What to do with a King James Bible

[FrJohnB]

I’ll admit to a lack of familiarity as to what the Orthodox are doing, however the “passing on” of the line isn’t as simple as “well if you have it you have it”. It’s not a like a license to drive, or some such thing. Certainly one must consider the intent, and the intent of the Anglicans was to:

Support Schism (I guess the E. Orthodox wouldn’t have a problem here)
Deny the teaching on the real presence (again, despite what some individauls believe)
Deny Sacraed Tradition
Deny the authority of Rome (I guess the E. Orthodox would have no issue there)
among other things.

Which such beliefs at the very core of anglicanism, how can you confidently say they have maintained a valid unbroken line of apistolic succession?

Take a chill pill brother! I am not here to argue over “Schism” I am just pointing out some valid points. I do not believe they could say their lines are unbroken from OUR standpoint, but from their standpoint they see these moves as a solidification of their lines and a move away from the heresy that is running rampant in the Episcopal church as they view it.
Who said BTW they deny the real presence? To my knowledge that is one of their core beliefs. Only those who have been disenfranchised and uninformed tend to spread rumors. We have those too.

 

[GKC]

Have you ever heard of the Order of Corporate Reunion? This happened when some Catholic Bishops started the reunion with some Anglicans and made some bishops. The Ruling from Rome on these is “Valid but irregular.”
My lines of apostolic succession also have one active Roman Catholic Bishop in them who was a consecrator. Are you now saying that my Anglican lines are not valid and neither are that of the Roman Catholic bishop who laid hands on me? Be careful as not all Anglicans are the same. Those of the Conservative branch have Orthodox bishops in their lines and orthodox bishops consecrators as well as Roman Catholics. Those in the Mainline Episcopal church DO NOT.
If some Anglicans (such as myself) are already recognized by the Orthodox and Rome it would be unfair to paint us all with the same brush.

I am not certain as to the point of Orthodox lines (details always appreciated), but certainly, after the Agreement of Bonn, in 1932, mainline Anglicans have both Utrecht OC and PNCC lines (post 1946). Always assuming form, matter and intent to be valid, of course.

GKC

 

[crazzeto]

IF Anglican Holy Orders are invalid as you so claim why then was MGR. Graham Leonard the Former Bishop of London (God rest his soul) who was received by John Paul II NOT re-ordained because of some of the lines that Padrej is speaking of like the old Catholic Lines of Utrecht that some Anglicans also carry? When he was received he was sub-conditionally blessed which means his orders were recognized. Can you explain this if you say their orders are NOT valid?

Depends upone what is going on here with “cross fertalized”:

He was famously ordained as a Catholic priest conditionally. He had convinced Cardinal Ratzinger that his orders (which had been cross fertilized by through the Old Catholic succession) were ‘valid enough’ for there to be some doubt. Mgr. Leonard would recount with a twinkle in his eye that Cardinal Ratzinger said to him, “I won’t say that you’re not a priest.”

My own memories of Mgr. Leonard are of a warm hearted and courteous English gentleman priest of the old school. He always had a kind word for everyone. I never saw an ounce of snobbishness or arrogance in him. In addition to his wordly accomplishments he was most of all a holy man–a lover of God and of his fellow man. May he rest in peace.

For instance I’m aware of certain “renegade” Bishops who are ordaining men in Protestant traditions, certainly an irregularity. Is this what happened with Mgr Leonard specifically? If it was how then do we apply his story across the board to “anglicans”?

In order to suppor the claim being made above, one must successfully argue that the Anglican Church as a whole, must have valid orders and this is essentially the point Padrej was making when I jumped in.

 

[Padrej]

Depends upone what is going on here with “cross fertalized”:

For instance I’m aware of certain “renegade” Bishops who are ordaining men in Protestant traditions, certainly an irregularity. Is this what happened with Mgr Leonard specifically? If it was how then do we apply his story across the board to “anglicans”?

In order to suppor the claim being made above, one must successfully argue that the Anglican Church as a whole, must have valid orders and this is essentially the point Padrej was making when I jumped in.

With all due respect, the problem is you are painting us ALL with the same brush and there have been changes since the Papal Bull that you have cited. Many Anglicans do carry lines that most Roman Catholics are not aware of, that is why I say it is highly unfair to paint us all with a broad brush.
As to the renegade bishop question you pose, to my knowledge it is not the case with Mgr Leonard.

BTW Can you please also explain how you claim that not all Anglicans believe in the Real Presence? Can you cite a source please? I have heard this claim before but no source to back the claim.

 

[GKC]

Thanks for that post FrJohnB… What I’m missing is where it contradicts the Pope’s encylical stating Anglican orders are null and void. Meaning they lack valid holy orders, which would contradict any statement suggesting that they are “valid but irregular”. They can’t be null and void and at the same time “valid but irregular”.

Anglican Priests lack valid Holy Orders, and in fact if you watch Journey home with an Anglican Priest convert (I’ve seen several) usually one of the first things they talk about is “at the time I thought I was really turning the bread and wine into Christs body and blood, but I wasn’t because I didn’t have valid holy orders”.

Apostolicae Curae made a specific judgment about the episcopal lines/apostolic succession of the Church of England, as of 1896, based on conclusions that the Edwardine Ordinal was an invalid form for transmittal of orders and also on the intertwined issue of invalid intent (usually said to be the intent of the consecrators of Archbishop Parker in 1559 - see Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION). The issue of Anglican orders being valid but illicit involves the consequences of the later infusion of orthodox episcopal lines (as with the Old Catholics, or the Polish National Catholic Church) which Rome does recognize as being valid, but illicit, into Anglicanism, via joint episcopal consecrations. This would make (theoretically) a change in the circumstances on which the judgment in *AC *was made.

It is an interesting (and complicated) point. But given that Anglicans don’t recognize the validity of Apostolicae Curae, the point is moot, for them.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[crazzeto]

With all due respect, the problem is you are painting us ALL with the same brush and there have been changes since the Papal Bull that you have cited. Many Anglicans do carry lines that most Roman Catholics are not aware of, that is why I say it is highly unfair to paint us all with a broad brush.
As to the renegade bishop question you pose, to my knowledge it is not the case with Mgr Leonard.

BTW Can you please also explain how you claim that not all Anglicans believe in the Real Presence? Can you cite a source please? I have heard this claim before but no source to back the claim.

religion.wikia.com/wiki/Anglican_Eucharistic_theology

It seems some anglicans have this view of their Church as being similar to the Catholic Church in so far as there being a single Doctrine. In reality there isn’t, it’s much looser than that. The best you can say about the Church as a whole is a position of “make up your own mind”, though originally the intent was to deny the real presense.

 

[GKC]

Crazzeto
I think you may need to kno a little of the history of the Order of Corporate Reunion.
The Order of Corporate Reunion (OCR) was established amid the developments in nineteenth-century Anglicanism that gave rise to the Oxford Movement and the consequent debate over the validity of Anglican orders, a debate that reached a head with the issuing of the Bull “Apostolicae Curae” by Pope Leo XIII in 1896. This Bull, which was the outcome of a petition by both Anglicans and Roman Catholics requesting an investigation of the issue, declared Anglican orders to be “absolutely null and utterly void”, an official position which remains that of the Vatican today.

Under these circumstances, some Anglicans resolved to ensure that their church had access to Holy Orders which were undoubtedly valid and that would remove the related obstacles to corporate reunion between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church.

A Pastoral Letter was published in “Reunion Magazine” of 1877 (reprinted in “The Tablet” of 23 January 1909). This letter was planned as early as 1875 and had been initially addressed to Henry, Cardinal Manning. The eventual letter read in part:

“Every faithful Christian must surely be distressed and bewildered at the spectacle afforded by the evil state into which the National Church of England has been brought by departure from ancient principles and by recent events. A long course of change, usurpation, and revolution has moved all her old land-marks. The evil is continually working; no man being able to foresee whereunto it will grow, or what will be the end thereof. Two things are certain, however: on the one hand, that all semblance of independent existence and corporate action has departed from the Established Church, so that she is given up, as it were, bound hand and foot, and blindfolded into the toils of her enemies; while, on the other hand, these enemies are waiting to rob her of her privileges and possessions, and are even now debating how to divide the spoil. We affirm, that in the Providence of God, the evil itself has opened the door to a remedy. For the Bishops of the Church of England, having yielded up all canonical authority and jurisdiction in the spiritual order, can neither interfere with, nor restrain, Us in Our work of recovering from elsewhere that which has been forfeited or lost - securing three distinct and independent lines of a new Episcopal Succession, so as to labour corporately, and on no sandy foundation, for the healing of the breach which has been made. In thus associating ourselves together, we solemnly take as the basis of this Our Order the Catholic Faith as defined by the Seven General Councils, acknowledged as such by the whole Church of the East and the West before the great and deplorable schism, and as commonly received in the Apostles´ Creed, and the Creed of Nicaea, and the Creed of St. Athanasius. To all the sublime doctrines so laid down, We declare our unreserved adhesion, as well as to the principles of Church constitution and discipline, set forth and approved by the said Seven General Councils. Furthermore, until the whole Church shall speak on the subject, We accept all those dogmatic statements set forth in common by the Council of Trent and the Synod of Bethlehem respectively, with regard to the doctrine of the Sacraments… Thanking Almighty God most humbly for the restoration of Brotherhoods, Sisterhoods, and Guilds, We solemny affirm that the Monastic Life, duly regulated according to the laws of the Catholic Church, is a most salutary institution, in perfect harmony with the spirit of the Gospel; and is full of profit to those who, being carefully tried and examined, make full proof of their calling thereto. Our services will always be at the disposal of such - upon whom We invoke the Divine blessing. As regards the chief aim of this new Order - Corporate Reunion - it is needful to remark finally, that, while We have to deplore the divisions existing amongst the churches, We cannot unchurch any having a true succession. Therefore, We pray for all, We remove all stumblingblocks in the way of union amongst the baptized, whom We hail and regard as brethren, while, on disputed points of Church opinion not yet defined by lawful Authority. We appeal to a free General Council, with earnest prayers to God for its speedy assembly and guidance by the Holy Ghost. Amen.”

Who were the men who lay behind this letter, and where did the new Episcopal Succession they referred to come from? John Thomas Seccombe (1835-95), a medical officer and magistrate, had been conditionally re-ordained priest and consecrated on 18-19 November 1866 by Jules Ferrette (1828-1904), who had been consecrated as Bishop of Iona on 2 June by Mutran Boutros (later Patriarch Ignatius Boutros IV) of the Syrian Orthodox Church. Frederick George Lee (1832-1902), an Anglican priest, was consecrated in Venice in June 1877 by Abbot-General Ignas Guregh (Ignations Ghiurekian) of the Ordo Mechitaristarum Venetiarum (“Mekhitarists”). Thomas Wimberly Mossman SSC (1826-89), Anglican rector of West Torrington, Lincs., was consecrated in June 1877 by Luigi Nazari di Calabiana, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Milan, who may have been assisted by others. It was the Archbishop of Milan who was instrumental in encouraging the creation of the OCR.
You can see it was from we Catholics that this formed this union.

More info may be found, for those who can find the book, in Peter Anson’s BISHOPS AT LARGE, esp. pp. 69-90.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I’ll admit to a lack of familiarity as to what the Orthodox are doing, however the “passing on” of the line isn’t as simple as “well if you have it you have it”. It’s not a like a license to drive, or some such thing. Certainly one must consider the intent, and the intent of the Anglicans was to:

Support Schism (I guess the E. Orthodox wouldn’t have a problem here)
Deny the teaching on the real presence (again, despite what some individauls believe)
Deny Sacraed Tradition
Deny the authority of Rome (I guess the E. Orthodox would have no issue there)
among other things.

Which such beliefs at the very core of anglicanism, how can you confidently say they have maintained a valid unbroken line of apistolic succession?

Because these are not the points which are listed in Apostolicae Curae, as justifying a judgment that the Anglicans lost apostolic succession. That has to do specifically with the connected issues of defect of form (in the Edwardine Ordinal, as it was at the time) and defect of intention (which must adhere in the act(s) of a particular individual, in a particular sacramental action). The point is that an infusion of valid episcopal lines into Anglicanism, from whatever source, would, logically, infuse valid but illicit orders. Rome has not made a formal statement on this.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Take a chill pill brother! I am not here to argue over “Schism” I am just pointing out some valid points. I do not believe they could say their lines are unbroken from OUR standpoint, but from their standpoint they see these moves as a solidification of their lines and a move away from the heresy that is running rampant in the Episcopal church as they view it.
Who said BTW they deny the real presence? To my knowledge that is one of their core beliefs. Only those who have been disenfranchised and uninformed tend to spread rumors. We have those too.

An interesting point is to compare the Words of Administration of the Eucharist in the 1549, the 1552 and the 1559 Books of Common Prayer.

Nothing in any formal document of the Anglican world denies the Real Presence. Of course, since nothing in the Anglican world definitively defines Anglican belief, outside of (theoretically) the Creeds, that doesn’t help much.

GKC

 

[Lapell]

religion.wikia.com/wiki/Anglican_Eucharistic_theology

It seems some anglicans have this view of their Church as being similar to the Catholic Church in so far as there being a single Doctrine. In reality there isn’t, it’s much looser than that. The best you can say about the Church as a whole is a position of “make up your own mind”, though originally the intent was to deny the real presense.

Maybe those Anglicans are High Church Anglicans…

 

[Padrej]

religion.wikia.com/wiki/Anglican_Eucharistic_theology

It seems some anglicans have this view of their Church as being similar to the Catholic Church in so far as there being a single Doctrine. In reality there isn’t, it’s much looser than that. The best you can say about the Church as a whole is a position of “make up your own mind”, though originally the intent was to deny the real presense.

The problem is there is NO formal document within Anglicanism that says contrary to the link you posted that Anglicans follow consubstantiation that the Lutherans do with the exception of the Reformed Episcopal Church; their prayer book’s 39 articles forbids its belief. Keep in mind Wikipedia articles such as this one can be edited by ANYONE.
It is true that Many Anglo Catholics do believe in Transubstantiation like Roman Catholics do; however, this runs contrary to the 39 articles which states we do not believe in this. However the Anglo Catholic party seems to have always done what they darn well pleased outside of the 39 articles to start with so this does not surprise me.

I think the problem lies in that we Anglicans have allowed too many Liberal thinkers into the mixture of leadership and we have drifted too far from historic teachings of the Apostolic Fathers. With this in mind it is small wonder if you look at earlier publications of the Episcopal church on the subject you have just about all leaning towards “real presence” now what is produced is all over the map. I think this article on this forum makes this point very clear and cites the early works pertinent to this conversation.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9906fea3.asp

This article from the continuum may also hel pyou to understand classical Alglican thought on the Eucharist
anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/09/fine-paper-on-eucharistic-theology.html

 

[crazzeto]

The problem is there is NO formal document within Anglicanism that says contrary to the link you posted that Anglicans follow consubstantiation that the Lutherans do with the exception of the Reformed Episcopal Church; their prayer book’s 39 articles forbids its belief. Keep in mind Wikipedia articles such as this one can be edited by ANYONE.
It is true that Many Anglo Catholics do believe in Transubstantiation like Roman Catholics do; however, this runs contrary to the 39 articles which states we do not believe in this. However the Anglo Catholic party seems to have always done what they darn well pleased outside of the 39 articles to start with so this does not surprise me.

I think the problem lies in that we Anglicans have allowed too many Liberal thinkers into the mixture of leadership and we have drifted too far from historic teachings of the Apostolic Fathers. With this in mind it is small wonder if you look at earlier publications of the Episcopal church on the subject you have just about all leaning towards “real presence” now what is produced is all over the map. I think this article on this forum makes this point very clear and cites the early works pertinent to this conversation.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9906fea3.asp

This article from the continuum may also hel pyou to understand classical Alglican thought on the Eucharist
anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/09/fine-paper-on-eucharistic-theology.html

I would argue the problem isn’t so much that the communion has “allowed” too many liberal thinkers, as it is there’s nothing it can do about it. Anyway, I know we like to say “anyone can edit wikki”, then just dismiss any information found in a wikki, but to be 100% honest… Every study I’ve seen comparing wikki to say, Encylopedia Britanica (for instance) has shown that actually wikki is every bit as accurate. So, just food for thought there, since that was thrown out there.

 

[GKC]

Outside of ordinands of the Church of England (technically, due to its erastian nature) any Anglican is free to take any attitude toward the Articles, from affirming all, to picking and chosing. Given that a few jurisdictions make them normative, one would expect some therein to affirm them. None must, generically, as Anglicans.

Anglicans who accept the transubstantiation explanation of the real presence do so as a pious opinion.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

The problem is there is NO formal document within Anglicanism that says contrary to the link you posted that Anglicans follow consubstantiation that the Lutherans do with the exception of the Reformed Episcopal Church; their prayer book’s 39 articles forbids its belief. Keep in mind Wikipedia articles such as this one can be edited by ANYONE.
It is true that Many Anglo Catholics do believe in Transubstantiation like Roman Catholics do; however, this runs contrary to the 39 articles which states we do not believe in this. However the Anglo Catholic party seems to have always done what they darn well pleased outside of the 39 articles to start with so this does not surprise me.

I think the problem lies in that we Anglicans have allowed too many Liberal thinkers into the mixture of leadership and we have drifted too far from historic teachings of the Apostolic Fathers. With this in mind it is small wonder if you look at earlier publications of the Episcopal church on the subject you have just about all leaning towards “real presence” now what is produced is all over the map. I think this article on this forum makes this point very clear and cites the early works pertinent to this conversation.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9906fea3.asp

This article from the continuum may also hel pyou to understand classical Alglican thought on the Eucharist
anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/09/fine-paper-on-eucharistic-theology.html

 

[Padrej]

Outside of ordinands of the Church of England (technically, due to its erastian nature) any Anglican is free to take any attitude toward the Articles, from affirming all, to picking and chosing. Given that a few jurisdictions make them normative, one would expect some therein to affirm them. None must, generically, as Anglicans.

Anglicans who accept the transubstantiation explanation of the real presence do so as a pious opinion.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

That is the problem! If you believe it is the real presence as you just admitted to as being a “pious opinion”, then call it that and not the other and end the confusion.
As to the picking and choosing, that is something that bothers me, either you say on one had the 39 articles are a historic document and become a new church that worships in an Anglican style, or use them and stay Anglican. Why not be Unitarian Anglican or Baha’i Anglican if you want to pick and choose what is best and what is not. Last I checked Christianity was not like a restaurant menu where you picked from column A and B.

 

[GKC]

The real presence is the “what” and is, as Catholics can show, scripturally demonstrable. Transubstantiation is a “how”. It is as noble a try at explaining how the wheels go around, how the Eucharist is really, truly, substantially the Body and Blood of Christ as any I know. But to Anglicans it is a pious opinion.

One picks and chooses, from amongst the 3 major divisions of the Articles, based at least primarily on those that are mere Christianity ( say, Art. I, for example), and others that are historical limits based on how Elizabeth chose to rule her fractious Church. It is as Bishop Bull said of them, as I have quoted somewhere here recently:

“The Church of England professeth not to deliver all her Articles as essentials of faith, without the belief whereof no man can be saved; but only propounds them as a body of safe and pious principles, for the preservation of peace to be subscribed, and not openly contradicted by her sons. And, therefore, she requires subscription to them only from the clergy, and not from the laity.”

“The Articles are to be subscribed to in the sense intended by those whose authority makes the subscription requisite.”

Since I am not in the CoE, even less an ordinand of that Church, the Articles, as a document, (13 Elizabeth, Cap. 12) have no particular claim on me, or on any Anglican so situated.

I have no doubt there are Unitarian Anglicans. or Bah’ai Anglicans; Anglicans are a massively motley crew. Me, I’m an Anglo-Catholic Anglican. Who knows that there is no requirement, generally, for Anglicans, generally to subscribe, generally, to the Articles. Last I checked, Anglicanism was not isomorphic with Christianity. Picking and choosing from the Articles is not picking and choosing items of the Creeds.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

That is the problem! If you believe it is the real presence as you just admitted to as being a “pious opinion”, then call it that and not the other and end the confusion.
As to the picking and choosing, that is something that bothers me, either you say on one had the 39 articles are a historic document and become a new church that worships in an Anglican style, or use them and stay Anglican. Why not be Unitarian Anglican or Baha’i Anglican if you want to pick and choose what is best and what is not. Last I checked Christianity was not like a restaurant menu where you picked from column A and B.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Like a broken record I still say the 39 Articles are a major part of Anglican ethos and understanding of church polity and theology. If priests in the Church of England are expected to abide by and respect them, I still fail to understand how a layman attending a Mass of that tradition is allowed to pick and choose or abandon them altogether? I know they are not as binding as, say, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but they historically are so crucial in making sense of what Anglicans are to believe. My old rector valued them a great deal and thought Anglicans should not only follow the creeds, scriptures, and prayer book but the Articles. Father James was a big Articles fan and would quote them when seeking to understand the church. I still feel that the only reason that Anglo-Catholics don’t want to follow the Articles is that they are a stumbling block, a square peg that won’t fit or make sense so the way to rationalize it is to make them an option, not a must. I agree with your take on Transubstantiation from an Anglican standpoint. When I was attending Anglican Church worship, I saw the Eucharist through the lens of transub., and saw it not as official truth but my way of understanding it.

The real presence is the “what” and is, as Catholics can show, scripturally demonstrable. Transubstantiation is a “how”. It is as noble a try at explaining how the wheels go around, how the Eucharist is really, truly, substantially the Body and Blood of Christ as any I know. But to Anglicans it is a pious opinion.

One picks and chooses, from amongst the 3 major divisions of the Articles, based at least primarily on those that are mere Christianity ( say, Art. I, for example), and others that are historical limits based on how Elizabeth chose to rule her fractious Church. It is as Bishop Bull said of them, as I have quoted somewhere here recently:

“The Church of England professeth not to deliver all her Articles as essentials of faith, without the belief whereof no man can be saved; but only propounds them as a body of safe and pious principles, for the preservation of peace to be subscribed, and not openly contradicted by her sons. And, therefore, she requires subscription to them only from the clergy, and not from the laity.”

“The Articles are to be subscribed to in the sense intended by those whose authority makes the subscription requisite.”

Since I am not in the CoE, even less an ordinand of that Church, the Articles, as a document, (13 Elizabeth, Cap. 12) have no particular claim on me, or on any Anglican so situated.

I have no doubt there are Unitarian Anglicans. or Bah’ai Anglicans; Anglicans are a massively motley crew. Me, I’m an Anglo-Catholic Anglican. Who knows that there is no requirement, generally, for Anglicans, generally to subscribe, generally, to the Articles. Last I checked, Anglicanism was not isomorphic with Christianity. Picking and choosing from the Articles is not picking and choosing items of the Creeds.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[jlhargus]

I thought you might find this article of interest:
healtheland.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/less-than-10-of-professed-christians-have-read-the-entire-bible/

It speaks that less than 10% of professed Christians have ever read the ENTIRE Bible. Also another good point to mention in this link.
“Statistical research shows that less than 10% of professing Christians have
ever read the entire Bible. The church as a whole is Biblically illiterate!
From time to time in my Devotional I will give my opinion on an issue and I
am very careful to always let you know when it is Bill Keller’s opinion.
Most of the time I just let God’s words speak for themselves. There is not
one issue, one thing we deal with in everyday life that is not covered in
the Bible.”

The reason that Jehovah’s Witnesses (or groups like them) get as far as they do is they play to the fact that most Christians do not know that much about the Bible and can not spot a misquote or a verse taken out of context.
I must confess there are times that I do not read my Bible EVERY day, and it is those times that I must confess that my spiritual life suffers. As Paul says, “the things I want to do I find that I do not do, and the things I do not want to do I find myself doing.” Thank God for the Grace and forgiveness that He bestows on us all.

God Bless you and forgive the intrusion into your argument/discussion but I ran by this and it seemed germane to the topic.
PadreJ

JL: Thanks I did scan the article it is very long, when I get time I will try to look at it again. I agree most have not read the entire bible. I know I read the NT at lest seven time from MT-RV and tried to read the OT from Gn thru, but always got bogged down, I should be an expert on Gns, with all my starts. I have read the entire bible, Catholic with 7 more OT books. I took the OT by groups of books. Since I like history I started with the historic books, Prophets, Wisdom books and so on. I finally got thru all the OT. I have read different books of the OT several times, and spot read many others several times.

I have found JWs do not read or really know the bible AT ALL, all their answers are given to them thru WT books. They seem to be knowledgeable because they are using WT articles and answers which SOUND very knowledgeable But when you really step back and think about them its fluff.

 

[jlhargus]

its hard to state what you believe and fight for it and not be villainized, lol. I won’t try to understand anything except for scripture then. That way there is no misunderstanding.

JL: You post: “I won’t try to understand anything except for scripture then. That way there is no misunderstanding.”] Have you checked the phone book, yellow pages, lately under CHURCHES? There are thousands of misunderstandings on Scripture. Everyone of them claim to be led by the Holy Spirit in their understanding of the SAME Scriptures, yet none agree. It is a literal Tower of Babel.

That Tower of Babel, sola scriptura, which is a tradition of men made a doctrine of God around 1520AD. That Tower of Babel which confused the ONE faith language into thousands, each group going it’s own way, no longer understanding one another. That tradition of men which does nothing but scatter people of faith instead of gathering into ONE as Christ wills and prayed in the garden, that we may be ONE that the world may believe the Father SENT him. How many groups has sola scriptura united? How many has it divided and still doing so?

John 6:47 That’s it. it’s that simple! So my point is if that’s the end goal, as I assume most people are seeking salvation, why would you need anything else? You could be saved by believing in the Word, trusting Christ as Savior, and accepting the free gift of eternal salvation.

JL: [Jn6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.] Well Catholics believe and trust Christ as Savior and accept the FREE GIFT of eternal salvation. That’s why we baptize infants so they can share in that FREE GIFT with their whole household. In a family relationship with God our Father, being born again by water and the Spirit into God’s spiritual family. We also believe we need to trun from our sins, as Peter taught those at Pentecost. When those who heard the word asked, what shall we do?

[Acts2:37 Now WHEN THEY HEARD this, THEY WERE PRICKED IN THEIR HEART, AND SAID unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, WHAT SHALL WE DO? 38 Then PETER SAID unto them, REPENT, and BE BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, and YE SHALL RECEIVE the GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST. 39 For THE PROMISE IS UNTO YOU, AND to YOUR CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.]

The gift of the INDWELLING HOLY SPIRIT, which is eternal life in our souls, born again as a child of God by water and the Spirit as Christ tell us in [Jn3:5 JESUS ANSWERED, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT a man be BORN OF water AND of the Spirit, HE CANNOT ENTER into THE KINGDOM OF GOD.]

However we do not believe in FAITH ALONE, but FAITH working in LOVE. You post, Jn 6:47 that’s it it’s that simple. Yet the bible says FAITH ALONE is DEAD FAITH and DEAD FAITH cannot SAVE. [Jms 2:17 Thus also FAITH BY ITSELF, if it does not have works, IS DEAD. Jms2:24 Ye see then how that BY WORKS a MAN IS JUSTIFIED, and **NOT BY FAITH ONLY. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as THE BODY WITHOUT THE spirit IS DEAD, so FAITH without works IS DEAD also.] Just as our body without our soul is dead so our faith without works IS dead. James also tells us demons believe, it doesn’t save them. Why? because they do not LOVE. Love and faith are expressed in acts of doing not lip service. I can have faith that will move mountains yet if I have not love it is dead faith and useless.

According to your theory we don’t even need the Holy Bible all we need is a Holy Note, Jn6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.] That’s it. it’s that simple!. I know the apostles seemed dense before the Holy Spirit came on them a Pentecost. Yet according to your theory it took three years of training by Christ to teach the apostles, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I don’t think you really believe that’s it.

 

[jlhargus]

Walk away from all the traditions, trust Christ as your Savior, and see if he fulfills his promise that you will have eternal life.

JL: Walk away from ALL the Traditions, whether by WORD or EPISTLE? Do you suppose Christ would be pleased if we walk away from what He taught?

There are traditions of men and Divine Tradition. Divine Traditions are those Traditions handed on by the apostles whether by word or epistle. They are found in the lived out expirience of the living body of Christ the Church. Then there are traditions of men, basically the customs of the time. Christ didn’t even condenm triditions of men EXCEPT when those traditions of men are made a doctrine of God. A good example of tradition of men made a doctrine of God would be sola scriptura started around 1520. Scripture does not claim it is the sole authority only a tradition of men says that.

As Catholics we believe in the whole Word, OUR GOSPEL wheather by word or epistle as Paul says in [2Thes2:14 Whereunto he called you by **OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, BREATHREN, STAND FAST, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which YE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT, WHETHER by WORD, or our EPISTLE.]

2Tim1:13 HOLD FAST the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED unto thee **KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST **which DWELLETH IN US.

2Tim2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And THE THINGS that THOU HAST HEARD OF ME among many witnesses, THE SAME COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS also.

1Tim6:20 Timothy, KEEP THAT WHICH IS COMMITTED TO THY TRUST, avoiding profane and vain babblings,

Philip4:9 THOSE THINGS, which YE HAVE both LEARNED, and RECEIVED, and HEARD, and SEEN IN ME, DO: and the God of peace shall be with you.]

There are more scripture examples of Divine Tradition, the burden of proof is on you. You must SHOW SOLA SCRIPTURA, or you must show scripture saying ALL oral Tradition has now been included in the written Tradition=Scripture, which you cannot do. Paul says in 2 Thes, OUR GOSPEL, brethren, WHETHER word=oral OR epistle=written.

Jn14: 26: But the Comforter, which is THE HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and BRING ALL THINGS TO your REMEMBRANCE, WHATSOEVER I have SAID UNTO YOU.

Divine Traditions whether WORD or EPISTLE cannot be changed, err or contradict each other, they must always agree. Better understanding of oral or written Traditions can and does evolve, such as which books belong to the canon of the BIBLE took almost four hundred years to evolve. Also the understanding of the Trinity evolved.

The Church, the pillar and ground of truth, 1Tm3:15, which Christ pormised to be with till the end and guide into ALL TRUTH is guided by that same Holy Spirit who breathed the Scriptures.

[Acts15:27 We have SENT therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 28 For IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST, AND to **US, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;] The US is the Church at The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Mt18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but IF HE NEGLECT TO HEAR THE CHRUCH, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

 

[jlhargus]

Nowhere after John 6:47 does it say- “and go to confessional”

JL: Well you are correct because John is not speaking of confession in Jn6, but what does John tell us Christ is speaking about in Jn6 in the very NEXT verse, Jn6:48 I AM THAT BREAD OF LIFE. What does John continue writting Jn6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, EXCEPT ye eat the FLESH of the Son of man, and drink his BLOOD, YE HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU. 54 WHOSO EATETH MY FLESH, and DRINKETH MY BLOOD; I WILL RAISE him up AT THE LAST DAY. 55 For MY FLESH IS MEAT INDEED, and MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED. 56 HE THAT EATETH my flesh, AND DRINKETH my blood, DWELLETH IN ME, and I in him.

John does tell us after Jn6 in [Jn20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: AS MY FATHER hath SENT ME, even so SEND I YOU. 22 And when he had said this, HE BREATHED ON THEM, and saith unto them, RECEIVE YE THE HOLY GHOST: 23 WHOSE SOEVER SINS YE REMIT, they **ARE REMITTED unto them; and WHOSE SOEVER SINS YE RETAIN, they ARE RETAINED.]

Among other things, didn’t the Father also SEND Christ to forgive sins? LIKEWISE Christ SENDS the apostles with the SAME authority AS the Father SENT Him. How can the apostles know and judge whether to REMIT SINS or RETAIN SINS if they don’t know what those sins are?

God breathed on Adam and the Scriptures are God breathed. What does God’s breath give? LIFE. His breath gave life to Adam and the breathed Scripture give life to faith. So also God’s breath gives life in confession to a spiritually dead soul, who has sinned and spiritually died AFTER baptism.

In the beginning confession was made publically in the assembly and the apostles passed judgement. Remember Ananias and his wife Sapphira in Acts5:1-11. They both agree to lie to the Church about how much they sold their land for and kept some of the money saying they gave it all to the Church. They were both given a change to confess their sins, but instead repeated the lie.

Notice who did they lie to, [Acts5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart **to LIE TO THE HOLY GHOST, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not LIED unto men, but UNTO GOD.] They lied to the Holy Ghost who IS GOD, how could you lie to an active force? Act5:3 and 4 shows the divinity of the Holy Ghost, as Jn1:1 shows Christ’s divinity.

Also Peter said they did not lie to men but to God, yet they confessed that lie to the Church. So when we confess our sins to the priest we are confessing to God. Peter gives the judgement on each person, their sins were retained.

Acts5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? THOU HAST NOT LIED UNTO MEN, BUT UNTO GOD.

Acts5:9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that YE HAVE AGREED together TO TEMPT THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD? behold, THE FEET of them WHICH have BURIED THY HUSBAND are at the door, and SHALL CARRY THEE OUT.

[Jms5:14 **Is any sick among you? let him CALL FOR THE ELDERS OF THE CHURCH and LET THEM PRAY OVER HIM ANOINTING HIM WITH OIL in the name of the Lord 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up and IF HE HAVE COMMITTED SINS THEY SHALL BE FORGIVEN HIM] This sacrament is called Anointing of the Sick. We see sins are also forgiven here. It is the elders=priest who anoint and forgive sins that is a function of a priest.

[Jms5:16 CONFESS YOUR FAULTS ONE TO ANOTHER, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.] By the way to you confess to another human being?

Even in the OT confession to a priest was done.

Lv 5:4 Or if a person thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil in any matter one might carelessly swear about even though he is unaware of it, in any case when he learns of it he will be guilty. 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.

I will try to finish the rest Friday.