Posted on 12/12/2017 5:34:21 PM PST by marshmallow
This is certainly surprising!
During a recent Friday night service, a pastor at New Life Church, an evangelical Protestant megachurch in Colorado Springs, CO, reportedly led the congregation in something you wouldn’t normally expect: the Sign of the Cross and a prayer of a consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
Redditer /u/MarvelDCgoodwithme, who is Catholic, explained on the /r/Catholicism subreddit that his Protestant mother attends the church and thought the prayer sounded Catholic. So she took pictures of a few of the slides with the prayer, which you can see at the bottom of this article.
And sure enough, it’s a prayer for consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus composed by Pope Leo XIII in 1899! The slides also have a picture of the statue of St. Peter in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican.
“She said it happened after the sermon,” the redditer explained in a private message, “the pastor presented the slides and asked the congregation to read the prayer and if they agreed with it to pray it with him. The pastor also closed his prayers with the sign of the cross.”
We’ve reached out to New Life Church to learn more about their thinking in using the prayer but haven’t yet received a response.
New Life Church was founded in 1984 and has about 10,000 members. It was in the news in the early 2000s when its founding pastor Ted Haggard admitted to using drugs and regularly visiting a male escort. He was also later accused of making unwanted sexual advances on a young man in his 20s at the church. After Haggard was dismissed from his position, the church appointed a new pastor Brady Boyd who has since greatly expand the church’s reach.
(Excerpt) Read more at churchpop.com ...
“Christ didn’t *merit* grace.”
Yes, He did - but it was for us. Have you ever brought this up with a Calvinist? https://www.monergism.com/christ-rightly-and-properly-said-have-merited-grace-and-salvation-us
“Grace can’t be merited and since Jesus never sinned, grace does not kick in for Him.”
Grace can be merited - as God sees fit.
“He IS getting what he deserves.”
And we’re getting what we don’t deserve through His meriting for us.
They are not Evangelicals .
They are apostates .
You are correct MM. I had no questions I needed answers to.
BTW, since I was a career NCO in the US Air Force, I got to carry the gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth, kind of like the Queen of Sheba, who came from the uttermost parts of the earth, to hear the wisdom of Solomon. I was able to lead a couple of VNAF guys to Jesus, when I was at Bien Hoa. Then on to Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, the Philippines, as well as some garden spots in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. 👎
God certainly used the US Air Force to reach out to the world with the gospel. 👍😄
Then blanket *You’re wrong* kinds of posts are a waste of your time.
They prove nothing and certainly don’t do anything to convince someone to seriously consider Catholicism.
If Catholicism, or ANYTHING, can’t be defended, it isn’t worth it.
Christ did not merit grace for us.
He got what He deserved because He was without sin.
We're getting what we don't deserve and even if we could work for it, we still couldn't merit it as Catholics claim people can because all our best works are as filthy rags in God's sight. They are all tainted with sin.
I think I could agree with that. I emailed a former USAF Academy graduate friend of mine, who lives in Colorado Springs if he knew about this. He said he did not, but read the thread, and said he didn’t buy it.
Well and truly stated.
Errors: 1) SkyPilot thinks – according to his own words – that I “think [I am] so high and mighty about” his errors. 2) He says I “don’t even see the folly and sheer inconsistencies of [my] own posts.”
Evidence: 1) As almost always is the case, SkyPilot completely fails to offer evidence for his assertions. I am not being high and mighty about his errors. I am merely systematically documenting them. He asked for a list. He’s getting a list. Thus, doing what SkyPilot says is “high and mighty” apparently. Oh, the irony. 2) There were neither “folly” nor “sheer inconsistence” in any of my posts. Notice, he doesn’t even attempt to document any such “folly” or “sheer inconsistence” and it’s pretty obvious why – there isn’t any.
22) Dec. 13, 2017: “I don’t know you, but has anyone ever told you that you exhibit narcissistic tendencies?”
Errors: SkyPilot apparently confuses documenting his errors with “exhibit[ing] narcissistic tendencies” on my part.
Evidence: This coming from the man who insisted he knows Catholic teaching because he went to CCD and his wife went to a Jesuit college. The narcissism is not mine.
23) Dec. 13, 2017: “And if I posted another laundry list (again) of how wrong you are, you simply will compound your own ignorance of Scripture.”
Error: SkyPilot thinks posting a list of what he thinks are my errors will actually make me more ignorant of Scripture.
Evidence: That’s just illogical. 1) I have never shown any ignorance of Scripture. SkyPilot is once again mistaking his Protestant view of Scripture for the correct view and thereby concluding that anyone who doesn’t have the same view is “ignorant of Scripture”. This error is all the more compounded when you consider his earlier comment about “narcissistic tendencies” for only someone who is ignorant or who had “narcissistic tendencies” would assume a view of Scripture invented by a heretic in the 16th century somehow trumps all previous orthodox interpretations. 24) Dec. 13, 2017: “Thank you for proving and confirming one of the Bible’s greatest passages: Proverbs 26:4-14”
Error: Here SkyPilot makes the claim I am proving and confirming that Proverbs 26:4-14.
Evidence: SkyPilot doesn’t seem to realize that “proving and confirming” the passage would only show he embodies who it describes. Notice, SkyPilot does not say the passage actually refers to me. It refers to him in this situation and I heartily prove and confirm that by documenting his multiple errors.
SkyPilot is now moving toward the inevitable “anti-Catholic takes his ball and goes home” stage. Although he might slog it out just because I just showed how normally predictable they are. In either case, his multiple errors will continue to be documented as they appear.
“Christ did not merit grace for us.”
These Protestants say otherwise. Argue with them:
https://www.monergism.com/christ-rightly-and-properly-said-have-merited-grace-and-salvation-us
“He got what He deserved because He was without sin.”
Actually, He “got what He deserved because He was” obedient to the Father’s will. Hebrews 5:8-10:
“Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.”
After all, He “being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Philippians 2:8)
This is why St. Peter - after explaining how Christ fulfilled all of Israel’s hopes for redemption through His obedience - said, “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (Acts 2:36).
If you’re going to say, “He got what He deserved because He was without sin” then the logical question to ask is: What did the Holy Spirit get since He is without sin as well? Jesus got what He got not because of His sinlessness in itself, but because of His obedience - just as scripture teaches.
“We’re getting what we don’t deserve and even if we could work for it, we still couldn’t merit it as Catholics claim people can because all our best works are as filthy rags in God’s sight. They are all tainted with sin.”
But God’s works aren’t. You should read this:
Paul tells us: “For [God] will reward every man according to his works: to those who by perseverance in working good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. There will be . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality” (Rom. 2:6–11; cf. Gal. 6:6–10).
In the second century, the technical Latin term for “merit” was introduced as a synonym for the Greek word for “reward.” Thus merit and reward are two sides of the same coin.
Protestants often misunderstand the Catholic teaching on merit, thinking that Catholics believe that one must do good works to come to God and be saved. This is exactly the opposite of what the Church teaches. The Council of Trent stressed: “[N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace” (Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6).
The Catholic Church teaches only Christ is capable of meriting in the strict sense—mere man cannot (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2007). The most merit humans can have is condign—when, under the impetus of God’s grace, they perform acts which please him and which he has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10). Thus God’s grace and his promise form the foundation for all human merit (CCC 2008).
Virtually all of this is agreed to by Protestants, who recognize that, under the impetus of God’s grace, Christians do perform acts which are pleasing to God and which God has promised to reward, meaning that they fit the definition of merit. When faced with this, Protestants are forced to admit the truth of the Catholic position—although, contrary to Paul’s command (2 Tim. 2:14), they may still dispute the terminology.
Thus the Lutheran Book of Concord admits: “We are not putting forward an empty quibble about the term ‘reward.’ . . . We grant that eternal life is a reward because it is something that is owed—not because of our merits [in the strict sense] but because of the promise [of God]. We have shown above that justification is strictly a gift of God; it is a thing promised. To this gift the promise of eternal life has been added” (p. 162). https://www.catholic.com/tract/reward-and-merit
Same difference.
You're hair splitting to make a distinction without a difference.
And it didn't prove me wrong either.
That has to be the post of the year.
“Same difference.”
Sinlessness. Obedience. Not the same. You were wrong. The Bible was right. I knew what the Bible said. You apparently didn’t.
“You’re hair splitting to make a distinction without a difference.”
No, I’m just refuting your error.
“And it didn’t prove me wrong either.”
It sure did.
And, as you so often do when you embarrass yourself with an error, you called in the anti-Catholic posse. They can’t save you from the error you already committed.
.
I agree - that is the post of the year.
Also, in the case of works-based religions like Roman Catholicism, God's grace is never enough to save someone. A person who professes Jesus Christ as Savior and who lives in obedience to Him for God's glory has no guarantee of eternal life because, at any moment, he could lose it by committing a "mortal" sin and dying before confession and penance is made. A person's eternal destiny teeters on whether or not he dies with enough grace in his soul gas-tank. This way of thinking minimizes God's grace and places the burden of meriting heaven on the actions of the man. Until that veil of confusion due to pride is lifted, they will not see it. Thanks and praises to God that He opened our eyes!
Catholics can choose to be immersed or to have the water poured over them. Where did you get the idea of just sprinkling?
I did not restrict it to just sprinkling (aspersion) though that was traditionally one of accepted modes for baptism, and I think it was what my uncle (an RC priest) used for me, and thus i can attest it does not effect regeneration, and this mode which i referred to RC (not EO) baptism by has the least correspondence to what it signifies.
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4)
Yet nor do i actually exclude this mode for baptism (which was sometimes used in historical Judaism) in an emergency if done to fulfill the intent of identification with Christ in the His death and resurrection (after all, Richard Wurmbrand relates that some converts in prison were baptized by spit in the absence of anything else), but immersion is what best corresponds to this.
And i knew that Catholicism even allows unbelievers to baptize if using proper form (Trinitarian) and matter in basically intending to do what the Cath. church (imagines) she does.
Nevertheless I should not have used it as representing Catholic baptism (and thank you for your objection) since that mode is hardly used today. While the 1917 version of canon law sanctioned aspersion, current (1983) canon law just states that "Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring; the prescripts of the conference of bishops are to be observed [in observance of the provisions of the Conference of Bishops]" - Can. 854
Yet which language does not mean baptism by sprinkling is invalid though that may no longer be a licit mode.
None of which means the Rome is not picky about how baptism is done. Do you realize what the consequences might be if a convert from a church had been baptized bu there was a defect in the matter or form, or a lack of the requisite intention on the part of minister or recipient, but which was mistakenly affirmed to be valid and the person received Catholic sacraments, including marriage?
Then you have those in RC sects (formal or informal) who express that they have compared teachings of (modern) Catholicism to the teachings of (past) Catholicism and found them incompatible, and have chosen to follow past popes (as "true" Catholics in the "one true church") and Jesus instead of modern popes in their "one true church."
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.