Where Have All the Protestants Gone?

NOR ^ | January 2006 | Thomas Storck

[NYer]

Has anyone noticed the almost complete disappearance of Protestants from our nation? "What!" I can hear my readers exclaim, "Storck has really gone off his rocker this time. Why, just down the street there's an Assembly of God church and two or three Baptist churches and the Methodists and so on. My cousin just left the Catholic Church to become a Protestant and my niece just married one. Moreover, evangelical Protestants have many media outlets of their own and they have great influence in the Bush Administration. They're everywhere." All this, of course, is true. Except that for some time, they no longer call themselves Protestants, but simply Christians, and increasingly they've gotten Catholics to go along with their terminology.

I recall over 10 years ago when I was a lector at Mass, for the prayer of the faithful I was supposed to read a petition that began, "That Catholics and Christians…." Of course, I inserted the word "other" before "Christians," but I doubt very many in the congregation would even have noticed had I not done so. Just the other day I saw on a Catholic website an article about a Protestant adoption agency that refused to place children with Catholic parents. The headline referred not to a Protestant adoption agency but to a Christian one. And how often do we hear of Christian bookstores or Christian radio stations or Christian schools, when everyone should know they are Protestant ones?

Now, what is wrong with this? Well, it should be obvious to any Catholic -- but probably isn't. Are only Protestants Christians? Are we Catholics not Christians, indeed the true Christians? About 30 years ago, Protestants, especially evangelicals, began to drop the term Protestant and call themselves simply Christians as a not too subtle means of suggesting that they are the true and real Christians, rather than simply the children of the breakaway Protestant revolt of the 16th century. This shift in Protestant self-identification has taken on increasingly dramatic proportions. A recent Newsweek survey (Aug. 29-Sept. 5, 2005) found that, between 1990 and 2001, the number of Americans who consider themselves "Christian" (no denomination) increased by 1,120 percent, while the number of those who self-identify as "Protestant" decreased by 270 percent.

But perhaps I am getting too worked up over a small matter. After all, are not Protestants also Christians? Yes, I do not deny that. But usually we call something by its most specific name.

Protestants are theists too, but it would surely sound odd if we were to refer to their radio stations and bookstores as theistic radio stations and theistic bookstores. Language, in order to be useful, must convey human thought and concepts in as exact a way as it can. And, in turn, our thoughts and concepts should reflect reality. As Josef Pieper noted, "if the word becomes corrupted, human existence will not remain unaffected and untainted."

Moreover, words often convey more than simple concepts. A certain word may seem only to portray reality, but in fact it does more. It adds a certain overtone and connotation. Thus, it is not a small matter whether we speak of "gays" or of homosexuals. The former term was chosen specifically to inculcate acceptance of an unnatural and immoral way of life. When I was an Episcopalian, I was careful never to speak of the Catholic Church, but of the Roman Catholic Church, as a means of limiting the universality of her claims. I always called Episcopal ministers priests, again as a means of affirming that such men really were priests, in opposition to Leo XIII's definitive judgment that Anglican orders are invalid and thus that they are in no sense priests. Perhaps because of these early experiences, I am very aware of the uses of language to prejudge and control arguments, and I am equally careful now never to call Episcopal ministers priests or refer to one as Father So-and-So. And I think we should likewise not go along with the evangelical Protestant attempt to usurp the name Christian for themselves. They are Protestants, and public discourse should not be allowed to obscure that fact.

Apparently, though, it is the case that some Protestants call themselves Christians, not out of a desire to usurp the term, but out of an immense ignorance of history. That is, they ignore history to such an extent that they really don't understand that they are Protestants. Knowing or caring little about what came before them, they act as if their nicely bound Bibles had fallen directly from Heaven and anyone could simply become a Christian with no reference to past history, ecclesiology, or theology. The period of time between the conclusion of the New Testament book of Acts and the moment that they themselves "accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior" means nothing. Even Luther or Calvin or John Wesley mean little to them, since they can pick up their Bibles and start Christianity over again any time they want. These souls may call themselves simply Christians in good faith, but they are largely ignorant of everything about Church history. They do not understand that Jesus Christ founded a Church, and that He wishes His followers to join themselves to that Church at the same time as they join themselves to Him. In fact, one implies and involves the other, since in Baptism we are incorporated in Christ and made members of His Church at the same time.

So let us not go along with the widespread practice of calling our separated brethren simply Christians. They are Protestants. Let us begin again to use that term. It is precise. It implies Catholic doctrine in the sense that it suggests that such people are in protest against the Church. Moreover, it forces them to define themselves in terms of, rather than independently of, the One True Church. And if we do resume referring to our separated brethren as Protestants, perhaps a few of them might even be surprised enough to ask us why -- and then, behold, a teachable moment!

[wmfights]

"But all of the faithful are not eligible at all times to celebrate the Communion or Eucharist."

1 COR 11:27 "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the LORD in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the LORD."

My understanding of this must be different than yours. Paul was rebuking the Corinthians for their undisciplined insincere behavior during communion. In my faith ALL believers participate in communion regardless of the sin they may have committed recently. We are all sinners and we believe that the greater the sin the more the sinner has to get back into a right relationship with the LORD.

What are the conditions that are put on parishioners in the RCC that determine whether they can take communion or not?
________________________________________________
"Sacramentalism is not about some sort of political equality. No one has a Constitutional right to them. That a woman is not eligible for Holy Orders does not somehow negate the sacramental system."

Getting defensive? I was just curious as to the reasoning behind some of the things you do in your church. I never said or implied a need for political equality, or constitutional right to the various rituals you perform in your church.

It just seems that in the sacraments and rituals we are discussing in your church you place barriers between the parishioner and the LORD. My reading of SCRIPTURE has shown me that JESUS took his ministry outside the temple directly to the least acceptable members of society and he made himself available to ALL.

[Uri’el-2012]

Um, hate to blow your mind so early in the morning, but Christianity is a religion, no matter what denomination you belong to or whether you even belong to a denomination.

re·li·gion
Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

1,413 posted on 02/23/2006 6:22:53 AM MST by Conservative til I die

I know you are a member of a religion and
that you define yourself as a member of a religion.

Many do not define themselves as members of religion.

We know that membership in any religion or any church will not provide you with salvation.

Many of us define our lives as having a personal intimate relationship with Y'shua

Psalm 118-14 YHvH is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation.

b'shem Y'shua

[.30Carbine]

InterestedQuestioner, thank you for the ping and both of your posts.
Clay+Iron_Times, please include me when you post your replies!

[SoothingDave]

God aborted you from the New Birth?

You already asked this and it was already answered.

SD

[.30Carbine]

Good morning, XeniaSt! I think Clay+Iron_Times and InterestedQuestioner would be edified by the information available at the link you posted on another thread, in light of their discussion of baptism: Mikvah

I was intrigued and added it to several folders in my favorites file!

[SoothingDave]

So this is a sacrament that only a small group participate in, why is it called a sacrament if all RC don't participate in it?

Who told you that all Catholics must partake of all 7 sacraments? Not everyone gets married, does that bother you, too? Many do not receive the Annointing of the Sick (Last Rites) prior to dying. Does this trouble you as well?

Did Paul leave Titus in charge of the local church he established, or did he leave everyone there in charge. Check your Bible.

If one can make an act of contrition on their own when dying, why must you confess to a priest? Why can't you go straight to our LORD and SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST all the time?

Because ordinary times and extraordinary times are different. Sacramental confession serves many more purposes than just the granting of saving grace. When was the last time you sat down with a disinterested person and took an inventory of your spiritual faults? When did you last seek guidance in overcoming a difficult attachment to sin?

A different reason is for troubled things, really bad and evil things. Sometimes people are wracked with guilt about a deep dark sin. Hearing that one is absolved from another person can help greatly in healing the person from their own deep wounds.

How many Churches (Catholic and non) run programs, for example, to help women who regret having had abortions and feel guilt for their earlier action? This is all about reconciling the person to God's forgiveness and healing the harm.

SD

[Uri’el-2012]

Mikvah

I pray this information blesses you .

b'shem Y'shua

[SoothingDave]

"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20: 21-23)

You have an interesting take on this passage. I don't see where JESUS says to the Apostles "and all future priests of the Roman Church will also have this power."

Of course not, because then you'd see where you are lacking.

I read this passage and see two possible explanations that I believe are more plausible; one, Jesus was empowering these Apostles with supernatural powers because they would be the catalysts for the initial body of believers;

And Jesus knew that after the 1st century ended no one would need to have their sins forgiven? Confession of sins and absolution by an Apostle were sacraments, but only temporarily?

Upon this "dissipation of the Holy Spirit" theory much rests, on shaky ground.

two, having given them the HOLY SPIRIT they would be preaching the gospel and all who heard it and believed would be saved (sins forgiven) and all who didn't believe would not be saved. Maybe the charge to baptise all the nations is a metaphor, too?

In this sacrament doesn't the priest then mete out a punishment to the confessor.

"The confessor" is the priest. Kind of confusing terminology. The person seeking absolution is known as the "penitent."

The priest instructs the penitent what he needs to do to both demonstrate his repentence to God, grow in spirit, and to make right what he has set wrong.

You may consider this a punishment. If you confess to a priest that you robbed a bank, he will not give you absolution until you give the money back. Perhaps we can consider this a punishment. Jesus died for my sins, can't I keep the money?

SD

[Dewy]

Wrong, I am a member of a local church. Religion has nothing to do with that.

What is a church? It's a Greek word (ecclesia)meaning simply an assembly of believers.

1. It is translated "assembly" in the ordinary classical sense #Ac 19:32,39,41
2. It denotes the whole body of the redeemed, all those whom the Father has given to Christ, the invisible catholic church #Eph 5:23,25,27,29 Heb 12:23
3. A few Christians associated together in observing the ordinances of the gospel are an ecclesia #Ro 16:5 Col 4:15
4. All the Christians in a particular city, whether they assembled together in one place or in several places for worship, were an ecclesia. Thus all the disciples in Antioch, forming several congregations, were one church #Ac 13:1 so also we read of the "church of God at Corinth" #1Co 1:2 "the church at Jerusalem" #Ac 8:1 "the church of Ephesus" #Re 2:1 etc.
5. The whole body of professing Christians throughout the world #1Co 15:9 Ga 1:13 Mt 16:18 are the church of Christ. The church visible "consists of all those throughout the world that profess Christ" is called "visible" because its members are known and its assemblies are public. Here there is a mixture of "wheat and chaff, " of saints and sinners. "God has commanded his people to organize themselves into distinct visible ecclesiastical communities, with constitutions, laws, and officers, badges, ordinances, and discipline, for the great purpose of giving visibility to his kingdom, of making known the gospel of that kingdom, and of gathering in all its elect subjects. Each one of these distinct organized communities which is faithful to the great King is an integral part of the visible church, and all together constitute the catholic or universal visible church." A credible profession of the true religion constitutes a person a member of this church. This is "the kingdom of heaven, " whose character and progress are set forth in the parables recorded in #Mt 13:1ff.

The church invisible "consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ, the head thereof." This is a pure society, the church in which Christ dwells. It is the body of Christ. it is called "invisible" because the greater part of those who constitute it are already in heaven or are yet unborn, and also because its members still on earth cannot certainly be distinguished. The qualifications of membership in it are internal and are hidden. It is unseen except by him who "searches the heart." "The Lord knoweth them that are his" #2Ti 2:19 The church to which the attributes, prerogatives, and promises appertaining to Christ's kingdom belong, is a spiritual body consisting of all true believers, i.e., the church invisible.

1. Its unity. God has ever had only one church on earth. We sometimes speak of the Old Testament Church and of the New Testament church, but they are one and the same. The Old Testament church was not to be changed but enlarged #Isa 49:13-23 60:1-14 When the Jews are at length restored, they will not enter a new church, but will be grafted again into "their own olive tree" #Ro 11:18-24 comp. #Eph 2:11-22 The apostles did not set up a new organization. Under their ministry disciples were "added" to the "church" already existing #Ac 2:47
2. Its universality. It is the "catholic" church; not confined to any particular country or outward organization, but comprehending all believers throughout the whole world.
3. Its perpetuity. It will continue through all ages to the end of the world. It can never be destroyed. It is an "everlasting kindgdom."

Will there be Catholics and non Catholics in heaven? Yes, If they are in the body of Christ. Membership of a local church doesn't guarantee anything.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Your church keeps putting people between your parishioners and the LORD."

That's correct, the Church has many people who point Parishioners and others toward the Lord, and has since the time of the Apostles.

""Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. 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)"

"You have an interesting take on this passage. I don't see where JESUS says to the Apostles "and all future priests of the Roman Church will also have this power."


You're absolutely correct, wmfights, and there are a number of reasons for this. First of all, the Sacrament of reconciliation is not limited to Roman Catholicism. The Eastern Orthodox have also been given the Sacrament of Reconciliation as well, as we comprised one Church for the first thousand years after Christ.

Secondly, this verse does not say that all priests in perpetuity have the ability to forgive sins, just as you say. It does say, however that the Apostles were given the ability to forgive and to retain sins, and that the Apostles were sent by Christ in the same sense that Christ was sent by the Father. Christ choose His Apostles to lead His Church in His name.

“Now it came to pass in those days that Jesus went up to the mountain to pray and continued all night in prayer to God, and when it was day, He called His disciples to Him and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles” (Luke 6:12,13)

Today's bishops, eparchs, and patriarchs of the Catholic and Orthodox Church are the successors of the Apostles.

Christ uniquely entrusted the Apostles with a number of functions that were not given to everyone else. This includes the Sacrament of the Eucharist:

And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. (Luke 22: 14-20)

It also includes the Great Commission particularly the charge to teach all that Christ commanded the Apostles:

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Matt 28: 16-20)

Note that if there was not a way for the Apostles to delegate the responsibility of "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you," then Christianity would only have been for the generations that lived during the time of the Apostles. They had to have successors for the great commission to be fulfilled and continued to the present day. While many were sent by Christ to Baptize and preach the Good News, only the 11 Apostles were given the unique commission of "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."

Another function uniquely entrusted to the Apostles was that of forgiving and retaining sins, that is, the Sacrament of Reconciliation:

"Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. 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)"

Now we see that the Apostles were given unique responsibilities. If they were not capable of passing those responsibilities on to their successors, as Scripture indicates that they indeed did, then the Church would only have been the Church for the time of the Apostles. Just as we understand Christ's Apostles who were uniquely entrusted with the Commemoration of the Lord's supper to have delegated that responsibility to other specific people, so we can also understand that the ability to forgive and retain sins was passed on by them to their successors. Otherwise, it was only for the people living in the Apostolic times who's sins could be forgiven and retained by Christ's earthly representatives.

In essence, The Father sent the Son, the Son sent the Apostles in the same manner, and the Apostles sent their successors. The Bishops still have the practice of laying on of hands ordained to the priesthood, and they have maintained this link since the time of Christ. There is an unbroken chain from the men breathed on by Christ to the men ordained with a laying on of hands by today's bishops. Not all priests are commissioned to forgive sins, but only those whom the Bishops permit.

"As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." The Apostles are sent by Christ in the same fashion that He was sent by the Father. Christ breathes on the Apostles. As you are no doubt aware, this is only the second time in Scripture that God breathes on anyone, the other time being the moment of Adam's creation. Christ is the Head of the Church, and the Apostles are His Representatives on earth. Christ builds the Church upon them, so to speak.

You don't see Christ promising all future priests the ability to forgive and retain sins, but you do see Christ entrusting the Apostles with the deposit of the Faith.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19,20)

From there in Scripture we see the growth of that Church. Ministers are ordained and delegated to specific functions in continuity with the Apostolic Church and subject to the Authority of the Apostles. There is a definite Church Organization which is hierarchical, and which has the ability to establish the liturgy of worship and preside over it, rule on erroneous interpretations of Scripture, administer discipline, delegate authority, excommunicate, send official representatives, and establish new practices and disciplines. If there had been no Apostolic succession, there would have been no Bible, just a collection of Historical documents of unknown veracity. We believe that the Apostolic Church has the authority to determine that the New Testament was divinely inspired and rule on which books were part of the canon. Scripture nowhere says that the Letter to the Hebrews or the Letter to Philemon were inspired. We accept them based on Apostolic tradition. The Apostles and their successor were divinely inspired and their successors were guided by the Holy Spirit in making the decision on the canon. It takes no great leap of faith to move from that understanding to the understanding of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

"I read this passage and see two possible explanations that I believe are more plausible; one, Jesus was empowering these Apostles with supernatural powers because they would be the catalysts for the initial body of believers;"

He indeed empowered the Apostles to lead His Church, and it's entirely possible that the power to raise the dead, cure the sick, cast out demons, was given as a sign of the authority that Christ had invested in the Apostles. The Apostles in turn appointed legitimate leaders to succeed themselves. Scripture demonstrates a definite Apostolic succession, it is not a free-for-all with every man being a law unto himself within the Church.


"two, having given them the HOLY SPIRIT they would be preaching the gospel and all who heard it and believed would be saved (sins forgiven) and all who didn't believe would not be saved."

Wmfights, everyone receives the Holy Spirit upon complete initiation into the the Body of Christ, but you and I do not have the ability to retain people's sins or forgive sins that have nothing to do with us. It says they have the ability to forgive sins, and to retain sins. This implies that they actually know what people's sins are, which in turn suggests that people are actually Confessing sins to them.

"In this sacrament doesn't the priest then mete out a punishment to the confessor."

No. First of all, the priest is the Confessor. This is what the priest does in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. He prays with us, hears our confession, assists us in our examination of conscience, discusses our difficulties and often offers counsel, and exhorts us to repentance. He then instructs us to say the Act of Contrition, and assigns a Penance. We accept the penance, and the priest says a prayer of praise and thanksgiving. I definitely don't regard Penance as a punishment, after all, it points us toward God. It might be reading Scripture, praying, or meditating on something in particular, such as your relationship to God or God's love for you. He may ask you to pray for people that you have hurt, or for people who have been injured by a sin such as the one you most struggled with. At the end of the confession, the priest then pronounces the words of Absolution, and blesses us in the Name of God.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Thank you for the link, .30Carbine.

XeniaSt gave me a link on the Passover about two weeks ago which I very much enjoyed. It did contain some very amusing pastoral advice, however.


"Five Cups will be celebrated tonight, traditionally with wine. Each cup is completely drunk to symbolize the completeness of our joy. (So please don't completely fill up your cup. We know Jesus drank wine, we also know he was never drunk with wine. Scripture says drunks are fools] (Ephesians 5:17-18)"

Very helpful advice. The passage then continued:

"Grape juice is provided at the table and will be used to celebrate the cup also. Both are from the "FRUIT OF THE VINE", grapes. [There is only a 12% difference between them.]"

Only 12%. That one wins the understatement of the year award. Somehow I don't think that an argument which wouldn't work for a .08% difference should be floated for 12% ;-).

XeniaSt. thanks for the links, I appreciate them.

[SoothingDave]

The two sacraments taught in SCRIPTURE, baptism and communion, involve ALL of the FAITHFUL.

Are you using an abridged version of Scripture or does your present congregation just fail to follow the biblical example?

Confirmation

Hebrews 6: 1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Here laying on of hands (confirmation) is listed among the important doctrines. Does your assembly do this?

Acts 8:14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost. Could it be any clearer?

Acts9:17And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Acst 19:4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

****************************

Annointing of the Sick

Mark 6:13And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.

Jas 5:14Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

When was the last time your assembly got the sick together and annointed them with oil? Why isn't this a sacrament?

*******************

Holy Orders

Titus 1:5For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

Paul leaves Titus in charge in Crete and commands him to ordain others in other cities.

SD

[Quester]

"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20: 21-23)

You have an interesting take on this passage. I don't see where JESUS says to the Apostles "and all future priests of the Roman Church will also have this power."

Of course not, because then you'd see where you are lacking.

I read this passage and see two possible explanations that I believe are more plausible; one, Jesus was empowering these Apostles with supernatural powers because they would be the catalysts for the initial body of believers;

And Jesus knew that after the 1st century ended no one would need to have their sins forgiven? Confession of sins and absolution by an Apostle were sacraments, but only temporarily?

Well ... of course the believer can (i.e. is not prohibited from ...) ... requesting His forgiveness directly from God ... via prayer ... as Jesus modeled ...

Luke 11:1 And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.

2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

3 Give us day by day our daily bread.

4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

I also find it interesting that there is no example of sins being confessed to any priestly figure and/or priestly absolution given in the New Testament scriptures.

[Uri’el-2012]

I agree with you; that is my position.

CtId confuses church with His roman Church.

He thinks of Church as a man-made corporation headquartered in Rome.

b'shem Y'shua

[SoothingDave]

Please see my 1426 where I outline several reasons for sacramental confession.

Do you really mean to suggest that, having been given this power by Jesus, the Apostles never forgave anyone, that no one ever came to them wracked with guilt?

SD

[SoothingDave]

CtId confuses church with His roman Church. He thinks of Church as a man-made corporation headquartered in Rome.

You shouldn't lie. You are the one who considers the Catholic Church to be a "man made corporation."

SD

[SoothingDave]

I should also note that the early times captured in the New Testament were a great time of growth of the Church, a time of conversion. Baptism remits sins and whole swaths of people were being baptised. Private Confession of sin would not be an issue in these cases.

SD

[Tax-chick]

May I say that your correct use of "wracked" has absolutely made my day? Thank you very much!

[wmfights]

"Who told you that all Catholics must partake of all 7 sacraments? Not everyone gets married, does that bother you, too? Many do not receive the Annointing of the Sick (Last Rites) prior to dying. Does this trouble you as well?"

You sure are quick to try and denigrate my questions and posit different motives.
____________________________________________
"Because ordinary times and extraordinary times are different. Sacramental confession serves many more purposes than just the granting of saving grace. When was the last time you sat down with a disinterested person and took an inventory of your spiritual faults? When did you last seek guidance in overcoming a difficult attachment to sin?"

Here are some of the profound differences between Christians and Roman Catholics. Your saying that communion grants grace in my faith we don't believe this. Also, as a Christian I go straight to my SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST with all my problems, big or small. I'm confident I'm not bothering him.

[SoothingDave]

May I say that your correct use of "wracked" has absolutely made my day? Thank you very much!

My pleasure to be of service, m'lady.

SD