It sure doesn't sound like it:
Posted on 01/23/2023 11:00:58 AM PST by ebb tide
So do y’all sit at a table, break a loaf of bread and feed it to each other at your so-called “church”? Who plays the feeder, the person who hands out the bread?
The best answer to those types of questions about Protestants is that they (we) don't meet such a general pattern. For example, many of the older Protestant denominations have much of the "quiet listening", while others are a bit more expressive. With many of the new Protestant churches, the "social gathering" aspect is less of a status symbol issue (I'm part of their clique) or just enjoyable hanging out, and more about moral character and relationship with Christ being best enhanced by time spent with others seeking the same. When I say it's best not to generalize about Protestants I'm talking about the worship experiences, I'm not talking about core beliefs.
About the only things that are general among the Protestants are belief in the five solas -- and with that, a deep respect for our individual relationships with Christ being less dependent on leaders. For example, the belief in sola scriptura (scripture alone tells us the truths of God) means no matter what my pastor says this Sunday it better not disagree with the Bible (mainly New Testament). I and my peers read the Bible on our own repeatedly (in my case I've read the entire thing over 20 times). I've had a few preachers tell me personally that one thing that encourages them to make sure their sermons are accurate is the knowledge that multiple people hearing the sermon know the Bible about as well as the preacher does and a few us would be unafraid to approach him about it later (often in private). It's very analogous to us conservatives often saying we don't need no Supreme Court or anybody else telling us what is or isn't in the U.S. Constitution and we're heavily offended when someone blatantly lies about what the Constitution states.
For example, look at the scores of Methodist churches that have voted to leave the general United Methodist denomination because the leaders have been pushing hedonism. It doesn't matter how many times the leaders have said abortion and homosexuality are good in God's eyes or that they were traditionally good things. The Protestant beliefs of solar scriptura combined with solus Christus (Christ alone) tell the Methodist laity (to use a term common to Catholics) that the clergy can never be a roadblock between the believers and the truth about God. Nor can the clergy flex an imaginary muscle saying that only the clergy can sanction forgiveness or absolution (Christ alone has that authority). This prevents the clergy from being able to go too far in abusing their authority because the laity knows the clergy can't stand between them and God's grace or them and the truths about God.
I know someone who was kicked out of a Methodist church years ago for trying to reform it when he heard that part of the donations to the church's general fund went to support abortion lobbyists and such. He's not a wave maker kind of person -- he quietly took his concern to the local pastor. After months of the local pastor saying he'd look into it (hoping my friend would forget), my friend took the matter to a retired Methodist pastor. Then to elders in his church. Eventually an older lady with wealth pressured the pastor to get rid of my friend.
My friend was heartbroken, but got closer to God. Eventually he joined another church and took his prayers, talents, time, and donations there. He knew that nothing, absolutely nothing, the Methodist leaders could do could in any way separate him from God. Enough people have done this in the Methodist churches and now Methodists are going through a reformation.
My #1 problem with Catholicism is their belief that the leaders are gatekeepers in relationships and grace of God. It's not just that Catholics believe that communion is Eucharist -- it's that Catholics believe the elements don't become the flesh and blood of Christ without an official leader blessing the elements. That means everybody at mass believes the clergy hold all the cards -- an unhealthy church relationship. It's not just that Catholics believe in Purgatory -- it's that Catholics believe only clergy can grant absolution (and of course how that was horribly abused in the past with the coin in the coffers indulgences). It's not just that Catholics believe part of truth comes from tradition -- it's that the clergy determines what traditions define truth. It's not just that Catholics believe in being saved by works -- it's that the clergy determine what works lead to salvation. These combined beliefs make it exceedingly difficult for righteous Catholics to implement necessary reforms among leaders.
There are beliefs among fellow Protestants I disagree with (i.e. a lot of Pentecostal churches believe the initial evidence of Spirit baptism is speaking in tongues, some non-Pentecostal churches believe in the cessation of the 1st Corinthians 12 miraculous gifts, neither of which I agree). But one thing about these various beliefs among Protestants -- none of them believe their leaders have the kind of absolute authority over their relationships with God that plagues Catholics. Therefore, there's a lot less chance the leaders will abuse their authority (though it can happen, but if it does it's often quickly remedied).
Ask yourself your same question. Who does Pope Francis say plays the "feeder", the person who hands out the bread? Who did the previous Popes say?
Who feeds you your bread?
Why won’t you answer.
A Catholic priest, an alter Christus.
Somebody you don't have. And never will.
You can "play church" all you want. You'll receive no graces, however.
Yet, in your post #11, you stated, "Even before the First Council of Nicaea formally canonized the New Testament, the common belief about which writings were holy scripture was to include things written by eyewitnesses of resurrected Jesus and their close associates. That hasn't changed.
So that deflates you're entire ballon of "sola scriptura". There is no Gospel of Luke's Close Associate.
It's not bread, it's the Body of Christ and a priest places it in my hand.
No, it’s not.
Not in your fake “church”.
Again you’re committing a logical fallacy (typed in my best Mr. Spock voice LOL). Dr. Luke himself was not an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus. Luke was a close associate of eyewitnesses. Perhaps you’re trying too hard to disprove sola scriptura.
I see. You have more authority than the Pope and Christ Himself.
You determine what is a "real" Church and what is a "fake" one.
That's a lie.
[19] Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. [20] And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.
John, Chapter 20.
What’s your “church”?
What’s your “church” that has “priests”, if not the Catholic Church?
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
It’s nice to “meet” you.
:-)
...and yes, for half a century they stopped giving Communion on the tongue to kneeling congregants.
We’ve had Extraordinary ministers since about 1975, and the problem is somewhat under control. Y’all seemed to have had them around 1530 briefly, and then rarely a problem because making up your own priesthood doesn’t work once you’ve messed up by winging your own episcopacy. Enjoy grape juice and cookies. They weren’t on the menu at the Last Passover.
We’ll stick with the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to receive Him. That is the key menu item served up at the banquet of the Lamb, and we have that, with the Blood of Christ on tap. Sometimes in post Vatican II times the bar maids have left something to be desired, but it is the original brew.
Have you been to Jesus for His saving power, are you truly washed in the Blood of the Lamb? Or are you messing around with biscuits and grape juice playing at priest yourself?
It became much rarer. It never stopped.
The article and the comments are about Pope Francis telling Catholics not to kneel or receive Communion on the tongue. You then infer that if one doesn't receive Communion on the tongue while kneeling that they only received biscuits and grape juice, contradicting not on the Pope, but Christ Himself.
I'm not familiar with your position of authority in the Catholic Church where you determine that kneeling and receiving Communion on the tongue is true while the Last Supper and the Pope's statement are not, that you determine who received the Body and Blood of Christ and who received "biscuits and grape juice".
It sure doesn't sound like it:
Last night you (ebb tide) said: "That's a lie."
This was in response to me saying (as you quoted me): "Dr. Luke himself was not an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus."
In which case you pointed out from John 20 that Jesus appeared to the disciples in the room they were even though the doors were shut. (Stan Lee and Marvel comics plagiarized from Jesus when they created the X-Men lady who could walk through walls. LOL) And all of this is in the context of you trying to undermine the belief in sola scriptura because I pointed out in a prior post (as you quoted): "Even before the First Council of Nicaea formally canonized the New Testament, the common belief about which writings were holy scripture was to include things written by eyewitnesses of resurrected Jesus and their close associates. That hasn't changed."
To which you replied: "So that deflates you're entire ballon of 'sola scriptura'. There is no Gospel of Luke's Close Associate."
So now you assert that if Luke was an eyewitness to the resurrected Jesus, and none of Luke's close associates wrote a book or letter than we count as Bible canon, that therefore our basis of what's Bible canon is flawed and, inductively, the belief in sola scriptura is flawed. Is that correct?
Well, newsflash. Luke wasn't there in the room when Jesus appeared. Luke wasn't a disciple yet, and he certainly wasn't part of the main disciples that John 20 is talking about. You can see part of Luke joining the church later in Acts 16 when Luke (the writer of Acts) starts to sometimes to refer to the Christians by the first person "we". That would place Luke at that point joining Paul on his missionary journey to Macedonia. We also know from extra Biblical history that Luke was a doctor in Antioch at the time of Christ-- some say his father founded a medical school there and Luke was still running the school during Christ's ministry. As the early Christians fled persecution in Jerusalem (Acts 7 and beginning of Acts 8) one of the first places they went to was Antioch. At that city was probably the largest growing church of Gentiles and is where Jesus' followers first started being called "Christians" (Acts 11). Presumably that's when Luke became a Christian. He's first mentioned chronologically in Philemon 1:24 as a fellow worker in Christ of the apostle Paul. Eventually Luke joined Paul on his missionary journey.
The other flaw in your statement (from a prior post) is the assertion that if any one of the eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus had any close companion at all who did not write at least one thing considered to be Bible canon, then the whole Bible canon foundation is fragile. Really? Even if you had been correct that Luke was an eyewitness to the resurrection, that doesn't mean that he is therefore required to have at least one close associate add to the Bible canon.
I seriously think you're trying way to hard to undermine the belief in God's Word. To point out how important this concept was to the early church, look at had Muhammad (AD 7th century) sometimes referred to Christians: "people of the book". This is how he collectively referred to Christians and Jews together. Why? Because of all the religions going on in the Middle East at the time, Christians and Jews had one thing about them that stood out: their beliefs came from written teachings, not dependent on teachings passed by word of mouth. Sure there were other things he called us (i.e. "those who add persons to Allah" in reference to Christians believing in the Trinity). But I find it fascinating that as early as the 7th century the Christians had that kind of reputation of believing what's in the Word.
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.