Which Church??

[Topper17]

Hi Randy,

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.

In fact, Luther himself chose to ordain Bishops, when in fact he was never a Bishop. We hear a lot about these various irregular means of ordaining bishops, but what it really comes down to is that the validly ordained Bishops in the area will not ordain those with heretical beliefs.

God Bless You Randy, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12651275]
First of all Jon, I have posted probably 20 times more information about the Augsburg Confession on this thread than I have about the Formula of Concord. All I have really said about the **Formula is that it is one of the most anti-Catholic documents in Christian history. ** Given your ecumenical leanings I am finally beginning to understand how you can refuse to admit this, but your refusal does not change the facts. It is.

Hi Topper,
I just did a quick scan through the Epitome of the Formula of Concord (I’ll try to do the Standard Declaration tomorrow). While I certainly may have missed some, these are the only two references to the Catholic Church in the Epitome.

For especially in these last times it is no less needful to admonish men to Christian discipline [to the way of living aright and godly] and good works, and remind them how necessary it is that they exercise themselves in good works as a declaration of their faith and gratitude to God, than that the works be not mingled in the article of justification; because men may be damned by an Epicurean delusion concerning faith, as well as by papistic and Pharisaic confidence in their own works and merits.

On the other hand, we unanimously reject and condemn all the following erroneous articles, which are opposed and contrary to the doctrine presented above, the simple faith, and the [pure] confession concerning the Lord’s Supper;

22] 1. The papistic transubstantiation, when it is taught in the Papacy that in the Holy Supper the bread and wine lose their substance and natural essence, and are thus annihilated; that they are changed into the body of Christ, and the outward form alone remains.

23] 2. The papistic sacrifice of the Mass for the sins of the living and the dead.

Again, maybe I’ve missed something, but I didn’t see anything in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord that was overtly “anti-Catholic”.



But, if you think, based on this that the Epitome of the Formula of Concord is terribly anti-Catholic, well OK.

Jon

Oops, I did miss this:

As to the schisms in matters of faith, however, which have occurred in our time, we regard as the unanimous consensus and declaration of our Christian faith and confession, especially against the Papacy and its false worship, idolatry, superstition, and against other sects, as the symbol of our time, the First, Unaltered Augsburg Confession, delivered to the Emperor Charles V at Augsburg in the year 1530, in the great Diet, together with its Apology, and the Articles composed at Smalcald in the year 1537, and subscribed at that time by the chief theologians.

 

[joe371]

Hi Topper,
I just did a quick scan through the Epitome of the Formula of Concord (I’ll try to do the Standard Declaration tomorrow). While I certainly may have missed some, these are the only two references to the Catholic Church in the Epitome.

Again, maybe I’ve missed something, but I didn’t see anything in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord that was overtly “anti-Catholic”.

But, if you think, based on this that the Epitome of the Formula of Concord is terribly anti-Catholic, well OK.

Jon

Oops, I did miss this:

Hey Jon, speaking of church, if I remember correctly your Dad was a Pastor. Did you ever consider such a role within the church?

 

[JonNC]

=joe371;12651543]

Hey Jon, speaking of church, if I remember correctly your Dad was a Pastor. Did you ever consider such a role within the church?

At one time I did, but my pull was toward youth work and teaching. It’s what I continue to do today.

Jon

 

[joe371]

At one time I did, but my pull was toward youth work and teaching. It’s what I continue to do today.

Jon

 

[eazyduzit]

Here’s what I see going on . God’s example of a leader was Moses. The bible records that he was the meekest man on death. For God broke him. Meekness does not mean weakness, but teachableness.

Now in Nu.11:27 there is an example of his style. A young man came to complain that two brothers were prophesying in the camp. Moses rebuked him saying that all God’s people should prophesy. What was happening here? It was a spirit of pride and jeolosy operating. That same spirit is very busy in the churches today.

 

[PRmerger]

Must be anything not Catholic is a Protestant denomination, including those who do not believe in God?

I can see that you disagree with the estimation of tens of thousands of Christian denominations.

What in your opinion is the actual number? And if you can provide a reliable source for this, I will use that number.

As long as your source includes this church, and all independent churches like this one, on the street corners of every single city in every single country of the world.

 

[PRmerger]

Here’s what I see going on . God’s example of a leader was Moses. The bible records that he was the meekest man on death. For God broke him. Meekness does not mean weakness, but teachableness.

Now in Nu.11:27 there is an example of his style. A young man came to complain that two brothers were prophesying in the camp. Moses rebuked him saying that all God’s people should prophesy. What was happening here? It was a spirit of pride and jeolosy operating. That same spirit is very busy in the churches today.

If you can find a church that doesn’t have any members that have pride and jealousy operating, join it.

Do you know where such a church exists?

 

[JonNC]

If you can find a church that doesn’t have any members that have pride and jealousy operating, join it.

Do you know where such a church exists?

If I found a church that lacked pride and jealously, I would ruin it if I joined it

Jon

 

[joe371]

If I found a church that lacked pride and jealously, I would ruin it if I joined it

Jon

I thought the same thing when I read that…that I would ruin it.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

Nothing taught by Christ, or the Apostles, or the Scriptures, or the Fathers, indicates that there can be different ‘communions’, each of them teaching competing and conflicting doctrines. In the early Church, those ‘conflicting communions’ were called heresies, exactly as they were called in the 16th century.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

True. I have indeed heard some Orthodox call Catholicism such, though I think it’s hard to know which is.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;12651180]Happy to provide it, but what I’m driving at today, Jon, is the idea that either a man has legitimate authority to act in a specific manner or in the name of a specific group or he does not.

For example, a police officer acts “in the name of the law” or as an “officer of the court”. He is vested with the authority to arrest a person who is breaking the law or even to use deadly force, if necessary, without penalty to himself for having acted in a manner that would be a crime if performed by someone else.

Agreed?

Agreed.

So, Catholic priests make the sacraments available to the faithful because they have been authorized to do so by the bishops who were authorized by other bishops before them who were authorized by still other bishops before them all the way back to Jesus.

And yet it is not, specifically, “bishops” that the early Church recognized, but saw all the grades as, initially, one, namely, presbyter.

Because the Bible does not authorize any and all believers to say mass or to forgive sins in the name of God, the pastor of Harvest Bible Fellowship is no more able to make Jesus really and truly present in the Eucharistic elements than you are to perform a valid wedding ceremony or I am to arrest a bank robber simply by virtue of the fact that I read a criminal justice textbook in college or watched a few episodes of Law and Order.

Again, agreed.

Without real delegated authority, from Jesus to Apostles to Bishops to priests, neither does the pastor of your Church have the authority to make your communion services what you want them to be.

Let’s leave the practice of presbyter ordination aside for the moment. Many Lutherans and Anglicans worldwide can undisputedly trace their lines of succession. If it is simply a matter of lines of succession, then the CC has no complaint regarding the validity of those Anglican and Lutheran clergy.
This leads us back to what I continue to believe to be the single most important issue between the sacramental, liturgical traditions of the western Church: the dispute regarding the power and primacy of the Pope.

As for presbyter ordination, it is, in our view, done within the Church, with the authority of the historic Church. If Cistercian abbots could presbyter ordain during the century prior to the Reformation, and if presbyter ordination was permitted in the early Church, then it cannot be excluded today.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Let’s leave the practice of presbyter ordination aside for the moment.

Many Lutherans and Anglicans worldwide can undisputedly trace their lines of succession. If it is simply a matter of lines of succession, then the CC has no complaint regarding the validity of those Anglican and Lutheran clergy.

Jon

Two concluding thoughts on this discussion:

1. 
   *]If the Catholic Church tells me that Lutherans have valid orders, then I am happy for you. Clearly, a negative decision was rendered in the case of Anglican orders. Are you aware of a formal and final determination regarding Lutheran orders? The quotes you gave previously sounded a bit conditional containing three “If’s” before reaching “then”.
   
   *]I’d like to learn more about this. Do you have a link to an online article on the history of these “valid Lutherans” (for wont of a better term)?
   

   This leads us back to what I continue to believe to be the single most important issue between the sacramental, liturgical traditions of the western Church: the dispute regarding the power and primacy of the Pope.

   Oh, good. I love discussing things when I have home field advantage.

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;12652283]Two concluding thoughts on this discussion:

1. 
   *]If the Catholic Church tells me that Lutherans have valid orders, then I am happy for you. Clearly, a negative decision was rendered in the case of Anglican orders. Are you aware of a formal and final determination regarding Lutheran orders? The quotes you gave previously sounded a bit conditional containing three “If’s” before reaching “then”.

1. 
   

   *]I’d like to learn more about this. Do you have a link to an online article on the history of these “valid Lutherans” (for wont of a better term)?

   Regarding the first: I know of no formal determination from the Vatican regarding those Lutheran synods that have and continue to maintain AS, though I doubt it would be positive if there were. Regarding the Anglicans, “Apostolicae Curae” was written before Old Catholic lines were used in Anglican ordinations, etc. (GKC is, of course, the expert on this).
   Here’s the point, the Apology makes clear that we would be happy to continue the orders of the Church. ISTM this is one of those issues resolved if all others are.
   

   Oh, good. I love discussing things when I have home field advantage.

   Yeah, I feel like the Bears playing at Lambeau Field.
   That said, at least the Ref is fair.
   Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Your Church let’s it’s own members decide how they feel about whether or not babies burn for all of eternity due to lack of Baptism; that’s lukewarm, inconsistent and very Protestant of Catholicism. See Ambrose

Since the Bible makes no statement, whatsoever, regarding the fate of unbaptized babies, you must also state that God lets his members decide how they feel about whether or not babies burn for all of eternity due to lack of Baptism.

What do you say to that, dronald?

 

[PRmerger]

Since the Bible makes no statement, whatsoever, regarding the fate of unbaptized babies, you must also state that God lets his members decide how they feel about whether or not babies burn for all of eternity due to lack of Baptism.

What do you say to that, dronald?

Also, what does your pastor say regarding the fate of the souls of our beloved pets?

Does your pastor let everyone decide for himself? Or has he made some sort of interpretation of the Bible that tells him he knows where they go? If so, what verse is it that he has interpreted?

 

[dronald]

Since the Bible makes no statement, whatsoever, regarding the fate of unbaptized babies, you must also state that God lets his members decide how they feel about whether or not babies burn for all of eternity due to lack of Baptism.

What do you say to that, dronald?

Apparently the Bible is not in the Bible? I’ve quoted 3 passages here twice, and I’m not doing it again if it won’t be responded to. (Although Randy Carson gave his two cents on Jesus’s statement, to which I disagree.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Since the Bible makes no statement, whatsoever, regarding the fate of unbaptized babies, you must also state that God lets his members decide how they feel about whether or not babies burn for all of eternity due to lack of Baptism.

What do you say to that, dronald?

Also, what does your pastor say regarding the fate of the souls of our beloved pets?

Does your pastor let everyone decide for himself? Or has he made some sort of interpretation of the Bible that tells him he knows where they go? If so, what verse is it that he has interpreted?

Apparently the Bible is not in the Bible? I’ve quoted 3 passages here twice, and I’m not doing it again if it won’t be responded to. (Although Randy Carson gave his two cents on Jesus’s statement, to which I disagree.)

Don’t you have another thread for this discussion? :sad_yes:

 

[dronald]

Don’t you have another thread for this discussion? :sad_yes:

Yeah, haha. I was surprised when I saw the responses when I took a look at this thread.

But yes, there’s another spot now

 

[PRmerger]

Apparently the Bible is not in the Bible? I’ve quoted 3 passages here twice, and I’m not doing it again if it won’t be responded to.

NOPE. Nothing mentions what happens to the souls of unbaptized babies.

Not a verse. You can search from Genesis through Revelation and won’t find a single verse about that.

Conclusion: your objection to the Catholic Church also applies to God.