Replies

Thanks for your answers. I think I understand where you are coming from on this a lot better.

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

Sorry for my delay, I spent six hours today engaging a different American religion. SWEET!!!!!!!!

That way, we can focus on the upcoming battle vs. our own society, the real enemy, in my opinion.

I hear you, brother and Amen! Well put.

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.

I suppose I never thought of gnostics as beings Chrisitans because I thought they were older (and how wrong they were). I thought similarly of the Judaizers, but when I just looked them up, it appears they may be considered "Christians". I had no idea about any issues with orthodoxy at the beginning. Thanks for the history and verses.

... and furthermore, it [the idea that Christianity fundamentally changed within one generation] doesn’t take into account Christ’s OWN words – that the Spirit would guide the Church into all Truth!

Well, the Spirit certainly isn't going to make any mistakes, but since humans are involved we will. The Spirit guides, but humans will definitely blow it. I think we would both admit that it has happened for each of our sides. By no means do I claim that every aspect of my faith (doctrinally) is necessarily perfect just because I believe it. I would expect to be found ultimately wrong on some things. I'm just betting they won't be huge things. :) Since God never promises us that we will always follow Him faithfully, it can be difficult to know what is correct when error is inevitable.

I'm afraid that we're going to have to agree to disagree about men forgiving sins. :) Your references to Mark 2 appear to say only that if Jesus, as God-MAN, can forgive sins, that fully human men should be able to also, if given the ability by God. I don't believe it was the human authority in Jesus that was forgiving sins, it was the God authority, which He fully held. This was the point and revelation of the story.

You did not address my point about how a person can forgive sin if he has not been wronged? If I hurt my neighbor, I hurt him and God, how can you (or a priest) forgive me? Both my neighbor and God can forgive me, but not another man. In addition, following Mark 2:7, why does Jesus rely on the truth of the "error" to show He is claiming to be God?

You quoted: “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.

I suppose I would have to disagree that on men (who are not God) forgiving sins, the meaning is plain. I assume you are keying in on "unto men" (plural). Since the crowd had never recognized the authority of any man to forgive sin before, they must have been only been thinking of this one man. I don't see anything in this companion passage that even hints that other (non-God) men would ever be given such authority. How could the crowd have concluded that other people would be given this authority? They were starting from nothing and were witnessing miracles from one man, and only one man. Nothing in their background had ever suggested that "a man" could forgive sin. Thus, they were amazed.

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

In my NIV, the word "saved" is "well", as in being physically well. Are you saying that a prayer from a clergy can save another man? I don't think I've heard you say that before, but that is the only interpretation that goes along with the final clause being read as that the praying clergy (elders) can forgive sin. Also, there is absolutely no mention or implied requirement of confession here. This verse simply says that the prayer of faith on behalf of the sick man will cause his sins to be forgiven. NO CONFESSION. If so, then why does the clergy not simply pray for all who are physically or spiritually sick to be forgiven sin?

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.

OK, this is brand new to me, and I'll just take your word for it, and it's all good. I KNOW that I've been told by others that salvation is partly achieved through the fulfillment of the sacraments. I'm sure this has much to do with the whole "salvation by works" business.

So, if I'm reading you correctly, final salvation is ultimately determined by initial salvation, the (Godly) love of a person throughout life, and whether the person abided in God during life. (You see me licking my chops, right? LOL!)

It would appear, then, that we agree that a man must be first saved (we disagree on the means, but agree that it must happen). This is no big deal. Every Protestant I know has been baptized, and I don't know why every Catholic wouldn't have asked Jesus into his/her heart, etc. Second and third, we must have Godly love in our hearts and abide in Christ. We completely agree. My side says the ability to do this comes only from God, and yours says it is a cooperation between man and God (free-will). Is this a huge deal? We both agree that this is the portrait of an ultimately saved man before God. Isn't that the most important thing?

God bless.