Setting the Record Straight: Catholic Belief in Christ

Jay:
I have a very sincere question that does not directly relate to this topic but I don't know where else to post it. I have read many of the articles, reviews, posts on this website and I have noticed a common theme. There seems to be a significant anti-protestant bent to this website. Why? Does it have to do with your protestant past or is it something else? This is a sincere question. Please don't think that I am trying to stir anything up. It seems that we should be trying to find common ground to reach the world for Christ and do the Lord's will on Earth. I do not consider myself a protestant even though I attend a Baptist Church. The Church could be much more of a positive influence in the world if we could cling to our common ground which is Jesus the Christ.

May God bless you always,
Ernie

PS- I don't necessarily agree with the policy of that adoption agency. I am sure that there are many Roman catholic families that would be a tremendous positive influence in the life of an adopted boy or girl. Lord knows that there is a surplus of children in need of a loving family and a short supply of couples wanting to adopt children, Roman catholic or otherwise.

Thank you for your time and consideratioin.

If they do believe this, then they have a big problem, since the Old and New Testaments themselves disagree. The easy example is 1 Timothy 3:15 which states that the Church is the “foundation and pillar of Truth” – I think all would define “Truth” as the “final authority” in “faith and life.”

Jay, it does not say that the church is the TRUTH. It says that it is a foundation and a pillar of the TRUTH. We are to support God's truth. That is what a foundation and pillar are. They are support structures. They uphold. That is what the church does for God's truth.
God's Truth is indeed the final authority. That truth is found in His word, collectively known as the Bible.

"In addition, protestants have many traditions as well, so not “all” matters of faith and life are covered, apparently (like the style of their worship)"

I go to a church where we praise and dance. Does that occur in the Bible? Yes it does.
However, prayers to saints, Mary, indulgences...do not.

GOd Bless

Please point out where the Bible supports sola scriptura, SandT.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Time and time again I answer this question. So I will answer again, because I am not giving up on you;)
I will give the quick summary as it is late and I have to get some rest.

1. We both accept the Bible to be the words of God spoken through men.
2. Peter refers to Pauls writings as Scripture.
3. Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:16 that ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD BREATHED AND USEFUL FOR TEACHING, REBUKING, CORRECTING(who?), AND TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, SO THAT THE MAN OF GOD(that would be a Christian man) MAY BE THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK.

As much as you may deny, the part about correcting shows that Scripture is authoritative. The part about the ability of Scripture to thoroughly equip shows the sufficiency. Paul in 2 Tim 4:2 encourages us to correct, rebuke and encourage each other with the Scriptures.

So to answer your question, 2 Timothy 3:16 clearly shows that the WORD of God...the Scriptures is to be authoritative. Everything else must align and harmonize with the Word of God. Thats what it means to hold Scripture as authoritative. If something is foreign to Scripture it is to be rejected. Prayers to saints, Marian doctrine and various RC doctrines are FOREIGN to the Bible.
Holding the Scriptures. Using oils to pray, praying with a group of brethren on earth, praising God with song and dance...all of that is consistent with the Bible.

And yes Jay, a lot of the early church fathers did hold on to Scripture as having authority over all matters pertaining to faith, PARAMOUNT authority as one church father phrased it.

There is your answer. Now please show me where it says that an earthly organization is to be the official interpreter of God's Word. Show me where it says the church is the creator of truth. Supporter and upholder of the truth, I agree...creator and interpreter of the truth...that is foreign to the Bible.

God Bless

Jay, you know darn well that a Catholic cannot in good conscience sign a Protestant statement of faith.

Sola Scriptura, Sola Fidei, asserting the sinfulness of Mary, denying the authority of the Pope, denying baptism to infants, freedom of a believer to reject salvation, the necessity of good works.

You've made excellent posts pointing out the errors of Protestant doctrine. Until Protestants change their foundational doctrines, a Catholic is by Protestant definition, in error and guilty of idolatry of the highest order by worshipping symbolic bread.

Could you honestly still sign the statements of faith from your original Baptist Church?

SandT,

"All scripture" does not mean "and no witnessing." I think you misinterpreted 2 Timothy 3:16.

Jesus said, "Go yee into all the world and teach my gospel to every creature." Teach, not necessarily "write." You teach by talking, especially to the masses. Remember, there was no printing press at that time. That's why the apostles gave sermons.

Maybe it's true that the church really believes the correct things about Jesus. I think it does. But not all Catholics live and act like Him, not even all clergy. Protestants are the same way. There's a whole lot of phonies out there. Christ told the story of the good Samaritan to show people that you can wear any collar you want and still fall short of the virtue of somebody that you consider to be outside of the "proper" faith.

AJ,
Remember, even one of the apostles was faithless. I always recall the parable of the weeds in the wheat: the farmer waited until the end to remove the weeds, so that the wheat would not be pulled up in the process. Yes there are a lot of fallen men, but we must all struggle forward carrying our own crosses.

God bless,
Jay

AJ,

I won't disagree with you that not everyone who claims the name of Christ actually understands what it is about. That was not the point. The point that we always disagree at is whether or not the Bible has paramount authority in regards to the faith.
In any event, not everyone will get it 100% right. Only a few will as evidenced by the churches in Revelations, the Israelites, and the disciples of Christ.
However, "all Scripture does not mean no witnessing." I never said that or implied that. However I am saying that whatever you witness about or teach about, must align with the Word of God. If you want to follow doctrines, such as Marian doctrine or communion of saints, which have no solid foundation in Scripture...you have the choice to do so. Mary's assumption or the notion of praying to dead saints is foreign to the Bible. The only way to justify such a doctrine is to give authority to an earthly interpreter. However, one uniform earthly interpreter of Christ's teachings is foreign to the Bible....as evidenced by the 7 churches in Revelations.

God Bless

Jay:
I am feeling a little neglected here. Any response to my post from July 19th above?

Ernie

Ernie,
My apologies - somehow I missed your post in the volume of other comments!

If you feel there is an anti-protestant bias, then I would apologize for my lack of writing skill. I am trying to simply present a case that the Catholic Church is the fullness of Christ's revelation, so all should seriously consider Her claims. This does not mean that protestant churches do not contain truth, it simply means they don't contain the fullness of truth that is available.

I also agree that we should start with common ground: our faith in Christ Jesus. However, in order to illustrate the differences in the Catholic position, I typically contrast them with protestant positions and explain why the Catholic position is the correct one. I can see how this comes out as an anti-protestant bias.

I think the best explanation is in the post Why we do this (or why apologetics is important). I hope this helps explain my thoughts.

God bless,
Jay

Jay:
Thank you for your response. I understand your point about making contrasts with protestant positions. You have previously refered me to the "Why we do this" section on another post regarding Sola Scriptura and I have read it already. Thank you.

What do you mean by the "fullness of truth"? Are you saying that the Roman catholic church is 100% correct on all matters at all times? That although protestant churches conatain some truth it is mixed with error but the Roman catholic church does not contain error which is why you mention "the fullness of Christ's revelation" or "the fullnesss of truth"? Well, I will agree with you that individuals in protestant churches have made errors regarding christian doctrine. They are human and are not perfect. But doesn't the same apply to the Roman catholic church?

May God bless you always,
Ernie

AJ wrote:But not all Catholics live and act like Him, not even all clergy. Protestants are the same way. There's a whole lot of phonies out there.

AJ you are half-right. You are right to say there are a lot of Catholic phonies out there. The Sacrament of Confession is for phonies like me because God loves and wishes to help everyone - including Catholic phonies.

Cardinal Mermillod, however, points out that there are no Protestant phonies out there.

When a Catholic supports or commits abortion, contraception, euthanasia, capital punishment, gay marriage, or adultery - they cease to behave as good Catholics. Or, as you say, they are phony Catholics.

When a Protestant does the same thing, they remain good Protestants. Each Protestant reserves the right to interpret Scripture for themselves. For example, when Bishop Spong and John Stott argue over the acceptability of homosexual acts, they both remain "good Anglicans".

Even if a Protestant congregation splits over a point (offering communion to the unbaptized, infant baptism, whether salvation can be lost, whether Jesus actually died on the cross), each congregation has as much as right as the other to consider themselves Protestant, each congregation rests assured that they have the "plain meaning of Scripture".

Why do I mention that there is no such thing as a Protestant phony? Because it means that all phonies are Catholic. And that means the only place for a phony to receive help is the Roman Catholic Church.

Ernie,
The Roman Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit has prevented the Church from introducing errors into its official teachings. It also freely admits that many of its members, including bishops and Popes, have not always lived up to the teachings.

For example, Arius (who started the Arian heresy that Christ was not God) convinced over half the bishops in Christendom of his heresy and exiled a good number (including Athanasius) of bishops who held to the official teachings from the Council of Nicaea. On the night before Arius (still promoting his heresy) was to be received back into communion with the Church, his bowels exploded and ended his life.

As you can see, there is no guarantee that any particular member of the Catholic Church will not fail in teaching or in action. The Roman Catholic Church believes there is a guarantee for official Church teachings.

Broken,

Let God be true and every man a liar.

It does not matter that Protestants differ on various items. (FYI, Anglicans are not classified as Protestants by Barretts research)
It does not matter that the RCC can claim they have an official teachings. What matters is what the word of God says. What matters is what the Scriptures say. God is true and every man is a liar.
If man wants to let their pride affect and skew their readings of the Scriptures, so be it. That is their problem. God says that homosexuality is an abomination and if someone says otherwise, then that person is a liar. Someone can believe 2+2 to equal 5, but that does not make it so. It does not matter to be judged by man's standards, what matters is God's judgement. If God does not teach to reach to those who have passed for aid in prayer, but a man(or a church) teaches it, then that man is a liar.
Doctrines of heresy or doctrines to lead us away or distract us from God have been forewarned of in the Scriptures.
The Bible does not speak of an earthly interpreter of Scripture. However the Bible does speak of a universal teacher, that being the Holy Spirit. THe Holy Spirit lies within all of us, and we must choose to submit to the will of the Spirit of God. In the book of Revelations, you have 7 churches. All whom differ in their practices, most of whom were told by Christ that HE held a few things against them. Of course they were told to repent.
The point of this is simple. One, this shoots down any theory of there being a uniform, unified church in the Bible with an earthly arbiter/leader.
Lastly, not all the churches will be 100% correct. Nonetheless, they will be called unto repentence. And if they have an ear, they will do the will of the Lord.
You can be a good Catholic and you can be a good Baptist, MEthodist or whatever Protestant denomination. What matters most is being a good Christian. I want to be a hearer and a doer of the Word of God. Nothing more and nothing less.

God Bless

Broken Record:

Psalm 118:8 is the verse that is at the center of the bible and you might as well call it the central theme of the bible as well. It states: "It is better to trust in the Lord, than to put confidence in man".

There must be a basis for your faith. What is the basis of the Roman catholic faith? Is it not the Word of God? Or is it Church doctrine? Church doctrine means nothing. The church (be it Roman catholic, or Baptist, or Lutheran, or Episcopalian, etc.) does not create the truth it only supports it (pillar and foundation) and proclaims it. It can't create it. God is the Author of Truth not the church. The church can only proclaim what God says, nothing else. And if the church (be it Roman catholic, or Baptist, or Lutheran, or Episcopalian, etc.) makes doctrine that contradicts what God has already said than you have 2 options: Either the doctrine is false and not from God or God is a liar. And as Psalm 118:8 states: "It is better to trust in the Lord, than to put confidence in man".
You mentioned that "many of its members, including bishops and Popes, have not always lived up to its teachings". Doesn't the Roman catholic church proclaim Papal infallibility? Did not the Roman catholic church have as its official doctrine the paying of indulgences for the forgiveness of sins at one point? Do you believe that doctrine to be free of error? People are not perfect and therefore can make mistakes when interpreting scripture (that includes people in the Roman catholic hiearchy) but the Word of God stands forever!
I think SandT makes some excellent points.

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Just to add something: We are spiritual beings living in a physical world. How are we, living in the physical world, to know anything about the spiritual world unless God reveals it to us. God communicates to us through His word and the Holy Spirit helps us understand what God is trying to tell us.

Ernie

Ernie wrote:
You mentioned that "many of its members, including bishops and Popes, have not always lived up to its teachings". Doesn't the Roman catholic church proclaim Papal infallibility?

Papal infallibility means that the Pope is guaranteed to teach correctly when he speaks ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals. It does not guarantee that he will live up to these infallible teachings. For example, Peter in Acts declared that it was lawful to eat food that the Jews considered unclean and that Gentiles did not need to become circumcised after deciding to accept Jesus as Lord. Unfortunately, he did not live up to his own teachings and did not eat with the Gentiles. Paul rebuked him on this saying that Peter knew better. As you can see, the Pope's teachings were correct but his personal actions required correction.

Did not the Roman catholic church have as its official doctrine the paying of indulgences for the forgiveness of sins at one point?

No it did not. Many common practices and common teachings are not official doctrine. Official doctrine comes almost exclusively from the Ecumenical Councils. There are probably less than a dozen official doctrines (and at least three) which do not come from an ecumenical council.

By the way, how to Protestants deal with the difficulty of St. Paul saying that not everyone receives the spiritual gift of discernment? That is, how is someone without the gift of discernment supposed to discern who has it and who does not?

Broken Record:

Thank you for clarification on those 2 points.

So, you are saying that the pope is infallible only in his teachings not in his actions or behavior? (the "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy) And that the Roman catholic church did not have the paying of indulgences as an "official" doctrine? So, really only "official" doctrine and not common practices and common teachings of the Roman catholic church need to be followed?
Where did the idea of the pope being without error "when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals" come from? It's a perfect arguement so that no one can challenge what a person is teaching.
And can you please list, for my own education, the official doctrines of the Roman catholic church? Since there are "less than a dozen" I hope it will not be too much to ask.

I don't quite understand your comment about Paul's writing about the gift of discernment.
I believe you are refering to 1 Corinthians 12:10. I don't see how this is "a difficulty". Or how this verse is different for protestants vs. Roman catholics? Paul here is refering to the spiritual gift of discernment OF THE SPIRITS.

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Ernie wrote:
So, you are saying that the pope is infallible only in his teachings not in his actions or behavior?

Pretty much, but the Pope must also be speaking on a matter of faith or morals and intend to be exercising his teaching ministry. This condition has been met twice in all of Roman Catholic Church history. Once to say that Mary, like Adam and Eve, entered this world free from the stain of original sin. Another time to say the Mary, like Elijah and Enoch, was assumed bodily into heaven.

So, really only "official" doctrine and not common practices and common teachings of the Roman catholic church need to be followed?
Yes, in the sense that Catholics are expected not to contradict official teachings. They are not expected to follow common practices such as only going to Church at Christmas and Easter.

Where did the idea of the pope being without error "when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals" come from?
I must confess my knowledge of history is pretty weak because I find it pretty boring. Theology and apologetics interests me more. All I know is that the idea was formally proclaimed in 1870 at the first Vatican Council.

And can you please list, for my own education, the official doctrines of the Roman catholic church? Since there are "less than a dozen" I hope it will not be too much to ask.

My "less than a dozen" refers to official teachings apart from the Ecumenical councils. I cannot even list all the ecumenical councils (Orange, Lateran, Trent, Vatican, Nicaea, and Florence are all that come to mind) and they all contain official teachings. The first ones which come from ecumenical councils that stand out in my mind are that we can be saved by grace alone, that the Father, Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are all One God, that the bread and wine offered at Mass become the body and blood of Jesus, that Mary is the Mother of God the Son, that believers and non-believers have the freedom to reject or accept God's grace which he offers to all, that Jesus was born of a Virgin.

The ones that don't come from councils would be the two I mentioned which fall under Papal Infallibility. Another would be that the Church was not given the authority to ordain women.

I don't quite understand your comment about Paul's writing about the gift of discernment.
I believe you are refering to 1 Corinthians 12:10. I don't see how this is "a difficulty". Or how this verse is different for protestants vs. Roman catholics?

I'm referring to the fact that on almost every issue, Christians are of differing opinions. But one can always know what the official Catholic Church position is even though Scriptures may be unclear on some points (Can salvation be lost, should communion be offered to the unbaptized, do we have free will, etc...)

The challenge for Protestants is to answer the question: if the Roman Catholic Church cannot be trusted to infallibly interpret scriptures, then who can be? no one? everyone? those with the gift of discernment? Luther? Calvin? Wesley? Stott? Spong? Packer? Swindoll? Campolo?

Broken

"The challenge for Protestants is to answer the question: if the Roman Catholic Church cannot be trusted to infallibly interpret scriptures, then who can be? no one? everyone? those with the gift of discernment? Luther? Calvin? Wesley? Stott? Spong? Packer? Swindoll? Campolo?"

The HOLY SPIRIT is to be trusted. Not a man.
That is what we have been saying. Unfortunately all these men you mentioned including those whose beliefs are Roman Catholic are men who are flawed and sinful in nature. While they may have intended to do good, their flesh gets in the way. The Word of God says that the Holy Spirit will teach us. Our job is to have an ear and listen to the spirit. Our job is to commune with God in prayer and become closer to the Spirit. When we do that, then you will see a unified body for it will be the same Spirit. If you want to go against what the Spirit is moving you or invoking you to do, so be it. If you want to extrapolate from the Scriptures that Mary is co-mediatrix and communion of saints is acceptable and to be practiced, fine. These items in particular including other Roman Catholic doctrine are only supported by taking the text out its common use or by disregarding the Bible as having paramunt authority of the Scriptures.
The Bible mentions the ALL SCRIPTURE can be used for teaching and correcting. There is no mention that the church is used for that purpose. And as mentioned before the idea of a papacy is destroyed by the mentioning of the 7 churches in Revelations.
Broken, the Bible is prophetic as well. So your question as to how do you know who is right can't be answered. However, The Lord will speak to the Church and rebuke and give correction. That is what is prophecied in Revelations. We shall wait and see.

God Bless

woo! I'm so glad I found this place! I've been very concerned with bias against Catholics for a long time now and am planning a book to refute it.

I'm Anglican (aka Episcopalion), and we consider ourselves Catholic (not Roman) AND Protestant. I know it sounds impossible...but that's not what we're disussing now, so I'll leave it.

Anyway, one thing you said that bothered me greatly was
"For example, when Bishop Spong and John Stott argue over the acceptability of homosexual acts, they both remain "good Anglicans"."

I, as an Anglican, beg to differ. Those who call themselves Anglican, or Episcopalion, and support homosexuality are a SMALL percentage of the world wide church. They are going against Anglican doctrine. According to true Anglicans (such as a 'little' group called the Network), they are definetely not 'good'.
The words of a few people about a few people do not set in stone the beleifs of the organization they are all part of.

I'm sorry if I sound snooty: please don't think that I am.

The thing is, there ARE phonies on all sides. There ARE 'Protestants' who are not considered 'good' by other Protestants.

There will always be differences of opinion. The important thing is that we agree on the important stuff--the foundational beliefs that make us Christians. It is the little, less important things (like whether we should be baptized as children or adults) that divide us into denominations.
Of course, no matter how hard we argue, we will never know for sure who is right about what little thing until we die.
And as being right or wrong about those little things does not determine our salvation, people shouldn't argue about them.
Of course they should be looked into, explored, discussed. Whatever more we can learn about God is good.
But people take these little things way out of proportion, and are so strongly assured that 'I am right and you are wrong' that they begin to think that the other group is a pretty foul lot.
This sort of thing causes bias on all sides. I have only personally expirienced that against Catholics, though, and I am excessively tired of it.

As a new member of this discussion, I humbly ask that we not make arguments about doctrine based on what one person said, but only what is definetaly the written doctrine of that denomination.

Who invited Parenthesis into this discussion??
Just kidding, Par. Welcome aboard. Your input is well appreciated and I agree with your statement regarding the "I'm right, your'e wrong" mentality which can be devisive. I think it is Augustine who said, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials charity, and in all things liberty" or something like that.

Broken Record:
I have to agree with some of the points SandT is making. We are not to put our trust in man (Luther, calvin, Welsley, Stott,Sponge, Packer, Swindoll, Campolo) but in God as I mentioned in refering to Psalm 118:8 which states: "It is better to trust in the Lord, than to put confidence in man". We are to be like the "noble-minded" Bereans who searched the scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching was in agreement with God's Word. (as seen in Acts 17:10-12). These people are refered to as "noble-minded" in scripture because they searched the scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching was in line with what God had already said through the prophets. We are to do the same. If anyone speaks regarding the things of God, be it the Pope, your local pastor, a teacher at your bible study we are to confer with scripture and see if those things being taught are of God. The truth is revealed through the Holy Spirirt.
We are not to follow Martin Luther, or Calvin or a pope. We are to follow and trust in Our Lord Jesus the Christ! And Him only. God is the ultimate authority and He speaks to us through His word through His Holy Spirit. It does not matter what anyone says.

If the Roman catholic church teaches that Mary was free of original sin and she was assumed bodily into heaven that is an opinion and cannot be taught as fact because there is no way to verify this because it is not found in scripture. It very well may be true? Who knows? Only God knows and if He did not reveal this truth to us maybe it's because it is not important for us to know at this time.

I'll leave you with a quote from Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones regarding the Roman catholic church which I tend to agree with. He said in regards to the Roman catholic church that the problem "is not so much a 'denial' of the truth, but rather such an addition to the truth that eventually it becomes a departure from it".

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Dear Ernie,

You mean well, but did you know that the protestant bibles deleted several books from the bible that Jesus referred to in the new testament? This is because protestantism was forged in the spirit of defiance. The unwittingly accepted the compilation of the old testament that was created by an anti-christian counsel in 90 A.D. that sought to protect judaism from christian missionaries by deleting old testament books that support the prophesy of Jesus. In other words, protestants shot themselves in one of the feet they intended to stand on. Martin Luther changed some verses around, too. He also added things to verses that remain in protestant bibles today. You speak of the RCC as making additions to the faith. Hah! The word: protestant sounds like "Protest" and I don't think something is truly of the Holy Spirit if it is in the spirit of rebellion. Not reform, rebellion because that's what removing books from the bible for the sake of being different is.

AJ:
I believe you speak of the apocrypha as the books that Martin Luther deleted. I am sorry to say that your information is incorrect. Unfortunately, none of those books were ever refered to by Jesus in the New Testament, none of those books were considered inspired scripture by the Hebrews, and even many early Roman catholics did not believe they were equal to scripture. It sounds like you are only repeating things which you have heard said rather than researching the information for yourself. Yes, the grievances Martin Luther had with the Roman catholic church was what eventually spurned the Protestant Reformation but it was started by Martin Luther not as a protest but as a defense of the truth being ignored by corrupt church leaders. You say that the things done in the "spirit of rebellion" can't be of the Holy spirit? Well, do you think that the paying of indulgences for the forgiveness of sins, murdering of innocent people because they would not convert to your religion (i.e the inquisitions), or the covering up of child molesting priests are from the Holy Spirit? These are all things done by the Roman catholic church at some point or another.

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Ernie wrote:
I believe you speak of the apocrypha as the books that Martin Luther deleted

Ernie, I don't want to put words in AJ's mouth but I believe AJ is talking about NEW testament books like James rather than deuterocanonical / apocryphal works from the Old Testament.

When it came to the book of James, Luther wished to "rip that wretched book out of the Bible" because it said "faith without works is dead". Recently, Catholics and Lutherans have come to believe that they have had differing definitions of faith for hundreds of years because the Holy Scriptures have differing definitions of the word faith (credo vs fidei in simplistic terms).

Unfortunately, none of those books were ever refered to by Jesus in the New Testament
Interestingly enough, Jesus made numerous reference to books found only in the Septuagint. Protestant scholars were unable to recognize them because they did not know the Septuagint very well. I believe previous posts on another thread contain these references.

none of those books were considered inspired scripture by the Hebrews
Actually, one should say these books are no longer considered inspired by the Hebrews. They removed them from their canon after Christ's resurrection because the early Christians were using the deuterocanonical works with great success to convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.

and even many early Roman catholics did not believe they were equal to scripture.
Are you speaking of St. Jerome recommending that the books of the Septuagint NOT be translated into the Latin Vulgate? You may be interested in two major reasons for Jerome's decision. First, the Septuagint was in Greek not Hebrew. Second, he believed that the writings were for edification and not for doctrine. Since then, people have found out that the Septuagint is a Greek translation of earlier Hebrew texts. Also, Catholics do still consider the Deuterocanonicals inspired and canonical even if the works are "only" for edification and not for doctrine. Removing consideration of the deuterocanonicals when discussing doctrine would make absolutely no change to the strength of Catholic apologetics. I would be more than happy to discuss any point of Catholic doctrine, (purgatory included because Augustine was motivated by 1Cor13:10-15 to elaborate on the idea of purgatory), without reference to the deuterocanonicals.

It sounds like you are only repeating things which you have heard said rather than researching the information for yourself.
If you are interested in research, you may find the catholic perspective on the Old Testament canont interesting. I found myself falling asleep while reading that stuff.

the Protestant Reformation but it was started by Martin Luther not as a protest but as a defense of the truth being ignored by corrupt church leaders.

Did you know where Luther got his 95 theses which he nailed to the Church in Wittenburg? Did you know that he didn't assemble the information himself? The 95 theses was a document produced by the Church leadership and was being internally circulated so as to address problems that it knew about and was trying to reform. Everyone knew of the corruption in the Church at the time. What few people knew was that the Church was in the process of reforming itself and cleaning its own house. All the abuses listed in the 95 theses were addressed by the time the Council of Trent concluded. This is a far cry from church leaders "ignoring" its problems. If those abuses were the real reason for splitting from the Church, Luther and his Princes should have returned to the Roman Catholic Church hundreds of years ago. The real reasons probably involve a mixture of mutual misunderstanding and too much politics on both sides.

Broken,

I find it hard to believe that the reason for a 500 years split between Catholics and protestant was over a "misunderstanding". You forget that Luther was a Catholic priest. He understood Catholic theology perfectly well. It was over deep theological and practical issues Luther and others had with the established Church. As far as the Church reforming at the Counsel of Trent, was it the chicken or the egg that came first? The abuses had been around for a long long time, and were only addressed after Luther's indictment. It would seem logical that Luther had a "small" part to play in this. And Trent corrected some errors and institutionalized others.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas, why is it so hard to believe that there was misunderstanding between Lutherans and Catholics?

The German Princes who backed Luther had much to gain by taking land from the Church. There are faults (in personal conduct, not in teaching) on both sides. What political or economic reason did Luther or the German Princes have to come to some understanding with the Roman Catholic Church? Once a misunderstanding begins, the mutual hostility aquires a life of its own.

Thus, there was little desire on the part of the Roman Catholic Church to engage in meaningful dialogue with other Christian communities until Pope John XXIII came along. Clearing up misunderstandings takes time and patience, I find it surprising that someone was able to engage in meaningful dialogue with Lutherans without allowing prejudices to reopen old wounds to an extent that discussion became impossible. Though I am not surprised that the Holy Spirit inspired the late Pope John Paul II to do so.

Do you understand Pentecostalism, why it split from the mainline churches, the Vineyard movement and why they split, how about the Salvation Army, the Dukhabors, Episcopalians, Christian Reformed, Dutch Reformed, presbyterians, United Church, United Methodists? Chances are that you are like me, know very little about them, and understand their positions very poorly. Pope John XXIII, and Pope John Paul II have challenged us to understand those who are different from us.

For example, I am now becoming convinced that the Roman Catholic Church actually has a sufficiently high view of Scripture so as to satisfy your demand that Scripture is the "ultimate" authority.

You said Protestants (yourself included) would shut up on "Sola Scriptura" if the Catholics merely said "Scripture is the ultimate authority and the Roman Catholic Church has interpreted it correctly". I said Catholics may hold such a position and remain in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. You responded that I was wrong because Tradition is taught as "co-equal" with scripture.

If the two of us cannot even agree on what the Roman Catholic Church teaches concerning the scriptures and the Anathemas in the Council of Trent, how can you also be surprised that misunderstandings persist for hundreds of years?

Take salvation by grace alone for example. The Catholic Church constantly teaches we are saved by grace alone and can do nothing to earn God's grace (although we may, through our choices reject God's grace). Protestants always say "The Catholic Church rejects salvation by grace alone".

Take Mary for example. Catholics say they do not worship Mary. Protestants say Catholics do. Certainly a misunderstanding there. This misunderstanding has been around for hundreds of years and they show no signs of going away.

I have yet to hear a Protestant say "I did not realize that you did not worship Mary, I have now learned that you ask her to pray for you as you would another believer, I see this is not idolatry although I do not believe Mary can pray for us". This would suggest understanding despite disagreements.

I have also yet to hear a Protestant say "I did not realize you believe in salvation by Grace and that you are like Arminians and Methodists who believe salvation can be forfeited after being first accepted". This too would suggest understanding despite disagreements.

I have also yet to hear a Protestant say "I did not realize the Anathemas of Trent were aimed at outlining and clarifying Catholic doctrine rather than condemning people to hell, I do not like the choice of language but I see them as doctrinal proclamations which I reject rather than a personal condemnation". This might suggest understanding despite disagreements.

Understanding between people who disagree is a rare bird indeed, I certainly have no trouble believing that misunderstanding could persist for over 500 years.

Ernie,

You assume that I only repeated things I heard without doing the research myself. Actually I cross-referenced Jesus' statements with many of the deuterocanonical scriptures and found that many of them stand up. Way to go in convincing me of your point by calling me a stupid okie.

Next, you said, "Well, do you think that the paying of indulgences for the forgiveness of sins, murdering of innocent people because they would not convert to your religion (i.e the inquisitions), or the covering up of child molesting priests are from the Holy Spirit? These are all things done by the Roman catholic church at some point or another." Let me correct you on all of that.

On paying for indulgences, are you not fined for running a red light? The idea behind both is sacrifice. I personally don't see what the big deal is. Protestants don't pay anything when they slip up.

On "murdering innocent people" during the inquisitions, this is centuries-old propaganda. Modern historians will tell you that such a thing never happened. The inquisition was a college of lawyers. Nobody was forced to convert to anything. You're thinking about the actions of the Spanish royal family about two hundred years earlier to drive out the ruling muslims which was a purely political matter.

On "covering up child molesting priests," let's see what we can dig up on protestants. How about all the protestant ministers who owned black slaves before the Civil War? How about the protestant reverends who participated in lynch mobs? How about the protestant minister who was just sentenced in Mississippi last month for killing three civil rights workers after about a forty-year coverup? Show me a protestant governing body that shouts to the world, "hey, we've got clergymen committing crimes over here." Bad people will always try to infiltrate the church. It takes maturity to recognize that. The difference is that bad men came to the priesthood whereas protestant churches preached racism in Sunday services.

At the Catholic church, you see the sea of humanity, but protestant churches are segregated to this day. By the way, support for the reformation was all about money and clout. It removed usuary as a sin and allowed the German royals to stop tithing to Rome. It also gave frustrated low level clerics something to do.

AJ:
If you read my previous post to you, you will not see any reference to you being "a stupid okie". I stated that you were misinformed but never said you were stupid. The Apocrypha writings are suspect which is why many do not consider these writings "God-breathed". Many of these writings have no known or identifiable author and do not concur with the rest of scripture which is why many early christians did not consider these writings equal to scripture. These writings were not officially put into the Roman Catholic bible until 1546 at the council of Trent. Over one thousand years after Jesus.
Once again you are misinformed regarding the paying of indulgences. These "fines" as you called them were not payed as punishment for sin but for forgiveness of sin. You may not consider that a big deal but it is totally demeaning to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Our sins are washed away only by the blood of Christ shed at Calvary not from paying "fines". I hope that you understand that because it is the basis of everyone's salvation and that, to me, is a BIG DEAL. You are right that protestants don't pay anything when they slip up because Jesus already payed it for us. This does not give anyone the right to "slip up" whenever they feel like it but, if you are a true follower of Christ, born again in the Spirit, then when it does happen, and it does, God will forgive us. But we follow God's word and try not to sin not because we are afraid of being punished by God but out of gratitude for God's mercy to us because while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.
You may call it propaganda but it is well documented in history that the Roman Catholic church was full of corrrupt leaders that did murder innocent people at times.
I did not bring up the child molesting priests to dig up dirt on the Roman catholic church. I mentioned it to make a point which you obviously missed so I will try again.
You are the one who insinuated that protestants are not of the Holy Spirit because their reformation was based on a "spirit of rebellion" and something is not "truly of the Holy Spirit if it is in the spirit of rebellion". The point I was trying to make is to look into your own house before you criticize someone else. All churches, whether Roman catholic or protestant, are full of sinful men and women that make mistakes. Did Martin Luther go about things the wrong way? Maybe. Maybe not. Did Martin Luther make mistakes? Of course. Have people in protestant churches done evil things? Absolutely. But the Reformation happened for a reason. God allowed it to happen so it must serve a purpose in the overall scheme of things. The Roman catholic church, clergy included, are full of sinful men and women that make mistakes. So why are you so hard on Martin Luther and protestants?

May God bless you always,
Ernie

AJ,

Thanks for clearing up some misconceptions on the inquistion. I did a bit of reading last night and also learned some interesting facts about the actions of the Spanish Royal family commonly known as "the Spanish Inquisition".

First of all, no more than 30 people lost their lives. The usual punishment was confiscation of property.

Second, no one was pressured to convert. The Spanish Inquisition was directed solely at those who claimed to be Roman Catholic. What was happening is that many non-Catholics were causing trouble by pretending to be Catholics and pretending to be Catholic priests. The Church did approve of the Spanish royalty finding out these troublemakers. When this led to cruel abuses, multiple Popes called for an end to this.

What I find impressive is that the Roman Catholic Church had the courage to admit to wrongdoing. I still hear faithful Presbyterians defending Oliver Cromwell's cold-blooded execution of King Charles and all the captured soldiers.

I'm starting to see the truth in Cardinal Mermillod's statement that when Catholics sin, they no longer act as good Catholics. But when Protestants sin, they remain good Protestants.

"And Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone'" (Luke 18:19). In God's eyes no one is good. I don't understand your last statement, "that when Catholics sin, they no longer act as good Catholics. But when Protestants sin, they remain good Protestants". When Protestants sin they no longer act as good protestants either. There is no Catholic or protestant that is "good" from God's point of view.

Ernie

Ernie,

Your insistence that the Council of Trent put the deuterocananical books into the Bible is comical as well as a distortion of history. Those books were already in the Catholic bible from since at least the 4th century. It was Martin Luther and his cronies who removed them. The Council of Trent merely reaffirmed that which Catholics already were observing.

Protestants talk a lot about grace. It is true that Jesus paid for our sins on the cross but the only way we can receive that grace is if we express remorse for our sins. Therein lies another big difference between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics show their remorse through acts of contrition. Acts of contrition make remorse more real.

Think of it like this: Two children playing in their mother's kitchen waste milk all over the floor. One says, "Mom, I love you. Sorry I did that," and goes off to play video games thinking 'Mom will take care of it'. The other mops the kitchen floor and then says, "Mom, I love you. I'm sorry that I wasted milk on the floor. If you'd like, I will save up my allowance and buy some more milk." Of course the mother will likely forgive both children, but with which child do you think the mother is more pleased? Which child do you think will be more likely to get what he asks for when he comes to his Mom for a favor?

The Protestant ethic strips from its followers a mindset that leads to the greatest ability to be good. Christ said "pick up your cross" because He wants action.

AJ

AJ:
I don't understand your hatred towards protestants. At least the words you chose to refer to people, especially protestants, sounds like anger and hatred in your heart. This is only my observation and I am not saying that this is so. But you seem to like to belittle others using words like "cronies". Remember what Jesus said. If you hate your brother you are in danger of judgement. Examine your heart. Most people on this site, although they may disagree on certain issues, remain respectful to others. Please try to defend your points with facts and not name calling.

Without a doubt both Roman catholics and protestants have distorted history at times.
But it goes both ways. You state that the apocrypha books were "reaffirmed at the Council of Trent. If they were already in the bible then why did they need to address it at the Council of Trent? The truth is that there was disagreement even between christians at that time about whether the apocrypha books should be considered sacred scripture. You are correct that the apocrypha books were being used by SOME christians during the 4th century, however, they were not placed OFFICIALLY into the bible until the Council of Trent. Early Christians did not hold these texts as sacred scripture for 4oo years.

Jerome (340-420) rejected the Apocrypha:

"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

Jerome
Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon
According to Edward Hills in The King James Version Defended p. 98.
Other famous Catholics with this viewpoint include Augustine (354-430 who at first defended the Apocrypha as canonical), Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan.

Yes, in order to receive God's grace we must repent. God promises that if we, as believer's in Christ, when we sin, ask Him to forgive us, HE will. Cased closed. That's it. That is God's promise. He does not require anything else from us. That does not mean He will remove the consequences of your sin, but He will forgive you. I understand your analogy of the spilled milk but these things are not required of us. You said that in order to receive grace we have to "express remorse for our sins". We don't have to EXPRESS our remorse to be forgiven we have to truly be remorseful. It is not in the expression of remorse but in the condition of the heart. When we sin, whether protestant or Roman catholics, we SHOULD feel bad. We have sinned against God, our Creator. If we ask for forgiveness but are not truly remorseful then He knows our heart and will not forgive an unrepentent heart. Performing an act of contrition doesn't guarantee remorse. Remorse is reflected inward not outward.
Many protestants have done nothing other than follow the word of God as best they can. When Christ said pick up your cross He was NOT refering to acts of contrition but to making a commitment to follow Him no matter what. If one wishes to perform acts of contrition to express their remorse that is their prerogative but don't make it seem that if you don't than you are less Christian or have less of an "ability to be good". Enough with this catholic vs. protestant agenda. God deals with us as individuals not as catholics or protestants and we should do the same.

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Ernie, one more thing. You say that God allowed the protestant reformation so there must be a reason for it. Well, God also allowed Islam. He allowed the Protestant schisms after the reformation which now includes Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and the new age movement. I don't think the insuation that the reformation was a good thing makes sense. If such logic were to hold out, then every passing theory would be God's way of confusing the world for the better. I can't go there with you.

Jay,

Did you have an answer for the question I asked you on this thread from July 20th?

Broken,
Sorry, somehow I missed your comment. I agree that we could never sign the statement of Faith, since it fails to live up to Catholic teachings. However, from the point of view of that group (which doesn't require adoptees to sign it), we don't violate it. I would argue we go significantly beyond it, since it is pretty elementary.

Does that make sense? I do agree with your point: I could not sign any protestant statement of Faith, they would all be lacking.

God bless,
Jay

Jay, I was under the impression that Catholics DID violate Protestant statements of faith.

For example, don't Protestant statements of faith say that everyone person apart from the Lord since the fall came into the world with a fallen nature? Don't they also proclaim Sola Fidei, Sola Scriptura, and "once saved, always saved" in their statements?

concerning the reference to Catholics showing remorse and admitting mistakes and Protestants not:
I sounds to me as if you are throwing things at each other just to make a point that 'my church is better than your church'.
You can't throw everyone into a box like that. The majority of a group may believe a certain way, but that does not mean that being part of that group means that you have the same beliefs.

For instance, most Texans take alot of pride in their state. They believe that Texas is the greatest place on earth you could possibly live.
But some Texans don't. And moving to Texas does not mean that you have to believe that Texas is the best state.

So saying the RCC is better because the Protestants don't clean up their messes or that the Protestant church is better because the RCC did paying of indulgences is far from a solid argument.

There are beliefs that are necessary for people to belong to a denomination, and there are beliefs that are not. And arguing about the beliefs that are not is pointless; you will never get anywhere saying that 60% of the RCC disagrees with the Protestants on issue A, or even that 40% agrees, because if it is not specifically outlined in the church doctrine, than it is not a specific RCC (or Protestant) belief.

and is it true that Protestants believe Jesus came into the world without a fallen nature? I was under the impression that Protestants (rightly) believed that Jesus DID have a sinful nature (for He was fully human), but that He just didn't give into it (He never sinned, for He was and is fully God as well)?

May God bless you always
But may He bless you more when you are right. ;-)

-()

Parenthesis

As far as what I've read, sacraments like confession and the eucharist, which were what was being discussed, are RCC dogma. It's not petty squabbling to discuss these things. They are very important.

Ernie,
Yes, you do have to express your remorse. You have to express it in order to feel it. You express it by praying to God through the thoughts in your mind and the words coming out of your mouth. Atonement and the confessing of sins are necessary for forgiveness. You can say that your heart feels guilt and that's enough. Plenty of people have gone to their graves with hearts loaded with guilt, but who never released that pain through confessing, allowing a Christian ally to pray for them, letting go of the sins, and leaning on God more than before. As a protestant I would pray for forgiveness and then have to wonder on my own if I mean it enough to be forgiven. Did I pray strong enough? Did I really mean it? These were questions I had to grapple with on my own. All a protestant can say is, "I hope I'm forgiven," but a priest can say, "your sins are absolved." That allows a person to forgive himself. Protestants have absolutely no guidance when it comes to actually letting go of the sin and being sure of their forgiveness. God wants you to be sure you are forgiven. The devil wants you to wonder about it and that's just where protestants are: wondering about it.

AJ:
We were discussing performing outward expressions of our remorse/guilt through "acts of contrition" not confession of sins. Although they are linked, they are separate issues. You are correct in saying that in order to have your sins forgiven you must confess them. Yes, the bible is clear on that. But one does not necissarily have to EXPRESS OUTWARDLY their remorse in order to be remorseful. You don't have to express your remorse in order to "feel it". Guilt and remorse are very personal things between an individual and God, their Creator. Either you are truly sorry and remorseful for your sins or you are not. How can someone say "did I mean it enough to be forgiven"? There aren't certain degrees of "meaining it". Either you mean it or you don't. And how do you pray "strong enough"? You either pray or you don't. You can't say: Well, maybe if I pray a little stronger about this sin God will be more likely to forgive me. You can't fool God. He sees what is in the hearts of man. That is why Jesus criticized the people for praying in the street corners. They prayed in public in the street corners to be seen by men so that other people would say how "religious" they were. Jesus said God sees through all of that and looks into the heart. That is why Jesus then said that when you pray do it in secret. And Jesus many times went up a mountain to be alone to pray.

The key is do you believe God? God has said that if we confess our sins HE WILL FORGIVE US. That is a promise from God. If we confess our sins to God and then doubt if we are forgiven then we are calling God a liar. And I also believe that it is the devil that tries to get us to doubt. But are we going to buy into what the devil says or what God says? God says confess and you will be forgiven. Period. Nothing else needs to be said. If we say "Well, I know God says if I confess He will forgive me but I'm not sure. Am I really forgiven?", then you don't really believe what God has said.
Put it this way: Go up to a stranger and introduce yourself. When they tell you their name say, "I don't believe you". Watch their reaction. When they tell you where they work say, "I don't believe you, either". Carry on like that for a while and before long you may be nursing a black eye. Your lack of faith in that person is a strong insinuation that they are a liar. If that person, a mere mortal, feels insulted by your lack of faith in their words how much more do we insult Almighty God by refusing to believe His word. By doing so we are saying that God isn't worth trusting- that He is a liar and a deceiver. The bible says that "he that believes not God has made Him a liar" (1 John 5:10). It also says, "take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief..." (Hebrews 3:12). My point is: if when we sin, we repent and confess our sins to God we must believe that we are forgiven and not feel any guilt because that is what He promised. Nothing else needs to be done.
Every believer has "guidance
If I go to a priest and confess my sins to him but I am not truly remorseful in my heart and the priest says "your sins are absolved" are my sins really "absolved" and are my sins really forgiven? The problem with confessing sins to priests who are mortal men is that they cannot see what is in the heart.
Every believer has "guidance when it comes to actually letting go of the sin and being sure of their forgiveness". They have the unchanging, and unyielding promises of God. The Word of God will never pass away.

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Ernie,
You are incorrect in your insistence that the Council of Trent put the deuterocanonical books into the Bible. Why don't you actually research the Council of Nicea and the origin of the Catholic church? I guarantee you will not come up with that same idea. The purpose of reaffirming those books at the Council of Trent was to give people a clear message of what the Catholic faith was and always had been.

Of course God knows what's in your heart. The point I was making is that the protestant mindset makes it difficult to really feel remorse and to know when you are forgiven. It just does. I do not harbor hatred in my heart for protestants. I am a protestant myself, from a protestant family and extended family. I grew up a protestant. I know all about how it feels to get on my knees, pray for forgiveness and try to guide myself to forgiveness. I wasn't wondering if God was a liar. I was wondering if I was the liar, partially because I did not have to experience any humility. The protestant ethic says, tell the thief to pray for forgiveness and it'll be all right. The catholic ethic says, pray for forgiveness, atone by actually telling a priest (so that you will have to own up to the humility of your confession and have the added benefit of another person praying for you) and give the stolen property or its value back for the good of society. Maybe the thief's simple prayer is enough. I think in some cases where the thief has perfect contrition, it is. So I agree that it is possible that prayer alone will save someone from sin. However, perfect prayer-preparation, composition and deliverance more difficult for some people. The Bible says that Jesus told His disciples that they had the power to bind and loose people from their sins. This is through confession. Maybe your way will get the thief into heaven, but complete atonement, reconciliation and penance will put jewels in his crown.

The definition of "atone" is "to do something that shows that you are sorry for something bad that you did." (Cambridge Dictionary.) You can say that praying alone is enough. Since you probably believe in the protestant faith article of the "priesthood of the believer," then I hope you know how to pray like a priest.

AJ:
I have researched the origin of the Roman catholic church and for the sake of my sanity we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

Webster's dictionary defines atonement as follows: "Amends for an injury or a wrongdoing; the reconciliation between God and man". AJ, it is the blood of Christ that atones for our sins not anything you do. Jesus was the atonement for our sins. You can't "guide" yourself "to forgiveness" as you put it. You are either forgiven or you are not. It is not a process that requires "guidance". If God says repent and you will be forgiven then why do you doubt that? Why would you doubt if you are forgiven? Would God lie to you or deceive you?

The power does not lie in the words that are said. Just saying it or praying it does not automatically mean you are forgiven. It is the condition of the heart that matters to God and what He sees. Of course you have to "experience humility". If you do not come to God with a humble heart and are truly sorry for your sins He can't forgive you. God gives grace to the humble but resists the proud. I never said prayer alone will "save someone from sin". You have to repent- confess and forsake your sins. Without repentance there is no remission of sins.

AJ, if you could do anything, anything at all, to atone for your sins do you think that God would have allowed His own Son to be horribly and brutally crucified? He allowed that because that was the only way for us to be forgiven of our sins.
Also, I don't understand your last comment. How do you "pray like a priest"? Is true prayer only reserved for the clergy? Are only clergy effective in their prayers?

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Ernie,
I don't know where you did your research but it must not have been through the early writings of the RCC itself, which should know its own history. Unbiased historial scholars would also point to what exactly was compiled at the Council of Nicea to disprove the propaganda you continue to read and buy into against ancient Christian tradition. We will have to agree to disagree on that, although I hope you will study the Council of Nicea in greater depth.

Of course priests aren't the only people who know how to pray, but honestly, they do know how to pray. Have you ever heard a priest pray? Amazing, isn't it? Their prayers are so heartfelt and clear.

You continually miscast my words. I am not calling God the liar. I am talking about when people lie to God about their true feelings of remorse or lack of it. Lack of true humility stands in the way of repentance. Say what you want but you cannot convince me that saying a prayer in your little room for forgiveness of a great sin, and then leaving it at that, is all that humble. Pride allows you to keep your dirtiest secrets between you and God. It's like saying, "I'd lose face if anybody knew so I'll keep this to myself." How vain. I'm not saying that you can't be forgiven this way. But there is a better way to not only be forgiven, but to be receive God's grace in even greater abundance.

A lot of times a person goes to confession with a priest, starts out by talking about one sin and then realizes that there is another they hadn't thought to pray about just by talking it through with the priest. That is an example of "guidance to forgiveness." This allows you to truly let go because you brought everything before God, even the things you hadn't considered before that were holding you back in prayer, self-forgiveness and the greater attainment of grace. There's so much you're missing out on Ernie, you can't even imagine.

AJ:
The point I was trying to make is that God Himself through the scriptures has said one thing regarding repentance and forgiveness of sins but what you are saying is: "No, God that's not enough, this is the way it should be done". Who am I to believe and follow? God or man?

You said: "When people lie to God about their true feelings of remorse or lack of it". Huh?
No one can "lie to God". He sees it all, right down to the innermost feelings in your heart. You may be able to lie to others and you may even be able to lie to yourself but God knows the truth. He sees it ALL.

You are right, "lack of humility stands in the way of repentance". That is why scripture over and over again demands humility and says unless you humble yourself you cannot get right with God. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble (1 Peter 5:5). It does not matter if other people know your "dirtiest little secrets" because God knows and you are accountable to Him, and Him only, when it comes to your sins.
I don't think you understand what I mean when I speak about repentance. It is not saying a little prayer in your little room for forgiveness of a big sin and then "leaving it like that". Although, you can't do anything about that particular sin. You can't take it back, you have already committed the sin. You can't perform a magic trick to remove your sin as if it never happened. To repent means to forsake your sins and turn away from your sins. It is feeling so sorry for what you have done that you don't ever want to do it again. That is not to say that you will not commit that sin again but, if you are truly remorseful, if you trult repent, then if you committ that sin again you will FALL into that sin rather than DIVE into it.
The example you sight about starting out speaking to a priest about one particular sin and then realizing you have other sins to confess has happened to me, personally, many times without a priest even being present. That's because it is not the priest that makes you remember your sins but your conscience bearing witness. The Law of God is written in everyone's heart. (read Romans 2:14-15) Everyone knows when they have done wrong. Everyone is without excuse. It is just that many don't want to humble themselves before the Living God and admit that they have sinned. And like you said, that is their pride getting in the way. And as far as me missing out, well, I have gone to confession before a priest before so I know what it is like. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

May God bless you always,
Ernie

P.S.: I will continue to study the history of Christianity and the history of the Roman catholic church, and the Council of Nicea. There is alot of history so it is a long process. I am not above all of that. In fact it is very interesting to me and important to me. However, keep in mind that many people equate the history of the Roman catholic religion/Roman catholic church with the history of Christianity. But the Roman caholic church does not equal the history of Christianity.

Ernie,

It's lovely to hear that your conscience is so perfect that you don't need the counsel of any other human being. You know how to solve all your problems because, as you say, the answers are all written in your heart and you alone, without any help from any seminarian, know how to read them. Why, you probably don't even need to go to church. You probably don't even need the Bible.

You say you can't lie to God. Of course you can. Just because He knows the lie doesn't mean you can't try it on Him. After all, didn't Adam and Eve try to lie to God? Didn't Cain do it when he said, "I am not my brother's keeper"? If you're lying to yourself about something, you're going to perpetuate that lie in prayer without guidance, often in the form of another person helping you see the lie by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

The point is not that other people need to know your "dirty little secrets," and you can deal with it completely in private in your own little room, but the humiliation of sharing them with a clergyman goes a long way in deterring that wickedness. The counsel one gets from confession may also help the person see the root cause of why they keep falling into the sin, so that they will be less likely to "fall" into it again.

Scriptures also say that Jesus told the disciples they have the power to bind and to loose sins, so obviously Jesus established another way to redemption. Who am I to call Jesus a liar?

I am glad you have decided to study more about the early Christian church. You stated that "Early church history" is not the same as "Catholic church history." You will find that there is a continuous line of master and personally taught pupil, from the disciples to the present day. Read about it. You'll find out. Hold onto your hat.

AJ:
Your comments are ridiculous and laughable. I never stated nor insinuated that anything about me was perfect, or that I don't need to go to church, or that I can solve all my problems, or that I don't need the counsel of any human being. That is pure nonsense and not worth commenting on.

And you may TRY to lie to God but you will not be successful in your attempt. Trying and succeeding are not the same.

You state that you need a seminarian to know how to read your own sins? Who knows you and your sins better, you or someone else? I am not saying that we all don't need counseling from other people. That is not what I was saying. In fact, the bible says that we should seek wise counsel. And there are many wise priests that can counsel people very effectively. But when it comes to forgiveness of sin what is unbiblical about going straight to God?

I will continue to study the history of the Roman catholic church but I'll leave you with what I have already learned from the Roman catholic encyclopedia as read on the new advent website about "the continuous line of master and personally taught pupil". It states: "In considering this point, it will be well to begin with the third century, when references to it become frequent, and work backwards from this point." As I learned elsewhere as well, the Roman catholic church claims its history by working backwards and claiming that the early Christians, prior to the 3rd-4th century , were actually Roman catholics when they themselves never made such claims. This is misleading as the Roman catholic religion as we know it today was not established for some time later. But again my search continues and I pray that God will always keep my eyes open to the truth.

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Yes, it would be ridiculous and laughable to think you don't ever need outside help to assist you in achieving forgiveness. I'm glad you don't think that because earlier it certainly seemed that you were completely against using outside help. Even the Apostle Paul would ask his parishoners to pray for him.

Yes, of course trying to lie to God and succeeding are not the same. I never said that. Of course you can't succeed in lying to God. I cited examples where people have tried. No one could deny that people do try to lie to God and lie to themselves.

I didn't say going to God was unbiblical. I said the exact opposite. I also said that you can, as you say, seek wise counsel. I just mentioned the act of seeking this wise counsel through the process of confession, a concept you reject.

You stated that the early church members were not Roman catholics. Actually, they were all kinds of Catholics, some Roman, some eastern, some North African, but all catholic and all in allegiance to with each other with tremendous respect for the clergy in Rome. Terms like "Roman" and "Eastern Rite" refer to the particular places where these early Christians lived, such as "Corinth" and "Galatia" and Israel. And yes, they called themselves Catholic, which is just an ancient word meaning "universal." They considered themselves the "universal church" and the "universal body of Christ" because they sought to bring His gospel to "every creature." Please, by all means, continue to study this.

You cited New Advent: "In considering this point, it will be well to begin with the third century, when references to it become frequent, and work backwards from this point." I'm not sure what your point is here. Not only is the passage out of context, but it also does not appear to have any problems. Are you unhappy that New Advent chose to focus on the third century and then work backwards in time in order to focus on the least understood part of early church chronology? Okay. You know you don't have to stop at one source. I recommend a books called "Four Witnesses: the Early Church in Her Own Words" by Rod Bennett, and "The Fathers of the Church: An Introduction to the First Christian Teachers." You could also talk to a priest about church history.

Of course you may not know that once you learn the early history of the Christian faith, you will be compelled to find out what happened during the protestant reformation. You'll learn about the propaganda campaign that taught that the Council of Trent put the deuterocanonical books into the Bible and that the Inquisitors were out executing people. You'll find out what may have driven Martin Luther to break away from the church (including possibly the little known facts that he had married a nun and killed a man in a duel but felt so guilty about it that he obsessed on being saved by grace alone since maybe he thought no works could make up for what he did). You will learn many other things that could ultimately lead you to the Catholic church.

God Be With You,
AJ

*rolls eyes*
I'm sorry, guys, but this seems to be getting...redundant?

do you people actually disagree about what you are talking about?
because it seems to me that one makes a statement, the second takes that statement to mean something else, i.e., putting words in the first one's mouth, and then the first one has to defend themselves for something they never said by making another statement, etc., etc.

I may be being presumptuous but just tell me if I am...let's just try to set down exactly what you are arguing about, beginning with all the confession stuff.
Do you agree that:

1. God is the One who can forgive sins.
2. He cannot forgive you unless you are truly sorry (and thus repent)
3. A preist does not forgive sins: he assures you of God's forgiveness.
4. It is not necessary to confess to a priest to be forgiven.
5. It helps to be assured by a priest that you are forgiven.
6. It helps to be assured by anyone other than yourself that you are forgiven.
7. Forgiveness is by grace alone.
8. Works do not help us to be forgiven (except for repentance, of course).
9. Works can help to keep us from sinning again.
10. Ummm that's all I can think of right now.

Further more, it seems like each one of you is here to convince the others to change churches. Which means you are all pulling in different directions and it isn't likely either of you will succeed.
Is it possible that it's okay that someone else believes a little differently than you do? From what I've read you seem to believe that the others have the beliefs down well enough to get into heaven. You just believe they could have so much more than the minimum, is that right?
Well if we are all already saved, then maybe it is mostly just personal preference separating us. Maybe God created us differently from one another and different denominations help us to express ourselves.
If we all agree we are Christians, why are we so adamant to convince the other they are wrong?
I'll put in a quote by another Anglican like myself, just famous:
C. S. Lewis said:
"Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. How many hours are there in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask-half our great theoligical and metaphysical problems-are like that...
Heaven will solve our problems, but not, I think, by showing us subtle reconciliations between all our aparently contradictory notions. The notions will all be knocked from under our feet. We shall see that there never was any problem."
[A Grief Observed, ch. 4]

I'm not saying the big things are pointless...it's the little things you seem to actualy disagree on, although I'm not all that sure because you seem to be arguing about stuff you already agree on.

Parenthesis:
Amen, my brother. I couldn't have said it better myself. And, apparently I didn't. But it is a point I have tried to make many times before on other parts of this website only to be told differently. It appears many times we argue just to make a point about our particular "religion" or "denomination" when we are actually agreeing with scripture and each other.

May God bless you (and my brother AJ)always,
Ernie

Parenthesis wrote:

Do you agree that:
1. God is the One who can forgive sins.
2. He cannot forgive you unless you are truly sorry (and thus repent)
3. A preist does not forgive sins: he assures you of God's forgiveness.
4. It is not necessary to confess to a priest to be forgiven.
5. It helps to be assured by a priest that you are forgiven.
6. It helps to be assured by anyone other than yourself that you are forgiven.
7. Forgiveness is by grace alone.
8. Works do not help us to be forgiven (except for repentance, of course).
9. Works can help to keep us from sinning again.
10. Ummm that's all I can think of right now.

That sounds acceptable in Catholic thinking, can't speak for the Protestants though. Some other things maybe to add to your list of agreed upon points:
11. God's grace cannot be earned - only accepted or rejected.
12. Holy Scripture is authoritative and reliable
13. Holy Scripture contains the complete record of God's public revelation to mankind.
14. The role of Tradition is limited to its ability to clarifies and intepret Holy Scripture, specifically it does not allow for the addition of new doctrines not grounded in the Holy Scriptures.
15. The deuterocanonical / apocryphal works are for the edification of the Church and its followers and not necessary for the formation of sound doctrine and teaching.

I'm not saying the big things are pointless...it's the little things you seem to actualy disagree on, although I'm not all that sure because you seem to be arguing about stuff you already agree on.

Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II often said "that which unites us is greater than that which divides us". Though I wonder if what divides us (apart from Transubstantiation) can be roughly summed up by the phrase: "Peter, Paul, and Mary".

Peter: Did the apostolic gift that Peter and the Apostles enjoyed to speak on behalf of the Holy Spirit (Acts 16) continue to the current Pope and Bishops? Or did the death of the last apostle cause the irrevocable loss of this gift?

Paul: Does grace mean only God's unmerited favor or does it also include the power and obligation to do good works? Namely, can failure to do good works constitute a rejection of God's saving grace?

Mary: Does Mary's sinlessness, role as Queen of Heaven, and intercessor blasphemously divinize her to the point of rivalry with Christ and the glory due only to him? Or does it demonstrate Our Lord's supreme generosity in bestowing gifts to his creatures, servants, and friends and thus glorify him even further and allow us to hold him in even higher esteem?

Parenthesis, it seems that after Ernie and explained what we meant, you reopened the discussion. I think my last post clearly stated what I meant.

I don't agree with the C.S. Lewis quote because to say that people can ask questions that God can't answer is like saying that there is something God can't do. I believe God is all-powerful and that means he has the power to answer even the silliest of questions. Besides, if it's important to someone then it's not silly. God is merciful enough to respect their sincerity. We might be knocked off our feet by the answer but proves that the question was not "unanswerable," only that the answer was awesome.

Your question about whether demonimations are just ways we can express ourselves is really a side discussion on relativism. Please see that board. As for your list of what Ernie and I should agree on, I think it provokes us to reopen the conversation. This topic has been exhausted and I believe I have said more than enough about it. Please scroll up if you'd like to know what I have said.

Broken Record, how very wise of you. That's it exactly.

Ernie, yes, sometimes people agree and sometimes they disagree. Let's agree to disagree on those things we don't see eye to eye on and to agree on those beliefs we hold that mirror each other. But I must disagree with your statement that I am your brother. I am not your brother nor will I ever be your brother. So don't call me your brother, because I am your sister. (Hehe, I had you going for a minute, didn't I?)

AJ:
You got me. My apologies to you, my sister. I did not know. Sorry.

Broken Record:
You state that you "can't speak for Protestants".
Well, no one can really speak for protestants in general because they are a heterogenuous group each with their own sometimes different, sometimes similar beliefs. Some protestants would agree with the list you compiled while others may not agree entirely. However, there is and can only be one truth. Nothing is relative in regards to the truth. Either someone adheres to the Word of God or they do not. Some protestant groups can believe that homosexuality, for example, is OK. And they may even be sincere in their belief. But they would be sincerely wrong. Because scripture unequivocally forbids it. It sometimes upsets me that all Protestants are lumped together because there are many "protestants" that are bible believing, God fearing men and women. Other "protestants" I know are an abomination to the Lord. So I think it is difficult to discuss "protestant" doctrine as a whole because there is no one, agreed upon "Protestant" theology or doctrine.

As for me, I agree with the list that you and Parenthesis compiled and believe it to be scripturally sound. The only contention I may have is that I am not so sure that a priest can assure you of your forgiveness. For him to be able to do that he would have to be able to see into the heart and I don't think anyone, except God, can do that.

Augustine quote: "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity".

May God bless you (and my sister AJ) always,
Ernie

To AJ:
now you're putting words in MY mouth. Or should I say Lewis'?
Yes, God is all-powerful. No one is saying that He isn't.
But there IS no answer to the question 'is yellow square or round?'
'yellow has no shape' is not an answer to the question; it is a statement that makes the question obselete. God makes the question go away, and yes, technically, you could call that answering it; so that way you can be satisfied that He is all powerful AND that the quote is true.
And whether or not anyone cares if yellow is square or round has no effect on it's being silly. It isn't silly for someone to care whether yellow is square or round, but it IS silly for them to argue about it, even if they don't know it is a nonsense question; because they DO know that believing that yellow is round will neither get them into heaven or keep them from it, and that they have no way of knowing if God will be more pleased with them for believing it is round.
It only causes pain and conflict to argue about such things.

I did not, exactly, reopen it. The confession thing was me giving an example and trying to dig through your beliefs.

I'm just asking you people to say 'I believe a'
and another to say 'I disagree on THIS point of belief a'...but being careful not to put words into anybody's mouth, because I am really confused as to what it is you disagree on.

A great example of you putting words into each other's mouths is the collection of comments about lying to God. This is something you both agree on but still managed to argue about. I am all in a wonder, and suggest that everyone scroll up to see how they said what they said and how it was misinterpreted.

To Ernie:
I am also a sister, not a brother, but I greatly appreciate your intent anyway.

To Broken Record:
THANK YOU! Now everybody say what they think of THOSE questions and maybe we can actually get somewhere.

okay, did I argue well enough to shut everybody up (not my intention), or have you all become suddenly ultra busy?
maybe I'm just not waiting long enough?

Parenthesis, maybe the sudden lack of disagreement made everyone lose interest in the topic.

Parenthesis, I'd like to continue our discussion about "there are no Protestant phonies". You maintain (correct me if I have put words in your mouth) that Anglicans like Spong who condone and encourage same-sex marriage and allow the ordination of ministers, priests, and bishops in same-sex marriages are phonies. I say that all phonies are Catholic and that the only place a phony (such as myself) can get help is in the Roman Catholic Church. In particular both Spong who supports same-sex marriage and Stott who opposes it both remain good Anglicans.

By what criteria can you determine which is the phony? Scripture is the first and most obvious answer. Unfortunately, both Spong and Stott have a greater knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and exegetical subtleties than both you or I. And ultimately, each believer retains the final right to interpret scripture for themselves.

Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Arminius, and Wesley interpreted scripture differently from each other and they all remain good Protestants. So too when Spong and Stott interpret scripture differently, they remain good Protestants. That is the entire point of saying each believer has the right to interpret scripture for themselves.

You then point out that only a small handful of Anglicans accept homosexuality. Small handfuls can become overwhelming majorities very quickly. For example, in 1930 a small handful of Anglicans condoned contraception even though it was formerly universally condemned. Now, contraceptives are almost universeally considered a requirement for marital happiness. Because numbers change, majority vote cannot determine who is phony.

What I am getting that without an unchanging and clear definition of phony, there is no way to know whether Stott or Spong is the phony. Scripture simply isn't sufficiently clear. Spong knows the Bible better than you or I and thinks that the Bible allows for homosexual acts. If we were to argue, Spong's case would be more convincing and better researched than ours.

Also remember when the Anglican bishops convene, they are not bound by precedent (thus the ordination of women and practicing homosexuals) but Roman Catholic bishops are bound by precedent in their teachings.

So to sum up, how do you present a clear and unchanging definition of phony?

This whole discussion sounds a little surreal...
Anglican: we have some phonies
Catholic: no you don't
Anglican: we have phonies, just like you
Catholic: nope, all the phonies are with us

well...okay. I'm a little confused. But I'll try to answer clearly.

do you mean that Roman Catholics are held to a certain way of interpreting the Bible, but that Protestants are not, and can 'interpret' it anyway they want and still remain 'good Protestants'?
Like, the RCC is held to a certain way of believing, but some Catholics are phonies because they only pretend to believe that way, but no Protestants are phony because they can pretty much believe whatever they want?
Is that it?

Well, all Christians are held to believing the Bible. Even Protestants. Yes, some of it is open to interpretation, but I can't see how "In the same way the men also abandonned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (Romans 1: 27) can be interpreted to make homosexuality okay, and even smiled upon by God. Every place it is mentioned in the Bible, homosexuality is frowned upon. This leads me to deduce that Spong has ignored it, thereby either declaring scripture to be NOT the Word of God, declaring God a liar, or declaring that he knows more than God does.
Can we agree that anyone who believes any of the above three things cannot be a true Christian?
Likewise, a Protestant MUST be a true Christian to be a true Protestant.
But if they are neither of these things, they are phonies.

My definition of 'phony' is someone who attempts to pass themself off as something they are not.

You are right; majority votes CAN'T determine who is phony. When did I say that they could?
My point about the small percentage of Anglicans was to say that not all of us are that wacked out. I'm sorry; reading back I can see that yours is the logical conclusion from my words; I should have worded it differently. That part was really me being unnecessarily defensive about my denomination.
Concerning contraception; where exactly is it frowned upon in the Bible? I can't think of any place