Nobody's picking a church fight

The Washington Times ^ | 7-13-07 | Wes Pruden

[JZelle]

Nothing stirs the blood like talking about religion. That's why it's taboo to talk about it in casual social conversations. Better to ask the boss's wife whether she ever considered a face-lift.

But Pope Benedict XVI is a man of firm conviction and blunt talk. Not for this pontiff the Vatican II tradition of warm and fuzzy, as the message of Vatican II, which put a friendly expression on the stern countenance of the church of Rome, has been widely interpreted in the circles of those addicted to warm and fuzzy. This week he authorized a statement of "clarification" of Vatican II, and to the consternation of some Roman Catholics here, the secular press interpreted the message to Protestants as no more Mr. Nice Guy.

[SuziQ]

I ask, are they free to call themselves Catholic?

Not unless they can show Apostolic succession back to Peter, who Jesus Himself set up to guide His Church on earth.

[William Terrell]

You said, "On the other hand, for a Catholic to deny or ignore Catholic doctrine is an excellent way to go to Hell."

Nothing about God in that. Nothing in the Bible about Catholic doctrine and Hell.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The press has been full
of “Vatican Denies Other Christians Have a Right to Have Churches,” “Pope
tells Protestants They’re Going to Hell,” and other frothing nonsense.

I guess it’s too much trouble to expect headline writers to actually read
the flippin Vatican document.

It’s very short (5 paragraphs) and it contains nothing new: basically a
precise and carefully-worded definition of how the Catholic Church uses the
word “church.”

It does not deny the presence of God’s grace in other Christian communions,
but reiterates -— to nobody’s real surprise, I should think -— that the
Catholic Church still holds the unbroken historic succession from the
Apostles, upon whom Christ built His church, and which is an essential element of how Catholics define ‘church.’

Others will disagree, naturally. But it does help for people to state
straight out how they define their words. Otherwise, there’s no real
grappling with solid ideas, and “ecumenical dialog” sinks into a blather
of
whipped egg whites, corn syrup, and air.

[Lutheran Loft II]

SusiQ,
One needs to show Apostolic succession back to Peter, according to you. Isn’t the confession of Peter’s doctrine, which he received from Christ Himself, that a)is most important, and, b)is a requisite for true apostolic succession? St. Peter advocated the belief that baptism saves. Is the Roman Catholic teaching on baptism that it forgives only original sin? Just curious.
Sincerely, and truly Catholic Lutheran

[SuziQ]

Is the Roman Catholic teaching on baptism that it forgives only original sin?

I believe that is true. After Baptism, the young Catholic is educated in the Faith along the way, and receives the other Sacraments including the Sacrament of Penance, which is how we face our failings and find forgiveness.

Sure anyone can ask forgiveness of Jesus at any time, but as humans, we tend to justify our behavior along the way, and can easily fall into sinful ways, if we are not made to face those behaviors and admit them. This is the beauty of Sacrament of Penance. We have to admit, in front of the priest, the bad things we've done, or the sinful attitudes we've developed, in order to truly face them. Through the words and blessings from the priest, we obtain Absolution for those sins. We may fail time and time again, but we have that stopgap measure to keep us from walking too far away from God. He'll never leave us, but we can easily lose sight of Him, if we're not careful about the things we do.

[stuartcr]

It sounds to me that this is more about the different churches, then it is about communion with God.

[PAR35]

It’s about being in communion with fellow believers. Would you let a Hindu take communion in your church? A Muslim? A Mormon? A member of the Church of Christ? A Roman Catholic?

If you draw a line at all (and some liberal denominations don’t), then you are just arguing about where the line should be drawn.

We draw the line at communing members of an evangelical church who profess the true faith. We do, however, admit to the table people who meet those standards who do not have a proper understanding of the sacraments.

I’m not offended that the Catholics fence me from their table, and they shouldn’t be offended that we fence them from ours.

With Lutherans, it is a closer call. They could probably take communion with us, but some, at least, would feel that I should not take communion with them. Again, I refrain, so as to not give offense, but I am not offended that they wish to limit communion to those that they know believe as they do.

[Marysecretary]

No thanks. Once is quite enough. On all these religion threads, everyone attacks everyone else so why bother.

[stuartcr]

I don’t understand why lines are drawn with regards to God and religions, in the first place.

[PAR35]

I don’t understand why lines are drawn with regards to God and religions, in the first place.

Because of fallen, sinful man. God has given us in the scriptures all we need to know. Unfortunately, it is being read by men.

Remember, Martin Luther didn't set out to start a new church. He wanted to point out error in the church so that it could be corrected from within. Add in a few vain, arrogant, power hungry bishops and a few German princes who saw a chance to keep some of the money that was flowing south, and you end up with the Reformation.

In current times, you have the split between those who say that the scriptures are sufficient, and those who, to justify non-scriptural actions, or their own ambitions, say you need scripture plus something else - other texts, tradition, voices in thier heads.

And even among the 'scripture alone' crowd, you have good faith disagreements as to the meaning of certain passages.

[colorado tanker]

Since those groups that broke away from the Apostolic Church

Gee, the Orthodox seem to think it was the Roman bishops who broke away from them, not vice versa.

[stuartcr]

I don’t believe man is fallen, I believe we are all as God created us, individually...some good, some bad, some in between.

[servantboy777]

I don’t remember Jesus, excluding anyone at the table.

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, (”Drink from it, all of you.) This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many For the forgiveness of sins.

[armydoc]

Jesus had this to say about it:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever" (John 6:53–58).

I find it odd that Fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is LITERAL truth and not open to interpretation somehow seem to totally ignore these verses. They say, "What it REALLY means is....blah blah blah". If the Bible means exactly what it says and Jesus meant exactly what He said - then these verses mean EXACTLY what they say.


Um, sorry. Even the Catholic Church does not interpret these passages literally. Do do so would mean that only Catholics are saved (since only Catholics partake in the true body and blood of Christ). It would also mean that taking Catholic communion once would lead to automatic salvation. The Catholic Church (rightly) denies both, but still hangs on to Transubstantiation. Interesting.

[Tokra]

It would also mean that taking Catholic communion once would lead to automatic salvation.

No, it wouldn't. Eating the flesh and drinking the blood are necessary (according to the words of Jesus) but that does not mean they are the ONLY thing that is necessary.

Nowhere does it say that.

Again, either Jesus meant exactly what he said, or he didn't. If he didn't in this case, then who is going to determine when he REALLY meant something or really didn't?

[PAR35]

I don’t believe man is fallen, I believe we are all as God created us, individually...some good, some bad, some in between.

There is where we have our theological difference, then.

Romans 3 is a good place to start. Most folks key on Romans 3:23 - "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one"

I'll also refer to 1 John 1:8 - 10 - If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

[stuartcr]

Perhaps, instead of making him a liar, it just makes the quote inaccurate...

[armydoc]

Eating the flesh and drinking the blood are necessary (according to the words of Jesus) but that does not mean they are the ONLY thing that is necessary. Nowhere does it say that.

"he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day"....."he who eats this bread will live forever"

So, someone can "eat this bread" and NOT live forever and NOT be raised up on the last day? Was Jesus lying?


Eating the flesh and drinking the blood are necessary

The Catholic Church does not teach that. How do you reconcile that problem?

[PAR35]

Are you questioning the translation, or the validity of scripture?

[colorado tanker]

True.