Why do so many protestants not consider church attendance an important part of their faith?

[PRmerger]

During the time I was an Evangelical Christian I heard many of my contemporaries draw a distinction between religion and a relationship with Jesus. And I think if you were to look you’d probably find this same distinction emphasized in Evangelical literature.

Yes, it’s interesting that ECs (and some modernists who like to say “I’m spiritual but not religious”) make that distinction between “religion” and “relationship”. Which is a nonsensical distinction–for the term"religion" comes from the Latin word religiare, which means…relationship!

That’s why some Evangelicals do not see attendance at church as particularly important. They are saved, they are assured of salvation, and they have a relationship with Jesus – so why would they go to church if they have something else more important to do? I daresay not all Evangelicals think in this way but most of the ones I know certainly do.

'zactly! :yup:

By the way, I didn’t think you were rude or offensive, either.

Cordially,
Mick

Why, thank you, Mick, for coming to my defense! Oh, the irony of being called rude by someone who is now banned. :doh2:

And, I saw no mocking tone in your posts either!

 

[KathleenGee]

I was going to add that in studying Scripture, one can do it intellectually and one can do it prayerfully.

Our deacon, who is nationally known, said when we study prayerfully, we are using the first degree of theology.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard,

It is acknowledged that the Nazarene Jews did evolve differently than the Gentile Christians. They did continue to meet at the synagogues, were later evicted, and formed their own, eventually rejecting the 40 day fast out of protest, and moving to meet on Sunday. The synagogues were places of study…the people continued to develop their own music.

It was part of Jewish ritual for the household to practice the breaking of bread. Christ laid down this practice for us at the Last Supper. This practice of breaking bread in the homes is still done by the Palestinian Catholic Christians in their 2,000 year history, descendants of both Jewish and Arab believers.

The breaking of bread in the Gentile world happened at many different places and the homes of the rich were used, and people of lesser means would gather there. There is a post I shared from St. Justin the Martyr who was asked to write down what happened at the Mass, a request that had many surprised as many believed at that time and new…

My point was that the temple was never used to teach in. The only reason people came to the temple was to bring their sin offerings to be bunt on the altar. And for various yearly feativals. The synagogue was used for teaching. By the way the term "breaking of bread was often used just to show that they were eating.

 

[KathleenGee]

Good…the Jewish priesthood is contingent on the temple…without the temple, the priesthood ended…but the rabbis and the teaching purpose of the synagogues continued…

The Breaking of the Bread did indeed come from Jewish tradition that because of Christ and the Last Supper was in turn practiced as the high point of worship among the Gentiles…

But it was not intended that the priesthood and rituals and the sacred environment of the worship place be eliminated either…the torn veil opened up to us the reality of Jesus Christ, and we must trust the Holy Spirit, as Jesus said He would come to teach the apostles and their descendents many things…but we must not put our trust in man, including priests, but in God alone.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Good…the Jewish priesthood is contingent on the temple…without the temple, the priesthood ended…but the rabbis and the teaching purpose of the synagogues continued…

Right on.

The Breaking of the Bread did indeed come from Jewish tradition that because of Christ and the Last Supper was in turn practiced as the high point of worship among the Gentiles…

I have no idea what this means. If you could please elaborate?

But it was not intended that the priesthood and rituals and the sacred environment of the worship place be eliminated either…the torn veil opened up to us the reality of Jesus Christ,

Absolutely Kathleen. The veil which was symbolic of our sins, Isaiah 59: 1Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
2But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

has through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross made it possible for us to access the most holy place or the presence of the Father Heb.10: 19Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21And having an high priest over the house of God;
The high priest of the earthly sanctuary was symbolic of the high priest ministry of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary. After the cross there was no more need for this earthly prophetic symbol

and we must trust the Holy Spirit, as Jesus said He would come to teach the apostles and their descendents many things…but we must not put our trust in man, including priests, but in God alone.

It surprises me to hear you say this Kathleen. I thought the CC teaches that it’s members had to subject themselves to the teachings of the church as pronounced by the priests and bishops who alone are anointed to recieve the movement of the Holy Spirit. It is my understanding that the CC calls this apostolic succession. I could be wrong though. You apparently do not subscribe to this idea of apostolic succession. Is that right?

 

[PRmerger]

John 3:16
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I have a question for you: If you say you have faith, but have no works, can your faith alone save you?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I have a question for you: If you say you have faith, but have no works, can your faith alone save you?

James2:
14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Did you really think that I would fall into that one PR, but let me also state that works done without love or in a legalistic manner (ie done as a means of salvation) are as no works at all.

 

[PRmerger]

James2:
14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Did you really think that I would fall into that one PR, but let me also state that works done without love or in a legalistic manner (ie done as a means of salvation) are as no works at all.

I have no idea what your answer is, Richard. The bible verses are beautiful, however.

So, can your faith alone, without works, save you? Yes, or no?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I have no idea what your answer is, Richard. The bible verses are beautiful, however.

So, can your faith alone, without works, save you? Yes, or no?

I don’t know if that question can be answered yes or no. I believe that dead faith the faith that James talks about in 2:17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. can ever save anyone. The faith that saves is the faith that is bound in love and that always leads to good works. So, I guess the answer to your question would be no. Faith that does not lead to good works may be an itellectual conviction, but if that conviction is not coupled with a conviction of the heart in love it is as James says dead.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know if that question can be answered yes or no. I believe that dead faith the faith that James talks about in 2:17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. can ever save anyone. The faith that saves is the faith that is bound in love and that always leads to good works.** So, I guess the answer to your question would be no. **Faith that does not lead to good works may be an itellectual conviction, but if that conviction is not coupled with a conviction of the heart in love it is as James says dead.

'zactly, Richard, exactly! You agree, then, with the CC!

 

[PRmerger]

I thought the CC teaches that it’s members had to subject themselves to the teachings of the church as pronounced by the priests and bishops who alone are anointed to recieve the movement of the Holy Spirit.

No, Richard. You misunderstand the CC’s teaching. Priests and bishops alone are not the only ones who receive the anointing of the HS.

Each and every Christian receives the anointing of the HS at Baptism, and again at Confirmation. Each and every Christian is called to a baptismal priesthood. **

Not to mention Our Lady, who was overshadowed by the HS at the Annunciation.

**Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.”(Rev 1:6; cf. Rev 5:9-10; 1 Pet 2:5,9) The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.” CCC 1546

Apostolic succession is a different entity.

 

[Rexport]

Although i haven’t read the many pages this topic spans, so i do not know if this answer has already been brought up, the answer is quite simply really. the protestant churches advocate private interpretaion of scripture, all the way back to their roots in luther and subsequently Calvin. this translates into the practitioners of the faith believeing that church generally serves no purpose, seeing as the eucharist has no significance, as it is not truly the body and blood of christ and generally speaking, the only other point of a mass (or, as i state above, since the eucharist is not the body and blood of christ, therefore no sacrafice takes places, so its actually a service) is to hear scripture read, whiohc one can do much more easily in the comfort of their own homes. study tridentine reform, its intresting stuf!!!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

No, Richard. You misunderstand the CC’s teaching. Priests and bishops alone are not the only ones who receive the anointing of the HS.

Each and every Christian receives the anointing of the HS at Baptism, and again at Confirmation. Each and every Christian is called to a baptismal priesthood. **

Not to mention Our Lady, who was overshadowed by the HS at the Annunciation.

**Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.”(Rev 1:6; cf. Rev 5:9-10; 1 Pet 2:5,9) The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.” CCC 1546

Perhaps my evaluation of Catholic teaching is all wrong. What in your opinion does it mean to be “consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.”

Apostolic succession is a different entity.

Could you explain what apostolic succession means?

W

 

[PRmerger]

Could you explain what apostolic succession means?

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles.

No other Church (I do not wish to get into a discussion about our “other lung”, the Orthodox, so for this discussion, I’m only talking about the CC) can trace its consecrated leaders back to the apostles, and thus, back to Christ.

When we listen to a non-Catholic minister preach the Gospel–who admittedly is fallible, and therefore by definition he will be wrong at various points during his Scriptural interpretation–we cannot be certain of his authority. Indeed, he has none, except that which is self-appointed. (And that, certainly, is not Biblical!)

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps my evaluation of Catholic teaching is all wrong. What in your opinion does it mean to be "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.

We are all called to offer self-sacrificial love for the sanctification of the world.

 

[KathleenGee]

Richard,

What I was referring to are people who put priests above Holy Orders to the point of being on pedestals…

We are to pray and do penance for our clergy because they are Christ’s ministers who feed us the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that is the means for eternal life. We can never repay them.

You should get a copy of St. Catherine’s, ‘The Dialogues’, and read the chapter on the Church and read about the role of the priesthood.

Christ never intended us to be alone without shepherds to arbitrate HIs word and form divisions where the bond of fraternal charity is broken.

Confirmation is the sacrament that strengthens Baptism to give us the grace not to only be born in Jesus Christ, but to die in Him.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles.

No other Church (I do not wish to get into a discussion about our “other lung”, the Orthodox, so for this discussion, I’m only talking about the CC) can trace its consecrated leaders back to the apostles, and thus, back to Christ.

When we listen to a non-Catholic minister preach the Gospel–who admittedly is fallible, and therefore by definition he will be wrong at various points during his Scriptural interpretation–we cannot be certain of his authority. Indeed, he has none, except that which is self-appointed. (And that, certainly, is not Biblical!)

So, you are saying that the priests and bishops that can trace (according to you) their succession back to Peter are the only ones anointed by the Spirit to preach the word of God. Isn’t this exactly what I said previously?

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
I thought the CC teaches that it’s members had to subject themselves to the teachings of the church as pronounced by the priests and bishops who alone are anointed to recieve the movement of the Holy Spirit.

And isn’t this contrary to what Peter says 1Peter 2: 9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Peter apparently thinks that anyone that has accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior is a priest (minister of the Gospel) and if they are priests of the Gospel, as Peter seems to thnk they are, would they not have as much validity to exercise that preaching directive as a priest of the CC?

 

[PRmerger]

So, you are saying that the priests and bishops that can trace (according to you) their succession back to Peter are the only ones anointed by the Spirit to preach the word of God. Isn’t this exactly what I said previously?

Um…no…in fact I stated the exact opposite. Right here:
Each and every Christian receives the anointing of the HS at Baptism, and again at Confirmation. Each and every Christian is called to a baptismal priesthood.

I am quite bemused that you would read my post and come to the conclusion you stated above.

It’s like I said, “The world is round.”

And you responded, “So you say the world is flat.”

We are all called to the baptismal priesthood. We are all called to preach the Gospel. Our popes have proclaimed this.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Um…no…in fact I stated the exact opposite. Right here:
Each and every Christian receives the anointing of the HS at Baptism, and again at Confirmation. Each and every Christian is called to a baptismal priesthood.

I am quite bemused that you would read my post and come to the conclusion you stated above.

It’s like I said, “The world is round.”

And you responded, “So you say the world is flat.”

We are all called to the baptismal priesthood. We are all called to preach the Gospel. Our popes have proclaimed this.

I’m sorry PR. I read this.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles.

No other Church (I do not wish to get into a discussion about our “other lung”, the Orthodox, so for this discussion, I’m only talking about the CC) can trace its **consecrated leaders **back to the apostles, and thus, back to Christ.

When we listen to a non-Catholic minister preach the Gospel–who admittedly is fallible, and therefore by definition he will be wrong at various points during his Scriptural interpretation–we cannot be certain of his authority. Indeed, he has none, except that which is self-appointed. (And that, certainly, is not Biblical!)

Now when I read this I hear you saying that all preaching done in the CC is done by consecreted leaders and is infallable, I don’t know if this is what you mean , but I take it that you mean that these consecrated leaders are consecrated by the Holy Spirit while the preaching done by the non Catholic preacher will be wrong because of coarse they are not consecrated by the Spirit. If you don’t mean that they are consecrated by the Spirit, then who are they consecrated by?

 

[jmcrae]

So, you are saying that the priests and bishops that can trace (according to you) their succession back to Peter are the only ones anointed by the Spirit to preach the word of God. Isn’t this exactly what I said previously?

Priests, Bishops, and Deacons receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which gives them the ability to give us the Sacraments, and gives them the right to keep good order in the Church - which means, they are the leaders, yes.

All of us become priests, prophets, and kings in Baptism, which is the right to learn about the things of God, and the duty to proclaim them to the whole world in the course of our daily work and shopping.

Priests give the faithful the Word of God at Mass, and then the faithful take that Word out with them into the market place to share it with the unbelievers.

And isn’t this contrary to what Peter says 1Peter 2: 9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Peter apparently thinks that anyone that has accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior is a priest (minister of the Gospel) and if they are priests of the Gospel, as Peter seems to thnk they are, would they not have as much validity to exercise that preaching directive as a priest of the CC?

Lay people can (and should!) preach to the unbelievers outside the walls of the Church. Those ordained to the priesthood are trained to teach it effectively to the faithful, so that they can do this.

In all cases here, I am speaking about Catholics.

Non-Catholics throw away the graces of their Baptism when they separate themselves away from Christ’s Church and make little man-made churches of their own.