Pope Benedict XVI arrived in the United States yesterday, and a flood of media attention has arrived with him. I was asked by editors at The Washington Post and Newsweek to write a special column for "On Faith" which would represent an evangelical voice [see article here].
Here is the column:
Pope Benedict XVI's first visit to America as Pope will not be his introduction to this country, but it will be the first opportunity for Americans to see this Pope up close – three years after his election as pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.
Along with others, many evangelical Christians will be watching with interest. The long pontificate of the globe-trotting John Paul II is all an entire generation of evangelicals now remember as background, and Benedict is a comparatively unknown figure.
Writing immediately after Benedict's election, I wrote these words, referencing the Pope's previous role in the Vatican as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:
Yet, there is no reason to believe that the election of Pope Benedict XVI will do anything to breach the divide between evangelicals and Roman Catholics on issues related to biblical authority, the Gospel, and a host of other essential theological questions. We hold no expectation that this pope holds views of justification and the Gospel that are any more harmonious with evangelical conviction than those held by his predecessors. Indeed, Ratzinger's theological brilliance may be deployed in ways that will cause evangelicals even greater frustration.
As the Vatican's most influential theologian, Cardinal Ratzinger was already known for his brilliant and incisive critiques of modern secularism and postmodernism's retreat from truth. At the same time, he was also a staunch defender of the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church – doctrine he had defined and defended as Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Thus, I did not expect that Pope Benedict would move to breach the theological divide between evangelicals and Roman Catholics. Indeed, I would have been most surprised if, now elected as Pope, Benedict would reveal himself as someone other than who he had been as Cardinal Ratzinger.
I have not been surprised. Pope Benedict has continued his incisive work on the challenge of modern secularism. His speech at Regensburg, Germany in 2006 and his baptism of a prominent Muslim convert this past Easter were clear signs that this is not a Pope primarily concerned with ecumenical relations. Even so, his statements about the address and the baptism – and the general question of Islam – were perfectly in keeping with Catholic doctrine since Vatican II. Evangelicals can admire his boldness without appreciating his inclusivism. Perhaps the most clarifying moment since his election came last July when the Vatican released the document known as "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" – a document that reasserted the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church.
The secular press and a good many non-Catholic church leaders expressed outrage and offense at the Pope's comments – assuming that such teachings were simply out of place in the modern world. But Benedict was restating the tradition and teaching of his church – and he did so because he cared for those he believes are outside the blessings of grace he is certain are given to those in the communion of his church – and to that communion alone. Continue >>
RSS
PURGATORY:
1Corinthians 3:13-15 –
These passages are speaking of a man’s “work or foundation” on which he builds; how can you equate a man’s “work” with his soul? In essence, these passage are describing a man building upon the foundation (Christ Jesus – 1Cor. 3:11) and saying if any one build gold, silver, costly stones - Three sorts of materials which will bear the fire; true and solid doctrines and character. The wood, hay, and stubble which will not bear the fire; such are all doctrines, ceremonies, and forms of human invention; all but the substantial, vital truths of Christianity. Again, all three verses (13-15) speak of his work that is being built upon the foundation (Christ). These passages speak nothing of an intermediate state in which one goes to be “purged” from sin. Where does scripture speak of such a “PLACE”?
1Peter 4:6 –
Peter did not imply that the gospel was then preached to the souls of the dead, as you teach. He said the gospel “was preached” to those who “are [now] dead.” The preaching was done while they were still alive, and they will be judged on the basis of how they lived “according to men I the flesh,” or while they were still alive. Peter is undoubtedly talking about the Christian dead, because he refers to their living again “according to God [as God lives] in the spirit.” In other words, they will receive immortality in the resurrection and will have a life that measures with the life of God.
2Timothy 1:16-18 – I don’t know how you make the connection here? There is absolutely nothing here that describes a “place” where souls go to after death to be “purged.”
Revelation 21:27 – The wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God – 1Corinthians 6:9 & Galatians 5:21; these passages are all saying the same thing. Revelation 21:27 cannot be used to support Purgatory.
The very idea of Purgatory, and the doctrines that are often attached to it (prayer for the dead, indulgences, meritorious works on behalf of the dead, etc.) all fail to recognize that Jesus’ death was sufficient to pay the penalty for ALL of our sins. Jesus, who was God incarnate (John 1:1, 14), paid an infinite price for our sin. Jesus died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3). Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (1 John 2:2).
To limit Jesus’ sacrifice to atoning for original sin, or sins committed before salvation, is an attack on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. If we must in any sense pay for, atone for, or suffer because of our sins – that indicates Jesus’ death was not a perfect, complete, and sufficient sacrifice.
My comment is really a question. How can anyone engage in a discussion about this serious topic unless one first reads the New Testatment. Without knowing what Jesus told us and continues to tell us through His Living Word, the Bible, one is arguing from the imagination of one's own mind. I say those who have not read the New Testament in its entirety should have no claim to opinion as one cannot be rightly formed without knowing the facts - of both sides of the issue.
The Roman Catholic Church really emerged during Constantine’s reign and cannot be traced prior to that, hence the name “Roman” Catholic Church. There never has been an “unbroken line of popes” as they claim. Christianity sprang out of Palestine, not Rome. When John wrote to the seven churches as mentioned in Revelation chapter’s two and three; there is no mention of the Rome.
There have been numerous times when multiple claimants to the papacy were seated in opposition one to another (antipopes). History reveals that this office had also been sold to the highest bidder. Only looking back with the benefit of hindsight does Rome now pick one of them as the 'true pope'. There have also been many times when there was no bishop of Rome for years at a time (e.g. 304-308, 638-640, 1085-86, 1241-43, 1269-71, 1292-94, 1314-16, and 1415-17).
This article “What Divides Catholics and Protestants?” along with “The Pope come to America: Evangelical Thoughts” have brought to the forefront what some of us have been debating here for months. How does one obtain salvation is the real question. Salvation is receiving Jesus Christ period; depending on him alone for our daily spiritual needs. It is not through any church denomination, priest/pastor, or ritual that one becomes saved. It is surrendering to the Holy Spirit and standing on God’s promises by faith.
Simply put, Jesus ALONE saves!
He that HATH the SON hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life – 1John 5:12.
Therefore if any man BE IN CHRIST, he is a NEW CREATURE: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new – 2Corinthians 5:17.
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that LOVED US, and WASHED us FROM OUR SINS in his own blood, - Revelation 1:5.
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious PROMISES: that BY THESE ye might be PARTAKERS of the DIVINE NATURE, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust – 2Peter 1:4.
The bottom line is very simple: do you want to go to one of the 50,000 + protestant churches that account for less than 6% of followers in the world or the 1 Holy Roman Catholic Church which traces itself back to Peter over 2,000 years ago. I know wilderness, online, etc. will start pasting biblical verses like crazy and they'll interpret it the way they see fit and maybe some more protestant churches will be founded because of it. As for myself....The Pope's authority and the Church was good enough for the early Christian Fathers who knew the disciples and it is good enough for me.
OHN BROADUS
( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)
"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].
Anyone know where did they may have gotten this concept from....personal opinion or catholic littergy?
Probably from early protestant ministers who also agreed about Peter as the head of the Church:
ALBERT BARNES
(NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRESBYTERIAN)
"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion" [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].
Confessions:
Peter told the crowds, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38), and when Paul was baptized he was told, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). And so Peter later wrote, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21).
For sins committed after baptism, a different sacrament is needed. It has been called penance, confession, and reconciliation, each word emphasizing one of its aspects. During his life, Christ forgave sins, as in the case of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11) and the woman who anointed his feet (Luke 7:48). He exercised this power in his human capacity as the Messiah or Son of man, telling us, "the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9:6), which is why the Gospel writer himself explains that God "had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8).
Since he would not always be with the Church visibly, Christ gave this power to other men so the Church, which is the continuation of his presence throughout time (Matt. 28:20), would be able to offer forgiveness to future generations. He gave his power to the apostles, and it was a power that could be passed on to their successors and agents, since the apostles wouldn’t always be on earth either, but people would still be sinning.
God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23). (This is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being in Genesis 2:7, when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.)
Three Prayers
II. Most Holy Virgin, I venerate thee with my whole heart, above all angels and saints in Paradise, as the Mother of the only-begotten Son; and I consecrate to thee my body with all its senses. Hail Mary, etc. (The Apparitions and Shrines of Heaven’s Bright Queen Volume 1... by William J. Walsh)
Now, concerning the above prayer and the veneration of Mary, let us reason out of the scriptures, even as it was Paul’s manner (Acts 17:2). Consecrating one’s body to Mary would stray from truth, biblical authority and direction. Let us prayerfully and humbly read Romans 12:1: I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Obviously, our bodies are to be consecrated and presented unto God, not biblical Mary or any other Mary. Let us also take heed, lest we fall short of Romans 12:1, even Ps 9:1: I will praise thee, O LORD, with my whole heart; I will show forth all thy marvellous works.
purgatory...no evidence in the bible?
Look at 1 Corinthians 3:14–15: "If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." You see, the Latinate word purgatory means a purgation or burning by fire. Paul in these verses refers to a purgation process whereby a man is saved even though his works are burned away. This is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches. A person at death who still has personal faults is prevented from entering into heaven because he is not completely purified. He must go through a period of purgation in order to be made clean, for nothing unclean will enter heaven (cf. Rev. 21:27). Matthew 12:32 says that some people who sin "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." This suggests that there are some sins that will be forgiven in the age to come. If there is no purification after death, then this passage doesn’t make much sense. Look at 1 Peter 3:19–20. These verses show Jesus preaching to "to the spirits in prison." The "prison" cannot be heaven, because the people there do not need to have the Gospel preached to them. It cannot be hell, because the souls in hell cannot repent. It must be something else. As you can see, there is nothing unbiblical about the claim that those who have died might not immediately go to heaven or to hell. he idea of purgatory, when properly understood, is entirely consistent with the love of God. God wants us to be perfect (cf. Matt. 5:48). If we are not perfected by the time we die, we will be perfected in purgatory. He loves us too much to allow us to be less than what he created us to be. Purgatory is not about an angry God inflicting punishment upon his creatures. It is about a loving Father who "disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness" (Heb. 12:10).
Crunch,
1) Get you facts rights - the Pope is infallible with regards to Church doctrine, not infallible with regards to everything in life. What does this mean? It means that after the council of cardinals meet he has the final decision (Matt 16:18). If you would prefer 50,000 protestant denominations all proclaiming that they are correct and the hundreds that start every week that is your choice. As for Mary, Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
Let’s look at the first words. Some Protestants do object to saying "Holy Mary" because they claim Mary was a sinner like the rest of us. But Mary was a Christian (the first Christian, actually, the first to accept Jesus; cf. Luke 1:45), and the Bible describes Christians in general as holy. In fact, they are called saints, which means "holy ones" (Eph. 1:1, Phil. 1:1, Col. 1:2). Furthermore, as the mother of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Mary was certainly a very holy woman.
Some Protestants object to the title "Mother of God," but suffice it to say that the title doesn’t mean Mary is older than God; it means the person who was born of her was a divine person, not a human person. (Jesus is one person, the divine, but has two natures, the divine and the human; it is incorrect to say he is a human person.) The denial that Mary had God in her womb is a heresy known as Nestorianism (which claims that Jesus was two persons, one divine and one human), which has been condemned since the early 400s and which the Reformers and Protestant Bible scholars have always rejected.
The major problem I have with the Catholic Religion (NOT THE PEOPLE! ), is that they (hierarchy) have given the Pope such a highly exhonerated, and "superior" place for a mortal man. He is NOT infalible.....he is not the head of the church, that is Jesus Christ. The Pope is flesh and blood, he is a sinner like all mankind. The reality is, whether conciously or not, we as people find it more palitable and easier to place faith in who/what we can see. The Pope is obviously a human being and like every creature, and has the fallen nature of mankind. I see him promoted as a sinless holy icon, to be held in the highest esteem with supreme reverence, and I see people extolling,and idolizing him in a way that should be reserved for Christ alone. * I do think the Pope is a kind and godly person
who has done good things, but I do not like the degree of high elevation given to him, or ANY OTHER person. The same applies to Mary....she was a human being God used to birth his Son, she is not to be worshipped or vehnerated in litergy or any other manner.
Secondly, the issue of the man-made concept of Purgatory- as it makes Christ's work at the cross of no real value, and I find no substantial evidence for this purgatory idea in Scripture....at all.
Thirdly the idea that you need to confess your sins to a priest ,i.e; the concept of going to confession. This is basically saying the priest has the authority to offer or reject forgivness for someones sin, and if Catholics truly don't belive that, then why keep promoting it? Jesus is the mediator for man, not man. In my opinion, this is more about controlling people..... this idea that you need another sinner to be a mediator for you to get, or ask for forgiveness... it is again nowhere in Scripture and is another man-made concept.
Side Bar-- I get the impression from some catholics (and non-catholics), that they think Christianity began with the catholic church. In fact, I have recently spoken to a few them that have this totally erroneous idea. Anyone know where did they may have gotten this concept from....personal opinion or catholic littergy? SERIOUSLY.....to think that ANY Gentile religion 'began' the church....Ha Ha!
All of these posts make me sick. So much arrogance and pride held upon one same Christian brother and sister. It takes sincerity, humble of heart, and assiduity to find the truth; not arrogant demands based on cynicism of ignorance.
consider:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnZIU4g6IHM
Tliml,
The article “What divides Catholics and Protestants?” addresses the very same issues that some of us have been debating for months. My point is; Scripture does not support some of your doctrines no matter how you slice it.
On Mary:
There is no scriptural support for the Marian doctrines which you proclaim – see –
Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17, 18, 19, 25.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun
Read the history part of this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes
A demon's power extends to apparitions and possessions, even Protestant churches accept this... According to Protestant churches, the only person who could pull off these tricks is God.
Mary being the queen of Heaven:
Jesus was the king of heaven. Mary was his mother (or do you want to debate that?) thus she is queen. Plain and simple.
Mary mother of God:
Jesus=God Mary=Mother of Jesus Mary=Mother of God
Mary Mother Redeemer:
She was a part of the redemtion by baring the redeemer.
Mary Immaculate:
The arc that transported the Ten Commandment tablets had to be completely pure and clean, blessed and WITHOUT BLEMISH. The Ten Commandments were God's presence. Jesus=God's presence Mary=Arc Mary=Immaculate.
Mary, Harbinger of the Rosary:
Mary appeared to Saint Dominic and gave him a rosary made from a material that couldn't be identified... hmmm...
Mary Immaculate Confirmed:
Mary appeared to Bernadette and said "I am the Immaculate Conception" Bernadette was illiterate and had NO idea what that meant. God bless the priest that made Bernadette sprinkle the vision with Holy Water to ensure she wasn't a demon. If not for that, Online would undoubtedly be claiming she was a demon...
As the Republicans say... Had enough?
Online-
You obviously came on here to trash the Catholic faith, do not pretend otherwise.
Wilderness-
I do not care how much gibberish that a saint allegedly said. Everything you do will be defeated by "Nothing impure shall enter heaven'' if Jesus' sacrifice atoned, not only for ORIGINAL sin, but for everything else, there would be absolutely NO reason to state this in the first place. While we are pointing out faults... Doesn't it say in the bible that before the Apostles did anything that they prayed and fasted? Protestants don't prescribe fasts for anything... do they?
St. Catharine of Genoa on Purgatory
The souls in Purgatory are entirely conformed to the will of God; therefore, they correspond with His goodness, are contented with all that He ordains, and are entirely purified from the guilt of their sins. They are pure from sins because they have in this life abhorred them and confessed them with true contrition; and for this reason God remits their guilt, so that only the stains of sin remain, and these must be devoured by the fire. (Purgatory: Doctrinal, Historical and Poetical, by Mrs. J. Sadlier. Imprimatur: Michael Augustine, Archbishop of New York. Copyright, 1886. K. A. Sadlier.)
Now, let us reason out of the scriptures, even as it was Paul’s manner (Acts 17:2).
“And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood…” (Rev 1:5).
“But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ” (Eph 2:13).
As one can see, purgatory implies that the blood of Christ is insufficient in its washing away of sin and thus, tormenting fire is needed to complete the action. Any doctrine that diminishes the blood of Christ, which is perfect in not only washing away sin, but any stain also, is dangerously wrong. We must never treat the blood of the covenant as an unholy thing. How appalling is such a thought! Please, prayerfully and humbly read the scriptures above.
EvanCal,
Who is the one overly concerned with their ego here?
“it does not sound like you have formally studied in seminary,” “Unlike you, I have participated in many ecumenical dialogues with Lutherans, Baptists, Evangelicals, Catholic and Orthodox for twenty years,” “I am a Pastor of a Reformed Christian Church,” and “This year I will be meeting with leaders from the United Methodist Church.”
Really, this is not the place to toot your own horn; am I supposed to be impressed or overwhelmed by these self indulged statements?
Seriously, let’s discuss the real issues here; you stated, “You have reached some very odd conclusions in scripture.”
Care to elaborate on my odd conclusions?
You refer to my scriptural posts as ANTI-Catholic shenanigans; it seems that your real objective is to placate Catholicism by neglecting to proclaim the true gospel of Christ. You seem to be well settled in the ecumenical camp, this explains much; let me guess, are you a member of the liberal WCC?
Irenaeus,
On Mary:
“Do you not see the Biblical basis for this?”
No. There are many text that specifically discuss the title of “Queen Heaven” and all of them portray this title in a negative manner, see - Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17, 18, 19, 25.
Truly, all generations should call her blessed, as a great example of faith and obedience but applying anything more than what the scriptures say is inappropriate. For example, the Immaculate Conception, her perpetual virginity, bodily assumption, etc. are all unbiblical.
Irenaeus,
Why were Timothy and Titus obliged to be faithful Paul's teaching? How did they know that Paul's teaching was true? Why did Paul even find it necessary to appoint Timothy and Titus as bishops if they had no more authority than the average pew-sitter?
Timothy was Paul’s chief associate in the ministry and was called by Paul a “beloved and faithful son in the Lord” – 1Corinthians 4:17. Paul trusted Timothy to proclaim his teachings, and what were his teachings? We do not have to guess here, both Timothy and Titus’ epistles can be read today by simply opening up one’s bible. Paul declares what teaching Timothy should proclaim, it was the Word of God –
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand – 2Timothy 4:1-6.
Bishop/Elders naturally emerged in the church through the process of time. They were not appointed to an external office. Instead, they were recognized by virtue of their seniority and spiritual service to the church. According to the New Testament, recognition of certain gifted members is something that was instinctive. Three passages in the New Testament tell us that elders were publically recognized. Elders were acknowledged in churches in Galatia (Acts 14:23). Paul had Timothy acknowledged elders in Ephesus (1Timothy 3:1). He also told Titus to recognize them in the churches in Crete (Titus 1:5). The word “ordain” in these passages does not mean to place into office. It rather carries the idea of endorsing, affirming, and showing forth what has already been happening.
We have already exhaustively discussed this topic in the article – “The ‘Roman’ in Roman Catholic” – see for reference; I agree that we should stick to one topic at a time, so let’s move forward to discuss Mary as Queen of Heaven.
Dear Onliine,
I have been reading this board for quite some time, but weeks ago it was more civil and objectively your tone has changed for the worse that was my only comment on that. I simply saw a downward progression. Yes, I do believe in the Priesthood of all believers being equal and I also believe some of us are called to a deeper service for the Gospel which requires more sacrifice than the average lay person. My sacrifice has been years and years of formal education on behalf of my church so that when I speak and preach to my congregation, I am a learned teacher and not someone just trying to figure it out. There is a far distance in the depth of preaching between someone who understands deep theological questions and someone who has never had a formulized education in Theology or Philosophy.
I have no problem with the Catholics calling Mary an Advocate or Intercessor or Benefactress. Advocate is the title King David's mother had and people brought their needs to her, not the King. So this title for Mary is very Jewish and Biblical. Calling her Queen of Heaven is also very Jewish and biblical because the Queen was always the Kings mother and not his wife and calling her Benefactress is also ok term too for the same jewish reasons. You will find that Catholicism is very Jewish in their roots because the Apostles were all Jews. Now, I do have a problem with Co-Mediatrix and I am debating and studying this very issue right now.
I also don't have a problem if Catholics use Revelation to support their view of Mary being taken body and soul into Heaven as long as it is firmly rooted in Christ doing the work. I say this because Old Testament Prophets were taken body and soul into Heaven, so why not Mary? She was God's mother, so that honor seems appropriate and reasonable.
Faith and Reason must follow your passion for Scripture or otherwise without reason your interpretation of Scripture could lead to extremism of ego, thus making your interpretation an idol that you worship. We should not hold such a high opinion of our own Scriptural interpretation. We should seek council from our elders, study the historical context, compare what early christians wrote about the topic, and make sure you understand the language for what it meant at that time.
O4H,
"On Mary:
Sorry, I cannot accept Catholicism’s Mary as being – 'Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.' "
Again, like we did on the topic of apostolic succession, let's narrow the focus. I asked that we simply start with the queenship of Mary. Do you not see the Biblical basis for this?
O4H,
"In Sum, although Timothy and Titus were certainly ministers appointed by an inspired apostle, and though we might loosely refer to them as “successors” to Paul, it is more than abundantly demonstrated that their authority over their respective churches was derived from their faithfulness to Paul’s teachings."
Why were Timothy and Titus obliged to be faithful Paul's teaching? How did they know that Paul's teaching was true? Why did Paul even find it necessary to appoint Timothy and Titus as bishops if they had no more authority than the average pew-sitter?
tlml,
Please refrain from immature insults and derogatory remarks, this is a place for intelligent civil discussion- not hateful comments meant to stir up trouble, thanks, IN JESUS NAME
Irenaeus,
On Mary:
Sorry, I cannot accept Catholicism’s Mary as being – “Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; - 1Timothy 2:5.
tliml,
"you cannot accept the fact that there are things about God OUTSIDE the bible..."
Amen to that!
It is so easy to proclaim things OUTSIDE the bible and call it gospel truth, huh?
Irenaeus,
Does that preclude the apostles or their first delegates (bishops and presbyters) from having ‘authoritative preeminence’ over other believers?
Surely, we both have discussed this at length already –
In Sum, although Timothy and Titus were certainly ministers appointed by an inspired apostle, and though we might loosely refer to them as “successors” to Paul, it is more than abundantly demonstrated that their authority over their respective churches was derived from their faithfulness to Paul’s teachings. In no way did their authority stand alone, as something inherent in their “office”. Paul’s express command was that the teachings – not the office – had been entrusted to them by him himself and were to be passed on to other faithful men. In the following passage; Paul does not seem to be passing on an office:
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand – 2Timothy 4:1-6.
Oh my gosh... that is hilarious... three pathetic Protestants are giving me thumbs down to everything I say... ha... when I asked you for Imprimatur's and Nihil Obstats they gave that a thumb's down... :P get off the computer kids, go kill some little african american children and follow in the footsteps of your parents.
Wilderness-
Absolutely right, I shall come over, kill you, say a short prayer and all will be forgiven, right? Bear with me, I know it is difficult for you Protties to think (god forbid) LOGICALLY... but if you wiped out half the Earth's populace... sorry really wouldn't cut the mustard. If somebody stole your identity... you know dam well that if they were caught you would want them to be punished. I bet you would be the first to cry into your pillow for justice if something of yours were stolen.
Online4Him-
Wrong, what is laughable is that you are so much of a bible-thumper that you cannot accept the fact that there are things about God OUTSIDE the bible... It isn't my opinion that the vessel that carried the commandments had to be pure... Do not pretend it is... your ignorance is quite annoying.
O4H,
“You speak of your position (pastor) as if you have preeminence over other believers; I pray that is not the case. Surely, you believe in the priesthood of all believers, right? Hopefully, you do not believe in a false dichotomy between the clergy and the laity.”
That does not necessarily preclude one from having legitimate teaching authority over another believer. Surely, you believe in the priesthood of all believers, right? Does that preclude the apostles or their first delegates (bishops and presbyters) from having ‘authoritative preeminence’ over other believers?
“The Catholic view of Mary is radically different from how scripture defines her; according to the Catholic Catechism, she is described as –“Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things. . .” pg. 252, (966).”
Let's first address the queenship of Mary. Mary’s title of queen is very biblical and very Jewish. Many Protestants fail to recognize this fact. Mary is queen by virtue of her Son being the king. Why? In the Davidic kingdom, the mother of the king was always the queen (or queen-mother), not the wife of the king as in medieval times in feudal England or Spain. In fact, the queen in the Davidic kingdom had a prominent place in the throne room – the king’s right hand (e.g., I Kgs. 2:19ff). There are numerous references in the OT with regard to the office and honor of the queen-mother.
So, hailing Mary as queen is biblical. In fact, the greeting ‘Hail’ is typical of a greeting made towards someone of significant status, such as royalty. The same Greek word is used when hailing Caesar, or used in the phrase, “Hail, King of the Jews.” So the angel Gabriel was hailing the young Jewess out of honor and veneration because God had chosen her… the only time that I know of in scripture where an angel honors a human being (it’s usually the other way around). Mary is not to be adored (worshiped), for she is a mere creature. She is honored, however, above every other created being by virtue of her privilege. Think about it, God bestowed the highest honor upon her by choosing her to be the mother of His Son. No other woman would ever have this honor. I couldn’t possibly give more honor to Mary than God already has.
tliml,
It is laughable to think that you presented REAL EVIDENCE; your own opinion is not the final authority here, it is the Word of God.
EvanCal,
I appreciate your concerns; however, the Catholics on this board and I have been debating these issues off and on for months, though I would not expect you to understand since you may be a new comer here on the CP. Perhaps you should have taken this into consideration before speaking presumptuously!
Everyone here is at liberty to speak what is on their heart; however, you are defending an institution that anathematizes all those who have placed their trust in Christ alone - that would include you by the way. I do not know you personally, so I cannot assume to know your motives here but I do know that the simplicity of the gospel cannot be compromised. Today it seems like some Christians are more concerned about placating others when they should be proclaiming the gospel unashamedly.
You speak of your position (pastor) as if you have preeminence over other believers; I pray that is not the case. Surely, you believe in the priesthood of all believers, right? Hopefully, you do not believe in a false dichotomy between the clergy and the laity.
The Catholic view of Mary is radically different from how scripture defines her; according to the Catholic Catechism, she is described as –“Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things. . .” pg. 252, (966).
It also states, “Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. . .therefore the Blessed Virgin in invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.” – pg. 252, (969).
If you think me unloving for frankly highlighting unbiblical dogmas, what do you think of all the anathemas that Rome declares and their claim to be the only true church? There is a need for us all to be more loving but true Christian love will never negate biblical truth.
St. Catharine of Genoa on Purgatory
“But I see that the divine essence is so pure purer than the imagination can conceive that the soul, finding in itself the slightest imperfection, would rather cast itself into a thousand hells than appear, so stained, in the presence of the divine majesty. Knowing, then, that Purgatory was intended for her cleansing, she throws herself therein, and finds there that great mercy, the removal of her stains.” (Purgatory: Doctrinal, Historical and Poetical, by Mrs. J. Sadlier. Imprimatur: Michael Augustine, Archbishop of New York. Copyright, 1886. K. A. Sadlier.)
Examine the belief of purgatory torment used as cleansing with the following verses:
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to CLEANSE us from all unrighteousness…And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:” (1Jn 1:9, 2:1).
As one can see, a belief in purgatory diminishes the cross of Christ, His precious blood, and His power as our advocate! Read the verses again, prayerfully. One’s cleansing does not take place in a place called “purgatory.”
Wilderness-
From now on, get the site address up and I want to see the Nihil Obstat AND Imprimatur, or it is not a Catholic document. If it does not have BOTH of these, then I am declaring it void and not even bothering to glance at it.
Wilderness-
You like about... 9/10 protestants have Purgatory WRONG! Instead of pasting long excerpts... READ WHAT PURGATORY IS! It is NOT atonement! It is punishment! What is better, not being punished at all for murdering those 27 people or being PUNISHED? I look forward to hearing your answer... oh wait... it won't be you, it will be some website on some vague "Catholic" doctrine that does not even have an Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat...
Wilderness-
Nothing impure may enter heaven. Jesus' death atoned for our original sin, not that time we took a ciggarett... or that time that we didn't give back that dollar we owed... Riddle me this, riddle me that, I see a man in a turban hat, is bin laden going to heaven? Sadam? Really... and if Jesus' death atoned for EVERY sin, then wouldn't people who never heard of the word still go to heaven? If I waltzed into your home and killed you then I suppose I would still go to heaven? ... The answer is NO! Absolutely NOT! And online... you say "Thou shalt not say vain repetitions" it is hilarious that this is exactly what you and wilderness are doing. Nothing impure shall enter heaven...
Online4Him-
Faith alone my foot. Saved by blindness alone. If you will not accept REAL EVIDENCE to prove our dogmas then you are a complete fool.
All the various Christian denominations seem to forget something very important: united we stand, divided we fall . . . . . . . . An outsider might think all this sectarianism is like civil war . . . ..
Shame on you Online person!
I am a Pastor of a Reformed Christian Church and most of your posts lack any sense of credulity. As a fellow protestant you rarely work on one point at a time and you never give our Catholic friends in Christ an opportunity to answer it until you jump to another discussion. This is wrong. You are a prime example of Rhetoric in motion. You also lack charity in your posts, and if I was your pastor I would ask you to be more loving. I cannot believe someone would be like this to fellow Christians!
Many evangelicals and Reformed Churches are seeing that the Catholic Church may have some points on some areas where we lack history and we have some points that they lack because of our adherance to only Scripture. I pray that we continue our discussion at the highest level of academia so that together we can come to understand each other. I have not found any of their doctrines to negate Christ's atonement or salvific work on the Cross, and I accept them as Christians. I do have a problem with some of their doctrines, but I also have a big problem with Baptists and their non-biblical view of it.
Yes, I have a problem with the big deal they make about Mary, but then I think do we as Protestants make too little about her? She is called blessed in the Scriptures. Then there are people like you who assault her, when I don't know of any Catholic who thinks she is our savior. Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to insult someone's mother especially when their Son is God.
>>WHERE DID JESUS OR THE APOSTLES MENTION THESE THINGS FROM THE BIBLE?<<
Hiya. I'm not Catholic but I think I know the answer to that one...
Catholics believe in continuing revelation, that is, they believe the Pope receives revelation on doctrine through God. So not all of their doctrine is from the Bible. Catholics, correct me if I'm wrong on that.
I can tell the Pope is a good guy just by looking at him. I hope he enjoys his stay in the US.
tliml,
I thank you for replying to that list which no one else has been willing to address. However, I asked for “scriptural passages,” you know from the bible; passages that speak explicitly about all or some of these dogmas.
Thanks
To whomsoever; it would be better to give a sound rebuttal instead of flagging my post.
Hey, you are the one who posted a challenge, remember? Yet, you only decided to comment on purgatory, what about the rest?
593-Purgatory, 754-Temporal Power, 847-Decretals of Isidore (a forgery), 858-Donation of Constantine (another forgery), 1075-Greatest mass divorce in history forced upon clergy by Gregory VII, 1100-Money for Masses, 1184-Inquisition, 1190-Sale of Indulgences, 1215-Transubstantiation, 1226-Adoration of Host, 1303-Papal Bull Unam Sanctam, 1415-Cup denied to laymen by the Council of Constance, 1545-Council of Trent-Rome turns finally from authority of God’s Word to authority of tradition. Tradition made equal in authority to Bible. Justification by faith condemned, 1600-The invention of Scapulars, 1854-Immaculate Conception, 1864-Seperation of Church and State Condemned, 1870-Papal Infallibility, 1908-Papal decree invalidating mixed marriages not performed by a Roman priest, 1950-Assumption of Mary.
WHERE DID JESUS OR THE APOSTLES MENTION THESE THINGS FROM THE BIBLE?
St. Catharine of Genoa on Purgatory
“…she comprehended in her own soul the condition of the souls of the faithful in Purgatory, where they are purified from the rust and stain of sins, from which they have not been cleansed in this world.” (Purgatory: Doctrinal, Historical and Poetical, by Mrs. J. Sadlier. Imprimatur: Michael Augustine, Archbishop of New York. Copyright, 1886. K. A. Sadlier.)
A belief in purgatory proclaims that the blood of Christ and His “It is finished” work on the cross is insufficient for the born-again believer and is limited in cleansing him or her from sin. Such a belief is contrary to the sound doctrine that we find in 1Jn 1:7: “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from ALL sin” (1Jn 1:7).
In addition, to offer someone (who is not walking in the light) the possibility to atone for his or her sins is dangerously wrong.
Here goes... whew...
Purgatory- "nothing impure shall enter heaven" for all your bible thumping you certainly seem only to read the parts you like.
Temporal Power- Said it a thousand times, and yet you repeat blindly, like some sort of autistic three year old "Oh, but you will find that Petra typifies Christ" you seem to have made it up because you have never once explained WHY petra typifies Christ.
Greatest Mass Divorce: I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Money for Masses: Just as biblical as tithing, bucko.
Inquisition: Oh please, was the Elizabethan Inquisition just? (it killed more Catholics than ALL the Cathlic Inquisitions did Protestants)
Sale of Indulgences- Wasn't that repealed? Yes it was, it was made void *whacks online on the head* you could have had a V8 you fool.
Transubstantiation- There has to be a name for the process in which something becomes something else. And it IS a process, it DOES happen, the bread becomes Jesus. Live with it.
Adoration of Host- If Jesus were in a room wouldn't you kneel and pray? No duh you would, so stop being ignorant and grow up.
Council of Trent- And I say to you, hold onto your tradition men. Thess. ... yea...
Scapulars- I can assure you scapulars were around long before, but whatever, Scapulars were one of Mary's 2 gifts. They were used to get Pagans away from their medals.
Immaculate Conception- I know you Protties aren't "down" with LOGICAL proof, but the vessel that transported the Ten Commandments (which were God's presence) had to be one-hundred percent clean and pure. Without blemish. Mary who would ALSO be carrying god would be without blemish as well.
Secularism Condemned- I would love to see you bring that up in a quote because I think it is BS.
Papal infalliblilty- addressed this before... Online4Him=Broken Record.
Assumption of Mary- No funeral? Prove she WASN'T assumed. You can't... do you know why? BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T HAVE A FUNERAL!
Hey, you were the one who posted the challenge, remember? Yet, you only decided to comment on purgatory, what about the rest?
593-Purgatory, 754-Temporal Power, 847-Decretals of Isidore (a forgery), 858-Donation of Constantine (another forgery), 1075-Greatest mass divorce in history forced upon clergy by Gregory VII, 1100-Money for Masses, 1184-Inquisition, 1190-Sale of Indulgences, 1215-Transubstantiation, 1226-Adoration of Host, 1303-Papal Bull Unam Sanctam, 1415-Cup denied to laymen by the Council of Constance, 1545-Council of Trent-Rome turns finally from authority of God’s Word to authority of tradition. Tradition made equal in authority to Bible. Justification by faith condemned, 1600-The invention of Scapulars, 1854-Immaculate Conception, 1864-Seperation of Church and State Condemned, 1870-Papal Infallibility, 1908-Papal decree invalidating mixed marriages not performed by a Roman priest, 1950-Assumption of Mary.
WHERE DID JESUS OR THE APOSTLES MENTION THESE THINGS FROM THE BIBLE?
1Corinthians 12:28 – “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.”
No, universal priest mentioned at all; how strange, can you give me a passage that speaks of such an office in the New Testament? By the way, as far as statistics are concerned, statistics cannot define “TRUTH”, Jesus said, “Thy WORD is truth” – John 17:17.
Let’s see, Constantine’s title “pontifex maximus” was adopted by the pope, many of the “buildings” were built upon the tombs of the martyrs (a pagan practice), clergy began wearing “special garments” which were also worn by Roman officials, worship became more professional, dramatic, and ceremonial, adoption of temples, priests, sacrifices (mass), Sunday observance – “day of the sun”, house churches were replaced by cathedrals, etc.
When Jesus came, He ended the temple, priesthood, and the sacrifice – He is the temple who embodies a new and living house made of living stones – “without hands.” He is the priest who has established a new priesthood. And He is the perfect finished sacrifice.
As one Catholic scholar wrote, with the coming of Constantine – “various customs of ancient Roman culture flowed into the Christian liturgy . . . even the ceremonies involved in the ancient worship, only in their secularized form” – Jungmann, Early Liturgy, 130, 133.
msn,
Your interpretation of church history was ambiguous at best; you assume that the “principle” of sola scriptura was not a common practice – let’s allow the scriptures to speak -
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them – Isaiah 8:20.
The “law” and the “testimony” covers the entire Old Testament and in the New Testament we only need to follow Jesus’ example – “It is written,” “have ye not read,” and “how readest thou”- these are statements that Jesus used to elaborate and expound scripture! Jesus quoted nothing else. Jesus says in John 10:35 – “the scriptures cannot be broken” but church history bears witness to the fact that church fathers and even popes have contradicted one another.
“The following decisions on circumcision and eating kosher foods were made before the New Testament was written, again Church came before.”
The church before the New Testament? The church was not established until Christ came on the scene; again, some of your statements are ambiguous. You are mistaken if you believe that the epistles were not already in circulation while the apostles were still alive; and many believers were well informed through the Old Testament scriptures.
You continue to “assume” that the early church was catholic; that is false. You also assume that there is an “unbroken line of successors”; history proves otherwise; again, your church in hindsight looks back to list the supposed line of popes, how convenient. You identify things that have no scriptural support; if you read the bible, you would realize that many of the things you listed are not found there. Give me scriptural passages to support your claims, please.
You also assume that the “priesthood of all believers” does not exist; it is the Holy Spirit who sanctifies the heart; no bishop or pastor can do this. God is not incapable of leading his people; again, Jesus appointed the Holy Spirit as his representative, nowhere in scripture is a visible- universal office mentioned.
Hey Irenaeus,
It has been a while since we last chatted; hope all is well with you. As we have discussed earlier, the first century church was nothing like the Catholicism/Protestantism of today. From its inception they were merely Christians who proclaimed salvation through Jesus Christ. After Constantine’s “conversion,” the Church radically changed; it went from being persecuted to being the state church of the Roman Empire, which resulted in prestige, promotion, political power and military support.
Excuse my frankness with taj and msn; taj seems to be more focused on me rather than demonstrating his theological positions and msn posted a challenge that I could not ignore –
“Show me one CAtholic Doctrine that isn't explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.”
At any rate, based upon our previous encounter, I look forward to having a mature conversation with you ;)
Of course our Pope speaks the truth. It makes sense that Jesus would have left us with a shepherd. Does anyone really think that Jesus would have left his children without a papa (Pope)? Would Jesus leave his children to wander about on their own without a leader? There are 34,000 protestant and evangelical churches scrambling around trying to figure things out. There is one Holy and Apostolic Catholic church and it’s been here for 2000 years. Communism could not destroy it! It’s the only church that officially spoke out against the holocaust, and until lately it’s the only church that has been speaking out against the slaughter of our unborn children in Canada and the USA. Simon Peter the first Pope was mentioned 195 times in the gospels, the next was John at 29 times. Wherever his name was mentioned, it was always first as in - Peter and the others or Peter and the apostles. To all who are reading this, may God bless and keep you Holy…Amen!
ONline,
Please find one Doctine that Constantine introduced? Just one? You won't. He never authorized any doctine as he was not a theologian or a very learned man.
Before Constantine, we still had Bishops, priests and Deacons. We stil had the Mass everday and ofcourse on Sundays and all the other many beliefs were already well established before Constantine. Constantine simply stopped the killing of Christians, so we could get out from the Catacombs and preach publicly and this is where the Roman Church truly began to thrive. Again, he didn't create the Roman Church he just stopped killing its members. It's amazing when someone is not trying to kill you that you might attract some new members. :)
As far as statistics, you didin't even try to address any of them that clearly show the joy of Christ by our good works in Him. You see, when Christ has already built up the good works in us, then it is our responsiblity to use them. My point is we live the Beatitudes. The only statistic you brought up was population? I didn't even mention our population?
To your point, while Islam is growing and as a religion it has surpassed the Catholic Church in numbers, I say who came up with this study? There are at least five major denominations that make up ISLAM and those groups do not get along with each other as exampled by their daily killing of one another.
The Catholic Church is still the largest single faith group in the World. The entire Christian Church with over 2Billion adherants is double the size of Islam.
Would you non-Catholic Christians stop contracepting! Us Catholics are getting real tired, seriously, of having four to seven children. Where in the Bible does it say to Contracept? Isn't that a Pagan thing? Just poking a little fun. C'mon guys. Stop Birth Control and lets have lots of kids and out number all these muslims and secularists so our country will better mirror Christian values and morals.
Self Apoointed? what? You call Catholic Hiearchy self appointed? THat is the funniest thing I've ever read from someone who goes to a church where they have a Pastor. In the Bible there is a specific way of appointing leadership in the Church and it comes frome the previous leaders by the laying of hands. Every single Protestant Pastor cannot find who laid hands on them until the point where it was broken from the Catholic Church. There were no such things as Pastors as a Title. Pastor or the word is Shepherd was an adjective to describe the office of the bishop or Priest. You get authority to preach by the laying of hands and you get the authority to lead a Christian Church by the laying of hands. This is Biblical!
You say you get your authority from the Bible, but the Bible explicitly says in the writings that authrority was given by laying of hands. How can a book give authority to anyone, it is a book. It doesn't speak it has no lips or mouth. The Bible is a the inspired word of God through men and these men wrote these words down.
The Church gave the Bible Authority because God gave the Church His Authority. The word Bible is from the Catholic Church, the Books of the New Testament are there because of the Catholic Church.
Constantine didn't even become Catholic until he was on his deathbed and got baptized. Constantine legalized Christianity and helped it by stop killing the Christians. He even encouraged ecumenical councils, which was good. But Roman Catholicism had been around before Constantine. The great Saints of Peter and Paul are the Patrons of the Roman Church. The Roman Church has always existed and has always had a Primacy among the other Seats of Patriarchs. This is both Biblical and historical, while your church or group or whatever you belong to is neither Biblical or historical and yet I don't deny your Christianity.
Fundamentalists are so funny. Did you all go to the same Online school to get your degree in Anti-Catholicism. Because none of you say anything unique.
ONline,
When you were a baby were you the same person as were today? The answer is yes and no. Yes, you had the same DNA but no over time you gained experiences and education that has created who you are today and in twenty more years you will not be exactly the same either.
Doctrine, my non-informed whacky fundamentalist friend, took time as the Holy Spirit guided the Church into all truth. There was a one time deposit, but it took time to understand it. You constantly take 21st Century lenses to look at everything and this is your fatal flaw. This is academically very juvenile. Sola Scripture certainly didn't exist at Pentacost, but the Church did. The following decisions on circumcision and eating kosher foods were made before the New Testament was written, again Church came before. The Trinity was defined well before we had a bible. For 400 years millions of Christians became Christians from what they heard preached, what they saw and experienced in the Liturgy and through their Sacramental life of the Church.
The Catholic Church has always existed since Pentecost. It may not look exactly like we do today much like babies look different from adults, but our DNA of beliefs remain from the same Apostolic source just more sophisticated. If you read any of the letters of Irenaus, Augustine, Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement you will find these Christians; had a liturgy, celebrated the Eucharist, had Bishops, Priests and Deacons, prayed for the dead, prayed to the Saints for intercession, had seven sacraments, fasted, gave alms, tithed, officially began meeting on Sundays, the Priests wore a specific dress to identify them, went to a Priest for confession of sin and to a Priest for healing. Sounds pretty Catholic to Me? Sounds nothing like a Non-Denominational, my friend.
The Catholic Church was known by this name in the early 1st Century as the Church of Christ while the Apostle John was still alive.
O4H,
"It is funny how you try to equate Catholicism with that of the early biblical Christianity; Catholicism began to take shape during Constantine’s reign..."
You know better than that now ;) The Christian Church during post-apostolic times yet prior to Constantine resembled the Catholic Church in its teaching and practice much more than any Protestant church. This is clearly demonstrated by the writings that we have of the early church fathers.
correction:
"statistics"
msn,
It is funny how you try to equate Catholicism with that of the early biblical Christianity; Catholicism began to take shape during Constantine’s reign and eventually engulfed Europe with its arrogant claims; why do you continue to elevate dogmas that neither Jesus nor the apostles taught? Hmmm. . . Who is the one taking things beyond that which is written?
Come on now; all the statics in the world does not prove a thing; if you want to go down that direction, what about Islam? Recently, it has been reported that there are more Muslims than Catholics in the world; even so, does that make them right?
“Too many cooks spoil the broth and that's why our soup today has 30-50,000 cooks.”
Having cooks who are self appointed can poison the entire flock; so what is your point? Biblically speaking; dogmas which are not found in God’s Word just cannot convince millions of Christians as you would like. Christianity, without all the manmade amendments if you will, has indeed stood for more than two thousand years.
Perhaps our well-intentioned brother in Christ Dr. Mohler misunderstands what our brother in Christ Benedict is doing, but Benedict, I'm sure, has read the writings of the early Christians, 150 years before we had a Bible. Benedict knows that Jesus only founded one Church and He didn't leave us a Tradition or a Bible. He left us a Church:
Cyprian of Carthage
"They alone have remained outside [the Church] who, were they within, would have to be ejected. . . . There [in John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest, and the flock clinging to their shepherd in the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishops; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another" (Letters 66[67]:8 [A.D. 253]).
Online,
If the Catholic Church is the Apostate Church like you say, then didn't Jesus say a house divided against itself can't stand? Well, we've stood for 2000 years. How about yours?
Also, if the Catholic Church is Apostate then lets ponder a few facts; with being the largest charitable instition in the word, founding the critical method of sciences, starting the universities, educating more children than any group or government on earth, founding the Orphanage system for children, founding the largest adoption agencies, founding the Hospital system to take care of the poor and ill, founding the Half way house programs for single mothers and mothers who have been beaten, Giving more money and volunteers to Katrina than any other group including our own government. Oh yeah and Jesus promised His church it would never fail and then we put the Bible together, defined the Trinity and the two natures of Christ. Now if we did all that, then Christ must be our Lord because only greatest good can come from our loving Lord. The Lord has allowed for division among christians because of both sides ego's and yet we Catholics still flourish.
If this is what an Apostate Church does by living the Beatitudes, then could you tell me how your church stacks up?
ONline,
This is why God gave us Shepherds because He Knew His sheep would wander to their own demise, like you did.
Yes there are millions who think the Pope is wrong and most them are from churches that started a few weeks ago compared to when Christ founded his church 2000 years ago. There are also millions who call themselves christians and yet vote for Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay Marriage candidates too. Go figure!
A lot of Protestant mainline groups are starting to see the value of having a Supreme Pontiff, especially with all the continued division over doctrine and morals. Can you imagine the USA or Great Britain or other civiized nations not running properly without one person on top to say yes or no, or in this case to bind and lose? Too many cooks spoil the broth and that's why our soup today has 30-50,000 cooks.
God bless the USA and all christians irregardless of denomination who call Jesus Christ Son of God, God and Savior and that only through Jesus we have eternal life.
There are millions of Christians who are also convinced that he is not right – not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right in understanding the church!
"Evangelicals can admire his boldness without appreciating his inclusivism...But Benedict was restating the tradition and teaching of his church – and he did so because he cared for those he believes are outside the blessings of grace he is certain are given to those in the communion of his church – and to that communion alone". Wow a leader who actually is concerned about his flock and is trying to maintain the tradition and teachings of the universal church.
"The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation," St. Augustine wrote (Sermon 96, 7). "The Church is the world reconciled. She is the bark which in the full sail of the Lord's Gross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world."
Yet, I am convinced that he is not right – not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right in understanding the church.
Amen. May they within Catholicism be delivered from all that which is not right.
Baptists speaking for Evangelicals?
Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Orthodox, Reformed would not agree with your view on Sacramentalism.
This is a very disingenuious article.
The question for Dr. Mohler, in his sureness that the pope is wrong on so many issues, is not whether he is convinced in his interpretation of Scripture, but whether that interpretation has any relationship, and continuity, with the church's historical interpretation on these issues. As a Lutheran, I believe that Baptist theologians carried the Reformation beyond the warrant of Scripture, and simply broke with the continuity of understanding of the Bible held by the ancient, historic church. This is nowhere clearer than in Sacramental theology. So while Dr. Mohler is entirely sure that he is right on every issue vis a vis the Roman Church, he can only speak for the churches of the "radical Reformation", and not the vast majority of Christians in the world, including Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans, and the Reformed Churches.
I don't understand what he means when he states about the divide of evangelical Christians and the Roman Catholic Church. He makes it seem as if he is talking about 2 distinct entities, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Catholic Church leader is the Pope and its doctrine is clearly explained by the Catechism, and just because I know Online is going to start jumping up and down about scripture it also is supported by scripture and a historical tradition traced back to the Early Christian Fathers. Now for the other side - as a Southern Baptist what does he mean evangelical? The baptist are not united anymore than the 50,000 protestant denominations that are basing what they believe on their own interpretation of the bible, as we can see from people posting on comment boards. Remember this article: Southern Baptist Head Expresses Concern Over Negative Image? and the opening statement: Southern Baptist president Frank Page is speaking to fellow Baptists across the country with a resolve to pull together a denomination that has been wracked with divisions....enough said
I think it is disingenuinous for a Baptist fundamentalist to represent ALL "Evangelicals". He cast some pretty broad brush strokes. Interesting enough within his own Baptist denomination they have seen at least 10 major splits over doctrine within the last 8 years in the US, Canada and Africa.
The World Lutheran Federation, Evangelical Lutheran Christian Association, World Anglican Communion, The Methodists and many Reformed Churches which represents the majority of all Protestants would have a real problem with your view of Sacraments too!
Also, the Orthodox Churches and these Protestant Churches above represent the vast majority of Christians outside the Catholic Church and they too would have a real problem with your view on the Sacraments.
Maybe when Evangelicals start researching the early church fathers and re-read their Bibles without the stain of bias, then they will see the early church was HIGHLY Sacramental unlike Evangelical and Baptists who are Historically Challenged. Nothing like starting a whole brand new style of Christianity. Maybe in 20 years Evangelicals and Baptists might even say that Baptism isn't needed or even belief in the Trinity. I am already well aware through the Southern Baptist Convention that many Pastors don't think that it is a sin to miss Sunday worship.
The farther you are from the beginning of Christianity, the more slippery the slope and the less it will resemble the beliefs of the early Christians.