Trans, I would never say most Catholics have a "problem" as you said I did. I do not see why I need a mediator between myself and God. I do not see why saints should be prayed to, or why Mary should be held in the same regard as God, so I am a Protestant.
As for being unworthy of Communion, are you saying Protestant Communion is wrong because the bread and wine are not blessed by a priest? That is the reason my husband will not take Communion when we visit my parents' church. However, he sees nothing wrong with me taking Communion when I go to masses with him. If your arguement is that the Communion is unworthy because of the priest situation, your arguement is faulty because the minister does bless the bread and the wine, or at least every minister I have does. I also believe it really is the body and blood. Many Protestants believe it to only be a symbolic gesture, which I disagree with. I was brought up Lutheran and firmly believe every Communion is a miracle whereby we receive Christ's body and blood.
I suppose then that you disagree with Pope John Paul II's assertion that non-Catholics and even non-Christians can find the path to Heaven? I know Pope Benedict has called Catholicism the one true religion, but in my personal experience, my husband and his whole family do not care for this new pope much.
And to the person who wished our baby become an atheist...I can't think of anything that would break my heart more than my child rejecting God's love.
Originally posted by willofthewisp
Trans, I would never say most Catholics have a "problem" as you said I did. I do not see why I need a mediator between myself and God. I do not see why saints should be prayed to, or why Mary should be held in the same regard as God, so I am a Protestant.As for being unworthy of Communion, are you saying Protestant Communion is wrong because the bread and wine are not blessed by a priest? That is the reason my husband will not take Communion when we visit my parents' church. However, he sees nothing wrong with me taking Communion when I go to masses with him. If your arguement is that the Communion is unworthy because of the priest situation, your arguement is faulty because the minister does bless the bread and the wine, or at least every minister I have does. I also believe it really is the body and blood. Many Protestants believe it to only be a symbolic gesture, which I disagree with. I was brought up Lutheran and firmly believe every Communion is a miracle whereby we receive Christ's body and blood.
I suppose then that you disagree with Pope John Paul II's assertion that non-Catholics and even non-Christians can find the path to Heaven? I know Pope Benedict has called Catholicism the one true religion, but in my personal experience, my husband and his whole family do not care for this new pope much.
And to the person who wished our baby become an atheist...I can't think of anything that would break my heart more than my child rejecting God's love.
On your point that you can speak directly to God and do not require a "mediator", let me say that you are relying solely on Faith. This is a problem since the only time "faith" and "alone" are ever mentioned next to each other in the Bible is the line, "By faith alone ye are NOT saved" (James 2:26). That is why the Catholic Church and all of its sacraments are necessary for salvation.The Church and all of its clergymen (mediators of sorts) are necessary to perform the true sacraments (baptism, communion etc) and without these "mediators" all of those sacraments are invalid. This brings me to the point of Protestant communion: even though a minister may "bless" the bread and wine, it is not a valid blessing because they lack the Divine authority that Jesus gave to the Apostles at the Last Supper. This is because, once again, they do not have apostolic succession. Unless you have been confirmed into the Catholic Church, you should not receive communion at one of the Catholic masses. On the point of pope John Paul the Second; you are in misunderstanding of what he said. He asserted that one could be saved outside of the VISIBLE church, but they must have had no possible chance to join the Catholic faith. Furthermore, this was not a dogmatic teaching; rather an opinion by a holy Pope. The infallible teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter of salvation is that no one outside the Church can be saved. It can be interpreted both that there is an invisible Church that extends beyond the visible on, based on true desire for the Faith but no opportunity to find it, or that there is no salvation outside the visible Church. Pope Benedict is a holy pope, and he just interprets that teaching differently than John Paul; personally I believe that this Pope is a very Holy man, possibly saintly with his release of "Summorrum Pontificum", which freed up the old Latin Rite.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
One of the problems you have (and most Protestants have) is that you rely on God's mercy solely, whilst He is both eternally merciful AND just. Because of this justice, one must be held accountable for all of his/her sins, offenses against God. Even if you loved God with all your soul, but sinned, then the eternal justice of God would be used in judgement. But there are sins of differing levels of categorization: Venial sins are those sins which are not damnable (cursing for example) and they are removed every time you receive the Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord. The other type of sin, mortal, is damnable but requires three characteristics: it must be a grave matter, the person must be in full control of the event, and the person must know that it is a mortal sin (or at least offensive to God). We are all born with the inherent mortal sin of Adam, for God placed a curse on him and his children, but when one is baptized in the true sacrament, that sin is removed (that is why those outside the Church cannot be saved). The reason for all of this theology is that even after confessing sins, attachments to them may remain; and so the soul "atones" in Purgatory to clean itself of all sin before entering into Heaven. This is why loving God alone cannot get you directly into Heaven; by bringing a soul that has sin into heaven, you degrade the very perfect nature of the Place; therefore a Purgatory must exist (or it is almost impossible to enter into heaven, a scary thought...).
On your point that you can speak directly to God and do not require a "mediator", let me say that you are relying solely on Faith. This is a problem since the only time "faith" and "alone" are ever mentioned next to each other in the Bible is the line, "By faith alone ye are NOT saved" (James 2:26). That is why the Catholic Church and all of its sacraments are necessary for salvation. Also, back to the point of what I said earlier about apostolic succession, Protestants do not have a valid Communion and from the Gospel of John, " Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:54). But since Protestants do not have a valid communion by breaking from apostolic succession, they partake of the Body and Blood unworthily, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Cor. 11:27). This is why the Catholic Church exists as the sole keeper of the New Covenant in Christ.And congratulations on your child! I will keep your family in my prayers. God bless.
1) I wouldn't call it a"problem" we protestants have an incredible strength, that we have a merciful God who sent us his son to die for for every sin. Also I would agree with you that loving God alone does not get us saved. It's (As repeatedly stated in the New Testament) the fact that God loves us, that he set about getting us saved through Jesus. ✅
2) You talk about a hierarchy or variety of sins. Can you please provide me with any scriptural references to back up your claims? Because from what I've read in the scripture, a sin is a sin. All are an act of rebellion against God and all are covered as forgivable thanks to the Crucifixion of Jesus.
3) If you read that verse from James chapter 2 in context it does in no way talk about sacraments made by the Catholic Church. It says faith without works is pointless. As in faith without action is pointless (the whole chapter revolves around the theme of walking the walk and not just talking the talk, which would have been an appropriate criticism of some of the Early Churches.)
The reference in 1 Cor 11:27 is also removed from it's context where it begins by referring to how different aspects of the Church should be unified for we are all one body (So no the Catholics aren't the only ones getting communion right as you claim at the end of your post). The passage goes on to the verse you mention stating of how we must be respectful of communion and examine ourselves in this important activity. I see nothing of being unworthy protestants 🙄 And if you statement was accurate, as the following verses state, I'm not sick and ill for partaking in what you would call unworthy communion, I'm healthy and alive, full of praise for God. 🙂
Originally posted by willofthewisp
Trans, I would never say most Catholics have a "problem" as you said I did. I do not see why I need a mediator between myself and God. I do not see why saints should be prayed to, or why Mary should be held in the same regard as God, so I am a Protestant.As for being unworthy of Communion, are you saying Protestant Communion is wrong because the bread and wine are not blessed by a priest? That is the reason my husband will not take Communion when we visit my parents' church. However, he sees nothing wrong with me taking Communion when I go to masses with him. If your arguement is that the Communion is unworthy because of the priest situation, your arguement is faulty because the minister does bless the bread and the wine, or at least every minister I have does. I also believe it really is the body and blood. Many Protestants believe it to only be a symbolic gesture, which I disagree with. I was brought up Lutheran and firmly believe every Communion is a miracle whereby we receive Christ's body and blood.
I suppose then that you disagree with Pope John Paul II's assertion that non-Catholics and even non-Christians can find the path to Heaven? I know Pope Benedict has called Catholicism the one true religion, but in my personal experience, my husband and his whole family do not care for this new pope much.
And to the person who wished our baby become an atheist...I can't think of anything that would break my heart more than my child rejecting God's love.
I agree with everything you say here except the Lutheran part about Communion being a miracle of receiving Christs blood and body. I, like you refer to, see it as a gesture of remembrance of God's love.
Well said, willrules.
Trans, I still do not understand why a person needs a mediator to communicate with God, especially when confessing sins. Aren't we all supposed to have our own individual relationship with God? Isn't each one of us special in his eyes to the point where he knows every hair on our heads? A priest, to me, is a wonderful calling. It takes someone of very strong faith and committment to do such a thing. But they are still just a person. They sin, they cannot get into Heaven on their own. So I don't see why they have "divine authority" to tell me how I should pay for my sins.
I also have great respect for popes. Again, it takes a strong faith and committment. But if they express opinions as you just said, why is what they say seem to be the doctrine of the whole Church? How can one person speak for such a varied body as the Catholic population? If one believes one thing and another pope believes something else, how then are they both given divine authority from God to lead the same group of people? An example is purgatory. Recently, the Catholic Church officially stated they do not believe in purgatory anymore, yet many Catholics still believe in it. My husband is one of them. And isn't the official ruling of the Church that people who have never heard of Christianity can still go to Heaven? I'm almost positive at one point in the 20th century the Church said all those who do not convert are condemned. So there is another example of "divine authority" interpreted differently by various people.
All I'm really saying is that there is nothing wrong with the way Protestants worship and although we have a bad reputation for being anti-Catholic, it's really not the case. A whole group as varied as the Protestant population cannot be stereotyped in the same way the Catholic population cannot be.
Originally posted by willofthewispno but you dont seem to get it. there arent any personal relationships with god in christianity because he's so generalized.
Well said, willrules.Trans, I still do not understand why a person needs a mediator to communicate with God, especially when confessing sins. Aren't we all supposed to have our own individual relationship with God? Isn't each one of us special in his eyes to the point where he knows every hair on our heads? A priest, to me, is a wonderful calling. It takes someone of very strong faith and committment to do such a thing. But they are still just a person. They sin, they cannot get into Heaven on their own. So I don't see why they have "divine authority" to tell me how I should pay for my sins.
I also have great respect for popes. Again, it takes a strong faith and committment. But if they express opinions as you just said, why is what they say seem to be the doctrine of the whole Church? How can one person speak for such a varied body as the Catholic population? If one believes one thing and another pope believes something else, how then are they both given divine authority from God to lead the same group of people? An example is purgatory. Recently, the Catholic Church officially stated they do not believe in purgatory anymore, yet many Catholics still believe in it. My husband is one of them. And isn't the official ruling of the Church that people who have never heard of Christianity can still go to Heaven? I'm almost positive at one point in the 20th century the Church said all those who do not convert are condemned. So there is another example of "divine authority" interpreted differently by various people.
All I'm really saying is that there is nothing wrong with the way Protestants worship and although we have a bad reputation for being anti-Catholic, it's really not the case. A whole group as varied as the Protestant population cannot be stereotyped in the same way the Catholic population cannot be.
Originally posted by willRules
1) I wouldn't call it a"problem" we protestants have an incredible strength, that we have a merciful God who sent us his son to die for for every sin. Also I would agree with you that loving God alone does not get us saved. It's (As repeatedly stated in the New Testament) the fact that God loves us, that he set about getting us saved through Jesus. ✅
2) You talk about a hierarchy or variety of sins. Can you please provide me with any scriptural references to back up your claims? Because from what I've read in the scripture, a sin is a sin. All are an act of rebellion against God and all are covered as forgivable thanks to the Crucifixion of Jesus.
3) If you read that verse from James chapter 2 in context it does in no way talk about sacraments made by the Catholic Church. It says faith without works is pointless. As in faith without action is pointless (the whole chapter revolves around the theme of walking the walk and not just talking the talk, which would have been an appropriate criticism of some of the Early Churches.)
The reference in 1 Cor 11:27 is also removed from it's context where it begins by referring to how different aspects of the Church should be unified for we are all one body (So no the Catholics aren't the only ones getting communion right as you claim at the end of your post). The passage goes on to the verse you mention stating of how we must be respectful of communion and examine ourselves in this important activity. I see nothing of being unworthy protestants 🙄 And if you statement was accurate, as the following verses state, I'm not sick and ill for partaking in what you would call unworthy communion, I'm healthy and alive, full of praise for God. 🙂
QFT.
Reading some of the earlier posts from Trans, how can you know that all Catholic priests came from Peter?
As I recall, the early church leaders are all Jews, who then trained up and discipled other Jews (like Paul with Timothy) for many years. I don't see the matchup to where that authority is passed on to the Roman Catholic church?
In fact, Jesus Himself said that we are ALL called to go forth and preach the good news to all people, and that we will do greater works than he did, and lay hands on the sick and see them healed in His name. Didn't catch the part in there where He said: "Oh, and make sure that you go through your priest for all that."
What he did say is that if 2 or more are gathered together, He is there in their midst. And that HE brings our requests before God, and that he will answer anything asked in his name.
In answer to the thread topic: Charismatic. (Pentecostal)
Which is a form of Protestant.
Trans, I still do not understand why a person needs a mediator to communicate with God, especially when confessing sins.
>>Because Christ says so. John 20:21-23:
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
*****************************************************
Aren't we all supposed to have our own individual relationship with God?
>>No. We are all supposed to be, individually, members of Christ's Body: 1 Corinthians 12:12:-2712The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.
**************************************
Isn't each one of us special in his eyes to the point where he knows every hair on our heads?
>>Just as special as can be, even though not all of us are heads, or feet,or hands, or priests, or prophets, or teachers, or evangelists.
But each of us is, individually, in relationship to the Head, which is Christ Jesus. The relationship is that of cells to in a Body.
*****************************************
A priest, to me, is a wonderful calling.
>>If you truly bnelieved that, you would be Catholic. If you were truly Protestant, you would fulminate against the Catholic priesthood, which reserves to the ordained presbyters of the bishop, the power to effectuate the transsubstantiation of the bread and the wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior, just as Paul tells us has been done from the very beginning of the Catholic Church. 1 Cor 11:23-29
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
************************************************
But they are still just a person. They sin, they cannot get into Heaven on their own. So I don't see why they have "divine authority" to tell me how I should pay for my sins.
Jesus has told you how to confess your sins. Why do you not hear Him?
John 20:21-23:
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
********************************************************
I also have great respect for popes. Again, it takes a strong faith and committment. But if they express opinions as you just said, why is what they say seem to be the doctrine of the whole Church?
>>Because Jesus Christ commanded it:
Matthew 16:17-19:
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven."
*********************************************
How can one person speak for such a varied body as the Catholic population?
>>Because Christ just told you he can.
**********************************
If one believes one thing and another pope believes something else, how then are they both given divine authority from God to lead the same group of people?
>>Unlike man-made religions, the Catholic Church can never change her teaching on matters of divine revalation. Only matters of discipline and pastoral approach can change. Dogma never can change. This is because the Catholic Church was not instituted by men, or by the will of mken, but by God, and by the Will of God. Therefore no Pope, when exercising the power of binding and loosing authoritatively, can ever bind a Catholic to sin or error in matters of faith and morals.
***********************************************************************
An example is purgatory. Recently, the Catholic Church officially stated they do not believe in purgatory anymore, yet many Catholics still believe in it.
>>You are simply wrong here. Unlike man-made Protestant denominations, which come into existence as easily as resentments crop up in their predecessors, the Catholic Church will never change any dogma of her faith, since her dogmas are God given, and not man made. Since Purgatory is an apostololic dogma, infallibly defined by Popes and Councils, it will never change. You might possibly be referring here to Limbo, which was never a dogma of the Catholic faith, but merely a (well-supported) theological speculation. I still happen to believe in limbo, by the way, along with hundreds of millions of other Catholics. But I have never been required to believe in limbo, as I would be required to believe in a dogma revealed to us on the authority of God Himself (such as Purgatory).
*******************************************************
My husband is one of them.
>>If your husband is truly Catholic, please tell him he has been listening to some extremely incompetent teachers, if they have told him the Catholic Church has changed her teaching on Purgatory. Ask him to show you proof.
Hint: he won't be able to.
That is because the Church has never, can never, and will never change her teaching on Purgatory, or on any other dogma of the Faith.
The Catholic Church, as opposed to man-made religions, does not consult popular opinion for her dogmatic teachings.
********************************************
And isn't the official ruling of the Church that people who have never heard of Christianity can still go to Heaven?
>>>It has always been the official teaching of the Church that invincible ignorance can excuse one from not accepting the Gospel and becoming baptized. This does not in any way mean they are assured of heaven, howqever. As Paul says:
Rm 2 12-16
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
Notice that ignorance of the Law does not mean the Gentiles are forgiven their sins. Indeed, they will be judged by the law written on every human heart.
As for those who knowingly reject Christ and His Church, well.
There was more hope for those who decided not to get aboard the Ark, than there is for them.
*************************************************************
I'm almost positive at one point in the 20th century the Church said all those who do not convert are condemned.
>>No. The Church wrote Romans 2, the Church has always taught it. Read it above and see. The Church has always taught that those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ or His Church, will not be condemned on those grounds.
The Church has always taught that these will, nonetheless, be judged according to the law written on each human heart.
The Church has always taught that there is no hope whatsoever, for any person who knowingly rejects Christ and His Church.
These latter cannot be saved.
****************************************
So there is another example of "divine authority" interpreted differently by various people.
>>It is not the interpretation of people that is important. It is the commandment of Christ that is important:
Mt 16:17-19
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven."
2) You talk about a hierarchy or variety of sins. Can you please provide me with any scriptural references to back up your claims?
>>>Sure. 1 Jn 5:16-17:
16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.
The "sin that does not lead to death", that is, the sin that does not destroy sanctifying grace, is what we call "venial sin" in Catholic moral theology. The "sin that leads to death", that is, the sin that does destroy sanctifying grace, is what we call "mortal sin" in Catholic moral theology.
****************************************************
Because from what I've read in the scripture, a sin is a sin. All are an act of rebellion against God and all are covered as forgivable thanks to the Crucifixion of Jesus.
>>Well, now you know that there are two categories of sin in Scripture, just as there aretwo categories of sin in Catholic moral theology. The reason is, that the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament Scriptures, and the Catholic Church alone has retained the trustworthy interpretation of them.
****************************************************
well trans ill give you this you are goddamn thorough. i do agree with you on the point that people are not meant to have individual experiences with god in the catholic faith, and i even find the notion laughable. i completely agree that it is a body of teachings and people, and that if you accept the catholic faith you accept yourself as part of the body. i also agree, it doesnt agree with whats popular, which is certainly a good trait, however the church has been wrong multiple times which it has apologized for.
its hard for me to debate catholic scripture because i havent read the bible completely, nor do i know the intricacies of your faith, however if i was to become christian, i would likely be catholic. not because its structured, but because there is a way to become forgiven. although i do believe electing a pope is simply rediculus because you admit humans are fallible and fallible people electing someone who is supposed to be infallible is rediculus.