I find it interesting that NO ONE even makes one protest against the scenario that Protestants propose: that the entire Church changed throughout the empire in one generation without a dissenting voice.
Well, I wouldn't imagine there would have been any protest at that time. Since, at the beginning, all new Christians were starting from scratch, there was nothing to which the early Christians could compare (in terms of other Christian thought). Those who accepted, simply accepted because that's all there was.
I'm not sure I understand your reference to "one generation". Was Luther's protest based on just what the early Christians were doing, or was it based on what he perceived to be gradual changes in the Church over time until a final straw was broken?
Note, in Matthew's Gospel [28:19-20], Jesus says He will be with the Church for ALL time until the end of the world. Thus, He is providing for a CONTINUOUS succession of Apostles. Certainly, Christ's mandate would not end with the death of these particular men! The Kingdom of God must go out to the entire world and for all time!
There's the rub, what do you mean by "Church"? For you to be right, then when Jesus said "I am with you always", He would only be with Roman Catholics, not all Christians. I read it more broadly as referring to all ministers of the true gospel. If you make this distinction, then the rest of the NT really shouldn't have any meaning to a non-Catholic, because it wasn't written to them. You're saying that the Great Commission was only given to Roman Catholic hierarchy, not to the rest of us, not even to the Catholic laity. If Christ is not even with Catholic laity for the purpose of going out and teaching all nations, then why should a lay Catholic even bother to evangelize?
AFTER His resurrection (and many people don't realize the significance of that), Jesus gave power to His Apostles to forgive sins in John 20:23.
I read the verse and it does appear to be problematic to my belief that only God can forgive sins, since the offense is against Him. I just can't square it against Mark 2:7. Yes, there the speakers were "teachers of the law" so it would be easy to say that they were simply wrong. However, Jesus speaks nothing of this error (if it is one). In fact, Jesus plays on the statement. The whole point here is to show that Jesus is revealing His identity by forgiving sins. I don't know of another example where Jesus grants the truth of a lie (that only God can forgive sin) in order to make His point. Here He was not exposing that "lie", He used it to claim openly that He was God. Just doesn't seem right.
Regarding the Sacrament of Confession. The point of the sacrament is NOT to "earn" salvation - a hoop to jump through to obtain salvation. It is there for our spiritual good. ... We are saved by the love we show others, done in faith, not by compiling a laundry list of things to do!
This continues to stymie me. First, I would fully agree that confession is good and that God tells us that we should "confess our sins, one to another". I agree that the confessor is benefited by confession and it glorifies God.
But here's what stumps me. You said that confession is not done to earn salvation. You said we have free will and that we must cooperate with God in our salvation. I thought it was also true that confession, and the other sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Every good Catholic knows that you will take the sacraments if you expect to go to heaven. So, how can these acts be done, without the expectation of earning salvation through our free will choices to cooperate with God?
I know this is where the inner disposition idea that you have talked about before comes in. I just don't see how someone could go through all the sacraments with no thought of self, when it is well known that they are the only way to get to heaven. It is natural for the touched heart to long to be saved. A heart with grace is able to see the need for God. Won't such a heart do whatever it takes (lifelong sacraments)? I know there is no money involved, only something INFINITELY more valuable! How is this not earning?
An example. Intercessionary prayers to the saints in heaven. The Scripture does not EXPLICITLY mention it. But Apostolic Tradition DOES. Is it actually refuted in Scriptures? No.
In my view, yes it is refuted:
1 Tim. 2:5 "5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, ...
God bless
Luther went on a pilgrimage to Rome and saw all sorts of things, including selling of the indulgences. But he also noticed that the official truth sometimes differed from the Scripture, as he read it.
But this happens all the time. The KVJ version of the Lord's Prayer is incorrect as compared to the original. It not only reverses some things, but contains incorrect tense in one instance and refers to "evil" in general rather than the "evil one" in particular as the original does. So, the same kind of error that bothered Luther continues now in his tradition generally known as the Protestant "church."
In addition to that, Luther and his apostates attacked the early church (and I don't mean a building in Rome), everything about the Church as it existed for 1,500 years and still does in the East and the West.
The Ever-Virgin Mary was reduced to just a "woman," and saints were "retired." Holy icons and images of saintly people were destroyed and called "idols."
Attacking the (im)morality of some Catholic clergy, Luther substituted his own "morality" by telling his followers to "sin boldly" for God will forgive them as long as they believe (but apparently his formula doesn't apply to Roman Catholics!).
He elevated man as the ultimate interpretor of the Scripture which exists only thanks to the Church which Luther called "apostate."
His man-made "church" has since splintered and continues to splinter into thousands of groups that are separate from each other, each claiming the "true" and inerrant interpretation of the faith through the Bible.
Luther proclaimed the Church to be in "error" theologically, but some half-educated backwoods self-made pastor interprets the Bible correctly through the Holy Spirit (imagine that -- Luther suggests the Holy Spirit has left the Church, but comes to every Joe who reads the Bible!)
Frist, we believe that prayers help. It is customary to ask fellow Christians to pray for us or to pray for others. That would be ntercessionary prayer. We do it all the time.
Second, Christians believe that those who die are not dead but alive in an intermediate state between particular and final judgment. If they are alive, they can pray.
Third, if they prayed when they were on earth, we have very reason to believe that they pray as we speak/write.
Fourth, saints are Christian heroes that we hold in high regard and many of us use one particular saint to fashion our life in faith around theirs.
Fifth, intercessionary prayers to the saints and angels are just that: asking those who pray to pray for us in heaven as we ask others to pray for us on earth.
Intercessionary prayer is a perfectly orthodox practice, rooted in the most fundamental Christian truths.
Only confused Protestants can see "idolatry" in intercesisonal prayers. We do not worship saints and angels. We worship only God. We ask all Christian, on earth as in heaven, to pray for us, and that's not worship.
No, he is saying that it was given to the Apostles, and that St. Peter was singled out as first among them (not in authority but in dignity), to lead the church after Christ left until His return. There was no Roman Catholic (or Orthodox) Church then! Just one Church founded by Christ.
Even though today it is not fully united, it is still one Church founded by Christ bcause the apostolic succession guarantees authority and validity of the priesthood, through whom the validity of sacraments is maintained.
Church Tadition (Apostles, Fathers, Bible, Councils) reflect the collective knowledge of the Faith as is has been tught and practiced form the earliest days until today. For example, the Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is 1600 years old and remains unchanged.
What we Orthodox do when we go to church is the same thing the Eastern Christians were doing 1,600 years ago. We have records to show that it was so. And that Liturgy was based on the liturgy of St. Basil, which is almost identical (except in length), which itself was based on the Litugry of St. James (the Jerusalem Liturgy) which goes back to the very beginning of the Church and is celebrated in Orthodox Churches dedicated to St. James on the feast of St. James to this day, 2,000 years later -- unchanged! So, ours is not a personal interpretation of anything, but as it was known to the Apostles.
In turn, the Apostles passed on the commission from our Lord to their successors (bishops and priests and deacons) directly (by laying of the hands, a Judaic tradition) and invocation of the Holy Ghost in prayers. The only thing that separates the clergy from the laity are the sacraments. Everybody can preach and teach, but only the priesthood can administer the sacraments. Other than that, the Church is a gathering of the faithful, the clergy and the laity.
If Christ is not even with Catholic laity for the purpose of going out and teaching all nations, then why should a lay Catholic even bother to evangelize
But a Catholic lay person will not teach his or her personal, amateur, veriaty of "truth" about God; but a Protestant will and God onyl knows how close that is to the truth. A Catholic can evangelize and you can bet that the person who gets evangelized by one Catholic will believe and know one and the same thing as any other Catholic in the world. Those who are evangelized by protestants have no such connection -- they all believe in something different. That's not what Christ wanted us to do.
You wrote 1 Tim. 2:5 "5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, ...
This is a common mistake made by many people. I will show why it does not prove that intercessionary prayers are wrong.
First, let's look to the passage in question. I have found that in practically every case, when we look at the context, the so-called verse against Catholic teaching is explained away...
“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men, for kings, and [for] all that are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and integrity. For this [is] good and pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires that all men be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth. For [there is only] one God and likewise [only] one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” 1 Tim 2:1-5
Notice the bold letters. In this very paragraph, Paul tells Timothy to INTERCEDE for others. The Greek word is "enteuxis", which means to pray for or plead on the behalf of others. This is exactly what the Church teaches us to do. In the mean time, in verse 5, the word "mediator", which in Greek is "mesites" means something totally different. According to Vines (a Protestant study tool), it is one who mediates between two parties with a view of producing peace. Vines continues "...for the salvation of men necessitated that the Mediator should Himself possess the nature and attributes of Him towards whom He acts, and should likewise participate in the nature of those for whom He acts (sin apart); only by being possessed both of deity and humanity could He comprehend the claims of the one and the needs of the other. (Vines Complete Expository Dictionary, pg400)
Only Jesus is the Mediator as Vines describes the Greek word "mesites". He IS the God-man. No one else is. The Greek word to intercede is totally different, and has the meaning of pleading on the behalf of another.
Paul cannot possibly mean that Chirst is the SOLE intercessor because he doesn't say that in 1 Tim - denying that in 1 Tim 2:1. Second, Jesus cannot be the SOLE intercessor because Paul mentions the Spirit, also, as an intercessor (Rom 8:26). Finally, the Greek words are totally different. Thus, it is a mistake, even from Scripture alone, to say that the Catholic practice of intercessionary prayers to the saints is incorrect or against the Bible. The icing on the cake is the very fact that they DID - as seen by archeological evidence found in the Catacombs of Rome and the writings of early Christians dating before 200 AD.
Regards
I appreciate you conversing with me on this. My goal is to make Catholicism understandable to others, not to convert. That’s not something I can do, I believe, anyway. But I think if I am able to clear away misperceptions, Protestants and Catholics can come closer together. That way, we can focus on the upcoming battle vs. our own society, the real enemy, in my opinion.
Well, I wouldn't imagine there would have been any protest at that time. Since, at the beginning, all new Christians were starting from scratch, there was nothing to which the early Christians could compare (in terms of other Christian thought). Those who accepted, simply accepted because that's all there was.
I disagree. Paul constantly was battling Judaizers who wanted to include all of the dietary rituals and circumcision as part of what was necessary to obtain salvation. Clearly, Christians heard them, as well as orthodox teachings. Elsewhere, such as Colossians, Paul seems to have been battling Greek philosophy. John and Jude also seem to be battling some form of Gnosticism, a corruption of the Gospel. Even in the very beginning, I believe we see that orthodoxy became very concerned about the TRUE message and that its contents would remain pure. For example:
“Whosoever rebels and does not abide in the doctrine of the Christ, does not have God. He that abides in the doctrine of the Christ, the same has the Father and the Son. If anyone comes unto you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into [your] house” 2 John 1:9-10
“holding fast the doctrine according to the faithful word, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many insubordinate and vain talkers and deceivers [of souls], especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths it is expedient to stop, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for dishonest gain” Titus 1:9-11
I'm not sure I understand your reference to "one generation". Was Luther's protest based on just what the early Christians were doing, or was it based on what he perceived to be gradual changes in the Church over time until a final straw was broken?
The question that people ask is “is the Catholic Church the continuation of the Church established by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16 or Matthew 28?” “Is it the same one from the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle writers?” Considering the time of the writings of the Scriptures, roughly the last half of the first century, to the beginning of the second century, is one generation.
Thus, if one believes that the Catholic Church is NOT the Church that claims continuity with the Apostles, we’d have to believe that that entire generation, in every community, had to change EXACTLY the SAME WAY!!! In other words, between 75 and 110 AD, people everywhere went from believing the Eucharist was symbolic (as Protestants claim that John 6 meant) to everywhere believing that it was Christ’s Real Presence with the writings of the first Church Fathers in 110-200 AD! It is quite ludicrous, considering these same men went to die by being thrown to LIONS for not giving a pinch of incense to Caesar. Thus, Christianity supposedly changed everywhere in one generation without a murmur of protest. That is what some people are claiming happened when they deny that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the Church established by the Apostles and Christ. Historically, it is unbelievable – and furthermore, it doesn’t take into account Christ’s OWN words – that the Spirit would guide the Church into all Truth!
There's the rub, what do you mean by "Church"? For you to be right, then when Jesus said "I am with you always", He would only be with Roman Catholics, not all Christians. I read it more broadly as referring to all ministers of the true gospel. If you make this distinction, then the rest of the NT really shouldn't have any meaning to a non-Catholic, because it wasn't written to them. You're saying that the Great Commission was only given to Roman Catholic hierarchy, not to the rest of us, not even to the Catholic laity. If Christ is not even with Catholic laity for the purpose of going out and teaching all nations, then why should a lay Catholic even bother to evangelize?
Good questions. There is only ONE Church established by Christ. It subsists (note, NOT “is”) the Catholic Church. Those are the words of Vatican 2. They were careful not to say that the Catholic Church IS that same Church. What does that mean? First, there is NOT another Church. Only one. It fully subsists in the Roman Catholic Church. Other communities of Christians can only claim to be of Christ in the degree that they subsist WITHIN the Catholic Church. This means that WE read the SAME Scriptures, the SAME Sacraments, the SAME apostolic succession, the SAME visible sign of unity, the Pope, the SAME interpretations of Scriptures, the SAME practices, the SAME liturgy, the SAME morality, the SAME eschatological beliefs, the SAME creeds. And so forth.
To the degree that we share in the above, you PERSONALLY are part of the Roman Catholic Church! Your Baptist community itself is not, but individually, the people there, are part of this same Catholic Church by some mysterious manner. How??? Because the Church, about 1750 years ago, said that even a heretic who baptizes using the proper formula and intent has actually brought a person INTO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH! Nearly two thousand years ago, this question came up, and the Pope declared that there was no need to re-Baptize heretics or those who had fallen away. They were in the Church - mysteriously, because they had the mark of the Holy Spirit.
Now, because you are somehow part of the Catholic Church, does that mean you do not have to be evangelized, or you don’t have to convert? No. God desires that ALL men (even Protestants!) come to the FULLNESS of the Truth. That truth is found ONLY within the visible Catholic Church. Why WOULDN’T I desire that my Protestant brothers share in the same beliefs, and share in the Eucharist? Why wouldn’t I desire that my separated brothers give their great talents to the rest of the visible Church? We, too, need people well-versed in Scriptures to teach the faithful. We need people who love the Scriptures. Thus, if we love, if we trust that we have the truth, than we ARE to continue the teachings of Matthew 28:20 and go out to everyone, even Protestants – we desire all men to share with us the graces God has given us through His Church.
I read (John 20:23) and it does appear to be problematic to my belief that only God can forgive sins, since the offense is against Him. I just can't square it against Mark 2:7. Yes, there the speakers were "teachers of the law" so it would be easy to say that they were simply wrong. However, Jesus speaks nothing of this error (if it is one). In fact, Jesus plays on the statement. The whole point here is to show that Jesus is revealing His identity by forgiving sins.
I think we can look at the parallel in Matthew 9 to get a good feel for what Christ is ALSO doing:
“But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.” (Mat 9:8)
Plainly, Jesus gave human beings the authority to heal physical ailments and forgive sins – in His name. We believe that what Christ did on earth as a man, we are to emulate – or at least we have the potential to emulate. Whether it is healing the sick or casting out demons, raising the dead, preaching the Word of God, forgiving sin, offering of ourselves to God, obeying His will, giving of ourselves totally to others, loving our neighbors, EVEN rising from the DEAD! Christ was/is the perfect man. And God. But what many people forget is the first part – Jesus was/is a man. By becoming a man, He showed us our true potential. He showed us what men are SUPPOSED to be like, what we are to do, what is our true worth to the Father in heaven. Man has a dignity beyond any other creature – some even argue beyond angels (since God didn’t die for the fallen angels).
Christ tells us that all power and authority had been given to Him by the Father. Jesus told them “Verily I say unto you, Whatever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in the heaven; and whatever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in the heaven.” (Mat 18:18). By seeing Jesus’ action in Mark 2 (and the rest of the synoptic Gospels), we see man has the potential to forgive sins. The crowds in Matthew's Gospel thought that a man was given the power to forgive sins! This proof was seen in the physical healing. If the Man-God can forgive sins, as a Man by the power given to Him by God, what is to prevent another man, the Apostles, from ALSO forgiving sins, if given the power to do so? We see that Christ DID give them that power. And by physically healing someone in the name of Christ (as the Apostles did in Acts), they ALSO could spiritually heal someone in the name of Christ (as the Apostles and their successors continue to do through Confession). Through Christ, thus, men have been given this power. “As the Father has sent me, so I send you…(John 20:21).
Another Scripture that might help here is the following: “Is anyone among you afflicted? let them pray. Is anyone happy? let them sing. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray for him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall cause the one who is sick to be saved, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he shall be forgiven them.” James 5:13-15
Again, the priests have been given power to forgive sins. Here, as in Mark 2, we see that physical sickness and spiritual sickness are tied together, and God CAN heal BOTH if He desires THROUGH the ministry of reconciliation.
But here's what stumps me. You said that confession is not done to earn salvation. You said we have free will and that we must cooperate with God in our salvation. I thought it was also true that confession, and the other sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Every good Catholic knows that you will take the sacraments if you expect to go to heaven. So, how can these acts be done, without the expectation of earning salvation through our free will choices to cooperate with God?
NO sacrament is ABSOLUTELY required to enter heaven. We are judged based on our love. We are judged on whether we abide in Christ or not at the time of our death. The sacraments are MEANS of receiving Christ’s love, His grace – not tickets to be punched before boarding the train to heaven. We go to receive the Eucharist BECAUSE we LOVE Christ and desire His presence in a special way, knowing that it is the source of our Christian life! We go to Confession because we know we have offended the Father and deeply desire to ask forgiveness and receive absolution. We desire to have our vocation (marriage) blessed by Christ. We (our wife and I) desire Christ to be part of our marriage. And upon our deathbed, if possible, we desire Christ to be with us on that final journey – our rebirth into eternal life through physical death. While many Catholics do not have those dispositions, that is what the Church teaches.
I know this is where the inner disposition idea that you have talked about before comes in. I just don't see how someone could go through all the sacraments with no thought of self, when it is well known that they are the only way to get to heaven. It is natural for the touched heart to long to be saved. A heart with grace is able to see the need for God. Won't such a heart do whatever it takes (lifelong sacraments)? I know there is no money involved, only something INFINITELY more valuable! How is this not earning?
As I have said, they are visible means to SEE Christ, to HEAR Christ, to TOUCH Him. Rather than an abstract concept, He comes to our senses, as well. We are body and soul. A heart with grace does not ALWAYS see the need for God. Recall Romans 7, where Paul himself notes that HE battles with his flesh. Grace does not eliminate our selfish desires entirely. It is a never-ending battle to develop virtue. Even devout Catholics have “poor” reception of the Eucharist. Sometimes, my mind is distracted, or I am not fully in-tune with my own need for His graces. I am human. But as I grow in knowledge and in virtue, as I purge away my selfish desires and attachments that keep me from placing God first, I find myself having better dispositions towards the sacraments and being better able to walk the walk. I don’t feel I am earning anything by receiving the Eucharist.
A way of looking at this is by looking at an analogy of our own humanity and someone we love. Take our wives. We pledge our love to them and consummate our vows that first night with sexual love. Does it end there? Don’t I desire to again re-affirm my love, to give of myself to my partner? By giving of myself to her, am I earning love? Love is the giving of oneself, not selfish needs being fulfilled. And in a similar sense, Christ gives of His Body to the Church through the Eucharist. We are to come to re-affirm our love with Him, to be closer to Him, to receive the graces He has promised to us by His indwelling. Thus, we repeat the sacrament over and over – but not to earn anything! We do it out of love and a deep desire to be with the one we love.
I don’t know if I answered all of your questions. If not, please write me. I am happy to help you understand our point of view on God and His love for us.
Brother in Christ