Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

BereanBeacon.Org ^ | Richard Peter Bennett

[Iscool]

I never did go to a church that practiced foot washing. I've heard of them, but never had the uh,... pleasure.....

A very humbling experience...

[Salvation]

Yes!

Matthew 25
31	"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
32	Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
33	and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
34	Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
35	for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
36	I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
37	Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
38	And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
39	And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
40	And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
41	Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
42	for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43	I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
44	Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'
45	Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'
46	And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

[Salvation]

Obviously, you have taken part in this ceremony of Holy Thursday at a Protestant Church or attended a Catholic Mass on Holy Thursday. Which is it?

[Salvation]

So when, during Holy Week, is the altar stripped and the Holy Eucharist removed from the Sanctuary?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Better. 8~)

[mlizzy]

They throw the kitchen sink and all the garbage against a wall and expect us just to give them a pass.

Indeed! Christ knows how many hairs we have on our heads, so He certainly sees this thread as well; surely He cannot be happy when Christians of other denominations use His Word all CAPPED and COLORED and BOLDED like loud screeching daggers against the Catholic faith, when He Himself is only Love.

[count-your-change]

Yes, I can see the dichotomy. It appears to be similar to to ordering from The Columbia Record Club.

[wagglebee]

I believe, though I may be wrong, that the washing of the feet is part of the Holy Thursday services in many Anglican, Lutheran and Methodist churches.

[the_conscience]

So, is this the Westminster Catechism's way of acknowledging that YOPIOS doesn't work?

I'm not sure if the people who put together the Catechism had to deal with silly people using silly acrynoms? No doubt they had to deal with silly Romanists who accused them falsely of believing in many intepretations. But if you would slow down and actually read what they said for themselves you wouldn't have to keep asking me these questions:

...full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one)

Is this another way of saying that the YOPIOS crowd believes what they think supports their theology and redacts what doesn't?

I'm not a member of the YOPIOS crowd so I can't speak for what they believe in this regard.

Yet the Westminister Catechism itself interpretes Scripture and EVERY Christian bookstore is full of countless, and often contradictory, interpretations of Scripture.

My goodness. I'm not sure I can simplify this any further. Not all things in the Bible are clear and need interpretation but what is necessary for salvation is clear without needing an interpreter. It's not all or nothing.

This sounds suspiciously like Scripture AND tradition.

Speaking only for the Reformed, we don't have a problem with tradition. We have a problem with TRADITION.

[don-o]

I believe, though I may be wrong, that the washing of the feet is part of the Holy Thursday services in many Anglican, Lutheran and Methodist churches.

And the Orthodox!

[small voice in the wilderness]

You know that God is no respector of persons, don't you? "For all have sinned, and come short the glory of God." "There is none good, no not one." We are ALL lost, unless we accept the finished work of Christ to save us. God said it was enough. He could not have raised Christ from the dead if the penalty of sin had not been paid in full. If there was even one sin that Christ did not die for, He would still be paying that price: "The penalty for sin is death. But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ."

That said, before salvation, we all stand before God, condemned. We are all lost. If the free gift of grace through faith in the finished work of Christ is not accepted, then we remain lost. No matter what good intentions we have, good works, following the law, etc. we remain lost.

And that is Satan's intent. If you are lost, Satan's goal is to keep you lost. Blinding you to the truth, deafening your ears to God's Word, and making you feel confident in your works.

This applies to everyone. God is no respector of persons. IF I am lost, I am no better or worse than Fr. John Corapi, is no better/worse than you/ than Mother Theresa/than Obama/than my neighbor/than Peter/than Madonna/than Hitler/than Paul/than etc. EVERYONE.

It may not sound fair. But it is just. Because He died for ALL. And He only had to die ONCE, for all sin, FOREVER.

[wagglebee]

I knew the Orthodox did, I was just pointing out that many mainstream Protestant denominations do as well.

Protestants seem to have this attitude or “only Catholics do/believe that” regarding certain things; however, the ONLY thing I have found that Protestants are in complete agreement on is their rejection of the papacy.

[Iscool]

His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Apparently that's why your religion came up with it's own man-made tradition...

The Gospel of Grace was a mystery, revealed to Paul, and it's still a mystery to you guys...

[wagglebee]

I'm not sure if the people who put together the Catechism had to deal with silly people using silly acrynoms? No doubt they had to deal with silly Romanists who accused them falsely of believing in many intepretations. But if you would slow down and actually read what they said for themselves you wouldn't have to keep asking me these questions

Let me see if I can make this clearer, if "sola scriptura" was valid, these Catechisms and other interpretations would not be necessary.

I'm not a member of the YOPIOS crowd so I can't speak for what they believe in this regard.

So, you reject "sola scriptura"?

My goodness. I'm not sure I can simplify this any further. Not all things in the Bible are clear and need interpretation but what is necessary for salvation is clear without needing an interpreter.

Why are these unnecessary parts in there?

It's not all or nothing.

Oh? Which parts can we omit?

Speaking only for the Reformed, we don't have a problem with tradition. We have a problem with TRADITION.

So you believe that 16th century man-made tradition is valid, but Apostolic tradition is invalid?

[small voice in the wilderness]

May I just add an AMEN to your post.

It was a mystery, hid in God, from the foundation of the world.

Meaning, no one knew it until Paul. Meaning Peter and the 11 did not know it before Paul was given the message. And if Peter didn't know, it isn't 'knowable' to many RCs. Therefore the Gospel of Grace is not taught as the gospel that saves in the RC Church. They teach the gospel Peter was given. The Gospel of the Kingdom. And it isn't the same gospel.

Thank you Iscool, for your very important points.

[Iscool]

Obviously, you have taken part in this ceremony of Holy Thursday at a Protestant Church or attended a Catholic Mass on Holy Thursday. Which is it?

Protestant...

[the_conscience]

Let me see if I can make this clearer, if "sola scriptura" was valid, these Catechisms and other interpretations would not be necessary.

Nope. But if one misconstrues the doctrine into a silly acronym then that person only begins with a false premise to try and justify a false conclusion.

So, you reject "sola scriptura"?

Absolutely not. I reject false premises.

Why are these unnecessary parts in there?

Unnecessary for what?

Oh? Which parts can we omit?

I'm not a remedial reading teacher. If one can't tie a sentence to it's referent they should seek a professional who can teach them to do so.

So you believe that 16th century man-made tradition is valid, but Apostolic tradition is invalid?

I believe the Reformation returned the Church to it's apostolic roots. Those roots which the Romanist Church had systematically destroyed through speculative philosophies.

[trisham]

So you believe that 16th century man-made tradition is valid, but Apostolic tradition is invalid?

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

Excellent question, which imho, perfectly illustrates how inconsistent some of these beliefs really are.

[wagglebee]

But if one misconstrues the doctrine into a silly acronym then that person only begins with a false premise to try and justify a false conclusion.

So, it's fine to use words like "Romanist" and "Papist" but one can't make acronyms for 16th century inventions?

Absolutely not. I reject false premises.

If you reject false premises, sola scriptura would be the place to start. Even Martin Luther expressed grave reservations about it toward the end.

Unnecessary for what?

In post 1369 you wrote:

Not all things in the Bible are clear and need interpretation but what is necessary for salvation is clear without needing an interpreter.

So, I am simply asking about the "unnecessary" parts; the use of the word necessary typically presumes that there are also portions which are not necessary.

I'm not a remedial reading teacher. If one can't tie a sentence to it's referent they should seek a professional who can teach them to do so.

Perhaps the problem is with your comprehension and not what I wrote. Here is what you said in post 1369:

It's not all or nothing.

If a person says "it's not all or nothing," it typically means that some parts are optional.

I believe the Reformation returned the Church to it's apostolic roots.

Can you show where the Apostles taught sola scriptura? Can you explain how sola scriptura was even possible prior to the invention of the printing press?

[mlizzy]

You know that God is no respector of persons, don't you?

I do not know what "respector of persons" means. But seeing Mother Teresa of Calcutta and Fr. John Corapi in the same sentence as Obama, Madonna, and Hitler, seems disrespectful, no matter what the context. You obviously believe what you state in regard to salvation, but Christ's suffering was not to free your hide, just by stating "I am saved! I am saved!" If one wants to get to heaven, they should work their backsides off as Our Lord and Savior wishes them to do (ask for a task; if you are sincere, He'll give you one).