P
Peter_J
Guest
Is this related to the visible church / invisible church distinction?
Would it help if I start praying to you?
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
I don’t think it is even necessary to excuse yourself for the above, but I also don’t believe that LS would do that anyhow.
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
Not at all. I don’t attend, nor would I partake of a sacrament in a Roman Catholic Church, not because I think they are invalid, but because I do not subscribe to Roman Catholic teachings. Frankly, I’m not interested. The Church Catholic, on the other hand, the Christian Church of which the LCMS ( as well as the RCC) is a part, does give me her sacraments through the auspices of ministers of the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod, whose doctrinal standards I do assent to.
Peter, please do pray for me. I appreciate that. Please know that I remember you in my prayers as well. Peace of Christ be with you.
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
Sure. You have the visible churches that differ in certain forms of doctrine ( predestination, Apostolic Succession, 5 Solae, Church/ Tradition paradigm), yet have true and valid sacraments, such as Baptism and Communion and largely share the same Scriptures. Both regenerated and unregenerated people mingle freely in these organizations where the Gospel is proclaimed and the sacraments administered. The Invisible Church, of which Christ remains the Head, is comprised solely of the regenerated. James, John, Peter and the other apostles had their visible authority in the Church at Jerusalem and their authority was that of preaching the Word and administering the Sacraments. They also had the power of jurisdiction, whether one would remain in the Church or become excommunicated. They owned the Lordship of Christ and therefore were part and parcel of the Invisible Church.
I’m not God, Peter. I don’t know what all that was for. Prayers should only be offered to God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. To put it in a nutshell, prayers should only be offered to God.Happy belated Michaelmas, by the way blogs.lcms.org/2011/st-michael-and-all-angels-9-2011.
T
Tommy999
Guest
Hi PJM. Yes, I agree.
Duly noted. I sometimes have tended to use them synonymously but I realize now that redemption is collective, as in 'Christ redeemed mankind" whereas (if I understand correctly) salvation is an individual process that involves faith and living out our faith in our daily lives. In other words, all of mankind is redeemed thru Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection but not everyone is saved.
Yes, I agree. May God bless you and everyone reading this post.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Wasn’t a serious question (but I decided to post it emoticonless).
P
Peter_J
Guest
I’ve been told, variously, that “pray” isn’t a religious term but a term that means “ask”. (E.g. “Speak the speech, I pray you”.)
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
Indeed. Okay, then, here are a couple of definitions of " prayer" and " pray" from the Oxford English Dictionary.
*prayer
NOUN
1A solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or another deity.
‘I’ll say a prayer for him’
[MASS NOUN] ‘the peace of God is ours through prayer’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1A religious service, especially a regular one, at which people gather in order to pray together.
‘500 people were detained as they attended Friday prayers’
More example sentences
1.2An earnest hope or wish.
‘it is our prayer that the current progress on human rights will be sustained’
More example sentences
Origin
Middle English: from Old French preiere, based on Latin precarius obtained by entreaty, from prex, prec- prayer.
Pronunciation:
prayer/prɛː/
*
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prayer
*pray
VERB
[NO OBJECT]
1Address a prayer to God or another deity.
‘the whole family are praying for Michael’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1Wish or hope strongly for a particular outcome or situation.
‘after several days of rain, we were praying for sun’
[WITH CLAUSE] ‘I prayed that James wouldn’t notice’
More example sentences
ADVERB
formal, Archaic
1Used as a preface to polite requests or instructions.
‘ladies and gentlemen, pray be seated’
1.1Used as a way of adding ironic or sarcastic emphasis to a question.
‘and what, pray, was the purpose of that?’
Origin
Middle English (in the sense ‘ask earnestly’): from Old French preier, from late Latin precare, alteration of Latin precari entreat.
Pronunciation:
pray/preɪ/
*en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pray
P
PJM
Guest
Very good, THANKS
But whether its “Contest” or Protest"; it’s means the same thing:shrug:
God Bless you
P
PJM
Guest
Speaking ONLY form myself {PJM}
When I use the term Protestants, I mean to include all branches of Christianity, except the Catholic and Orthodox Chrches
God Bless you
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I would just like to say, as a Catholic priest who worked in the issue of the dialogue for many years, I agree with this post by the priest of the Church of Norway.
In fact, the application – and even imposition – of labels which do not conform neither to history nor contemporary realities or the self-understanding of the various Christian confessions, as well as other points he raises, is in fact precisely warned about by both Unitatis Redintegratio and The Directory on the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism.
P
Padres1969
Guest
You might want to preface your statements with that next time, since that’s not the typically held definition of Protestant since you’re lumping many groups including the Armenian Apostolic Church, Oriental Orthodox, and several other more recent Christian Churches who are not Protestant by most definitions of the term.
P
PJM
Guest
P
PJM
Guest
L
langohio2
Guest
This is a late reply to an old post. Briefly, some Protestants do display crosses with the “corpus” (body of Christ): this is common practice in Lutheran and United churches in Germany, and Lutheran churches generally in northern Europe. For example, this pic of the altar at the “Berliner Dom” (Berlin Cathedral): media.gettyimages.com/photos/berliner-dom-rednerpult-mit-adler-altar-picture-id549415211
This is also the practice in many Lutheran churches in North America.
Luther retained the corpus (and other images of Christ, the Apostles, etc.) at the time of the Reformation, but the more radical “Reformed” or Calvinist tradition rejected all images as a violation of the First Commandment.
In the 19th century, partly under the impact of the Romantic and Neo-Gothic movements in church architecture, plain crosses without the corpus began to reappear even in Reformed churches, and are a common sight today. (Example: Amistad Chapel at the United Church of Christ headquarters in Cleveland: amistad.uccpages.org/centum/images/amistad-empty.jpg)
The reason the corpus never returned, it is argued, was that the “empty” cross symbolizes the Resurrection. It’s not necessarily because Protestants are squeamish about the Crucifixion: Christ Crucified is preached in many Protestant churches on Good Friday. And there’s an historical precedent: the earliest evidence of the cross as art in Christian homes and churches was a simple cross painted on the eastern wall, or a plain wooden cross. Fr. Joseph Jungmann, S.J., wrote that “the cross in those days was invariably depicted without the figure of the crucified. The reason that lay behind this was not so much aversion to showing him in his state of humiliation as to bring out the richer significance hidden away in the symbol. The cross … had become a sign of victory, a tropaion (trophy).”
I’m not sure about this, but the custom of affixing the figure of Christ to the cross in the Western church may date to about the 11th century.
This is also the practice in many Lutheran churches in North America.
Luther retained the corpus (and other images of Christ, the Apostles, etc.) at the time of the Reformation, but the more radical “Reformed” or Calvinist tradition rejected all images as a violation of the First Commandment.
In the 19th century, partly under the impact of the Romantic and Neo-Gothic movements in church architecture, plain crosses without the corpus began to reappear even in Reformed churches, and are a common sight today. (Example: Amistad Chapel at the United Church of Christ headquarters in Cleveland: amistad.uccpages.org/centum/images/amistad-empty.jpg)
The reason the corpus never returned, it is argued, was that the “empty” cross symbolizes the Resurrection. It’s not necessarily because Protestants are squeamish about the Crucifixion: Christ Crucified is preached in many Protestant churches on Good Friday. And there’s an historical precedent: the earliest evidence of the cross as art in Christian homes and churches was a simple cross painted on the eastern wall, or a plain wooden cross. Fr. Joseph Jungmann, S.J., wrote that “the cross in those days was invariably depicted without the figure of the crucified. The reason that lay behind this was not so much aversion to showing him in his state of humiliation as to bring out the richer significance hidden away in the symbol. The cross … had become a sign of victory, a tropaion (trophy).”
I’m not sure about this, but the custom of affixing the figure of Christ to the cross in the Western church may date to about the 11th century.
P
PJM
Guest
THANK YOU:thumbsup:
P
psalm90
Guest
Well, the first reason is to be different. I have found Protestants go out of their way to do anything as long as it’s different from what Catholics do. It was John Wycliffe in England who promoted private interpretation of scripture, if I’m not mistaken. but, what he REALLY meant was, any interpretation of scripture was OK with him EXCEPT a Catholic interpretation. His heresy was probably why his bones were dug up and burned 40 years after his death. The Church was really mad at him.
St. Paul says someplace, that all he know is Christ, and Him crucified.
It’s easy for Western Rite Catholics to forget the other 17 rites in the Church, where Christ’s resurrection is emphasized more. So, not exactly correct to say “Catholics” do such and such until you check out the other rites.
I think the Eastern Catholic rites, like the byzantine, use leavened bread for the Eucharist, too.
these facts make your question more complicated.
W
Wannano
Guest
I can find no words for a response to this.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
Interestingly John Wycliffe had serious problems with the divinity of Jesus Christ, he reintroduced arianism into his theology. Trinitarian Protestants will often consider him an affiliate hero (as they will often do the cathar/albigensians), little realizing that he is also a hero of JWs and christadelphians causes.
So ultimately what is this protestant cause which requires heroes of little or no similarity to themselves, but one common denominator? I can see no real reason other than Triumphalism against the Catholic Church. Seeing that is far easier looking back as a Catholic to the time I was a protestant, than it is to look forward from being a protestant to the Catholic Church.
Essentially words are easy. Responses are easy. Words will only fail if we have no answer to give.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
This is true Darryl and P90. I find it sad that some of my Protestant friends - many of whom have something going for their faith - attach greater prominence to all aspects of the patchy and somewhat unbalanced contribution of the long dead than to someone who can give living testimony to the issues. While it would be understandable that Luther or Wycliffe would want to give tit for what they saw as tat, and even that today’s Protestants would wish to respect their forebears as much as possible, they surely aren’t bound by every nuance - at least not as far as Scripture teaches - to the hang ups of their ancestors. They are like Basil Fawlty saying “Don’t mention the Reformation!” The wiser ones just focus on what is agreed by all to be good, and manage to avoid setting up possible straw men - all the “better” for not being agreed as being straw men because Catholics are doing the same by using “true” wordings for teachings that yet don’t meaningfully convey the truths.
Take my friend, a Protestant pastor, whose mother, a Catholic, reportedly accepted the same faith as him on her death bed. She had earlier in life told him what was probably her garbled version of garbled teaching, sounding rather legalistic. Those of us who know that the Catholic teaching isn’t really (in the very very last analysis) meant as exactly legalistic, are probably aware it is often made to sound like it. So there is endless scope for accusation and counter-accusation.
Take my friend, a Protestant pastor, whose mother, a Catholic, reportedly accepted the same faith as him on her death bed. She had earlier in life told him what was probably her garbled version of garbled teaching, sounding rather legalistic. Those of us who know that the Catholic teaching isn’t really (in the very very last analysis) meant as exactly legalistic, are probably aware it is often made to sound like it. So there is endless scope for accusation and counter-accusation.
- Status