M
MaryT777
Guest
Jon, the LCMS did not sign the JDDJ…you know that.
- Status
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
True enough.
None of the Lutheran denominations declare they are the true one though, unlike the churches I mentioned in my town.
Can you demonstrate that papal universal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, and a host of other “developments of doctrine” were taught in the early Church? :nope:
If they were, there would have been no Schism.
Jon
Of course I know that. I don’t agree with that decision, and have said so often here and in LCMS settings.
Jon
M
MaryT777
Guest
I thought it bizarre, but maybe it was their own opinion. I really don’t know if that concept in the Concord book. One said they are “true” Catholics.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Well the Book of Concord predates the LCMS by hundreds of years so I am guessing its not in there.
C
concretecamper
Guest
My initial thought would to say thank you and offer you the same sentiment. But instead, I will offer a sincere thank you and ask the Holy Spirit to move you along the path He chooses for you (doesn’t take a genius to know what path I think that is)
K
Karen107
Guest
The deal breaker for me is that the Catholic Churches believes in Jesus body and blood in the Eucharistic feast and this is something that wasn’t deviated from but has a belief since the apostolic times before any schism and so Jesus remains with the Catholic churches.
John 5:56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
The beliefs of the Catholic church are rooted in traditions and scripture and so are firmly founded in Christ but sola scripture is not… Why? Because the scriptures has been left to self interpretation in protestant denomination so to base any religion on self interpretation of the scripture, leads to mis-truths and doesn’t reflect the fullness of the truth.
It says right in the scriptures can be added about Jesus life that it all can’t be contained within the book. Now we as Catholics read in the scripture as Jesus said while sharing the bread with the disciples that this is my body which was given up for you. So we celebrate and honor that teaching of Jesus. Then you walk into any protestant churches and no Jesus… Jesus is not on the altar…! Now I know Jesus is there in spirit, but many protestants don’t even think it’s necessary to belong to a Church. That’s how far they’ve strayed and I can only say it’s due to the fact that their religions are based on self-interpretations of the scriptures.
Receiving or not receiving Jesus in the Eucharist is truly a big deal.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
You do not believe that only the Roman Catholic Church has the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist do you?
D
dronald
Guest
Did you know that the Orthodox don’t think you’re receiving the Eucharist properly? Also, if you ever wanted to be Orthodox you must be Baptized into their Church. Yours was invalid.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
I agree with you, I could never leave Christ, the true presence in the Eucharist.
The Eucharist is amazing, and I look forward to receiving him every Sunday.
C
concretecamper
Guest
The Orthodox are wrong. I know they could say the same thing…but the correctness of that claim is another thread.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And to achieve that, the Catholic Church needs to give up the “expanded” modern papacy, right? But is the papacy as we see it today an unnatural development? Not according to Bl. John Cardinal Newman who explained WHY the early Church would NOT have seen or needed the same papacy that we see and need today thusly:
Bl. Cardinal Newman on the Development of Papal Infallibility
Let us see how, on the principles which I have been laying down and defending, the evidence lies for the Pope’s supremacy.
As to this doctrine the question is this, whether there was not from the first a certain element at work, or in existence, divinely sanctioned, which, for certain reasons, did not at once show itself upon the surface of ecclesiastical affairs, and of which events in the fourth century are the development; and whether the evidence of its existence and operation, which does occur in the earlier centuries, be it much or little, is not just such as ought to occur upon such an hypothesis.
. . . While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope . . .
. . . St. Peter’s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. While Christians were “of one heart and soul,” it would be suspended; love dispenses with laws . . .
When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated . . .
Moreover, an international bond and a common authority could not be consolidated, were it ever so certainly provided, while persecutions lasted. If the Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined. The Creed, the Canon, the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, all began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church. And as it was natural that her monarchical power should display itself when the Empire became Christian, so was it natural also that further developments of that power should take place when that Empire fell. Moreover, when the power of the Holy See began to exert itself, disturbance and collision would be the necessary consequence . . . as St. Paul had to plead, nay, to strive for his apostolic authority, and enjoined St. Timothy, as Bishop of Ephesus, to let no man despise him: so Popes too have not therefore been ambitious because they did not establish their authority without a struggle. It was natural that Polycrates should oppose St. Victor; and natural too that St. Cyprian should both extol the See of St. Peter, yet resist it when he thought it went beyond its province . . .
On the whole, supposing the power to be divinely bestowed, yet in the first instance more or less dormant, a history could not be traced out more probable, more suitable to that hypothesis, than the actual course of the controversy which took place age after age upon the Papal supremacy.
It will be said that all this is a theory. Certainly it is: it is a theory to account for facts as they lie in the history, to account for so much being told us about the Papal authority in early times, and not more; a theory to reconcile what is and what is not recorded about it; and, which is the principal point, a theory to connect the words and acts of the Ante-Nicene Church with that antecedent probability of a monarchical principle in the Divine Scheme, and that actual exemplification of it in the fourth century, which forms their presumptive interpretation. All depends on the strength of that presumption. Supposing there be otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it . . .
Moreover, all this must be viewed in the light of the general probability, so much insisted on above, that doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises, and that its developments are parts of the Divine system, and that therefore it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later.
(Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1878 ed., Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1989, pp. 148-155; Part 1, Chapter 4, Section 3.)
(cont.)
N
Nicea325
Guest
I don’t think so! Trying to compare the end results of SS to Sacred Tradition is truly a sign of desperation.
C
concretecamper
Guest
According to the teachings of the RCC…you don’t.
D
dronald
Guest
So you do see how sacred tradition has failed, correct?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I see, so because there is division and there has been division it is then acceptable to further it?
The thing is that Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox can all trace their origins to the Apostles. And each has maintained their traditions in accordance to their rites and customs and their teaching authority. A concept that is much lacking in Protestantism due to a lack of effective governing authority. A single individual grabbing a Bible and making a new denomination (or lack thereof) and claiming that he/she can interpret the Bible the “correct” way, or who knows what other claim might arise.
All because of this concept (Sola Scriptura) that lacks proper application, uniformity and immediate authority. A concept that can be define to whomever purposes it fits. A concept that in its essence slaps the face of the martyrs and teachers that have come before us.
A concept that completely ignores the full history of the Christian Church. Not only that, but a concept that completely ignores how its very premise (Scriptures) came about.
K
Karen107
Guest
And there are traditionalists who think we’re doing it wrong as well. Since I was a little girl I always look for the good in others and I think that’s been ingrained in me. Now that I’m older I see it clearly in scriptures. And I for one don’t want to make waves but to celebrate truths, love and even acts of service together.
Marks of the True Christian
Romans 12:9 Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; 10 love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor. 11 Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord. 12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer. 13 Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers.
14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. 18 If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
M
MaryT777
Guest
I agree
I didn’t know some Lutherans Communed every Sunday.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
I think the RCC is wrong. Hopefully they will come to recognize the real presence in our Eucharist.
- Status