Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[pocohombre]

So really no changes

Well, that is in the eye of the beholder.You have heard it said to submit to the Pope, but I would also say let everyone submit one to another in love. You have heard it said thou shalt not make a schism, yet I would also say pacify those that contend in love.You have heard it said confess to your priest but I say also confess your faults one to another and build each other up for Christ is in all brother sand sisters.You have heard it said that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, but I would also say whoever says Christ came in the flesh, died and rose for us is born of God. You have heard it said to venerate Mary highly but I would also say whoever does the will of the Father is Jesus’s mother.You have heard it said to honor your bishop and teachers but know this also, for He has not put in us a spirit of fear but of power and an unction to know all things. You have heard it said to work out your salvation in fear and trembling, to persevere, but I would also say nothing can pull you out of his loving hand and you have been predestined to do good works since before the foundation of the earth.You have heard it said to hold on the traditions handed down from the apostles but I would also say to keep His commandments, as many as have been written…It’s all the same right?

 

[PRmerger]

It extends the authority the to the church to proclaim forgiveness to the penitent person.

And don’t forget that it also extends the authority to the Church to retain men’s sins.

Are you comfortable with this authority, Mlon? Do you feel that your church elders would have the authority to retain your sins, should you confess your sins to them (as is instructed to do in the Bible)?

 

[Mlon]

Unless I missed it, you haven’t offered an explanation of John 20:23. What if an apostle did not forgive the sins of an individual?

Actually I have responded to this a few posts back. Again, Jesus gives the early Apostles the commission to spread His gospel, which includes the ability to remit sins. It doesn’t; however, establish a system in which one has to profess to a priest as a condition for salvation. I have provided more than one example that indicates otherwise.

 

[Mlon]

I have had so many responses to my posts it’s hard to keep up. I am afraid in all of the back and forth my point regarding confession may have gotten lost. Clearly the Christian faith is based on confession both public and personal. Public confession is obviously biblical. John the Baptist preached public repentance. When Jesus started His ministry not only did people public confess He forgave them of their trespasses. This continued throughout the early church. In fact, many evangelical and even Protestant church have alter calls in which people publicly come forth to renounce their sins and accept Jesus Christ. There are also many example of seeking the council of godly men to confess sins. With that said clearly the bible also has numerous examples of people who confess personally. In fact, you can find examples that go back early in the Old Testament of personal confession.

With all of that said the examples that stepping into a confessional on a continuing basis for salvation are weak at best. For every example presented I have provided alternate interpretations. Clearly there are bigger things at play here than the bible. Things like tradition and doctrine established by the church. The bottom line if one feels they need to confess to a priest than by all means do it. However, I have difficulties when people say the reason the RC church is losing members is because of a fear of the confessional. The problem with RC church is more deeper than a fear of confessing to a priest.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I will offer the same challenge you have presented to me, although unless I am missing your point I thought I answered, can you provide scriptural evidence my soul is lost unless I confess my sins to a priest. That’s what this whole discussion is about. I said the message of the bible is the relational nature between us and God. One cannot argue that the bible is God revealing Himself to a fallen humanity to establish a relationship with them. If it’s not, then please explain it to me so I can learn.

I’ll take a crack at your challenge.

Would you agree that sin not only offends God but also creates damage to the relationship that the sinner has with other believers, the body of Christ? If so, would it be important for the sinner to be reconciled to both God and the Church?

In the Gospel of Luke, we read the following:

11 Now on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled along the border between Samaria and Galilee. 12 As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy[a] met him. They stood at a distance 13 and called out in a loud voice, “Jesus, Master, have pity on us!” 14 When he saw them, he said, “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went, they were cleansed (Luke 17:11-14)

While this passage is normally used to teach about the one leper who turned back to thank Jesus for healing him, I want to concentrate on the role of the priest in this story.

The Jews considered leprosy and other infirmities such as blindness, lameness, etc. to be a sign of sin on the part of the individual or the individual’s parents. That belief, however, is not the key to understanding confession. Rather, it is the fact that Jesus told the lepers to present themselves to the priests for confirmation of their healing. This confirmation by the priests in the temple was required before the lepers would be allowed to return to normal life within the community. Without this recognition, the lepers would have to remain separated from everyone else.

Similarly, sin, serious sin, cuts the sinner off from God and from the Body of Christ, which is the Church. By presenting oneself to the priest who recognizes the healing that has occurred through repentance, the sinner is restored to full communion with the Church.

Now, to your challenge: “Can you provide scriptural evidence my soul is lost unless I confess my sins to a priest?”

If you have not committed a mortal sin that cuts you off from the grace of God and the Church, then your soul will not be lost. Venial sins do not require confession. However, if you have committed a mortal sin, then it is normatively necessary for you to confess that sin to a priest as evidence of your repentance and contrition. The priest, acting in the person of Christ (and with the authority to forgive sins granted to the Church by Jesus in passages already known to you), absolves you of that sin restoring you to full communion with God and the Church.

Would your soul be lost otherwise? Well, since you are a Protestant and (until now) ignorant of these things, I cannot say for sure. I trust in the mercy of God for your sake.

But now that you know the truth (or have at least heard of it even if you don’t accept it), the bar has been raised, and you may be held to a higher standard.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The problem with RC church is more deeper than a fear of confessing to a priest.

I am interested in hearing what you think the problem is. Perhaps you can start a thread on this topic. I’m sure many of us would like to learn more of your thoughts.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Confession and Forgiveness of Sin via the Priesthood Proved from Scripture

Some people object to the Sacrament of Reconciliation (commonly called “Confession”) on the basis that they only need to confess their sins directly to God rather than to a priest. Is this perspective correct? Let’s see what the Bible has to say.

Leviticus 5:5-6
5 " 'When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned 6 and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

Notice that the Word of God says, “the priest shall make atonement.” Clearly in the Old Testament, the priesthood existed to offer sacrifices and make atonement for the sins committed by the people. Does this idea continue in the New Testament?

Hebrews 10:1
1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.

Here the author of Hebrews instructs us that the Old Testament prefigures and foreshadows New Testament truths; the Old is revealed more fully in the New. This seems to suggest that the role of the priest (ie, making atonement) as described in Leviticus should reveal something to us about the New Testament priesthood. So, what does the New Testament teach us about confession of sin?

1 John 1:9
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

We should confess our sins, and God will forgive us, but do we confess our sins to God alone? No!

James 5:13-16
13 Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. 14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.

Here the word of God tells us to call the elders (the Greek word is presbuteroi, or “presbyter”, from which the English word “priest” is derived). So, in this context, James is telling us to send for the priests who will pray over someone who is sick, and if he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Recalling the passage from Leviticus above, we see there is a strong parallel between the priests of the Old Testament who made atonement for sin and the presbyters or priests of the New Testament to whom we confess sins for forgiveness. But this sounds like blasphemy! Can men really forgive sins? This same question is asked in the New Testament.

Mark 2:5-7
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Who can forgive sins but God alone? This question is often asked by those who seek to deny the sacrament of confession. However, note that this question is asked by the scribes who did not accept Jesus. Those who quote this passage find themselves on the side of those who rejected the Messiah. There’s more to the story, however; let’s consider the same incident from the book of Matthew.

Matthew 9:1-7
1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!” 4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

The Bible teaches that God had given the authority to forgive sins “to men”. Note that this is not “to a man” but “to men” – plural. So, it is not only Jesus who has authority to forgive sins – “men” have this authority, also. This sounds like a “hard teaching”…is there confirmation of this in the Bible?

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

John 20:21-23
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

How did God send Jesus into the world? With the authority to forgive sins as we saw in Matthew 9:6. How does Jesus send the Apostles? In the same way that the Father had sent Him…with the authority to forgive sins as we have just seen in John 20:23. How could the Apostles obey the commandment of Jesus to forgive sins unless they heard these sins confessed? Thus, scripture records that people did confess their sins aloud.

Acts 19:18 (New International Version)
18Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds.

Finally, we find that the Apostle Paul himself forgave the sins of others acting in persona Christi or “in the person of Christ” – just as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the sacrament of reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 2:10
10To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (KJV)

And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. (Douay Rheims)

Can we go directly to God for the forgiveness of our sins? Of course, but the scriptures just presented suggest that the normative means of forgiveness is by confession to a priest, and while it is true that only God can forgive sins, the Bible teaches that He has chosen to do so through the ordained priesthood and the Sacrament of Reconciliation that He Himself instituted.

 

[Porknpie]

Hi PastorVW -

1. The Old Testament, which Christ quoted from so frequently, was in place.

No not quite. What defined the OT in the time of Christ? The Jews themselves did not agree on the canon of OT scripture. There was not agreement on 39 or 46 books. But the Apostles used the Septuagint…inclusive of the Deuteocanonical’s. Through the apostolic faith handed on, that’s how the Church recognized 46 OT books in 400ad. Catholic East, West and Orthodox have held to this for nearly 1,600 years…Why do Protestants use only 39 books…by what authority? You do know that the original King James Version had all 46 books…

1. There is strong internal evidence in NT Scripture that written accounts of Christ’s teaching circulated before the Gospels were complied.

True. Actually, there were a many written accounts and when the Church compiled the Canon (to have a universal set of readings for Mass), there were 300+ NT writings and they determined through God’s help that only 27 were inspired and inerrant.

1. We take the promise of Christ to lead the Apostles into “all truth” to bestow upon them unique authority to write the Scriptures AND to establish and teach the early Church. In short, the authors were there so they could teach the content directly.

Christ promised to lead this Church to all Truth and he was speaking to his first Bishops, the apostles. Leading his Church to all Truth on the canon of scripture for sure, but also on faith and morals. That’s the paradox isn’t it for you implicitly recognize that Catholic Church being infallible on determining the canon of scripture but not on faith and morals. If the Catholic Church can error on the latter, you can not trust the bible that you have is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. Also…per your note above, not all the authors were apostles.

As I mentioned in my original post, the church was collectively entrusted with the preservation of Scripture. The first generation of believers knew very well what book and letters were authentic, and which were not.

I believe the bible only records St Peter as referring to St. Paul’s writings as scripture. I’m not sure what you mean by authentic but clearly, there were a great number of writings (~300 or so) and confusion as to what was scripture. Some believed the Didache was scripture, some didn’t believe Revelation was scripture. No consensus until the Catholic Church pronounced the canon.

This was passed down through the successive generations of Christians.

That’s very Catholic. Tradition at Work.

Logically, the task actually became easier with time, as someone presenting an epistle, in say 200AD, that no Christian had ever heard of, was highly unlikely to be widely accepted. It is also likely to contain doctrine inconsistent with the book and letters known to be authentic.

Yes, the Catholic Church used the lens of Apostolic Origin (by an apostle or by someone who accompanied an apostle), Universal Use in the Liturgy of the Church and that it did not conflict with the apostolic faith.

As I am sure you know, at the point when the Cannon of Scripture was established the Church was very careful - only accepting works known to be authentic (Revelation was nearly left out out of an abundance of caution). At this point the Cannon had already been established in practice - the church only recognized it formally.

The Catholic Church did so…yes but there was not universal agreement on all the writings in the Canon until the Council of Rome in 382, affirmed by the Synod of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397. Do you have a source that says otherwise?

Let me be rabbinical and answer a question with a question: When were these seven books canonized? This answers the question for me… these books were known when the Cannon of Scripture was established.

It sure did. However, remember that they were inserted between the Old and New Testament. The fact that the KJV included them does not prove inspiration - because Protestants at the time considered them to be uninspired, yet still valuable.* “Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” Martin Luther *

Pastor, so by what authority were 7 books said to be not inspired, not inerrant. You are believing a reformer 1,100 years after the Catholic Church determined that there were 73 books. Which is closer in time to Christ and the apostles. This is where reason breaks down in protestant thought: Christ led his Church to error for 1,100 years despite his saying he would lead it to all Truth. If the Church got it wrong on those 7 books, neither can you trust that it got it right on the 27 in the NT.

Good arguments can be made on both sides of this issue. In deference to this, we let parents decide. I have Baptized infants, but we dedicated our kids, all of whom have since come to faith and been baptized.

Again, reason breaks down in protestant thought. Can you show me any writings in the early Church that speaks to delaying baptism to the age of reason. Quite the opposite, the Church debated whether to baptize on the day of birth, the second day or the 8th day in keeping with circumcision. Baptizing to the age of reason is not biblical nor is it found anywhere in Tradition.

Reason from scripture alone. This holds true unless you want to argue that infants are not members of a household. If they are not, what are they?

Whole households were baptized.
Infants are members of a household.
Therefore…infants where baptized.

Continued…soon.

Charity,

PnP

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am a bit less put off, because as Wesleyans we believe that Scripture contains everything need for salvation, but not everything of value in guiding Christian belief. In regards to “essential to salvation” - think of the Catholic standard for determining if a group is Christian or not… In our view, Scripture has the higher authority and may correct anything below. Below Scripture - on equal levels - are reason and tradition. At the bottom is experience, which may be corrected by all three, Thus, I have often warned my flock (before I retired), that if someone says, “I have a new teaching from Scripture that no one has ever seen before” to not believe it - because if no one has ever seen it in 2,000 years, it almost certainly isn’t there. Yet, because we find place for tradition we value such things as the Apostle’s Creed.

As Jesus said, “You are not far from the Kingdom of God.”

The distinction you make can be described, I think, by the concept of formal v. material sufficiency of scripture. Catholics hold that scripture is materially sufficient - everything we need is in there - but we do not always understand or interpret scripture correctly.

Scripture holds the place of primacy, but we need Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Church to help us interpret the Word of God properly.

 

[Mlon]

I’ll take a crack at your challenge.

Would you agree that sin not only offends God but also creates damage to the relationship that the sinner has with other believers, the body of Christ? If so, would it be important for the sinner to be reconciled to both God and the Church?

In the Gospel of Luke, we read the following:

11 Now on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled along the border between Samaria and Galilee. 12 As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy[a] met him. They stood at a distance 13 and called out in a loud voice, “Jesus, Master, have pity on us!” 14 When he saw them, he said, “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went, they were cleansed (Luke 17:11-14)

While this passage is normally used to teach about the one leper who turned back to thank Jesus for healing him, I want to concentrate on the role of the priest in this story.

The Jews considered leprosy and other infirmities such as blindness, lameness, etc. to be a sign of sin on the part of the individual or the individual’s parents. That belief, however, is not the key to understanding confession. Rather, it is the fact that Jesus told the lepers to present themselves to the priests for confirmation of their healing. This confirmation by the priests in the temple was required before the lepers would be allowed to return to normal life within the community. Without this recognition, the lepers would have to remain separated from everyone else.

Similarly, sin, serious sin, cuts the sinner off from God and from the Body of Christ, which is the Church. By presenting oneself to the priest who recognizes the healing that has occurred through repentance, the sinner is restored to full communion with the Church.

Now, to your challenge: “Can you provide scriptural evidence my soul is lost unless I confess my sins to a priest?”

If you have not committed a mortal sin that cuts you off from the grace of God and the Church, then your soul will not be lost. Venial sins do not require confession. However, if you have committed a mortal sin, then it is normatively necessary for you to confess that sin to a priest as evidence of your repentance and contrition. The priest, acting in the person of Christ (and with the authority to forgive sins granted to the Church by Jesus in passages already known to you), absolves you of that sin restoring you to full communion with God and the Church.

Would your soul be lost otherwise? Well, since you are a Protestant and (until now) ignorant of these things, I cannot say for sure. I trust in the mercy of God for your sake.

But now that you know the truth (or have at least heard of it even if you don’t accept it), the bar has been raised, and you may be held to a higher standard.

Again, with all due respect you offer a passage that is a weak support of the tradition of walking into a a confessional. Jesus was instructing the leper to do so as prescribed through the law handed down to Moses. Also if you read my post before yours you will see public confession is clearly biblical. However, as I also state above there are examples of people in scripture who’s sin were forgiven through personal confession also. Like I stated in a previous post what if I was lost on a deserted island with no way of confessing to a priest? Based on your premise I would be lost even if I accepted Jesus and repented. Trust me I consider myself a student of the truth and if what is presented passes the test of scripture then I’m for it. So far no one has been able to pass that test.

 

[Porknpie]

Again, with all due respect you offer a passage that is a weak support of the tradition of walking into a a confessional. Jesus was instructing the leper to do so as prescribed through the law handed down to Moses. Also if you read my post before yours you will see public confession is clearly biblical. However, as I also state above there are examples of people in scripture who’s sin were forgiven through personal confession also. Like I stated in a previous post what if I was lost on a deserted island with no way of confessing to a priest? Based on your premise I would be lost even if I accepted Jesus and repented. Trust me I consider myself a student of the truth and if what is presented passes the test of scripture then I’m for it. So far no one has been able to pass that test.

Where in scripture does it say that the Christian faith is contained only in scripture? If you can find it… likewise, I’m all for it. What scripture says, the words of St. Paul…says to hold fast to what has been taught both by word and letter.

PnP

 

[Porknpie]

PastorVW -

Continuing.

Not me!!! I do not see how anyone can argue this from the Scripture…

Are you referring to both symbolic baptism and a symbolic Eucharist? You can only receive the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist through a Church having valid apostolic succession (through Bishops).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

They would argue this from Scripture [my insert: baptism only by immersion, OSAS], but I believe that the agreement clearly fails. These were at least minority views prior to the reformation.

Agreed. Clearly when one removes the bible from the one faith that produced it, one can come up with a lot of man-made doctrines.

Pure bunk [my insert: the Rapture] . Not taught by anyone before 1830. In conflict with Scripture. I therefore reject it. I find it ironic that those who hold so tightly to Sola Scriptura hold this highly questionable doctrine.

Not totally sure what you mean by this [my insert: the invisible Church] - but if you are talking about the universal church, composed of all baptized believers, then - at least to some degree - the Catholic Church holds this view. I certainly hold it, based upon Scripture.

Christ established a Church upon which St. Peter is the rock, singular. The bible clearly states a church, not churches. This Church has the ability to bind and loosen on earth what is bound and loosen in heaven. Do you as a Pastor have the ability to do this? Scripture is also clear, the words of Christ are clear than he intends for one Church as he prays for unity like the Father and Son are in unity. And he promised, and has kept his promise, to lead his Church to all Truth, protecting it on faith and morals until the end of the age.

I would not say this [my insert: sola scriptura] is rooted in tradition.

True. Only since the reformation. Little t, not found in T, the teachings handed down by the apostles as Christ himself never told anyone to write anything down.

I would say that Sola Scriptura is supported by sound reasoning PROVIDED that it is limited to matters essential to salvation.

And where is that reasoning found in the bible?

My belief is simply that all doctrines of such importance should be found in Scripture AND be supported by a preponderance of the Scriptural evidence.

Understand, that is your faith tradition, it is your opinion, but scripture itself does not says this. Catholics however do believe scripture is materially sufficient in including everything that we need to know for our salvation. ** See the link here for more.**

Would such teaching not be found in the Scriptures? Would they have been so careless as to not record it for future generations?

Lots of ways to answer this. If scripture was so clear, there would not be 40,000 protestant denominations, each believing something different, all reading the same 66 books of their bible. The Doctrine of the Trinity is not clear in scripture. The word Trinity does not appear anywhere. Scripture does not say what books are even scripture…etc.

I can understand why you would take that position, given your beliefs. My response is as follows:

1. The Apostolic faith is logically contained in the Scriptures.

Yes but not all of it.

1. The fact that the Church guarded, protected and authenticated the Scriptures in no way proves that the Church as equal authority to Scripture.

OK but keep in mind that the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church. 1 Timothy 3:15. Christ established a Church and is leading to all truth including answering the questions of “What is Scripture” and “How should scripture be interpreted”.

5 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

from the catechism below

103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.66

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”.67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68

PnP

 

[M1Garand]

The biggest stumbling block to so called Protestants is simple, they are taught and believe that the Catholic Church is illegitimate and pagan. The body of true believers were some how silenced by Constantine and the Pope who saw the Church as a vector of power and control. They parrot old anti-Christian attacks first leveled by the Jews then repeated through out history. They do not view Catholics as Christians or saved and therefore our entire structure is invalid and evil. This position is now repeated ad nauseam by the modern Dawkins Atheist. They are thoroughly ignorant of the early Church fathers. Their understanding of early Christianity starts at Luther or the Luther portrayed in the anglophilic history taught at least in most secular and in some respects Catholic schools. Most do not even know what Luther believed rather they rely solely on what their local popes aka pastors tell them the bible says they should believe. Therefore, I am cynical. I do not believe any Protestant will even attempt to consider the Church unless grace so moves them. Nothing I say will bring them to the faith.

I am a Catholic who grew up in the south and I have heard it all. But the worst was taught to me in my Catholic school religion class. I am 43 and just now am starting to understand not only my faith but the depth of the perversions spewed about the Church of Jesus Christ.

I am a bit bitter I am also now militantly Catholic. Praise the living Lord Jesus Christ!

 

[JonNC]

=M1Garand;11296519]The biggest stumbling block to so called Protestants is simple,

What is a “so called” protestant?

they are taught and believe that the Catholic Church is illegitimate and pagan. The body of true believers were some how silenced by Constantine and the Pope who saw the Church as a vector of power and control.

Cradle Lutheran. I was not taught this, nor did I ever hear this is Catechetical Class. As someone who weekly confesses the creeds of the Church, your above scenario is impossible for me.

They parrot old anti-Christian attacks first leveled by the Jews then repeated through out history.

I don’t even know what these would be.

They do not view Catholics as Christians or saved and therefore our entire structure is invalid and evil.

Sorry. Not true. It may be true of some, but certainly not by all. Not by Lutherans.

This position is now repeated ad nauseam by the modern Dawkins Atheist. They are thoroughly ignorant of the early Church fathers.

I don’t know about Dawkins Atheists, but Lutherans know the ECF’s well. At least our theologians and clergy do.

Their understanding of early Christianity starts at Luther or the Luther portrayed in the anglophilic history taught at least in most secular and in some respects Catholic schools.

Most protestants have no connection to Luther…

Most do not even know what Luther believed rather they rely solely on what their local popes aka pastors tell them the bible says they should believe.

…and don’t care what he believed.

Therefore, I am cynical. I do not believe any Protestant will even attempt to consider the Church unless grace so moves them. Nothing I say will bring them to the faith.

Well, certainly this post won’t.

I am a Catholic who grew up in the south and I have heard it all. But the worst was taught to me in my Catholic school religion class. I am 43 and just now am starting to understand not only my faith but the depth of the perversions spewed about the Church of Jesus Christ.

Honestly, I don’t think what you’ve said above is what the Catholic Church teaches about non-Catholics.

**
I am a bit bitter** I am also now militantly Catholic. Praise the living Lord Jesus Christ!

A bit?

Sincerely, may that same living Lord Jesus Christ grant you peace from your bitterness.
Not nearly all of us are as you have sadly experienced.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Where in scripture does it say that the Christian faith is contained only in scripture? If you can find it… likewise, I’m all for it. What scripture says, the words of St. Paul…says to hold fast to what has been taught both by word and letter.

PnP

 

[M1Garand]

What is a “so called” protestant?

Cradle Lutheran. I was not taught this, nor did I ever hear this is Catechetical Class. As someone who weekly confesses the creeds of the Church, your above scenario is impossible for me.

I don’t even know what these would be.

Sorry. Not true. It may be true of some, but certainly not by all. Not by Lutherans.

I don’t know about Dawkins Atheists, but Lutherans know the ECF’s well. At least our theologians and clergy do.

Most protestants have no connection to Luther…

…and don’t care what he believed.

Well, certainly this post won’t.

Honestly, I don’t think what you’ve said above is what the Catholic Church teaches about non-Catholics.

A bit?

Sincerely, may that same living Lord Jesus Christ grant you peace from your bitterness.
Not nearly all of us are as you have sadly experienced.

Jon

What I have stated is based on the Protestant view of my faith relayed to me by them for the 43 years of my life. None of what I said requires “Catholic Church teach[ing]” since I am not addressing an issue of faith and morals only observed and stated positions of Protestants. Perhaps I will qualify a bit. I have never heard any of the above from a Lutheran, at least not a Lutheran that will admit to being a Lutheran.

I used the term “so called Protestant” because many non-Catholic faiths will identify themselves as Protestant when they are in fact evangelical, JW, Morman ect.
If you doubt what I am saying simply Google “Catholic”, “Pope”, “Vatican” and see what pops up. The lies and obfuscation have reached a fever pitch and much of the attack leveled at the Church has been seized on by the new evangelizing Atheist high priest of Richard Dawkins.

I will not address the Jewish statement further because one cannot point this out without immediately being labeled. I pointed it out not to attack the Jews but to show that the error of the Protestant is not new and it preexist them.

Go here if you want more information on what I am talking about:
youtube.com/user/JewsforJudaismCanada

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Trust me I consider myself a student of the truth and if what is presented passes the test of scripture then I’m for it. So far no one has been able to pass that test.

Well, you can consider all you want. But you are making yourself the authority to decide what is and isn’t based on Scripture.

I think when you are more humble, you will be able to pass the test.

For now:

https://www.chch.com/shows/inside-the-story/

 

[Randy_Carson]

Again, with all due respect you offer a passage that is a weak support of the tradition of walking into a a confessional.

So, your issue is based solely on the idea that the style or form of the confession is not found in scripture? That’s interesting. Are you married? I am…at least I think I am…come to think of it, the Bible doesn’t specify exactly what I was supposed to say and do during the ceremony…so, how am I to know for sure that my marriage is valid?

I can know with certainty because Jesus gave the Church REAL authority to decide these things. If the Church wants me to put a ring on my wife’s finger in front of an ordained priest who is there to witness the ceremony, I will. If the Church asks me to step into a confessional (and I personally meet with my priest face to face in his office), then I will. Because the Church has decided that these forms of the sacraments are valid.

Jesus was instructing the leper to do so as prescribed through the law handed down to Moses.

The “why” of that is the key. Did you miss it?

Also if you read my post before yours you will see public confession is clearly biblical. However, as I also state above there are examples of people in scripture who’s sin were forgiven through personal confession also.

Okay.

Like I stated in a previous post what if I was lost on a deserted island with no way of confessing to a priest? Based on your premise I would be lost even if I accepted Jesus and repented.

Rubbish. If you are on an island, and a pocket NT washes up on shore and after reading it, you give your life to Jesus, you may be saved. God is not stupid.

Trust me I consider myself a student of the truth and if what is presented passes the test of scripture then I’m for it. So far no one has been able to pass that test.

Ah. A student of the truth. I can certainly appreciate the sentiment expressed, since I feel the same way. Since you have determined that the things we are discussing must pass the “test of scripture”, perhaps you can answer this question for me:

Where does the Bible teach that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith (or measure for testing) for the believer?

(Hint: 2 Tim 3:16 does NOT teach this.)

You have a serious problem, Mlon. The Bible never teaches the principle you are adhering to, and thus, it is self-refuting.

This is a muddle out of which you cannot waddle.

 

[Jon_S_1]

So, your issue is based solely on the idea that the style or form of the confession is not found in scripture? That’s interesting. Are you married? I am…at least I think I am…come to think of it, the Bible doesn’t specify exactly what I was supposed to say and do during the ceremony…so, how am I to know for sure that my marriage is valid?

I can know with certainty because Jesus gave the Church REAL authority to decide these things. If the Church wants me to put a ring on my wife’s finger in front of an ordained priest who is there to witness the ceremony, I will. If the Church asks me to step into a confessional (and I personally meet with my priest face to face in his office), then I will. Because the Church has decided that these forms of the sacraments are valid.

The “why” of that is the key. Did you miss it?

Okay.

Rubbish. If you are on an island, and a pocket NT washes up on shore and after reading it, you give your life to Jesus, you may be saved. God is not stupid.

Ah. A student of the truth. I can certainly appreciate the sentiment expressed, since I feel the same way. Since you have determined that the things we are discussing must pass the “test of scripture”, perhaps you can answer this question for me:

Where does the Bible teach that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith (or measure for testing) for the believer?

(Hint: 2 Tim 3:16 does NOT teach this.)

You have a serious problem, Mlon. The Bible never teaches the principle you are adhering to, and thus, it is self-refuting.

This is a muddle out of which you cannot waddle.

Nice Randy!