the Church prior to Luther's Reformation

[submariner2]

guanophore;9402184]Yes, you confess to yourself, and forgive yourself, and are in a state of grace toward yourself. You are also all in communion with yourselves.

Guano,

No we confess to God.

In that case, I am glad to know that you have learned at least one thing here at CAF. Persons who engage in certain activities cut themselves off from communion by doing them. My Latin brethren call it *latae sententiae excommunicatio *-- [The penalty of] “excommunication having been passed” The act in itself causes it

Never heard that theory before. We believe in a forgiving loving God.
.

No, that was the term used by the Apostles for those who embraced doctrine other than what they taught. It would not be possible for you to depart from the Apostolic faith, because you never had it.

We disagree with that unsupported assertion.

No, I was saying that, in the NT, those who embraced doctrines other than the One Faith that was taught by the Apostles were called those terms. You received a truncated version of the Gospel in the first place, so you cannot be said to have fallen away from what you never had. You can’t qualify as a heretic, either, because the heresies were passed down to you by your spiritual forefathers. You did not receive the unadulterated Gospel, to willfully depart from it.

We think we have the entire Gospel as the apostles taught it and explained it in writing.

Then you and all you invite are united to one another. It is no wonder that you are so content with your fellowship.

We really cannot be content as long as there are christians who demean others for different opinions.

While it is true that the meaning of Scripture can be better understood when all of it is taken into account as a whole, text cannot “interpret”, because this is an activity that requires a person. In the end, it is always the reader doing the interpreting.

That is true and I am glad you admit that taking other verses into account helps to interpret scripture. That is what we mean by "Scripture interpreting scripture? Of course each of us must utilize all our knowledge and spirit to interpret what we are reading. All christians should work at interpreting the intent of the apostle that wrote the scripture. Actually there is almost no difference between protestant and Catholic sholars on that.

Rob

 

[guanophore]

 Guano,  No we confess to God.

Yes, I am sure you do, with all sincerity. I did too when I was a Methodist.

Never heard that theory before. We believe in a forgiving loving God.

It is not a “theory”, Rob, but a doctrine of the faith.

Of course we believe in a forgiving and loving God. Excommunication is for the purpose of trying to get the person who has separated themselves to come to themselves, repent, and return to communion. It is wrong to present oneself to the Table of the Lord when one is not in right standing with God, or the Church. It can cause grave consequences. But the reason for that is because it is a violation against the Body and Blood of the Lord.
.

 We disagree with that unsupported assertion.

That those who departed from the faith were called heretics, or that you received a truncated gospel?

 We think we have the entire Gospel as the apostles taught it and explained it in writing.

Yes, of course you do!

 We really cannot be content as long as there are christians who demean others for different opinions.

Is that why you are here at CAF? Because you feel demeaned?

I agree with you, none of us should be content with the demeanment of anyone, whether they are Christians or not, because of their different opinions.

However the Apostolic faith is not a matter of opinion, but of divine Truth revealed by God. It is necessary to espouse and promote the Truth. It is not necessary to this in a way that demeans others. That being said, I can certainly affirm that it can hurt one’s feelings to be told they received a deficient gospel, or have embraced innovations that were not believed and taught by the Apostles.

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by submariner2
Guano, No we confess to God.

Yes, I am sure you do, with all sincerity. I did too when I was a Methodist.

Well, we all confess to God, but by confessing to a priest/pastor, we are responding to God’s grace, that He put into the hands of the Church the power to bind and loose. We therefore receive the certainty of forgiveness through the absolution granted us by the pastor/priest in Christ’s stead and name, and by His authority.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

Well, we all confess to God, but by confessing to a priest/pastor, we are responding to God’s grace, that He put into the hands of the Church the power to bind and loose. We therefore receive the certainty of forgiveness through the absolution granted us by the pastor/priest in Christ’s stead and name, and by His authority.

Jon

The Gospel of John is clear in Christs own words. The only other time God breathed on man is when he created Adam. That’s how important confession is to a priest…

• [Jesus] said to them again,l “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
  22
• And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
  23
• n Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

 

[JonNC]

The Gospel of John is clear in Christs own words. The only other time God breathed on man is when he created Adam. That’s how important confession is to a priest…

• [Jesus] said to them again,l “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
  22
• And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
  23
• n Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

Exactly!
Jon

 

[guanophore]

Well, we all confess to God, but by confessing to a priest/pastor, we are responding to God’s grace, that He put into the hands of the Church the power to bind and loose. We therefore receive the certainty of forgiveness through the absolution granted us by the pastor/priest in Christ’s stead and name, and by His authority.

Jon

You hit the nail on the head, Jon. That is exactly where I was headed. But seeing that I already have half a dozen topics running with Rob about his communities departure from the Apostolic faith, I decided to back off that one.

I also wanted to affirm, that even though Methodists do not follow the Apostolic Teachings when it comes to confession, I do beleive that they are sincere in following the truncated version of the Gospel they did receive.

 

[guanophore]

The Gospel of John is clear in Christs own words. The only other time God breathed on man is when he created Adam. That’s how important confession is to a priest…

• [Jesus] said to them again,l “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
  22
• And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
  23
• n Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

When I was a Methodist, I came up with all kinds of reasons why this did not apply to me.

 

[submariner2]

If you’re looking for Church History from a Protestant point of view (much less biased than some I’ve read) you should check out Church History In Plain Language by Bruce L Shelley.

chrissy,

I have found there really is no such thing as a “protestant point of view” with regard to history. Catholic history and protestant history is the same. There is only one history and protestant and Catholic historians are in general agreement on it. Some of the top historians are Catholic historians. I respect them very much.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

That those who departed from the faith were called heretics, or that you received a truncated gospel?

guano,

Does the Catholic church teach that we are heretics? I have not seen that.

However the Apostolic faith is not a matter of opinion, but of divine Truth revealed by God. It is necessary to espouse and promote the Truth. It is not necessary to this in a way that demeans others. That being said, I can certainly affirm that it can hurt one’s feelings to be told they received a deficient gospel, or have embraced innovations that were not believed and taught by the Apostles.

.
My church has the fullness of the Gospel and you have yet to explain why not.
I am happy to explain anything you do not understand.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Well, we all confess to God, but by confessing to a priest/pastor, we are responding to God’s grace, that He put into the hands of the Church the power to bind and loose. We therefore receive the certainty of forgiveness through the absolution granted us by the pastor/priest in Christ’s stead and name, and by His authority.

Jon

Jon,

By confessing directly to God we are following the pattern taught by Jesus in the Lords Prayer when he taught us how to pray, and how Jesus also taught in the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector when the pharisee confessed directly to God. We also are responding to Gods Grace. We also recieve the certainty of Gods forgiveness by his direct absolution as he promised. It is a matter of faith. We do not trust in a mans power to bind and loose but directly in Gods power to bind and loose know by our faith in His power.

Rob.

 

[guanophore]

I have found there really is no such thing as a “protestant point of view” with regard to history.

It that case,you seem to be unconscious of your own view, which is a Protestant view of history.

And if you can’t see it in yourself, try Fox’s book of Martyrs. History can be very biased according to the point of view of the writer, as well as the reader.

Catholic history and protestant history is the same. There is only one history and protestant and Catholic historians are in general agreement on it. Some of the top historians are Catholic historians. I respect them very much.

Rob

The events are the same, certainly, but the perspective on the events is often opposite. If this were not the case, there would not have BEEN a Reformation!

 

[guanophore]

guano,

Does the Catholic church teach that we are heretics? I have not seen that.

Thank you for the courtesy of asking what the Church teaches, rather than imposing your beliefs upon us. It is refreshing

No, the CC does not teach that. She teaches that you have only embraced heresies unwittingly, because you received a truncated form of the gospel, and that you cannot be held accountable for the sin of heresy.

Heresy is a knowledgeable and willful departure from the divinely revealed Truth. People cannot be held accountable for rejecting what they never received.

My church has the fullness of the Gospel and you have yet to explain why not.

Although I have to wonder what brought you to CAF, I am not at all sure you are interested in learning why the CC teaches that you are missing part of the Apostolic faith.

 

[guanophore]

By confessing directly to God we are following the pattern taught by Jesus in the Lords Prayer when he taught us how to pray, and how Jesus also taught in the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector when the pharisee confessed directly to God. We also are responding to Gods Grace. We also recieve the certainty of Gods forgiveness by his direct absolution as he promised. It is a matter of faith.** We do not trust in a mans power to bind and loose** but directly in Gods power to bind and loose know by our faith in His power.

Rob.

Herein lies one of those departures. You seek the power to bind and loose given to the Apostles came from Jesus. It is not their own “man’s power” which cannot forive sins. The Apostles passed this power to their successors, the Bishops, and they to theirs, etc.

You are right, it is a matter of faith. Either we choose to believe the way Jesus set things up, or we set up our own.

Many had lost faith in the clergy during Luther’s time, justifiably as there was rampant corruption on many levels. Some of the Reformers went beyond the idea that people are always in need of reform, and decided the doctrines of Christ also needed to be reformed. At that point, they departed from teh Teachings of Jesus, and substituted their own.

 

[submariner2]

It that case,you seem to be unconscious of your own view, which is a Protestant view of history.

I get my history primarily from Catholic historians like Fr. Raymond E. Brown and Paul Johnson and John Meire and Gary Wills and Andrew Louth and others. They are in general agreement with the protestant scholars I read.

And if you can’t see it in yourself, try Fox’s book of Martyrs. History can be very biased according to the point of view of the writer, as well as the reader.

I have never read it. Do you recommend it?

The events are the same, certainly, but the perspective on the events is often opposite. If this were not the case, there would not have BEEN a Reformation!

The events are the same and the history is the same. Even the perception and interpretation of what the apostles meant by their scripture verses at the time they wrote it are the same in the opinions of Catholic and protestant scholars.

The Reformation was caused by a difference in dogma and how it is determined. I think Martin Luther might very well be a happy priest in todays Catholic church. He might have been much like Fr. Raymond E. Brown who was a faithful Catholic with his own opinions on history, church practices and the bible. I dont think Martin Luther would have been excommunicated in todays Catholic church. There are probably many priests today like him.

Rob

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

By confessing directly to God we are following the pattern taught by Jesus in the Lords Prayer when he taught us how to pray, and how Jesus also taught in the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector when the pharisee confessed directly to God. We also are responding to Gods Grace. We also recieve the certainty of Gods forgiveness by his direct absolution as he promised. It is a matter of faith. We do not trust in a mans power to bind and loose but directly in Gods power to bind and loose know by our faith in His power.

Rob.

Rob,
It isn’t a matter of either/or. Of course one can go directly to God in prayer, and ask forgiveness of sins, as Christ tells us to in the example of the Lord’s Prayer. That’s isn’t an issue.
Scripture also tells us that Christ gave the apostles, and thereby the Church and its clergy, the power to bind and loose sins in His name. And that’s they key - in his name and by His authority, an authority granted to His Church. When one confesses to a pastor/confessor, one is confessing to God, in the presence of His servant, whom Christ Himself gives the power to grant absolution. This isn’t some man-made tradition, but a scriptural gift from God Himself.

Jon

 

[submariner2]

Thank you for the courtesy of asking what the Church teaches, rather than imposing your beliefs upon us. It is refreshing

No, the CC does not teach that. She teaches that you have only embraced heresies unwittingly, because you received a truncated form of the gospel, and that you cannot be held accountable for the sin of heresy.

guano,

Thats nice. What is truncated about it?

Although I have to wonder what brought you to CAF, I am not at all sure you are interested in learning why the CC teaches that you are missing part of the Apostolic faith

Of course I am interested, but I am interested in facts and reasons and not general statements that you seem to make. You make a generalized statment and when I ask a specific question if the Catholic church teaches such, you then admit they do not or you ignore the question. General statements are not very convining. Rational explanations are what convinces and not General statements and attacks.

Rob

 

[guanophore]

I get my history primarily from Catholic historians like Fr. Raymond E. Brown and Paul Johnson and John Meire and Gary Wills and Andrew Louth and others. They are in general agreement with the protestant scholars I read.

I think what you said before is actually more accurate. They agree with your view. You read them with your Protestant lenses, and interpret what you read so that it is in accord with your views. It is a form of eisogesis. I am glad you are reading history, though.

I have never read it. Do you recommend it?

I recommend it as an excellent example of how history can be written with a Protestant perspective.

Jack Chick also has some very interesting perspectives on the historical development of Catholic doctrine that are also a good example of this genre.

**

The events are the same and the history is the same. Even the perception and interpretation of what the apostles meant by their scripture verses at the time they wrote it are the same in the opinions of Catholic and protestant scholars. **

I understand that it seems that way to you when you are reading them.

submariner2:

 The Reformation was caused by a difference in dogma and how it is determined.

I don’t think so. I think it was caused by sin, impurity, corruption in the clergy, and the fervent desire of the faithful to practice an authentic gospel. When you read the original documents that stimulated the Reformation, you can see that none of it is about doctrine. In the end, it did result in doctrinal changes, but it did not start out that way… It started with abuses.

I think Martin Luther might very well be a happy priest in todays Catholic church. He might have been much like Fr. Raymond E. Brown who was a faithful Catholic with his own opinions on history, church practices and the bible. I dont think Martin Luther would have been excommunicated in todays Catholic church. There are probably many priests today like him.

One has to wonder. Certianly the abuses to which He was reacting are no longer occurring. It is a puzzle that you can believe Fr. Brown is a faithful Catholic, yet deny his Catholic views in his writing.

 

[submariner2]

Rob,
It isn’t a matter of either/or. Of course one can go directly to God in prayer, and ask forgiveness of sins, as Christ tells us to in the example of the Lord’s Prayer. That’s isn’t an issue.
Scripture also tells us that Christ gave the apostles, and thereby the Church and its clergy, the power to bind and loose sins in His name. And that’s they key - in his name and by His authority, an authority granted to His Church. When one confesses to a pastor/confessor, one is confessing to God, in the presence of His servant, whom Christ Himself gives the power to grant absolution. This isn’t some man-made tradition, but a scriptural gift from God Himself.

Jon

Jon,

If we can go direct to God as Jesus taught in the Lords Prayer as you admit, why should anyone attack that practice? Why say we confess only to ourself when it is plain we are confessing direct to God? What is the point of such an unfair accusation?

Christ gave the apostles the authority to bind and loose but I see no instruction regarding successors. I can find no example of the binding and loosing as you describe shown in the writings of the apostles. I see no instruction that we should change the practice taught by Jesus in the Lords Prayer that we confess directly to God.

I certainly see no justification of cricizing our practice that was directly taught by Christ.
Dont you agree that is unfair?

Rob

 

[JonNC]

You hit the nail on the head, Jon. That is exactly where I was headed.** But seeing that I already have half a dozen topics** running with Rob about his communities departure from the Apostolic faith, I decided to back off that one.

Feeling kinda like this, guan?

 

[JonNC]

=submariner2;9404088]Jon,

If we can go direct to God as Jesus taught in the Lords Prayer as you admit, why should anyone attack that practice? Why say we confess only to ourself when it is plain we are confessing direct to God? What is the point of such an unfair accusation?

I didn’t attack the practice, Rob. From a Lutheran perspective, by choosing not to confess to a pastor/confessor, either in private or in a corporate worship, it seems one is denying this gift of grace, that we confess that which truly bothers our conscience (as well as things we may not be aware of), here the announcement of the grace of God, and then hear with our ears His forgiveness and Absolution, spoken by his sevant. there is an added certainty of that which I cherish.

Christ gave the apostles the authority to bind and loose but I see no instruction regarding successors. I can find no example of the binding and loosing as you describe shown in the writings of the apostles. I see no instruction that we should change the practice taught by Jesus in the Lords Prayer that we confess directly to God.

Then who do you think Christ meant when He told the apostles this, if not the Church?

I certainly see no justification of cricizing our practice that was directly taught by Christ. Dont you agree that is unfair?

I’m not going to criticize you for it, but I honestly think you miss out on this wonderful gift of His grace in confession. Think about it, when one is baptized, (normally) one is baptized by a pastor. When receive the Lord’s Supper, it is the pastor that is the celebrant. These special means of grace come to us from god through the Church. Why would confession and Absolution be different?

But then again, I guess it depends on one’s view of sacraments, and the ministerial preisthood. You, within your communion, must answer that question.

Jon