anti-Catholic or not?

[RileyG]

The rubrics of the Mass link the meaning of the fraction to the commingling, stating: “Meanwhile, [the priest] takes the host and breaks it over the paten. He places a small piece in the chalice, saying inaudibly: 'May this mingling of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ bring eternal life to us who receive it.

Why do priests add water and bread to the communion wine?

As early as the fourth century, catechists explained that the water represented humanity and the wine, divinity.

uscatholic.org

As an altar server, I loved noticing all the details many of the faithful miss.

It’s also my understanding when he drops the small particle into the chalice, he’s doing it union with his bishop and the pope? I remember learning that several years ago.

 

[Sunflower39]

She’s Anglican. I wonder if they always take the host and chalice? I really don’t know.

In my (very conservative) diocese the precious blood is only offered to the faithful on special feast days. Unless one is celiac, then they can receive the most precious blood only.

Yes, we always take both the host and the chalice. I could receive by intinction as that’s an option too but I prefer to drink from the chalice as it seems more proper to me.

 

[Sunflower39]

As an altar server, I loved noticing all the details many of the faithful miss.

It’s also my understanding when he drops the small particle into the chalice, he’s doing it union with his bishop and the pope? I remember learning that several years ago.

I’m an altar server in my church. I’ve only done it a few times so far though.
Did you receive any training before becoming an altar server? At my church, I was just thrown into it without any preparation, and I was really nervous that I might mess something up. Thankfully, I didn’t but that first time was so scary.

Are women allowed to be altar servers in your church? I know some churches, mainly Catholic ones (I think) don’t allow female altar servers.

 

[KevinT]

Would you agree the Bible has all the answers regarding spiritual matters, and things pertaining to God?

I'm not sure how to answer this. I believe that the Bible has all the information needed for our salvation. I see salvation as the process of God coming into one's life and turning our hearts of stone such that we can love and learn even more of our wonderful Savior. And the Bible is a key tool that God uses. But is that the ONLY tool that God uses? When you ask if the Bible has ALL the answers, are you implying that there are no answers that might be given outside the Bible? That the vast domain of God's wisdom and knowledge and ability to intervene is confined to just that which has been written down in the Bible? Let's say that someone is in deep depression and feeling that God has abandoned them. Imagine next that God impresses a believer to give that person a helpful word of encouragement. And from there they are led step by step back into the light. In my mind, this act from God is consistent with the principles of the Bible, but it was also an answer they needed that wasn't exactly "in" the Bible.

Consider also that they Bible has many things that are objectively vague. Just look at all the debates here on this forum where people come to different understandings of doctrine. There are many things that are just not clarified in the Bible. We have to have faith that God will reveal what is needed in time and not stress when things are not 100% clear. This is another example that the Bible doesn't have "all the answers." That is to say that the answer for every possible question that could be raised is NOT provided in the Bible. But we DO have enough information to go forward. Doubting Thomas had questions about the resurrection of Jesus. He wanted direct physical proof by touching Jesus, and Jesus graciously provided this for him. But also commended those who would believe without such proof. So, likewise, the Bible does not have "all the answers" to every possible question of objection.

Do you understand what I'm trying to get at?

If Jesus is gathering sheep into his pen, and instead of responding to the shepherds voice, one start to but and stubbornly refuse, that is a goat, is it not?

I agree. But I have frankly lost the thread of the significance of this statement or what led up to it. Sorry.

Best wishes,
KT

 

[CoreyD]

I'm not sure how to answer this. I believe that the Bible has all the information needed for our salvation. I see salvation as the process of God coming into one's life and turning our hearts of stone such that we can love and learn even more of our wonderful Savior. And the Bible is a key tool that God uses. But is that the ONLY tool that God uses? When you ask if the Bible has ALL the answers, are you implying that there are no answers that might be given outside the Bible? That the vast domain of God's wisdom and knowledge and ability to intervene is confined to just that which has been written down in the Bible? Let's say that someone is in deep depression and feeling that God has abandoned them. Imagine next that God impresses a believer to give that person a helpful word of encouragement. And from there they are led step by step back into the light. In my mind, this act from God is consistent with the principles of the Bible, but it was also an answer they needed that wasn't exactly "in" the Bible.

Consider also that they Bible has many things that are objectively vague. Just look at all the debates here on this forum where people come to different understandings of doctrine. There are many things that are just not clarified in the Bible. We have to have faith that God will reveal what is needed in time and not stress when things are not 100% clear. This is another example that the Bible doesn't have "all the answers." That is to say that the answer for every possible question that could be raised is NOT provided in the Bible. But we DO have enough information to go forward. Doubting Thomas had questions about the resurrection of Jesus. He wanted direct physical proof by touching Jesus, and Jesus graciously provided this for him. But also commended those who would believe without such proof. So, likewise, the Bible does not have "all the answers" to every possible question of objection.

Do you understand what I'm trying to get at?

I understand what you are saying, Kevin, but perhaps I am not clear because I went a bit broad instead of specific.
Let me try specific, and see how that goes.

Based on the tree scriptures I quoted - 2 Timothy 3:16, 17; 1 Timothy 2:3, 4; John 8:31, 32, when it comes to knowing God's view on doctrinal matters, regarding whether or not something should be accepted or not, does the Bible give us the answer, so that we know the truth of the matter?

Sorry about the confusion I caused you.
Thanks for being patient in answering.

I agree. But I have frankly lost the thread of the significance of this statement or what led up to it. Sorry.

Best wishes,
KT

That's okay. I don't mind reminding you, since this may help in understanding my question better.
I want to highlight the parts that are specific, and of interest.

In post #2, you said...

One particular issue my denomination has faced has been the ordination of female pastors. Church conferences on the west coast of the US have gone forward with the practice. But many more conservative conferences in Latin America do not feel this is right. There have been meetings between the conferences, but I don't think a unified resolution has come out yet. I try to stay away from such politics. This particular issue is felt to not be sufficient to cause a split in the way that the United Methodist church recently split. So perhaps my denomination is doing an OK job of trying to be flexible, and meet people's needs, but not tear itself apart.​

​

A deeper questions would be, how SHOULD these things be sorted out? In the first recorded meeting of the Christian church, at the Council of Jerusalem, they gathered and debated the issue of circumcision etc. Ultimately a resolution was established, though perhaps all did not agree. This seems like a reasonable solution. And it is all these accumulated synods that make up Catholic traditional teaching. Much of it good, but I feel not all.​

​

I don't have all the answers. Ultimately, if we are sheep and Jesus is our shepherd and leader, then He may lead his flock in circuitous paths. If any establishment decides that they have it all figured out, and circles the wagons around their established "truth", there are going to be problems when God has new plans.​

I did say before, I appreciate your honesty - that is, in admitting that you do not have the all answers in this matter.
My question was to prompt you to think about what you said, and consider if the Bible can help.
My other comment was to get you thinking on something that Jesus actually said, at John 10:27

I'll like to comment on what you said here, in the last statement, by drawing your attention to what you said earlier...

In the first recorded meeting of the Christian church, at the Council of Jerusalem, they gathered and debated the issue of circumcision etc. Ultimately a resolution was established...

The reason there were no problems, is because during the "Counsel" of the first century, the scriptures were used, along with testimony of the apostles, and the holy spirit - God's guidance, and direction was involved.
Therefore, any "new plan" of God, would be followed by Jesus' sheep, using the same procedure.

The result was also unity, peace, and great encouragement among the brothers. The reason being, all complied to the decision.
Acts 15:22-32

The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers​

22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:​

​

The apostles and elders, your brothers,​

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:​

Greetings.​

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.​

Farewell.​

30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers.​

Even if some were a little uncertain, they did not cause disunity, but worked for the peace and unity in the congregation.
Scriptural matters are never a political issue, Kevin. They are spiritual matters, related to God, and truth.

As was evident in the first century, God is very much involved in spiritual matters, and the unity among Jesus' sheep.

 

[KevinT]

I understand what you are saying, Kevin, but perhaps I am not clear because I went a bit broad instead of specific.
Let me try specific, and see how that goes.

I'm going to split your post into two separate replies.

Based on the three scriptures I quoted - 2 Timothy 3:16, 17; 1 Timothy 2:3, 4; John 8:31, 32,

I'll print out these texts for reference.

2 Tim 3: 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Scripture is inspired and useful. I agree with this. It doesn't say that scripture is all inclusive however.

1 Tim 2: 2 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

God wants people to come to a knowledge of the truth. I agree with this. But God's truth is much larger than human minds can understand, so we can't just read the Bible and claim to know "ALL Truth."

John 8: 31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

If Jesus's disciples follow Him they will learn the truth. Jesus, after his resurrection, appeared to Paul and sent him to the Gentiles. Further light was revealed through Paul that had not yet been revealed at the time Jesus spoke in John 8. So yes we should follow His teaching, but that teaching, as written in the Gospels, was not all inclusive.

...when it comes to knowing God's view on doctrinal matters, regarding whether or not something should be accepted or not, does the Bible give us the answer, so that we know the truth of the matter? ...

Sorry about the confusion I caused you. Thanks for being patient in answering.

I know this is counterintuitive, but I am still going to say a qualified "No." I know this is alarming, but hear me out.

If I were to say "Yes,", then it means that God would never be allowed to say something new. As above, think about how Paul taught that Gentiles were to be accepted into the Kingdom of God without a requirement of circumcision. That was something completely new. Yes, one can now go back into prior teaching and pull threads here and there that are supportive. But if the Pharisees at the time had looked into the scriptures as they had to that point, they would have said NO to this idea, and declared it against God's teaching. But the Holy Spirit was miraculously supportive of their mission, and so Paul and his companions were able to justify their actions and thus found any support at the Council of Jerusalem.

So what I am understanding you to ask is if every doctrine can be determined true or false by turning to an existing text in the Bible? And for right now, I agree that we SHOULD base every doctrine on Bible teaching. But it may not always be so. For example, smoking tobacco is estimated to cause 8 million early deaths every year worldwide. Source. Imagine if God wanted to let people know that they should stay away from this poison, and thus sent a message through a prophet. I can hear people replying now, "This guy is a fraud. There is nothing in the Bible that says I can't smoke." And they would be right. We could talk about our bodies being the temple of God, but nothing directly against smoking.

If God chooses to say something new, it will be compatible with prior teaching. He is not going to say that now it is OK to murder or covet a neighbor's possessions. We are told to test the spirits and to be as wise as serpents. And God has always given sufficient evidence that a prophet may be seen for what they are. We are not to fall for just any false prophet.

So sorry for beating all around the bush. Do you see where I am coming from?

Best wishes,

KT

 

[KevinT]

I don't mind reminding you, since this may help in understanding my question better.
I want to highlight the parts that are specific, and of interest.

OK

In post #2, you said...

One particular issue my denomination has faced has been the ordination of female pastors. Church conferences on the west coast of the US have gone forward with the practice. But many more conservative conferences in Latin America do not feel this is right. There have been meetings between the conferences, but I don't think a unified resolution has come out yet. I try to stay away from such politics. This particular issue is felt to not be sufficient to cause a split in the way that the United Methodist church recently split. So perhaps my denomination is doing an OK job of trying to be flexible, and meet people's needs, but not tear itself apart.​

​

A deeper questions would be, how SHOULD these things be sorted out? In the first recorded meeting of the Christian church, at the Council of Jerusalem, they gathered and debated the issue of circumcision etc. Ultimately a resolution was established, though perhaps all did not agree. This seems like a reasonable solution. And it is all these accumulated synods that make up Catholic traditional teaching. Much of it good, but I feel not all.​

​

I don't have all the answers. Ultimately, if we are sheep and Jesus is our shepherd and leader, then He may lead his flock in circuitous paths. If any establishment decides that they have it all figured out, and circles the wagons around their established "truth", there are going to be problems when God has new plans.​

My other comment was to get you thinking on something that Jesus actually said, at John 10:27

John 10:27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

...
The reason there were no problems, is because during the "Counsel" of the first century, the scriptures were used, along with testimony of the apostles, and the holy spirit - God's guidance, and direction was involved.
Therefore, any "new plan" of God, would be followed by Jesus' sheep, using the same procedure.

Corey, I don't know your denomination, so I don't know exactly where you are coming from. It sounds like you are writing in support of the Church Fathers. The first church council in Jerusalem was addressing a new problem (how to handle Gentiles and circumcision), and they made a decision that seemed good to them and to the Holy Spirit. So why would this not be true for the 2nd council, and the 3rd etc, on and on until we get to the latest decision by the Catholic church? I guess my concern is from what Paul wrote:

Acts 20:29
I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.

There have been reformers all through time. The famous one for Protestantism is Martin Luther. He wrote extensively and one may point back to what he believed and feel that he has a deeper truth than, for example, what a pastor might preach today. But I don't agree with everything he wrote, nor do I with John Calvin or any number of other past theologians. Even in my own SDA denomination, there were past thinkers and writers who were earnestly seeking God's truth. But that doesn't mean I can turn my mind off and swallow their teaching blindly.

I'm not sure if I am off base to what you are getting to, so I'll move on.

The result was also unity, peace, and great encouragement among the brothers. The reason being, all complied to the decision.
Acts 15:22-32 The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers ...
Even if some were a little uncertain, they did not cause disunity, but worked for the peace and unity in the congregation.

Agreed

Scriptural matters are never a political issue, Kevin. They are spiritual matters, related to God, and truth.

Something is "political" if it involves coming to a decision that makes all the people happy. And I see what you mean about God's truth being really different than making people temporarily happy. But I think in some areas, God does give us leeway. One example might be as to if women must keep their heads covered. Some congregations insist on this, others don't. I think the original command from Paul was related to women acting with propriety, and that means different things in different communities. Before I gave the example from my church about female pastors. I honestly think it can be a right thing to do in some places in the world, but not others.

But I get where you are coming from.

As was evident in the first century, God is very much involved in spiritual matters, and the unity among Jesus' sheep.

I know from scriptures that God was very active during the life of Paul. After that I am not sure. Paul apparently died in about 65 AD, and Jerusalem was sacked in AD 70. So I am not sure about after that. But I agree that during the first part of the first century, the Bible records God's activity. I would assume that it continued for a time. But God doesn't seem to be active in the same way today, and I am not sure when our current quiet period began.

Sorry to be contrarian.

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

[CoreyD]

I'm going to split your post into two separate replies.

I'll print out these texts for reference.

That's good.

Scripture is inspired and useful. I agree with this. It doesn't say that scripture is all inclusive however.

Can you tell me what it is useful for, and what correcting and disciplining /training in righteousness mean to you. Also how does the man become fully equipped for every good work (what that means)?

God wants people to come to a knowledge of the truth. I agree with this. But God's truth is much larger than human minds can understand, so we can't just read the Bible and claim to know "ALL Truth."

Of course, reading the Bible is not what God asks us to do, in order to know truth.
If I wanted to learn science, and I picked up a science book and read it, is that what is required of me to know science? No.
Would I not have to study under the guide of science educators, to know science, and then be in a position to not only understand it, but teach it?

Does the Bible contain the truth God wants all men to know? The scriptures says "Yes". No doubt about that. Even if we disagree, that does not change what the Bible says.
However, as above, we need to study and be taught. John 6:45

We are taught by God's ministers. Those commissioned by God, who have been entrusted with God's holy spirit, which the Bible refers to as "the Spirit of truth". John 14:17, and says that this works in conjunction with the scriptures. John 14:26; John 16:13-15

We are not talking about absolute truth here, hich only belongs to God. We are being reasonable, and talking about the truth God wants mankind to know. God does not want mankind to know everything he knows, because God knows that that is an impossible, hence, unrealistic expectation. Ecclesiastes 3:11; 1 Corinthians 2:16

If Jesus's disciples follow Him they will learn the truth. Jesus, after his resurrection, appeared to Paul and sent him to the Gentiles. Further light was revealed through Paul that had not yet been revealed at the time Jesus spoke in John 8. So yes we should follow His teaching, but that teaching, as written in the Gospels, was not all inclusive.

Recall the day of Pentecost 33 AD.
Remember... Jesus poured out the promised holy spirit, and what happened?
Read Acts 2:14-21. Peter, under the guidance of holy spirit, spoke, and quoted from where... The prophet Joel. Joel 2:28-32

Let's return to the decision the body made, in Acts 15.
Acts 15:14-18
14 Simon has told us how God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people to be His own.
15 The words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written: 16 ‘After this I will return and rebuild the fallen tent of David. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,

This was James speaking, quoting Amos 9:11, 12
So, Jesus apostles did have the scriptures, which contained truth.
The understanding of these truths though, were what was revealed. That occured through the holy spirit teaching them, and bringing to their mind the holy scriptures.

It is similar to when Jesus was with his followers. He taught them many things, but remember they did not understand a lot, until later.
So, yes, light is shed on what is available, and it becomes clearer... but never... never is it a "new plan" by God. What is in scripture is God's "plan".
A revealing of that "plan" is made clearer, by holy spirit shedding light on the scriptures.

I know this is counterintuitive, but I am still going to say a qualified "No." I know this is alarming, but hear me out.

It's not alarming Kevin.
I am not a person who expects you to see things as I do.
Don't worry. I really appreciate hearing your thoughts, even if they are different to mine.

If I were to say "Yes,", then it means that God would never be allowed to say something new. As above, think about how Paul taught that Gentiles were to be accepted into the Kingdom of God without a requirement of circumcision. That was something completely new.

Do you mean new to their understanding?
It was new to their understanding, because the prophets had already stated this - that the Jews as a nation would not be Israel, and that there would be a new nation, which included Gentiles, that would be under the new covenant, rather than the old, with its mandate on circumcision.
This was all in scripture.

Their understanding of it, was made clear.
Even after Jesus' death, the apostles had to be reminded that this was prophesied, and Jesus even had to use those scriptures, to explain to the two disciples walking along the road.
Remember?

God does not change. God had everything his people needed, written down.

Yes, one can now go back into prior teaching and pull threads here and there that are supportive. But if the Pharisees at the time had looked into the scriptures as they had to that point, they would have said NO to this idea, and declared it against God's teaching. But the Holy Spirit was miraculously supportive of their mission, and so Paul and his companions were able to justify their actions and thus found any support at the Council of Jerusalem.

I think you meant Jews who became Christian. They were not Pharisees. A little leaven ferments the whole lump.
The holy spirit played a role, in helping the brothers recall, and use the scriptures. Acts 15:13-21
The scriptures, as i mentioned, contained God's "plan". The understanding was now revealed through the evidence God showed through Simon Peter, and Paul and Barnabas. Acts 15:12

So what I am understanding you to ask is if every doctrine can be determined true or false by turning to an existing text in the Bible? And for right now, I agree that we SHOULD base every doctrine on Bible teaching. But it may not always be so. For example, smoking tobacco is estimated to cause 8 million early deaths every year worldwide. Source. Imagine if God wanted to let people know that they should stay away from this poison, and thus sent a message through a prophet. I can hear people replying now, "This guy is a fraud. There is nothing in the Bible that says I can't smoke." And they would be right. We could talk about our bodies being the temple of God, but nothing directly against smoking.

I will see how you respond to my first question.
I'll also like to ask, do you believe there are principles in the Bible, and we do not need to have a law for every decision, but Bible principle still give us God's view?
What did Paul mean at Hebrews 5:12-14?

If God chooses to say something new, it will be compatible with prior teaching. He is not going to say that now it is OK to murder or covet a neighbor's possessions. We are told to test the spirits and to be as wise as serpents. And God has always given sufficient evidence that a prophet may be seen for what they are. We are not to fall for just any false prophet.

It seems you are agreeing that we should use the scriptures as a guide to everything we do, and yet... I'm not sure.

So sorry for beating all around the bush. Do you see where I am coming from?

Best wishes,

KT

I get you Kevin. I am able to follow you... well, almost clearly.
Just not sure if you are sure.

 

[CoreyD]

OK

Corey, I don't know your denomination, so I don't know exactly where you are coming from. It sounds like you are writing in support of the Church Fathers. The first church council in Jerusalem was addressing a new problem (how to handle Gentiles and circumcision), and they made a decision that seemed good to them and to the Holy Spirit.

Or was it, how to preserve unity in the congregation, with those who were "testing God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?" Acts 15:10

The Church did not have an issue with the Gentiles and circumcision.
The apostles were already following God's leadings, through holy spirit.
It was the Jews who converted from the Pharisees, who were threatening the unity of the brothers. Acts 15:1

So why would this not be true for the 2nd council, and the 3rd etc, on and on until we get to the latest decision by the Catholic church? I guess my concern is from what Paul wrote:

The thread is titled "Anti-Catholic Or Not".
You are obviously not, but why do you believe the Catholic Church is the Church?

There have been reformers all through time. The famous one for Protestantism is Martin Luther. He wrote extensively and one may point back to what he believed and feel that he has a deeper truth than, for example, what a pastor might preach today. But I don't agree with everything he wrote, nor do I with John Calvin or any number of other past theologians. Even in my own SDA denomination, there were past thinkers and writers who were earnestly seeking God's truth. But that doesn't mean I can turn my mind off and swallow their teaching blindly.

We all do not agree with denominations. Which is interesting, considering how we feel about Christianity.

I'm not sure if I am off base to what you are getting to, so I'll move on.

No problem.

Agreed

Something is "political" if it involves coming to a decision that makes all the people happy. And I see what you mean about God's truth being really different than making people temporarily happy. But I think in some areas, God does give us leeway. One example might be as to if women must keep their heads covered. Some congregations insist on this, others don't. I think the original command from Paul was related to women acting with propriety, and that means different things in different communities. Before I gave the example from my church about female pastors. I honestly think it can be a right thing to do in some places in the world, but not others.

Notice, you said, "I think".
Would you say you are interested in what God thinks, and do you think we can get God's view on this, from the scriptures?

But I get where you are coming from.

Are you sure Kevin? I don't think you really do.
It's more like you hear me... but...

If you got where I am coming from, you would not take it so lightly.
This is really a matter of true or false; God's approval, or disapproval; life or death.

I know from scriptures that God was very active during the life of Paul. After that I am not sure. Paul apparently died in about 65 AD, and Jerusalem was sacked in AD 70. So I am not sure about after that. But I agree that during the first part of the first century, the Bible records God's activity. I would assume that it continued for a time. But God doesn't seem to be active in the same way today, and I am not sure when our current quiet period began.

Words fail me.
I'll find some , though.

Jesus - the foremost apostle; Hebrews 3:1 The 12 apostles, and disciples; Paul the apostle...
They all had something in common that is not found in the Roman Catholic Church.

If you really want to see God's activity, look for that.
I can give you a hint. It involve the activity of holy spirit, which first settled upon Jesus, and then on his followers.
Thereafter, they were actively involved in the will of God.
Here is a verse that further hints on the pattern. Acts 1:8

Sorry to be contrarian.

Best wishes,

Kevin

Will you please stop apologizing. I love it!
If you agreed with me, I would have to go outside, and take a look up to the heavens to see, if the sun or moon was standing still.

Thanks Kevin.

 

[Valletta]

I’m an altar server in my church. I’ve only done it a few times so far though.
Did you receive any training before becoming an altar server? At my church, I was just thrown into it without any preparation, and I was really nervous that I might mess something up. Thankfully, I didn’t but that first time was so scary.

Are women allowed to be altar servers in your church? I know some churches, mainly Catholic ones (I think) don’t allow female altar servers.

The Catholic churches in my area allow female altar servers.

 

[The Liturgist]

Indeed, Luther would have had far worse things to say about many Protestants today than he would have ever said about Rome.

Indeed, he was, to put it mildly, extremely critical of the Anabaptists, to an extent that greatly exceeded even his more colorful criticisms of the Bishop of Rome, which also by the way appear to be directed at the particular holders of the office at that time, and not at the office in general, in contrast to the later extreme we see in documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith.

And attacks on the office of the Bishop of Rome are problematic, because historically, there was a long period in which the Roman church was simply one of the major autocephalous (ecclesiastically sovereign) churches, along with the churches of Antioch, Alexandria, and later also Constantinople and Jerusalem).

 

[The Liturgist]

In the monastery that was attached to my college, I always received both the host and precious blood during daily mass. I was never worried about the sisters’ germs, my immune system is strong enough

(I graduated six years ago)

In the Orthodox Church we believe it to be impossible to get a disease from the Eucharist.

 

[The Liturgist]

A deeper questions would be, how SHOULD these things be sorted out? In the first recorded meeting of the Christian church, at the Council of Jerusalem, they gathered and debated the issue of circumcision etc. Ultimately a resolution was established, though perhaps all did not agree. This seems like a reasonable solution. And it is all these accumulated synods that make up Catholic traditional teaching. Much of it good, but I feel not all.

The first seven ecumenical synods, with the exception of the fourth, were primarily Eastern Orthodox synods with only a slight Roman Catholic representation present, and the first three synods had the active participation of the Oriental Orthodox, while the fifth through seventh arrived at decisions the Oriental Orthodox agreed with. But Rome of course assented to all of these synods. Thus, they represent the universal consensus of the Christian church as it existed at that time, since the long-term schisms that now dominate the church did not exist, and only four distinct groups* can be identified which were Nicene Christians, as opposed to Docetics, Dualists, Sabellians, Montanists, Arians, Manicheans, and other ancient cults, most of which wound up being converted either to Christianity or to Islam.

The last such group to be converted were the Paulicans of Armenia, whose members were successfully evangalized in the 19th century. Some Landmark Baptists believe the Paulicans were proto-Protestants, but we actually have a book of Paulican scripture, the Book of Keys, and it is not something I think most Protestants would be remotely comfortable with.

At any rate, insofar as these initial ecumenical councils represented the consensus of the four ancient churches, generally speaking, with disagreements over three of them, and also a secondary synod known as the Quinisext Council or the Council of Trullo, but other than that, agreement, and insofar as this consensus was embraced on all key points by the major Protestant reformers including Martin Luther, John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer, as well as other important Protestant theologians such as John Wesley, it is from my perspective as a supporter of ecumenical reconciliation, difficult to articulate a reason for rejecting these ecumenical councils, and the approach they took.

*One of those four groups, the Church of the East, was not active in the ecumenical synod process, but rather had intermittent relations with the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox owing to political complications, since it existed entirely outside the Roman Empire, in the hostile territory of the Sassanian Persian Empire and in Malankara, India, and other locations across Asia (at its maximum extent, the Church of the East extended as an approximate quadrangle from Socotra in Yemen to Sri Lanka, and from Sri Lanka to Tibet, and from Tibet to Caucasian Iberia, which is now known as Azerbaijan, and from there to Socotra, being the largest church, geographically, but also the least dense in terms of population and also the church most devoid of friendly political regimes - hence, they were killed off everywhere outside of the Malabar Coast of India and the Fertile Crescent in a dreadful genocide started by the Muslim warlord Tamerlane in the 12th century and continued by his sons, in one of several genocides against Christians waged by Muslims, the first one being against the Christians of the region of North Africa that now consists of Morrocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Western Libya and the Sudan, where the Latin-speaking churches in places like Carthage and Hippo were exterminated, along with the entire Nubian Orthodox Church, an Oriental Orthodox church that occupied the geographical territory between the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt and what is now the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (which at the time was an autonomous part of the Coptic Church).

 

[KevinT]

Or was it, how to preserve unity in the congregation, with those who were "testing God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?" Acts 15:10

The Church did not have an issue with the Gentiles and circumcision.
The apostles were already following God's leadings, through holy spirit.
It was the Jews who converted from the Pharisees, who were threatening the unity of the brothers. Acts 15:1


The thread is titled "Anti-Catholic Or Not".
You are obviously not, but why do you believe the Catholic Church is the Church?

Corey, I'm going to have to back way off from these messages. I well-thought out post often takes me 30-40 minutes. It is taking me away from other stuff I should do.

I don't think that the Catholic Church is "the church", but many Catholics, citing apostolic succession, say that they are.

Will you please stop apologizing. I love it!
If you agreed with me, I would have to go outside, and take a look up to the heavens to see, if the sun or moon was standing still.

Ha!

Best wishes,
Kevin

 

[KevinT]

Can you tell me what it is useful for, and what correcting and disciplining /training in righteousness mean to you. Also how does the man become fully equipped for every good work (what that means)?

The Bible is a useful mirror that helps us understand how we fail. When I realize, after reading from the Bible, that I should be loving, it is easier for my conscience (I believe an important tool used by the Holy Spirit) to prompt me to ask God for help. To be equipped for work is an extension of this, as it also builds up those skills that help us in our work, both secular and spiritual.

Of course, reading the Bible is not what God asks us to do, in order to know truth.
If I wanted to learn science, and I picked up a science book and read it, is that what is required of me to know science? No.
Would I not have to study under the guide of science educators, to know science, and then be in a position to not only understand it, but teach it?

Perhaps not a great example because to be knowledgeable in science, it is possible to be self taught. Indeed, the process of getting a PhD in a scientific field is all about moving beyond what one's professors can teach and finding something new in the world.

Does the Bible contain the truth God wants all men to know? The scriptures says "Yes". No doubt about that. Even if we disagree, that does not change what the Bible says.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "the truth". Do you mean that everything thing in the Bible is true / correct (i.e. 0% error?), or do you mean "truth" as in the important facts that we need to live life to the fullest? Or do you mean "truth" as the particular collection of facts that God wanted the people living in the first century AD to have? Yes, the Bible contains facts and concepts that God wants us to know, but as before, I still contend that as time goes by, there will be additional information that God reveals.

It was new to their understanding, because the prophets had already stated this - that the Jews as a nation would not be Israel, and that there would be a new nation, which included Gentiles, that would be under the new covenant, rather than the old, with its mandate on circumcision.
This was all in scripture.

Overall I disagree with this. My understanding is that God wanted Israel to be a much larger country than it was. It was supposed to extend into the lands now controlled by Syria and Lebanon, and parts of Iraq and Arabia. And the purpose of this country was that they were to be "kingdom of priests" (Exodus 19:6) whereby God could help the entire world come to know Him and His ways, in the same way that a Israelite priest brought teaching to the people of Israel. So my understanding was not that God wanted to abandon His people after the coming of the Messiah, but rather that He wanted to extend fellowship with all nations.

Regarding the Jewish leaders and OT prophecy, It is easy to say that something is in scriptures in retrospect, because it is easy to see the parts that match after the fact. It is intrinsically a cherry-picking of relevant data points and ignoring others. But I could easily pull out lots of conditional prophecies from the OT that never were fulfilled due to disobedience by Israel. On another thread, a user is posting extensively about the prophecy in Daniel about the 2300 days. Check that out if you have any question that using a prophecy to understand the future is fraught with interpretation variance.

KevinT said:
Yes, one can now go back into prior teaching and pull threads here and there that are supportive. But if the Pharisees at the time had looked into the scriptures as they had to that point, they would have said NO to this idea, and declared it against God's teaching. But the Holy Spirit was miraculously supportive of their mission, and so Paul and his companions were able to justify their actions and thus found any support at the Council of Jerusalem.

I think you meant Jews who became Christian. They were not Pharisees. A little leaven ferments the whole lump.

No. There was no distinction at that point. Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and the majority of believers were Jewish. It was only after the passing of time that the followers of Jesus because called "Christians", and the group called "Jews" were therefore those who rejected Jesus. I was speaking of Jesus's interaction with the religious leaders, many of whom were Pharisees, as He reasoned with them through OT scriptures. If Jesus had pronounced that circumcision as a sign of membership was going to be done away with, they would not have agreed that scripture supported this. Even the promises from the OT that speak of a new covenant of writing the law in people's heart doesn't automatically lead one to see that circumcision is out.

I'll also like to ask, do you believe there are principles in the Bible, and we do not need to have a law for every decision, but Bible principle still give us God's view?
What did Paul mean at Hebrews 5:12-14?

Corey, I am involving in training students in my profession. I am well aware of the Socratic method of teaching. And I know that a question makes the student have to scramble for answers and look everything up. And I also know that it can be misused and be frustrating. We have a word for it, "pimping." I don't have the energy right now to engage in this.

If you want me to refer to a text, please post the text. I should not have to take the time to go cut-and-paste it into my reply. You may have the entire scriptures memorized, chapter and verse. But I don't.

I'll also like to ask, do you believe there are principles in the Bible, and we do not need to have a law for every decision, but Bible principle still give us God's view?

Absolutely.

It seems you are agreeing that we should use the scriptures as a guide to everything we do, and yet... I'm not sure.

This again is a tricky statement that I feel you are trying to trap me in.

I don't know if you are married, but if you are, do you insist that your wife keeps her head covered? Do you tell her to be quiet in church and not ask questions -- and to instead ask you to explain it to her when she gets home? The scriptures can be a GUIDE, but many things also need interpretation. Yes Paul said those things, but in our current culture, they are not appropriate and will needlessly bring a bad name to Christ's work.

"as a guide to everything we do"

The Bible can give me principles of how i pursue my profession, but I would not say that it provides instruction for "everything" I do there.

Anyway, I'm going to take a break for awhile. I think we have each had time to present our case. As is sadly the case with most discussions I see and am involved with, we each speak at each other, and neither side is changed.


Best wishes
KT

 

[RileyG]

In the Orthodox Church we believe it to be impossible to get a disease from the Eucharist.

I never got sick from the Eucharist. That must be true then

Agreed 100%!

 

[rturner76]

Unless you are born of the Holy Spirit, you will not enter Heaven.

That is why we are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Being born again does not happen when you get water baptised.

We disagree on this and I think we keep telling each other the same thing. Water baptism is the act of repentance and public (or not so public). It is an outward declaration of your desire to repent of your sinful ways and accept God's greca through faith. So it is my belief that what you describe IS what you are doing when you accept the sacrament of baptism.

To be born again, or born from above, is a work in which you play no role. Your birth happened to you, you had no part in it. And the same is true of new birth.

Your new birth is also by having one's sins washed away and taking up your cross as in water baptism.

Exactly. You have to believe. Which is the point I was making. If you do not believe, water baptism does nothing.

I agree, if you do not believe, what good is being baptized? It will mean nothing to you. A perfect example of that is in mideval England, the Scandinavians would invade and negotiate for land. In order to meet the terms of the treaty, the Pagans were required to be baptised. Some did it in good faith and some just did it to get their land and continued to worship as a Pagan.

See, even this verse says we are baptized by the Holy Spirit, and not by us performing some act, in this case water baptism.

I see now where we are disconnecting.....Like I said above, simply pouring water over one's hed and repeating what one is told to say is NOT water baptism. It's just an arbitrary action. The reason that water baptism is sufficient is when someone is sincere about WASHING AWAY, their old way of thinking (which would be acting to please one's self), and you are sincere about acting to please God, you're right, there is nothing else to do. Where we are disagreeing is in the way we describe continuing to act in faith. You say "be baptized by the Holy Spirit" and I say, once baptized, continue to act in faith because you have already been baptized in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

If remaining and growing in faith you describe as "baptism in the Holy Spirit." that's fine. I simply call it growing in faith, and faith is a gift of God. So I don't think we disagree much on the concept but the way we express it. I would describe it like this:

1 Peter 3:18-22: This verse says that baptism saves people through an appeal to God for a good conscience

This verse is basically a summary of exactly what I have been trying to say:

Acts 2:38​

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I guess my final question is, was Perer, the rock of the Church mistaken in this statement? Does he say anything like "be baptised by water, then later on be baptized by the Holy Spirit." I haven't seen any Biblical quotes. Do you know one that will negate this statement by St Paul the Apostle?

 

[CoreyD]

@KevinT, sorry to have taken you away from important matters. Do take care.

 

[KevinT]

@KevinT, sorry to have taken you away from important matters. Do take care.

I'm being a grouch today. Sorry to bark. I should be nicer on another day.

 

[Diamond72]

Which is why I pray daily for Christian unity.

Which is why we pray for our enemy. If they get saved they will no longer be our enemy in Heaven. Actually I am pretty sure I do not have any enemies. But if we did we are to love and bless those who curse us.

Corrie ten Boom faced a significant challenge when she encountered a former guard from the Ravensbrück concentration camp where she had been imprisoned. After the war, while speaking at a church in Munich, she was approached by this guard who sought her forgiveness. Corrie described this moment as one of the most difficult things she had ever had to do. She struggled internally but ultimately found the strength to forgive him through her faith12.