Yes, but I’ll go a step further and say that orthodox Christians need to exercise a bit more authority when it comes a willingness to reject the necessity of a civil marriage license in order to perform Holy Matrimony in the Church.
Jon
- Status
Jon
B
benhur
Guest
I was not aware that Christ gave it any name. We certainly have all given ourselves or others names.
Reminds me of the woman at the well, who did ask Jesus for some officiating. She asked the same question you do, "Where is it proper to worship, (Jerusalem or the Samaritan mountain Gerizim in her case) ?" Indeed Jacob did offer to the Lord at Gerzim. Jesus preferred no “place” for future worship, or in your case maybe no "name’’, but did say **it is more about knowing whom you worship and not where. **He did say the Jews had it right (therefore, for then, Jerusalem). I would say that is similar to any church today proclaiming the Christ, whom we worship, to be in the right today.
But you are right in that many can claim proper descendancy to the apostles, as both Jews and Samaritans claimed to Abraham/Isaac. We know that Samaritan claim was false, twisted, close but no cigar, even as judged by Jesus here. (Samaritans said Abraham offered Isaac on Gerizim ,which he did not).
Well, in a sense we both are in the right if we know whom we worship and offer that to the lost. The Samaritan woman needed salvation and the Jews specifically offered, brought Jesus , just as today one who proclaims, brings forth Christ must be part of the ecclesia. Jesus did not specifically address sectarianism within Judaism, nor would He in the church, with regards to saving such a lost woman.
J
joe371
Guest
Great point. How can I locate the church in the world today, founded by Jesus, as opposed to a church founded by another person? Is it accurate to say that the apostles did not belong to any of the Protestant churches in the world today, due to the fact that the oldest Protestant Church only dates back to the 16th century? Is it accurate to say that the apostles did not belong to the Catholic Church i.e. I am wrong to claim that the apostles, historically speaking, belonged to the Catholic Church to which I presently belong?
J
joe371
Guest
Yes, we both worship the same God. Any one who proclaims Christ, brings forth Christ, and therefore must be part of the Church. You say this as if there is only one church in the world today.
As far as I can tell, there is not just one church e.g. my sister belongs to a church; my dad belongs to a different church; I have friends here at CAF who all belong to different churches i.e. all of these people belong to different churches; not the same church. Does it even matter which church, in the world today, a Christian belongs to?
The one church founded by Jesus, still exists in the world today, and it comprises all of the churches in the world today. Is this what you believe? If not then I have no idea what you believe regarding the one church founded by Jesus.
E
eazyduzit
Guest
While I’m not entirely sure of your meaning, hopefully I am responding to it by saying that, yes, it is God who joins people together, but that does not contradict the fact that He uses His Church to do so.
Jon
J
joe371
Guest
Amen brother.Let me join you.
No one should have to witness this alone.
Jon
Mine needs more butter. 
J
joe371
Guest
Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to say: but that does not contradict the fact that Jesus uses His Church(es) to do so?
Catechism of the CC: “Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation…”
When you and I confess that we “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church”, we do not say “Churches”. It depends on the use of the word. I have no problem with referring to different churches, but there is one one Church within which one will find different churches and traditions.
Jon
E
eazyduzit
Guest
This is because some of recognize difference between flesh and spirit. It is not a denial. A spiritual church is described in Eph.5:27. This this church is without spot or wrinkle, yet the Greek has it in the present active participle meaning that it must exist today. Is their any church that thinks they are perfect in the flesh today.
J
joe371
Guest
No churches, regardless of denomination, claim to be perfect; not to my knowledge anyway.* Do *Pentecostal Christiansbelievethat Jesus, in terms of His Body and Blood, is truly present in the action of taking communion i.e. the real presence?
E
eazyduzit
Guest
This is because some of recognize difference between flesh and spirit. It is not a denial. A spiritual church is described in Eph.5:27. This this church is without spot or wrinkle, yet the Greek has it in the present active participle meaning that it must exist today. Is their any church that thinks they are perfect in the flesh today.
D
dcana
Guest
Ha Ha! It was interesting, informative, and even entertaining!You are very kind, David. Thank you. I am truly sorry that you went through that 7 hour ordeal.
Jon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Hi Randy,
I agree, and furthermore, I would hope that he is one day finally able to receive the True Holy Eucharist, (in both kinds of course).
God Bless You Randy, Topper
Jon-I already do, but thanks for the thought.
Jon
The reason I took you through that long series of hypotheticals about Harvest Bible Fellowship and your ability to perform marriages and so forth was to address the brief exchange you had with Topper which I have quoted above.
You, a Lutheran, would have qualms about taking communion in a church wherein you know the Lord’s Supper was celebrated purely symbolically, and just as you would deny your own ability to perform a valid wedding ceremony without proper ordination. You, a Lutheran, recognize that proper credentials, proper ordination, is a necessary prerequisite in order for the sacraments to be valid. And though it might offend another Christian to say so, you could not agree that he has those credentials simply by virtue of having formed and built up a large church such as Harvest Bible Fellowship.
Neither did Luther have the authority to ordain other priests, Jon, nor does it matter what Lutherans believe about their Eucharist. Without validly ordained priests, you do not have true consecration. You have all the outwards signs, but He is not present.
Mr. Harvest, the former plumber turned mega-church pastor, is not a priest, and he cannot make Christ present in the bread and juice his congregation receives. The Lutheran pastor at your church, despite his diplomas and the laying on of hands by his “bishop”, is not a priest, and he cannot make Christ present in the bread and wine he serves to his congregation.
Your church is older, your liturgy is drawn from ancient texts, and your hymns are far more beautiful. Yet, you share this one thing in common with Harvest Bible Fellowship, Jon: neither church has apostolic succession in the form of valid holy orders, and Jesus is not really and truly present in the bread and wine at your communion services.
J
joe371
Guest
Of course that was why. Between us, this is probably a rather predictable conversation, wouldn’t you think? And I expect you and Topper and any other Catholic worth their Confirmation to express the same belief.
Which, BTW, is indicative of the difference Lutheranism has with almost any other non-Catholic communion, except Anglicans.
Our belief, with historical evidence, is that even the CC, in the 1400’s at times resorted to presbyter ordination (Cistercian Abbots). Now, while they had permission from the pope to ordain, the very nature of presbyter ordination has its roots in the early Church. Melanchthon writes:
Now, again, my response is as predictable as was yours, but let me share what the USCCB has said:
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/koinonia-of-salvation.cfm
Jon
D
dcana
Guest
What has become clear to me is that Sola Scriptura attempts to describe something that in reality does not and cannot exist.
When Protestants hold up Scripture as the only infallible source of doctrine and of deciding between disputes, what they are really holding sacrosanct, unbeknownst to them, is their own interpretation of Scripture. And when you stop and think about it - really think about it - how could it possibly be any different?
I think that is the entire crux of the problem.
Pretty much everything the Catholic Church believes about Scripture, Protestants also believe: Such as: 1. The Sacred Scriptures are the infallible Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and 2. They can be used for prayer, study, personal aid in times of need, and instruction. However, Protestants (at least the great majority of them, which majority is increasing year by year) have added, of sheer necessity, the concepts that:
Scripture cannot interpret itself. The very idea is nonsensical. To do this, it would need to be a sentient being that could stand up, read itself, and say, “when I say X, this is what I mean” and go into the explanation in excruciating detail. No book can interpret itself. Nothing that can be read is not subject to fallible personal interpretation. With the exception that it is only by the explicit promise and aid of the Divine Author of Scripture that Scripture can be interpreted infallibly. And the Author went far beyond just Scripture. In fact, He didn’t mention “Scripture” or “the Bible” at all:
“Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me.”
“And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever.”
con’t
When Protestants hold up Scripture as the only infallible source of doctrine and of deciding between disputes, what they are really holding sacrosanct, unbeknownst to them, is their own interpretation of Scripture. And when you stop and think about it - really think about it - how could it possibly be any different?
I think that is the entire crux of the problem.
Pretty much everything the Catholic Church believes about Scripture, Protestants also believe: Such as: 1. The Sacred Scriptures are the infallible Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and 2. They can be used for prayer, study, personal aid in times of need, and instruction. However, Protestants (at least the great majority of them, which majority is increasing year by year) have added, of sheer necessity, the concepts that:
- They alone are the source of doctrine, even though nowhere does it say this in Scripture. It’s kind of like the relativist stating: “I hold that there is no such thing as a universal truth. All truth is relative to the person holding it,” with the (implicit or stated) exception that the only statement that is a universal truth is that there is no such thing as a universal truth. That doesn’t fly. There could in fact be no such thing as universal truth but the claim that there isn’t is not possible to make without violating the principle.
- Any individual has the right to personally interpret them. I suppose we all have some “right” to personally interpret Scripture, but it must be realized that that interpretation is fallible, no matter how clear we “think” the Scriptures are and no matter how many letters follow after our names or to what degrees we are erudite scholars of Biblical Greek or Hebrew. My favorite example is that although Jesus said, “This is my body,” which seems pretty darn clear to me, most Protestants will say that Jesus did not mean it is His Body, as if He had said, “This is not my body.” What Catholics have, in addition, is the infallible teaching authority of the Church. So one’s fallible private interpretation of Scripture, if it can be said to be validly made at all, must be compared to the infallible teaching authority of the Church. If the two disagree, that interpretation is wrong. For example, “I really don’t see that auricular confession to a priest is what is being discussed in John 20. How can a man forgive sins anyway?” If you read the Catechism, you will find that that interpretation is wrong. If the person continues to obstinately hold to that opinion, he is guilty of the sin of heresy. One must read Scripture “with the mind of the Church” which is the Mind of Christ. Is not the Church the Body of Christ? Then His Mind is the mind of the Church, at least in an analogous sense. Since Christ’s Mind is infallible, the Church’s “mind” is also infallible. Jesus, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life came that we might know the Truth, without error. It is his explicit Will, and He has provided a way for us to know it. Jesus said that the Truth will set us free and if Truth sets us free, then error binds us enslaves us. This way is by His explicit and special help, so that infallible teaching comes from “fallible, sinful men,” a phrase I’ve seen many times in the process of attempting to refute the Church’s infallibility. But how was it then that infallible Scripture was written by “fallible, sinful men,” as it most certainly was? By the same Divine Will and guidance. Many Protestants starting sometime in the 20th century have thrown their hands up in the air and say that doctrine, dogma, and creeds are unimportant. They have come to this conclusion (“idea”, really), again, out of necessity, since they have no means of knowing true teaching from false. That is a most “unbiblical” assertion, found nowhere in Scripture. They are not unimportant according to the above words of the Truth. They make all the difference in the world, since incorrect doctrine can lead to, among many other things, the most important thing, the salvation or loss of souls.
Scripture cannot interpret itself. The very idea is nonsensical. To do this, it would need to be a sentient being that could stand up, read itself, and say, “when I say X, this is what I mean” and go into the explanation in excruciating detail. No book can interpret itself. Nothing that can be read is not subject to fallible personal interpretation. With the exception that it is only by the explicit promise and aid of the Divine Author of Scripture that Scripture can be interpreted infallibly. And the Author went far beyond just Scripture. In fact, He didn’t mention “Scripture” or “the Bible” at all:
“Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me.”
“And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever.”
con’t
truth]; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you."
“The Church [not Scripture] is the pillar and bulwark of truth.”
Praised be Jesus Christ!
While I believe this thought process does in fact exist in some settings, it certainly is not the idea I as a life-long Lutheran was raised with. I know very well that it is not my place to interpret regarding doctrine, and in fact it is not the role of my pastor either. He is bound to the Confessions, as am I.
Jon
D
dcana
Guest
And finally:
“When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth [notice: not just the truth of this or that Scriptural passage, but into **all truth]; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”
“The Church [not Scripture] is the pillar and bulwark of truth.”
Praised be Jesus Christ!
“When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth [notice: not just the truth of this or that Scriptural passage, but into **all truth]; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”
“The Church [not Scripture] is the pillar and bulwark of truth.”
Praised be Jesus Christ!
- Status