19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

In this case, God gives the authority to forgive sins to the Apostles.

So leaving out the Apocrypha would make someone ill equipped for every good work? I would say many protestants are proof of this not being true. Not too long ago there was a thread of lamentation about how protestants know their Bible better than Catholics.

About which Old Testament, I would say we should use whatever was used by the Jewish community at the time. Even the introduction in my NAB-RE Bible to most of the Apocryphal books say that although Jews and Protestants do not view them as canon, the Catholic Church does.

The information about the New Testament does not seem to be speaking about the Apocrypha and appears to be irrelevant. It would be relevant in answering other posters about the topic perhaps.:compcoff:

 

[LionHeart777]

So leaving out the Apocrypha would make someone ill equipped for every good work? I would say many protestants are proof of this not being true. Not too long ago there was a thread of lamentation about how protestants know their Bible better than Catholics.

About which Old Testament, I would say we should use whatever was used by the Jewish community at the time. Even the introduction in my NAB-RE Bible to most of the Apocryphal books say that although Jews and Protestants do not view them as canon, the Catholic Church does.

The information about the New Testament does not seem to be speaking about the Apocrypha and appears to be irrelevant. It would be relevant in answering other posters about the topic perhaps.:compcoff:

Just fyi,

The Jews post Ascension of Christ closed their Canon of the Bible; it also did not include the NT. This was perhaps in the 2nd century or sometime after the destruction of the Temple. The Jews at the time of Christ didn’t have a fixed Canon, as one can clearly see when comparing the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the latter only accepting the Pentateuch.

As far as Christians, Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christian Bibles contain the Deuterocanonical Books (all together, about 75% of the Christians on the earth.)

Your post seemed to paint the picture that Catholics were the “odd one’s out”, when actually, among Christians, those Protestants who reject the Deuteros stand alone in doing so.

 

[Jaberwocky]

So leaving out the Apocrypha would make someone ill equipped for every good work? I would say many protestants are proof of this not being true. Not too long ago there was a thread of lamentation about how protestants know their Bible better than Catholics.

About which Old Testament, I would say we should use whatever was used by the Jewish community at the time. Even the introduction in my NAB-RE Bible to most of the Apocryphal books say that although Jews and Protestants do not view them as canon, the Catholic Church does.

The information about the New Testament does not seem to be speaking about the Apocrypha and appears to be irrelevant. It would be relevant in answering other posters about the topic perhaps.:compcoff:

Protestants know their Bible = they know what they think it says. With respect to how much they actually know, they aren’t fairing better than the average Catholic who doesn’t get himself informed.

 

[Honorius]

The definition of Consubstantiation per Martin Luther: “The doctrine, proposed by Martin Luther, that the substance of the body and blood of Jesus coexists with the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist”.

Honorius, tell me where in John 6: do you read Jesus Christ say that His Flesh the bread of Heaven “COEXISTS” with Earthly Bread? Read it for yourself John 6: 41The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 42And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? 43Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. 44No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. 45It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me. 46Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 54He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

Honorius, Where do you read “COEXIST”? What Martin Luther did is exactly what Jews did and thats “murmuring” their own thoughts re: Jesus Christ’s Flesh.

Believing in Transubstantiation verse Consubstantiation takes more faith / Grace form God to believe in. If Jesus told the Jews that He coexists with the earthly bread, it will be more believable to the Jews who left and to them they would believe that Jesus CHrist was speaking in a spiritual sense. But these Jews knew exactly what Jesus Christ meant and so they left Him.

The Jew said: “How can this man give us His Flesh to Eat”. Or in other words the Jews are also saying, how can earthly bread become 100% Heavenly Bread / His Flesh! Honorius, where is the coexist here? I tell you, it is Nowhere to be found. Amen

Honorius, So at the end I ask you where do you want to stand / believe in Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation? It Is Jesus CHrist to decide who would be lost or saved! If you answer Transubstantiation that you believe in, which I pray you do, then you have answered your own question without knowing it or if you believe in consubstantiation then it is only a spiritual communion you receive.

First of all I would argue that the quote from John is not referring to Eucharist, communion, Lords Supper, or whatever else you want to call it.

Honorius, " i, i, i," theres the i’s, the pride I told you would see in yourself .

First of all, I do not get how I= pride. (Oh, wait, did it again. ) Simply stating why I (dang it!!!) believe something does not equate to pride. I quote the character Inigo, from the movie The Princess Bride when I say “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

On to why I do not join the Roman Catholic Church. I stated that in my previous post that the Apocryphal books accepted as being in the Old Testament by the Roman Catholic Church is the primary reason I do not go and become a member. I do not believe, however, that they should be forgotten completely. The Anglican Communion has it right when the 6th article of religion states: And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine. They should be included in an appendix of sorts at the end of the Old Testament.

The first I refers to a previous post made by Honorius. The second also refers to said post. The third I refers to the stumbling blocks that keep Honorius from joining the Roman Catholic Church. In the fourth I, Honorius refers to his approval for the sixth Anglican article of faith.

There you have it.

 

[Brandall]

1. Tobit 8:2-3 seems to advocate magic/sorcery by the Angel Raphael telling Tobit to burn a fish liver and heart to drive away demons

These should be enough to start a good discussion. I will post some more tomorrow hopefully. :compcoff:

Numbers 21:8
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
8 And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.”

There are many things in the bible that seem odd. If you need more examples, there are many.

 

[Honorius]

Just fyi,

The Jews post Ascension of Christ closed their Canon of the Bible; it also did not include the NT. This was perhaps in the 2nd century or sometime after the destruction of the Temple. The Jews at the time of Christ didn’t have a fixed Canon, as one can clearly see when comparing the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the latter only accepting the Pentateuch.

As far as Christians, Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christian Bibles contain the Deuterocanonical Books (all together, about 75% of the Christians on the earth.)

Your post seemed to paint the picture that Catholics were the “odd one’s out”, when actually, among Christians, those Protestants who reject the Deuteros stand alone in doing so.

Well, in a way the Catholics are the “odd ones out” so to speak. The other churches that accept the Apocrypha accept more books than the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Honorius]

Numbers 21:8
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
8 And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.”

There are many things in the bible that seem odd. If you need more examples, there are many.

That is true. However, If God says to do something, it would technically be correct. If an angel (In this case Tobiah did not know it was Raphael at the time, but let’s go with it), is it correct?

Also, thank you for responding to the supposed errors in the books themselves. I think you are the first to do so.

 

[LionHeart777]

Well, in a way the Catholics are the “odd ones out” so to speak. The other churches that accept the Apocrypha accept more books than the Roman Catholic Church.

I’m not following… unless it’s just a joke (hence the grin).

But in case not, your post made it seem like we were unique in accepting the Deuteros. I was saying no, actually among Christians it’s those who reject them who are unique (in that regard.) I am aware that Orthodox Bibles are larger…

But they are not all the same… for example, the Ethiopians have the largest Bible.

 

[LionHeart777]

I would assume you are talking about the fact that I cannot know whether these are 100% correct or not.There are many ways in which that these things could be wrong. Texts get corrupted, parts get left out, and some things are lost forever. It is impossible for us humans to get inside the mind of God, but is this really something that a loving God would do? After all as Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

According to this verse we should understand that the Bible as available to us today is complete enough for us to be equipped for every good work. As for the Bible, I would say that would fall under the issue of what should and should not be in the canon of the Bible. I have said I am not an expert and am not able to effectively discuss the issue. (On a side note I think I will look into the issue).

And now for the fun part. A whole comprehensive list would take some time to type up, so I will have to be content with only a few examples to get started.

1. Sirach 3:3 states that “Those who honor their father atone for sins” While I there does not seem to be any problem from the verses before or after this, this verse appears to be saying that instead of begging God for forgiveness, I can simply do some good works and my sins will go away.
2. Another verse with a similar message is Sirach 3:30. It states “As water quenches a flaming fire, so almsgiving atones for sins.”
3. Tobit 8:2-3 seems to advocate magic/sorcery by the Angel Raphael telling Tobit to burn a fish liver and heart to drive away demons

These should be enough to start a good discussion. I will post some more tomorrow hopefully. :compcoff:

I’ll take a stab at these.

Regarding #'s 1-2, I would argue that you are having an issue with these verses due to having a misconception about sins and the effects of sin. It may help to look at the Catholic distinction between the eternal punishment due to sin and the temporal.

These verses remind me of the saying in the NT that, “8 But before all things have constant mutual charity among yourselves: *for charity covereth a multitude of sins.” (I Peter 4:8) (Emphasis mine)

Regarding #3, I’ll cite Haydock’s Catholic Commentary on Tobit 8:2:

“Ver. 2. Bag, (cassidili) resembling a wallet or pannier, for provisions. (Calmet) — Liver. (Chap. vi. 8.) This mystically represented the Passion of Christ, by which the devil is expelled from men’s hearts. (St. Augustine, ser. 28, de Sanct.; Prosper, promis. ii. c. 39.) (Worthington) — Greek, “and he took the ashes of incense, and placed thereon the heart of the fish and the liver, causing them to smoke. And when the devil perceived the odour, he fled to the highest parts of Egypt, and the angel bound him,” (Haydock) confining his malice to those deserts. Jesus Christ insinuates that the devil walks through dry places, Matthew xii. 24. The angel was not seen to absent himself: (Calmet) — This country was chosen as being very remote from Media. (Houbigant) — It was afterwards sanctified by the presence of many Christian solitaries. (Haydock) — Our adversaries laugh at this account. But surely Christ has used similar expressions of binding the devil, who cannot molest people, when he is not present; (Houbigant) or do any thing without the divine permission, chap. vi. 17. (Haydock)”

Source: haydock1859.tripod.com/id603.html

Now I’ll go back to the commentary on 6:8, where the Angel tells Tobit to do this:

"Ver. 8. Its heart, &c. The liver, (ver. 19.) God was pleased to give to these things a virtue against those proud spirits, to make them, who affected to be like the Most High, subject to such mean corporeal creatures, as instruments of his power. (Challoner) — God sometimes makes use of things as remedies which have, naturally, a different effect; as when Christ put clay on the eyes of the blind man, John ix. The things which the angel ordered were salutary, by God’s appointment. (Worthington) — They could not act directly upon a spirit: but they might upon the person troubled by one, as Saul was relieved by music. (Calmet, Diss.) — The smoke was a sign of the devil’s expulsion, and of the efficacy of prayer; or rather, God subjected the proud spirits to such weak elements. (Serarius, q. 3.) (Menochius) — Greek, “and he said to him, respecting the heart and liver, if any demon or wicked spirit be troublesome, make these smoke before a man or a woman, and the person shall be troubled no longer.”

Source: haydock1859.tripod.com/id601.html