Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

[PRmerger]

Well I really did not want to get into this. It’s a personal issue with a family member. You can contact me if you want to know about it.

It need not be personal.

It’s a general question: do you think your life is yours to take? It’s not murder to take your own life, (although it would be for* someone else *to take your life?)

Here “you” is a rhetorical “you”. Not a personal “you”.

So please just answer what you believe the principle is.

Is your life yours to take?

 

[benhur]

But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position. That is sobering stuff.

Their leaven was not “corruption” but bad “doctrine”, bad interpretation and application and or addition(tradition) of the Law. "Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the* doctrine** of the Pharisees and Sadducees."* Mat16
From other scriptures it is meant that their authority comes from the L aw, and they are to be obeyed only to the extent that they correctly teach/command. For instance Peter says we (they) are to obey God rather than men, even if in Moses seat (when they are wrong as in not to preach in the name of Jesus). I think you misconstrue the Seat as being unconditionally authoritative. Moses did not misconstrue the Law he received at the hand of God when judging the people in his Seat. Truth should be authoritative no matter where it sits,especially as it is written = the Law, what all teaching was based on.

 

[benhur]

There were no Protestants then, BTW. So one was either a Catholic, a pagan, Jew or Muslim.

No Orthodox or Hussites or Waldenses and a few others ?

So this is consistent with your church’s teaching, I presume, which is if someone is a pagan, Jew or Muslim, he cannot be saved unless he clings to Jesus?

Yes, in a universal sense with less parochialism. Do the Orthodox say you must be Orthodox ? Did or do the Hussites ? Could it be the statement does show narrow evangelicanism, as in no one goes to Father except thru the Son and that thru the Catholic Church as opposed to other legitimate churches of the time ? It is a plausible concern put forth by Dalphon.

 

[guanophore]

Well first of all that’s a ridiculous question. Of course Jesus wouldn’t tell anyone to ignore His mother. I never heard that ridiculous idea until now on this thread, as a way of putting Protestants down.

Sorry if you were offended by that. I have not read anything in your posts that would seem to indicate you have that attitude, but there are some Protestants that do. I have read some very disparaging remarks about Mary on CAF. It is almost like sometimes people are saying “I have no need of a womb”, with regard to not valuing certain parts of the Body. Things like that God didn’t need Mary (which is true, he chooses to need us) and that her saying “yes” to the angel is no big deal - God could have just as well chosen any peasant girl.

But you remind me of a good point. What helps Protestants most is usually just asking Jesus to develop within them the beliefs and attitudes He wants them to have toward His mother. We can trust that this is 100% His will, and He is happy to perform it.

How can you be sure that everything the apostles taught is in Catholic and Orthodox churches…since Pentecost? Maybe they taught more than that. Maybe some of their writings were lost, or destroyed by their enemies.

This is an excellent question, and I think the answer just boils down to faith. We believe that Jesus has kept his word to bring to mind all that He had taught, to lead the Church into “all Truth”, and to preserve the Word that He implanted within the Church. Just as He promised that none of His sheep would be lost, He has preserved everything that is needed for our salvation. He is the builder of the Church, not we, and it is the HS who maintains what He has given.

" But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you". John 14:26

" So shall my word be, which shall go forth from my mouth: it shall not return to me void, but it shall do whatsoever I please, and shall prosper in the things for which I sent it." Isa. 55:11.

We believe that His Word, placed in His Church, is there to accomplish our salvation, so it will be preserved as He sent it until the end of the age, and all those that are to be made members of His Body are complete.

Maybe the Oriental and Egyptian churches have more to offer.

Not so much “more” as “different”. There are differences of culture, language, practice and therefore liturgy. The content is the same, but the expression is different.

It is good that you are thinking about these things, as one must go where one is called. You seem to want to go to where the fullest of faith can be found.

 

[guanophore]

Come on you can do better than that. That we can all pray, and that we can all pray for one another is a given. That the departed living have same hearing and seeing qualities of the Paraclete affording them specific intercession is some folks issue.

It is an appropriate query. Samuel only knew what God allowed him to know about Saul. (I Sam 28:15). Moses and Elijah only knew what God revealed to them. (Matt. 17:3). And we are not sure about the identity of the man from Macedonia (Acts 16:9).

Your paradigm is needlessly superfluous. You go from Godlike to deaf and dumb.

When you say things like this, it seems that you are lacking understanding of God’s plan for humanity.

Becoming partakers of His divine nature is not the same as becoming God. If by “Godlike” you mean that we can experience some aspects of the divine nature, like knowing things other than by logic (by spiritual revelation), these are gifts given by God.

"His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature. " I Peter 1:4

12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father." John 14:12

If Jesus could have a chat with Moses and Elijah, why could we not?

 

[Dalphon]

Here “you” is a rhetorical “you”. Not a personal “you”.

So please just answer what you believe the principle is.

Is your life yours to take?

Your life is not yours to take. Suicide is not permissible. I wouldn’t tell anyone to kill himself.
That’s not the issue. The issue is the change in teaching about the matter.

 

[guanophore]

 All that's true but what I said is also true. No mention of Mary in any of the recorded gospel messages.

Acts 10 - Peter preaches to the gentiles,
Acts - Paul preaches to the jailers, Paul preaches to the Greeks
John 3 - Jesus preaches the gospel,
Hebrews 12 - “fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher…”

This is a good example of why we say that Protestants have settled for a truncated Gospel (readers’s digest version). The fact that you assign the term “gospel messages” to these passages of Scripture is an artificial and modern innovation. Modern evangelicals have distilled the “Gospel” into these passages, and excluded other passages as not being related to the Gospel. This started with Luther, and has continued ever since.

The Apostolic Churches have a completely inclusive view:

1 In the first book, O The-ophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. Acts 1:1-3.

We consider the “Gospel” to be all that Jesus did and taught, and the fullness of the message He entrusted to the Apostles. So for us, Mary is very much a part of the Gospel, as are all others contained in the record of the faith. The fact that Mary and the Apostles, prophets, disciples, early Fathers, etc. are part of the Gospel message does not mean we are saved by them.

 Yes, also not in the accounts I mention above.

Using such a method, it would be possible to as many interpretations of Scripture as we do bellly buttons.

To show the absurdity of this method, one can use it with a different handful of verses.

28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” John 6:28–29

" And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he (Judas)departed and went and hanged himself with an halter." Matthew 27:5

“And Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”Matthew 10:37

I already said two times it’s possible. How do you know they didn’t get around on skateboards? How do you know they didn’t smoke cigars?

The Gospel message is not cobbled together by a modern parsing of various passages. It is a message entrusted to the Church. It is whole and entire, and if one begins to pull out one thread of it, the whole garment begins to unravel.

No. I’m sure they do but I’m not commenting on those writings. I’m commenting on the biblical accounts. The recorded preaching in the bible does not include Mary.

If it did not, Dalphon, it would not have been included. The books known in the early church as “the memoirs of the Apostles” all include Mary in the Gospel.

That being said, I will certainly stipulate that our beliefs about Mary are not derived from Scripture. They are reflected there, because those who wrote the Gospels believed in this way about Mary, but our understanding comes as much from Sacred Tradition.

Well using the present logic, I could say how do you know He didn't say to ignore Mary. Everything Jesus said has not been recorded?

You could, and if one does not have faith that God’s Word goes forth to accomplish what he desires, one might even believe it!

The Holy Spirit has led the Church to purge all heresies from the first century until now. How come the Holy Spirit did not eliminate the beliefs about Mary?

I don’t think you get what I’m saying. I know my church doesn’t teach everything the apostles taught. They teach bible only and Jesus only. Those who do this still manage to bring people to Jesus.

Yes, definitely. Even the reader’s digest version is still powerful!

Why would they do such a thing if it were not initiated by the Holy Spirit? If Catholicism teaches more, that’s good too. So if you object to what God is doing with these Protestant followers of Jesus then I suppose you also are a sort of protester or protestant with a small p.

Indeed yes, and also in opposition to the Teaching of the Catholic Church:

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: **“the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, **whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.” Catechism of the CC

 

[Dalphon]

Indeed.

There were no Protestants then, BTW. So one was either a Catholic, a pagan, Jew or Muslim.

The other one I quoted was from 1943.
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI (On the Mystical Body of Christ)
Pope Pius XII - Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1943
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

Here’s another from 1928.
Mortalium Animos
11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.

So this is consistent with your church’s teaching, I presume, which is if someone is a pagan, Jew or Muslim, he cannot be saved unless he clings to Jesus?

Yes

Incidentally, the fact that you quote from a document from the 15th century is great testimony to the historicity of the CC.

One has to wonder if you could offer a document from your church from the 15th century?

Or did it start in America in the 1970’s? Or the 30’s? Or the 1800?s

Either way, it’s not the 1400s.

No but they carry the message of the 1st century. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m not out of the Church because of what they teach but because of what they do.

If you apply this same requirement to all Churches - you would be out from all of them.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

How about Acts 20:7? This verse is an example, not a command, so it is sort of weak, but then it is Paul…

We celebrate the resurrection of Christ weekly and it is fitting that it be done on the day of the week when he rose (no verse here, just an observation). We are to worship ceaselessly, by the way, not just on one day a week. I think Paul enjoins the Thessalonians thataway, not sure where. Maybe Thessalonica.

There are numerous Christians out there who fiercely defend Saturday as the day of worship, including Messianic Jews (some of whom do NOT appreciate the Greek ‘Christian’ label and some of whom reject Paul) as well as Seventh Day Adventists.

The strongest and best evidence of Sacred Tradition is given by St. Justin Martyr, in his 1st Apology:

*CHAPTER LXVII – WEEKLY WORSHIP OF THE CHRIS- TIANS.

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.*

This was written ~140 A.D. Not even 100 years after the death of St. John the Evangelist.

Sunday Worship is part of Sacred Tradition. Like PR said, so much for Bible Only…

 

[guanophore]

The apostles didn’t have the entire New Testament. They didn’t have Catholic tradition or anything else that followed. They only had “believe in Jesus and be baptized.”

Yes, it is amazing that they preached the Gospel with the OT only. I imagine Paul could start anywhere, and end up at Christ Crucified.

But of course they had Catholic Tradition. That is the deposit of faith that was given once for all to the Church. The Sacred Tradition is what they were preaching, the kerygma. It is the Word of God alive and well in the Church.

" And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers." I Thess. 2:13

This is the very essence of Sacred Tradition.

15And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

The Gospel for the Apostles was an entire lifestyle and world view. It was called The Way.

Jesus preaches the gospel

Yes, but all the rest of His teaches are part of this message. They are not separated. What you are describing is a starting point, where one enters the life of faith in Christ. The good news does not stop there.

Acts 8:34“Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”

You realize that we believe that the Gospel message includes baptism for the forgiveness of sins? Yet, there are many Christians, using the same method you are of cherry picking verses, who say that what is described here in Acts 8 is not necessary for salvation, or that the baptism required is about the HS, and not water?

Acts 10:34

Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

This is the starting point. But all of what the Apostles taught is Gospel.

Jesus IS the the truth.

Indeed yes. Where the divisions arise is where our flawed human perceptions of Jesus leave us with imperfect understandings of who He is, and what He desires of us. For example, ,all the Churches founded by Apostles baptize infants, because the Apostles taught that baptism replaced circumcision as an entrance rite into the New Covenant.

And yet, other very sincere Christians, perhaps those in your own ecclesial community, believe (based upon the very passages you quoted above) that baptism should only be done for those old enough to make a profession of faith.

Of course. Right now I’m where I should be.

How do you know that? I am just asking rhetorically, I realize that is personal and off the topic thread.

What brings you to CAF? You have only been here a few weeks and seem to have gotten into the thick of things.

I gave an example in an earlier post of a life or death situation and I said if I only had 30 seconds to preach to a dying person give him John 3. That information would be enough to give him salvation if he truly believes it.

Yes I think you said it well.

But in general, whenever there is more than 30 seconds, there is much more to the message:

Matt 28, Jesus said…" teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

The Gospel of Christ is all of it.

Do you know if your church teaches what is true or not?

We take Jesus at His Word that the HS will lead us into “all truth”.
They used to say people who commit suicide go straight to hell. Now they understand mental illness a little better so we could say that was a false teaching.

The Doctrines of the Faith are what we received from the Apostles. It is the duty of the magesterium to apply those doctrines to our present age.

The Apostles taught that we are no longer our own - that we were bought with a price, and belong now to God. Therefore it is not our place to put to death the temple of God.

16 Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? 17 If any one destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and that temple you are.{I Cor. 3:17).

The teaching has not changed, Dalphon, nor is it false. How can what is written in Scripture be false? Yet the Apostles also taught that one’s culpability for sin is mitigated by ignorance, and illness.

In the end, we have no way of judging the person’s heart, only God can. Did they, like Judas, fall into the sin of despair?

It seems like you really have a hard time seeing both sides of these things, and seeing that both things can be true at the same time.

How do you know you’re being taught everything handed down from the apostles? Have you spoken to any Asian Orthodox bishops? The Asian Orthodox churches were started by the apostles. Maybe they have some teachings the Catholic Church doesn’t have. Even if they do, you can’t know for sure if that’s everything. Writings could have been lost or destroyed.

You make a good point. It is true in my case that studying the Christians of the East helped me to return to the Catholic faith. The It is significant that the Apostolic faith is retained in all these Churches, and they are all in stark contrast to post-Reformation communities.

How have you and your church tested the spirits? Some very unholy things go on at Rome.

Like what?

 

[Porknpie]

Indeed. From the rising of the sun to its setting, a Catholic Mass is being offered around the world.

For any lurkers, Malachi 1:11 below. Only in the Mass do we find a pure offering being made, 24 hours a day, (frequently) with incense.

For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be[a] great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.

 

[PRmerger]

No Orthodox or Hussites or Waldenses and a few others ?

Fair enough. Yes, there were Orthodox and “a few others”.

Yes, in a universal sense with less parochialism.

Egg-zactly.

Without Christ, no one is saved.

Not sure why Protestants, who agree with the above, seem to get huffy that Catholicism proclaims that, except in a specific manner: without Christ’s Body, you cannot be saved.

What’s so scandalous about that?

Do the Orthodox say you must be Orthodox ? Did or do the Hussites ?

I dunno.

Could it be the statement does show narrow evangelicanism, as in no one goes to Father except thru the Son and that thru the Catholic Church as opposed to other legitimate churches of the time ? It is a plausible concern put forth by Dalphon.

“Legitimate churches”? How could Christ have more than 1 body, teaching contrary doctrines?

Nope, ben. There cannot be 2 bodies (or 3 or 30,000) that teach contrary doctrines.

 

[PRmerger]

Secondly, do you not believe that it is a sin to commit suicide?

No

It need not be personal.

It’s a general question: do you think your life is yours to take? It’s not murder to take your own life, (although it would be for* someone else *to take your life?)

Here “you” is a rhetorical “you”. Not a personal “you”.

So please just answer what you believe the principle is.

Is your life yours to take?

Your life is not yours to take. Suicide is not permissible.

So I’m confused, Dalphon.

You don’t believe suicide is a sin?

How could taking one’s life (murder if someone else did it) be not permissible but not be sinful?

Is there another example of something that involves grave matter that’s “not permissible” that’s also “not a sin”?

 

[PRmerger]

The issue is the change in teaching about the matter.

Nope.

It was a mortal sin before. It’s still a mortal sin today.

No change.

The fact that a Catholic funeral/burial is permitted today is a change in discipline, not in the teaching.

 

[PRmerger]

If you apply this same requirement to all Churches - you would be out from all of them.

'zactly.

It’s a grave error to leave Jesus because of Judas.

 

[PRmerger]

The other one I quoted was from 1943.
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI (On the Mystical Body of Christ)
Pope Pius XII - Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1943
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

Amen!

Here’s another from 1928.
Mortalium Animos
11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.

Indeed!

No one can be a follower of Christ without being a follower of his vicar.

That’s why Christian Unity is of such great import.

 

[PRmerger]

One has to wonder if you could offer a document from your church from the 15th century?

Or did it start in America in the 1970’s? Or the 30’s? Or the 1800?s

Either way, it’s not the 1400s.

No but they carry the message of the 1st century. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”

Then this ought to be very problematic for you, Dalphon.

You belong to a church which cannot trace its roots to the 15th century. Nor to the 3rd century.

Some (fallible) man started it in recent memory.

That some of your traditions have retained part of the kergyma is great–but you have to thank the CC for that.

It’s like Catholic apologist Mark Shea says (paraphrasing): you scorn Catholicism’s bishops, altars, sacraments, yet inexplicably take our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle from God.

Yes. You have taken our Book and smashed the rest of Catholicism in your wake.

It makes no sense to do that.

 

[clem456]

No but they carry the message of the 1st century. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”

Have you ever observed a grape vine grow over the years? Or an apple tree?
You must admit for starters, the tree is alive. It grows.
Because it is alive, it develops.
Because it develops, it does not look exactly like it did when the seed burst open. You could say the tree “expresses” itself as it grows…now with branches, now with flowers, now with fruit.

Here’s the key question:
Considering that a small seed has become a large tree which flowers beautifully, does the seed still exist?
Where is the seed?
Does the seed still live?

 

[Porknpie]

Your life is not yours to take. Suicide is not permissible. I wouldn’t tell anyone to kill himself.
That’s not the issue. The issue is the change in teaching about the matter.

Dalphon,

Here’s what the Catechism says about suicide. You may have already read this but it’s good to post it for any lurkers.

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

The words in paragraph’s 2282 and 2283 provide hope and comfort to those who have had family members or friends commit suicide and are reflective of the teaching clarity of the Catechism published in 1992. The subject of suicide is an example of why the Catechism was developed. From the U.S. Bishop’s website, bold words by me for emphasis.

A catechism is the name given to a written work that contains a summary of all the beliefs of the faith that is used as a teaching tool.

Until the second half of the twentieth century, for millions of Catholics in the United States the word catechism meant the Baltimore Catechism, which originated at the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884 when the bishops of the United States decided to publish a national catechism. The Baltimore Catechism contained 421 questions and answers in thirty-seven chapters and gave unity to the teaching and understanding of the faith for millions of American Catholics. Its impact was felt right up to the dawn of the Second Vatican Council in 1962.

At that time, Blessed John XXIII articulated a vision for the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council that charged them to guard and present more effectively the deposit of Christian doctrine in order to make it more accessible to the Christian faithful and all people of goodwill in the contemporary world. Eventually, it became clear that the development of a new universal catechism would be beneficial, especially since the Church has grown and the world has changed significantly since 1566.

In 1985, at a synod of bishops in Rome convened to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, a proposal to develop a universal catechism for the Catholic Church was made and accepted. The outcome was the Catechism of the Catholic Church, first published in 1992, A new edition with some modifications was released in 1997.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is arranged in four parts:
The Profession of Faith
The Celebration of the Christian Mystery
Life in Christ
Christian Prayer

The content of the Catechism is faithful to Apostolic Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium. It incorporates the heritage of the Doctors, Fathers, and Saints of the Church and illuminates with the light of faith, contemporary situations, problems and questions.