What do you think is the biggest obstacle to unity between Catholic Christians and non–Catholic Christians?

[Anna_Scott]

I don’t read them, I am Orthodox.

Hesychios:

I thought you read their works, since you said they wrote the first Catechism.

I was very shocked to find Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies.” This is antisemitism at its worst. Most Christian bookstores only carry selected works of Martin Luther. Now, I know why.

“On the Jews and Their Lies” is a work of evil, antisemitic ranting. I urge any Protestants who see themselves aligned with Luther’s teachings, to look this up on the internet. In this writing, you will find the voice of the “real” Martin Luther. This writing is not for the fainthearted.

Hitler quoted Luther in Mein Kampf. and seemed to be quite the fan.

I am a Christian in the Protestant sector, but I denounce any connection with Martin Luther.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I am posting these scriptures again, hoping someone can shed some light on these issues. They do involve points of disagreement between Protestants and Catholic.

There are 3 passages that have not been adequately addressed in the Protestant sector-at least not to my satisfaction.

John 5:54-56 in the Protestant sector, would apply to the “Lord’s Supper.”
For Protestants who object to the RCC beliefs of Holy Communion, notice
Christ does say, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”

John 6:54-56 (ESV): 54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my** flesh is true food**, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

John 20:19 does clearly demonstrate Christ giving the Disciples the authority to forgive or not to forgive sins.

John 20:19-23 (ESV): 19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22And 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 them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

1 Corinthians 15:29-30 clearly speaks of baptism on behalf of the dead. I have never heard this verse quoted in a Protestant Church. (I know the LDS have their own answer to this-but that is another issue entirely.) I really would like to know what baptism of the dead means and how it is accomplished.

1 Corinthians 15:29-30 (ESV): 29Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? 30Why are we in danger every hour?

Comments Anyone? I would really appreciate some help on this.

 

[SSTeacher]

I am a Christian in the Protestant sector, but I denounce any connection with Martin Luther.

Hi Anna,

I hope you won’t mind my asking but how do you view John Calvin and his legacy?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[jmcrae]

1 Corinthians 15:29-30 clearly speaks of baptism on behalf of the dead. I have never heard this verse quoted in a Protestant Church. (I know the LDS have their own answer to this-but that is another issue entirely.) I really would like to know what baptism of the dead means and how it is accomplished.

1 Corinthians 15:29-30 (ESV): 29Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? 30Why are we in danger every hour?

Comments Anyone? I would really appreciate some help on this.

The footnote in my Douay-Rheims just states that in the time of St. Paul, there was a practice of people having themselves baptized on behalf of the dead. Later on (it could not have been very much later), the Church clarified the doctrines around Baptism, and made it understood that people have to be baptized in person, while they are still alive. The Church also talked about “baptism of desire” for those who died while preparing for Baptism, and “baptism of blood” for Catechumens who were taken away and martyred for their Christian faith, even though they had not yet been baptized.

Note that St. Paul is not approving of the practice of baptism for the dead; he is only commenting on it. I imagine that there were a lot of very strange things going on in the Early Church, before there was a chance to fully clarify things.

Another thing to note is that this particular passage is the only instance where this practice is even really mentioned - later writings of the Early Church Fathers don’t allude to it at all, that I am aware of, so the practice must have been very local, and probably died out really fast.

 

[Hesychios]

Hesychios:

I thought you read their works, since you said they wrote the first Catechism.

To an extremely limited extent only. I am not interested in their writings, as it is based upon western theological concepts, which have problems at a very fundamental level even before one gets to the particulars of each faction. I simply wanted to point out that for 1,500 years the RC had no catechism, as such. It is not a defining characteristic of church. The Catholic church did eventually create a catechism during the Catholic reformation as a measure to counter the growing influence of the Protestant teachings. I could be mistaken but believe it was meant for use by priests.

Publishing a catechism is a good idea for any church that finds it difficult to correctly teach the faith through it’s liturgical practices.

I was very shocked to find Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies.” This is antisemitism at its worst. Most Christian bookstores only carry selected works of Martin Luther. Now, I know why.

I agree, I despise the anti-semitism of that age, whatever the source.

BTW, the Catholic apologist of note in that era was Father Johann Eck. He was the nemesis of Father Martin Luther and the two went at it head-to-head. This is what Wiki has to say about Father Eck’s position on anti-Semitism:

In 1541 Eck published his Against the Defense of the Jews [German: Ains Juden-büechlins Verlegung]. In it he opposes the position of the Nuremberg reformer Andreas Osiander, who wanted to quash medieval superstition that Jews were responsible for killing Christian children, desecrating the eucharistic Host, and poisoning wells.

Osiander’s pamphlet is Whether It Be True and Credible That the Jews Secretly Strangulate Christian Children and Make Use of Their Blood. Eck accused Osiander of being a “Jew-protector” and “Jew-father,” and no fewer than nineteen times reviled the Jews, culminating with the epithet for them: “a blasphemous race” (Ains Juden-büechlins Verlegung, fol. J 3r, quoted in Heiko A. Oberman, The Roots of Antisemitism in the Age of Renaissance and Reformation, translated by James I. Porter, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 37; cf. also pp. 4-5, 17, 36-37, 42, 46-47, 58, 72-73, 87, 91, 101, 121, 135).

Another interesting but sad element is that through that whole Protestant reformation-Catholic reformation episode in Europe the status and safety of Jews in Europe seemed to be declining from what once was a fairly tolerated era.

For instance, this article describes the situation in the Eternal City from the time of the Council of Trent:

During the Reformation, in 1555, Pope Paul IV decreed that all Jews must be segregated into their own quarters (ghettos), and they were forbidden to leave their home during the night, were banned from all but the most strenuous occupations and had to wear a distinctive badge — a yellow hat. More than 4,700 Jews lived in the seven-acre Roman Jewish ghetto that was built in the Travestere section of the city (which still remains a Jewish neighborhood to this day) If any Jews wanted to rent houses or businesses outside the ghetto boundaries, permission was needed from the Cardinal Vicar. Jews could not own any property outside the ghetto. They were not allowed to study in higher education institutions or become lawyers, pharmacists, painters, politicians, notaries or architects. Jewish doctors were only allowed to treat Jewish patients. Jews were forced to pay an annual stipend to pay the salaries of the Catholic officials who supervised the Ghetto Finance Administration and the Jewish Community Organization; a stipend to pay for Christian missionaries who proselytized to the Jews and a yearly sum to the Cloister of the Converted. In return, the state helped with welfare work, but gave no money toward education or caring for the sick…

During the Reformation, talmudic literature as a whole was banned in Rome. On Rosh Hashana 1553, the Talmud and other Hebrew books were burned. Raids of the ghetto were common, and were conducted to insure that Jews did not own any “forbidden” books (any other literature besides the Bible and liturgy). It was forbidden to sing psalms or dirges when escorting the dead to their burial place. Every Saturday, a number of Jews were forced to leave the ghetto and listen to sermons delivered in local churches. Also, whenever a new Pope was ordained, the Jews presented him with a Torah scroll. Jews continued to live in the ghetto for almost 300 years.

 

[SSTeacher]

I am posting these scriptures again, hoping someone can shed some light on these issues. They do involve points of disagreement between Protestants and Catholic.

1 Corinthians 15:29-30 clearly speaks of baptism on behalf of the dead. I have never heard this verse quoted in a Protestant Church. (I know the LDS have their own answer to this-but that is another issue entirely.) I really would like to know what baptism of the dead means and how it is accomplished.

Comments Anyone? I would really appreciate some help on this.

The King James Study Bible has this footnote:

The practice of vicarious baptism appeared as early as the second century. Some suppose that this custom had already been introduced at Corinth. It is extremely doubtful that the apostle would have made reference to this heretical practice without in the same breath condemning it. The expression probably refers rather to young converts who took the place of the older brethren in the church who had died, so that it would be properly rendered “baptized in the place of.” The Greek preposition huper admits this sense (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:15; Philemon 13).

The Orthodox Study Bible states this:

The meaning of baptized for the dead is much disputed. Many understand this as vicarious baptism of baptized Christians for deceased catechumens. Saint John Chrystostom considered it a derisive comment about the practices of the Marcionite heretics. Epiphanius says it refers to a practice of the followers of Cerinthus, another Gnostic teacher.

Helpfully,
Mick

 

[aicirt]

Good point, Bob. I’ve never thought of that. I didn’t realize that about the Chief Rabbi of Rome either. But I had heard the Golda Meier quote. Thanks for mentioning all that.

Eienstein also praised Pius XII. His reputation took a hit with the play “The Deputy”. Also not true.

Italian nuns and priests hid many Jews throughout Italy after the Germans arrived. Some were hid in the Pope’s summer residence where there were a number of babies born there at that time.

I think the biggest obstacle to unity is that the Protestants have not studied the early Church Fathers. I also think it would come as a great surprise if they realized Luther and Calvin did have devotion to the BVM and did believe in the Real Presence. And they did not believe in abortion nor birth control.

 

[traillius]

I don’t think there will ever be complete unity, as long as any non-catholics believe that catholics are not christian. Almost every non-christian, I dare say, completely acknowledges that Catholics are christians. Indeed many believe them to be the quintessential christians. Those who think we are not christians are, sadly, ignorant of our faith, sometimes invincibly ignorant.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi Anna,

I hope you won’t mind my asking but how do you view John Calvin and his legacy?

Curiously,
Mick

SSTeacher:

I do not mind you asking. John Calvin’s writing was also antisemitic.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Just as this discussion becomes so interesting, I have to go do some errands-annoying necessity.

I really appreciate all the responses to my questions. I’ll be back later.

 

[Finrock]

Hello Anna Scott. It is a pleasure to meet you!

I1 Corinthians 15:29-30 clearly speaks of baptism on behalf of the dead. I have never heard this verse quoted in a Protestant Church. (I know the LDS have their own answer to this-but that is another issue entirely.) I really would like to know what baptism of the dead means and how it is accomplished.

1 Corinthians 15:29-30 (ESV): 29Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? 30Why are we in danger every hour?

Comments Anyone? I would really appreciate some help on this.

There is a Russian religious scholar, Sergey Antonenko, who has studied and written about what he feels are striking commonalities between the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In his writings he compares the practice of baptism for the dead as practiced by LDS and the ancient Christian church. Antonenko states:

“Those who are advanced in the religious studies may conclude that vicarious baptism existed in the history of the Christian Church….” Citing 1 Corinthians 15:29, he continues, "…Direct [literal] meaning of the verse implies that ‘baptism for the dead’ for the ancient Christians was confirmation of their confession [faith] — of their belief in resurrection. It is obvious that baptism for the dead was practiced in some of early-Christian communities until it was forbidden by the rules of the Carthaginian Council.

*However, the tradition of posthumous baptisms continued to exist in the later periods. It was known also in the ancient Russia. In 1044, pious grand duke of Kiev [the capitol city of today’s Republic of Ukraine], Yaroslav, nicknamed Wise, has brought [physically] into the church two of his uncles, Oleg and Jaropolk, which have died long before that and formally were pagans [unbaptized at the time of their deaths].

To tell the truth, in this case one can hardly speak about vicarious baptism. The chronicles tell that the bones of the dukes were dug out from the tombs, baptized and then buried in the Saint Virgin of Tithes cathedral. About Oleg and Jaropolk, it is known that they have been reared and educated by their grandmother, grand duchess Olga, and that they believed in Christ and were not baptized only for “narrowness of circumstances” … killed in internecine strife.

Yaroslav the Wise was convinced that it was his duty to help his untimely gone uncles to complete their Christian choice … The given example is very significant — baptism of the dead was performed officially in the court church built by the Saint Vladimir*."

Of course this doesn’t tell us if this practice is right or wrong, but it does tell us that some, if not many, early Christians felt that this was a good and necessary practice. Furthermore, as Antonenko points out, his example is significant because it shows that at least at one point batism for the dead was officially sanctioned by the Orthodox church in Kiev.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5150912:

Is it,

a) Disagreement as to whether salvation is an event or a process?

it’s funny … the reformers never depicted salvation as “an event” in the way contemporary evangelicals do. Catholic apologists misconstrued their doctrines & accused them of framing salvation as an event (inferring there is no requirement to live your faith, live in holiness, perform good works, etc); and I guess it became a self-fulfilling prophecy (since it caught on & today many if not most evangelicals have taken the view that a one time profession for Christ guarantees ones salvation regardless of their future behavior or beliefs).

I would respectfully submit that within the parameters of non–Catholic Western Christianity any latter day Evangelical has just as much right to reform whatever ideas and/or doctrines that he or she considers to be in need of reform as any of the Reformers from ages past. It seems to me that if contemporary Evangelicals embrace the idea of Sola Scriptura and interpret the Bible as declaring that salvation is an event following an altar call and a sinner’s prayer together with a correct understanding of Ephesians 2:10, that is neither curious nor unusual since the Reformers advocated the idea of Sola Scriptura in the first place. In fact, it seems to reflect the natural order. Ideas have consequences.

For the record (even though I don’t really care much) this is not something any reformer ever taught … not even close. I would suggest all protestants who are interested in their faith should take the time to read Calvin and Luther (along with St. Augustine). Then I would suggest any Christian should read a little Nietzsche (for some perspective ).

Well, I do care so my counter–suggestion is not to read Nietzsche. Definitely not. Read something a bit more cheerful. Read Granny’s Wonderful Chair by Francis Browne.

Helpfully,
Mick

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Hi Anna. I’m afraid I don’t have much of an answer to give, except to point out that it doesn’t say “baptism of the dead”. It says that people are baptized “for the dead” or “on behalf of the dead”, depending which translation you use. But I couldn’t really tell you what exactly that means.

Ἐπεὶ τί ποιή|σ|ουσιν οἱ βαπτιζ|όμεν|οι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρ|ῶν; εἰ ὅλως νεκρ|οὶ οὐκ ἐγείρ|ονται, τί καὶ βαπτίζ|ονται ὑπὲρ αὐτ|ῶν;
Hi Anna, Peter
Yes, Tichendorf’s Greek version has “for the dead” so Peter is right.
Epei ti poiēsousin ohi baptizomenoi huper tōn nekrōn; ei holōs nekroi ouk egeirontai, ti kai baptizontai huper autōn;
(epei 1893)Since otherwise (tis 5100) what (poiesousain 4160) do these effect (ho 3588) those (baptizomenoi 907) being baptized **(huper 5228) for **(ho 3588) the (nekros 3498) dead (ei 1487) if (holos 3654) wholly altogether (nekros 3498) dead (ouk 3756) not (egeiro 1453) are aroused (tis 5100) at all (kai 2532) and/also (baptizontai 907) they adminstering baptism (huper 5228) for (auton 846) them
The english has to be finessed a bit, and though my translation below is somewhat course and rough, essentially I think the meaning is similar, with the possible exception that I’m not quite sure how they ended up with, "why are people baptized on their behalf? as I see Paul ending more aligned with a statement of inclusion - “of both the dead and those acting on their behalf not arising”. It would appear, at least to me, that’s a little bit of translational gymnastics. Then again I certainly don’t profess to be any Greek scholar - their may be nuances and idioms I’m unaware of.
MTV:

don’t look for this one going to press anytime soon
Otherwise what do these effect, those baptized for the dead, if wholly altogether (the) dead are not aroused at all, (nor) they adminstering baptism for them.

So the only church father I could find quoting and commenting on this obscure passage was Tertullian, whose commentary in the ECF 3.449-450 says.
Tertullian c.207 AD:

He (Paul) asks, “What will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not arise?” Do not then suppose that the apostle here indicates that some new god is the author of this practice. Rather, it was so that he could all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who were baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief in such a resurrection. We have the apostle in another passage defining, “only one baptism.” Therefore to be “baptized for the dead” means, in fact, to be baptized for the body. For as we have shown, it is the body that becomes dead. What then shall they do who are baptized for the body, if the body does not rise again?

Then it appears about three years later he wrote this:
Inasmuch as “some are also baptized for the dead”, we will see whether there is a good reason for this. Now it is certain that they adopted this practice with a presumption that made them suppose that a vicarious baptism would be beneficial to the flesh of another in anticipation of the resurrection. For unless there is a bodily resurrection, there would be no pledge secured by this process of a bodily baptism. ECF (W) 3.581-582

So if you are confused & bewildered by these rather 2 contradictory statements made by Tertullian, only 150 years after Paul documented the practice, then you are not alone. I suspect that his body of evidence was lacking and he interpolated the verse according to where his theology landed him at that particular moment in time. Did he think better of it later? Perhaps? But clearly he shows us no body of evidence other than his own thoughts - and gives us no apology as to why he did a 180. Don’t mean to be critical of Tertullian that’s just how I read him on this one.
That said it doesn’t appear at first glance that the earlier comment of Tertullian is correct - I don’t think he was talking about 'being dead in sins and trespasses (which we were) otherwise why would he say neither the dead nor those acting on their behalf - I think the Greek strongly implies that but you may want a 2nd opinion.
Maybe someone has another early extrabiblical quote of 1 Cor 15:29 that’s all I could find
May God Bless,
Maranantha Erchomai Kyrios

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

I am posting these scriptures again, hoping someone can shed some light on these issues. They do involve points of disagreement between Protestants and Catholic.

There are 3 passages that have not been adequately addressed in the Protestant sector-at least not to my satisfaction.

#1
John 5:54-56 in the Protestant sector, would apply to the “Lord’s Supper.”
For Protestants who object to the RCC beliefs of Holy Communion, notice
Christ does say, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”

This is John 6:54-56
Comments Anyone? I would really appreciate some help on this.

Hi Anna,
Doctrinally there is much to be said about each of these. I think we might all be better served focusing in on them one at a time. Perhaps then each contributor can summarize after everyone is satisfied that a complete exegesis and commentary from both perspectives is completed? Just a suggestion.
#1
John the apostle:

John 6:51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” 6:52 Then the Jews {began} to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us {His} flesh to eat?” 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. ** 6:54 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 6:55 "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 6:56 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. ** 6:57 "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 6:58 “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” 6:59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum. 6:60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard {this} said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 6:61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble? 6:62 "{What} then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 6:63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you ARE spirit and are life.

As we know many who followed Jesus up to this point departed. So I believe this is a very important point for all Christians to understand, whether Catholic or Protestant. We don’t want to be in the number departing from Christ because we do not understand what He is saying to us.I see Jesus really expounding what He had said in this whole paragraph in John 6:63. He is speaking of both the Spirit and the Word. Just as he has with the woman in the well.
John on Jesus:

John 4:10–11 Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” The woman said to Him, "Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water?

AND
John 7:38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."

He is both the Son of Man and the Word of God and specifically states He is not talking about the flesh but the substance of God. He, the Word made flesh, is the true bread from heaven - while the manna from heaven was only a foreshadowing of our true bread - Jesus Christ. We thirst for the Living God and as the Scriptures say He provides us with the Living waters to quench the thirst of our souls to the full. We immerse ourselves in the Living water and we are not only filled but the waters of God burst the levees of our hearts and overflow with His love. This is the Lord’s doing and not our own. We in our broken human nature have all misplaced our faith; faith in money, power; fame; intelligence but placing our faith in the Lord is never misplaced for Jehovah Jireh is our provision. In Him we blossom and grow and God yields His fruit in us.

Jeremiah:

Jer 17:8-10 For he shall be like a tree planted by the waters, Which spreads out its roots by the river, And will not fear when heat comes; But its leaf will be green, And will not be anxious in the year of drought, Nor will cease from yielding fruit. The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], And desperately wicked; Who can know it? I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings.

I will cover some of the commentary by the early church fathers in the next post.

May Christ Peace be with you all, Erchomai Kyrios

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Back Again!
Here is what the early church fathers had to say:
Cyril of Alexandria:

Whoever eats the holy flesh of Christ has eternal life because his own flesh has the Word, which by nature is Life. - from the Comentary of John 4:2

Phixoxenus of Martbug:

Now as much as a sinner receives our Lord’s body and blood in faith, he is in our Lord and our Lord is in him, as our Lord Himself says. Where the Lord dwells, there is His Spirit also. (On the indwelling of the Holy Spirit)

Apollinaris of Laodicea:

One cannot benefit from the Word of God for eternal life, except through His flesh. For until he was joined to the flesh, all flesh was held under the power of death. But now his life giving flesh has been given. It nourishes the whole human race to life by the power suspended in it and is joined in likeness to those who share the same physical nature. (Fragments on John)

Hilary of Poitiers:

Jesus born as a man, has assumed the nature of our flesh now inseparable from Himself as He has joined together the nature of His own flesh to the nature of the eternal Godhead in the sacrament by which His flesh is communicated to us … Can lifeless copies be put on the same level with their originals? … The Son is not the image of the Father after such fashion as this; He is the living image of the Living. The Son who is born of the Father has a nature in no way different from His. And because His nature is not different, He possesses the power of the nature that is the same as His own. The fact that He is the image proves that God the Father is the author of the birth of the Only Begotten, who is Himself revealed as the likeness and image of the invisible God. And hence the likeness, which is in union with the divine nature, is indelibly His own because the powers of that nature are inalienably His own .(On the Trinity)(

Gregory of Nazianzus:

For their being [essence] itself is common and equal, even through the Son receives it from the Father. It is in this respect … that it is said, “I live by the Father,” not as though His life and being were kept by the Father but because He has His being from Him beyond all time and beyond all cause. (On the Son)

Ambrose:

Learn now that as the Father is the Fount of Life so too is the Son also signified as the Fount of Life. This is why He says that with you Almighty God, your Son is the Fount of Life. That is the Fount of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit is life, as the Lord says: "The Words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life. And where the Life is there is the Holy Spirit also. (On the Holy Spirit)

There is no end to the depth of God! We could soak ourselves in these waters our whole earthly life and only skim the surface of the depth and knowledge of God. But my sense is He is not only speaking of holy communion but communion in Him with each passing breath. He desires us to know Him even as He knows us, that those living waters would not only fill our hearts but spill over to the hearts of others - Grace upon grace and freely given, all for the glory of the Name above all names. I believe we are created for Him to partake of Him on every level and praise God for holy communion because I do believe and sense His presence and I think of His body shattered for me and blood as love poured out that I may live in Him.
I believe this with all my heart - Nothing is truer than Love
And O how deep runs the river which is the Love of Christ.
As deep calls unto deep so too He calls us
ever deeper to Himself, Jesus lover of our souls.
My prayer is that we would all rest like sponges in Him this night, Erchomai Kyrios.
Isaiah 700 BC:

Isa 52:13-15 Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently; He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high. Just as many were astonished at you, So His visage was marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men; So shall He sprinkle many nations. Kings shall shut their mouths at Him; For what had not been told them they shall see, And what they had not heard they shall consider.

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Just as this discussion becomes so interesting, I have to go do some errands-annoying necessity.

I really appreciate all the responses to my questions. I’ll be back later.

Yes, I would have to agree with Anna. There are some great posts on this thread.
May God bless you all!
From what I’ve been able to glean from christian history I would have to say that spiritual and religious pride is a big one - not only between protestants and catholics and vice versa but also between protestant denominations as well. Sometimes when I read about what has been done in the Name of God it makes me groan audibly. I think Jesus was right to warn us.
Matthew - Mark & Luke:

Beware of the yeast (bacteria) that puffs up the simple truth of the Gospel
Mat 16:6 Then Jesus said to them,
“Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”
Did they get it? Do we truly get it?
Matthew 16:11-12
“How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?–[but] to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that He did not tell [them] to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
It is the unleavened bread of Christ that all in Christ must be fed with - this is our point of unity in Him - He also warned us about political leaven as well - we cannot and should not adulterate His message.

Mark 8:15 Then He charged them, saying,
“Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”
This verse is almost prophetic to me - there are many times both presently and in the course of our history where in gathering to the Lord Jesus - we have run amuck and trampled one another. Our Lord saw it then and He sees it now.
Luk 12:1 In the meantime, when an innumerable multitude of people had gathered together, so that they trampled one another, He began to say to His disciples first of all, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

When Catholics and Protestants look at the face of Jesus and not the stinging serpents there is love, grace, and adoration for the Holy One. When we can unite around Christ as
our center we lift and honor His Name and when Christ is lifted up from the earth (I realize this is the cross but truisms flow like waterfalls) then He shall draw all men to Himself.
On the Cross of Christ - Jesus Lifted up:

John 3:12-15
If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

We need to look at the cross and not what stings us - the more we strive to behold Him who took our sin and died in our place - the more His love will unite us as His own.
from the rest of the story:

Our sins nailed to the cross - O what greatfulness we should have for grace. Behold the love of God for each one of us!
Num 21:8-9
Then the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live.” So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.

May God Bless you all,
In Christ, Erchomai Kyrios.

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

**Great post Michael! **

I agree, I despise the anti-semitism of that age, whatever the source.

BTW, the Catholic apologist of note in that era was Father Johann Eck. He was the nemesis of Father Martin Luther and the two went at it head-to-head. This is what Wiki has to say about Father Eck’s position on anti-Semitism:
Michael on Eck:

In 1541 Eck published his Against the Defense of the Jews [German: Ains Juden-büechlins Verlegung]. In it he opposes the position of the Nuremberg reformer Andreas Osiander, who wanted to quash medieval superstition that Jews were responsible for killing Christian children, desecrating the eucharistic Host, and poisoning wells.

Talk about poisoning the wells this is exactly what he did
I guess Eck must have forgotten this verse - the Word of the Lord:
Quoting God to Abraham:

Gen 12:2-4a
I will make you a great nation; I will bless you And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." So Abram departed as the LORD had spoken to him

Have we forgot we have been grafted into the tree that is named Israel?
St. Paul's letter to the Roman Church:

Rom 11:15-21
For if their being cast away [is] the reconciling of the world, what [will] their acceptance [be] but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit [is] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]; and if the root [is] holy, so [are] the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, [remember that] you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well [said]. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.

AND TO THE CHURCH AT PHILLIPI

Phl 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for [His] good pleasure. **Do all things without complaining and disputing, **

Such grace does make me tremble and to our brother Paul I say Amen!

PS: 东正教基督徒 it certainly doesn’t get any more Eastern than that thanks for your Orthodoxy - it is straight talk my Christian friend. May God bless you.
Maranantha
Erchomai Kyrios.

 

[Anna_Scott]

IMO it’s absurd to say the RCC facilitated the Nazi’s in any way … obviously the church secretly did many things for the Jews (hiding tens of thousands who would have almost certainly been otherwise killed). Some point to the silence and public capitulation of the church; and this is I guess a fair critique. However, it goes without saying that had the church taken a hard stance against Hitler the gates of hell might have prevailed against her (since I can’t think of a better nominee for devil than Hitler)

humble_in_doubt:

Many negative things have been written about who did what during the Holocaust. At the same time, there were indeed Christians who risked their lives to help the Jewish people.

This is a copy/paste of one of my previous posts.

"I have become very good friends with a Jewish couple (met them 5 years ago.) They are retired and are in their 80’s. Their families immigrated to the U.S. before the Holocaust. I will not give their names. The wife told me a few months ago, that her husband has been sending checks to a group of Catholic Nuns for years. I was rather startled.

She said many years ago, her husband learned that this group of Nuns had helped Jews escape during the Holocaust. The Nuns ended up in the U.S. So, for all these years, this Jewish man has been sending checks to help support these Catholic Nuns. His wife said there are only a few Nuns still living. Most of the Nuns have passed away. He stills sends the checks.

I think we can all learn something from this Jewish couple, whether we are Protestant or Catholic." Anna.

From what I have read, there were Christians who helped the Jews, and Christians who “sold them out.”

However, if this Jewish couple can see past all that was wrong, perhaps we can stop accusing one another.
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

it’s funny … the reformers never depicted salvation as “an event” in the way contemporary evangelicals do. Catholic apologists misconstrued their doctrines & accused them of framing salvation as an event (inferring there is no requirement to live your faith, live in holiness, perform good works, etc); and I guess it became a self-fulfilling prophecy (since it caught on & today many if not most evangelicals have taken the view that a one time profession for Christ guarantees ones salvation regardless of their future behavior or beliefs).

Humble in Doubt:
You have made an astute observation.

I am a Christian in the Protestant sector. There are indeed many differing ideas about salvation. I have heard just about all of them in my 54 years on this planet.

I think there is much confusion in some Protestant Churches (not all) regarding spiritual experiences–as opposed to emotional experiences. The two are not the same.

I have heard many ministers and Bible study teachers espouse the idea “once saved, always saved,” with great emphasis on faith as opposed to works.

However, the Bible clearly states that we must have both faith and works, and we can actually lose our salvation.

I will let the Scriptures speak:

John 5:25-29 (NASB): **
25 "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
26 "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;
27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.
28 "Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29 and will come forth;* those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment***.

Hebrews 6:4-6 (NIV):
4*** It is impossible for those*** who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,
5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age,
6*** if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.***

Hebrews 12:14-16 (NIV):
14 ***Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. ***
15 See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many.
16 See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.

James 2:14-18(ESV):
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,
16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?
17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
Footnotes: a. James 2:16 Or benefit

James 2:21-26 (ESV):
21 Was not*** Abraham our father justified by works*** when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.
24*** You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.***
25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?
26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also** faith apart from works is dead**.

2 Peter 3:16-18 (NIV):
16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and** fall from your secure position**. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.

1 John 2:4-6 (NIV):
4 The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him:
6** Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did**.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

The footnote in my Douay-Rheims just states that in the time of St. Paul, there was a practice of people having themselves baptized on behalf of the dead. Later on (it could not have been very much later), the Church clarified the doctrines around Baptism, and made it understood that people have to be baptized in person, while they are still alive. The Church also talked about “baptism of desire” for those who died while preparing for Baptism, and “baptism of blood” for Catechumens who were taken away and martyred for their Christian faith, even though they had not yet been baptized.

jmcrae:

Thank you for this information-very enlightening.

Note that St. Paul is not approving of the practice of baptism for the dead; he is only commenting on it. I imagine that there were a lot of very strange things going on in the Early Church, before there was a chance to fully clarify things.