Posted on 05/16/2008 4:46:28 PM PDT by annalex
Sorry if I gave that impression; I merely followed St. Paul in Galatians who explained that neither circumcision or uncircumcision matters for Christians, and indeed the Jerusalem Council confirmed that.
I argue that the symbolism of the sacrament is outweighed by the reality of the circumcised heart
Of course. If, for example, one sponsors a baptism of a baby, or enters into baptism himself without the proper intent, and in the second case, without repentance for past sins, then the sacrament is invalid. The point is not that it requires nothing of the baptisee -- it requires proper disposition, -- but that it is a sacrament, that is a visible sign of grace.
The lack of direction in Protestantism is not self-evident?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
AUG. We must take care that this saying of the Lord appear not to be contrary to that, where He says, He who is not with me is against me. Or will any one say that the difference lies in that here He says to His disciples, For he that is not against you is on your part, but in the other He speaks of Himself, He who is not with me is against me? As if indeed it were possible that he who is joined to Christ's disciples, who ate as His members, should not be with Him. How if it were so, could it be true that he that receives you receives me? Or how is he not against Him, who is against His disciples? Where then will be that saying, He who despises you, despises me? But surely what is implied is, that a man is not with Him in as far as he is against Him, and is not against Him as far as he is with Him. For instance, he who worked miracles in the name of Christ, and yet did not join himself to the body of His disciples, in as far as he worked the miracles in His name, was with them, and was not against them: again, in that he did not join their society, he was not with them, and was against them. But because they forbade his doing that in which he was with them, the Lord said to them, Forbid him not; for they ought to have forbidden his being without their society, and thus to have persuaded him of the unity of the Church, but they should not have forbidden that in which he was with them, that is, his commendation of the name of their Lord and Master by the expulsion of devils. Thus the Church Catholic does not disapprove in heretics the sacraments, which are common, but she blames their division, or some opinion of theirs adverse to peace and to truth; for in this they are against us.
But therein you argue that the 'visible sign' is of more importance inherently, a position I find to be false.
While I do not mean to diminish the value of the sacrament, there are exceptions to the rule, wherein the ritual is not necessary for salvation, but there is no exception for the need of the inward sign, the circumcised heart.
Not at all. How do you assume it to be so?
Therein lies the evidence of grace, and of reasonable claim. That the Spirit moves within the Protestant churches corporately is what gives them legitimacy, not any sanction of any other church, nor by any blessing of any man.
Yeah... It is not exactly un-Catholic what you say. For example, we have a clear teaching of St. Paul on the reception of the Eucharist that it also condemns those not of right disposition. I think that the fatal leap that anti-clerical elements of Protestantism make is when they ignore the sacraments of the Church because of this. That has no scriptural support, as every time you find a call for faith it is immediately balanced with a call for action, — for works. Repent and be baptized: convert your heart and seal it in a sacrament. Discern Christ in the Eucharist, and receive it. Fail to discern Him — go home.
Agreed.
The only unifying element of Protestantism is that they do not want to be Catholic. We have Protestants who want to play a sacramental church, like Lutherans and Anglicans; we have those who don’t, like the Evangelicals. But all claim that the Holy Spirit led them where they are. We have Protestants who believe in the Trinity and those who read the same scripture and do not see it there. But all claim that the Holy Spirit led them where they are. We have those who baptize infants and those who don’t; who marry homosexuals and those who don’t; and all claim that the Holy Spirit led them where they are. Al Kresta, a former evangelical preacher and now a Catholic radio host once said that he can make a distinct Protestant denomination out of any randomly chosen five verses of the Bible. This is a sorry state of affairs for Luther and Calvin to have lead you in, — are you sure the Holy Spirit did this to you?
I honestly know of no Protestant branch that ignores the sacraments, though some apply them differently. All the churches I am familiar with participate in the sacrament of baptism- Some, as you (RCC), at infancy; All, I assure you, by the time of profession of faith. It is no small thing to Protestants, so why do you accuse them?
Most Protestants have valid baptism, and can officiate at marriages. That is because these are the two sacraments that do not require a priest. Only Lutherans and Anglicans teach real presence of Christ in the Eucharist so they attempt to also have that, as well as to have priesthood; the Evangelicals would deny any salvific effect of any sacrament, including baptism and the “Lord’s Table”, have no priests, and want no priests. Protestant ordinations and confessions are weak approximations of the Catholic sacraments of the same name; the underlying Protestant theology eviscerated them since in Protestant worldview no human agency has been ordained by Christ.
The evidence is that Christ wanted His disciples to be “one as my father and I are one” and instead we have every pastor going where he alone wants to go.
That sounds a bit bitter, annalex, and it is not true. Primary among all of the Protestants is sola fide and sola scriptura.
We have Protestants who want to play a sacramental church, like Lutherans and Anglicans; we have those who don’t, like the Evangelicals.
So what?
We have Protestants who believe in the Trinity and those who read the same scripture and do not see it there.
Again, so what?
We have those who baptize infants and those who don’t;
And?
who marry homosexuals and those who don’t;
Yes, and those same liberal forces pressure the RCC too.
This is a sorry state of affairs for Luther and Calvin to have lead you in, — are you sure the Holy Spirit did this to you?
Why is it a sorry state of affairs?
Yes: the unifying doctrines of Protestantism are, not surprisingly, these two unscriptural ones. Now let us examine what sort of unity these two produced, -- not much.
Note that I am not talking about dissent. Surely there are dissenting Catholics, but they dissent from a well defined dogma, which isn't going to change because they dissent. The may fall off, but it doesn't splinter the Church. We have heretics, you have independent pastors. Big difference.
So in fact, you are moaning because we will not sanction a priesthood, not that we don't attend the sacraments. It is your opinion that our sacraments are invalid because of that lack of priesthood, not that we do not observe the sacraments.
the underlying Protestant theology eviscerated them since in Protestant worldview no human agency has been ordained by Christ.
Indeed, and rightly so. It is not that there is no human agency, It is just a lack of priesthood, as is only proper. The only priesthood recognized by the Father is the Order of Melchizedek, and there is only One Priest of that order, which is the Christ.
I deny that outright. Both are wholly defensible within the Word.
Now let us examine what sort of unity these two produced, -- not much.
That depends upon the sort of unity one would define. That each is different does not suppose disunity necessarily.
Only in part. Only Anglicans and Lutherans observe the sacraments in some way. The rest of Protestantism has no coherent sacramental theology: you cannot even agree if they are mere symbols or the real thing. Priesthood and sacraments are two sides of the same coin: misunderstand the sacrament and you lose priesthood (happened to the Lutherans and the Anglicans) or misunderstand priesthood (the rest of you) and you don't have sacraments.
The lack of priesthood invlidates any attempt at sacraments. That is because Christ never said to every believer "whoever sees you sees me, and whoevdr hears you hears me, and wohever hears me hears my father who sent me". He told that to the apostles with a mission to evangelize, and then to Peter to feed "the sheep" and to correct "his brethren". Christ taught human agency and a church of priests.
The scripture never says that there are no other priests (presbyteroi) but Christ. Melchisedech is called "archhiereus", and that is indeed Christ alone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.