anti-Catholic or not?

[jas3]

"Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another" is clearly a mutual exchange between the participants.

You already asserted that in post #190, so I'm not sure why you're restating your assertion. Do you have a response to the numerous other examples we have in the New Testament of a group of people doing something among "one another" where there is clearly not a reciprocal relationship in each communication? I gave you one example, and I'm sure you don't need me to do a search for "one another" and see the others for yourself.

Elders as well confess their sins and ask for prayer from others.

Yes, in the general sense that is the natural reading of these verses. There is nothing to indicate that this is a "mutual" or "two-way" or reciprocal kind of confession and request for prayer.

The passage is clearly about those on earth confessing their sins to one another and praying for one anther as it clearly states in the Catholic Bible which a quoted from.

Sure, I agree with that. My point in bringing it up is that we are called both to request intercession and to intercede for others, so making reference to verses like Heb. 4:16 to argue against intercessory prayer is misguided and contradicts direct instructions elsewhere.

 

[Servus]

You already asserted that in post #190, so I'm not sure why you're restating your assertion. Do you have a response to the numerous other examples we have in the New Testament of a group of people doing something among "one another" where there is clearly not a reciprocal relationship in each communication? I gave you one example, and I'm sure you don't need me to do a search for "one another" and see the others for yourself.
Yes, in the general sense that is the natural reading of these verses. There is nothing to indicate that this is a "mutual" or "two-way" or reciprocal kind of confession and request for prayer.

Sure, I agree with that. My point in bringing it up is that we are called both to request intercession and to intercede for others, so making reference to verses like Heb. 4:16 to argue against intercessory prayer is misguided and contradicts direct instructions elsewhere.

It's not an argument against intercessory prayer. It's an argument against the claim that James 5:16 is an instruction to pray to Mary. Praying to Mary is a non-scriptural tradition that was inspired by James 5:16.

 

[AJHnh]

I don't really want this post to be an anti-Catholic screed, but I was raised a Lutheran and have recently been approached with anti-Catholic sentiments. On another forum, I received the following, and I replied. So if it is on the "harsh" side, I wish only to represent history as I read it, and present my feelings as I've felt it...

I would only differ slightly. Luther's original purpose was not anti-Catholic. But it ended up being there specifically because Catholics vehementy opposed what for Luther was explicit biblical doctrine.

Luther felt he found the key to avoiding Christian Nominalism, aka a "dead faith." To know Christ personally by faith was central to the Christian faith, and took place simply by submission to the fact Christ can do what we ourselves cannot do. We accept his Justification by his Atonement, and not by anything we can do without him.

Catholics doubled down on their opposition to Luther's complaints, in particular his concern about "Indulgences." Even worse, they were duplicitous and tried to maneuver Luther into coming into a trap where he would be burned at the stake.

Luther realized how corrupt Catholic leadership had become in his time, and perhaps wrote off all Catholics for all time at that point? He identified them as "the Antichrist."

Those who departed from this Nominal Faith, replete with "substitutes for Christ," could find regeneration in his doctrine of "Faith Only." In other words, Salvation by "Christ Only," and not by the Works and Traditions of Catholic exclusivity.

My own view of Catholicism is that it is not "the Antichrist," though some elements of it are, to me, Antichristian. As you suggest, Mary's Immaculate Conception is non-Christian and can lead some to a virtual antiChristian proposition that any non-Catholic view is corrupt and lost. That is "Antichristian."

There are a number of wrongs in the Catholic Church, the absolute authority of the Pope when he speaks "from his throne," the exclusivity of the Catholic Church, the perpetual virginity of Mary, Mary being the "Queen of Heaven," prayers to the saints, and the veneration of religious tradition as a substitute for genuine Faith, etc.

However, many churches have problems with their congregations and with their own exclusive traditions. Where do we draw the line? A "High Church" is a State Church and naturally includes believers and unbelievers in its Congregation!

I would say that Protestants did the right thing in drawing a line between them and the Catholic Church. One must reform traditions that create non-biblical guidelines to living in Faith.

I won't call all Catholics non-Christian. But I would warn them of the sectarian spirit within Catholicism, because clearly, Paul condemned that!
Randy

To be fair I believe most people ( Lutherans included) believe immaculate conception refers only to the birth of Jesus and have not given it much thought beyond that. They don’t believe or understand Catholics infer a sinless life to the words.

As a former Catholic I can say we are taught much in the catechism but like most kids it is soon forgotten—to me the Lutheran church felt smoother and cleaner-by that a simple but fully supported belief system. If asked Why do you believe this or that, they can point to somewhere in the Bible and say because of this. Catholicism certainly has an organizational bueracy

The idea that Luther was trying to be antagonistic toward the Catholic Church is a common misunderstanding among many later generations of Protestants highly removed from the Reformation itself. Indeed, Luther would have had far worse things to say about many Protestants today than he would have ever said about Rome. The quote you present is evidence of this. The "fanatics" in this context were the Swiss Christians under Ulrich Zwingli.

-CryptoLutheran

i believe there is nothing to dispute if the Pope had said “Great point Martin or your correct “ and began to implement them or change the church we would be Catholic today-

 

[Servus]

To be fair I believe most people ( Lutherans included) believe immaculate conception refers only to the birth of Jesus and have not given it much thought beyond that. They don’t believe or understand Catholics infer a sinless life to the words.

As a former Catholic I can say we are taught much in the catechism but like most kids it is soon forgotten—to me the Lutheran church felt smoother and cleaner-by that a simple but fully supported belief system. If asked Why do you believe this or that, they can point to somewhere in the Bible and say because of this. Catholicism certainly has an organizational bueracy

It gets circular though because they go back and forth between using scriptural proof texts and arguing against going by scripture rather than tradition.

i believe there is nothing to dispute if the Pope had said “Great point Martin or your correct “ and began to implement them or change the church we would be Catholic today-

That seems likely.

 

[ViaCrucis]

i believe there is nothing to dispute if the Pope had said “Great point Martin or your correct “ and began to implement them or change the church we would be Catholic today-

You are completely correct. Luther never left the Catholic Church, he was condemned by the Pope. As Lutherans we acknowledge that we never left the Catholic Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jas3]

It's not an argument against intercessory prayer. It's an argument against the claim that James 5:16 is an instruction to pray to Mary.

Alright, I guess we're just going to ignore the "one another" issue then.

For context, here is the rest of the post I was originally replying to:

Paul tells us in Hebrews 4 16 "Therefore we should come with boldness to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and may find grace for help in time of need. ". So do we really need someone to intercede for us?

This is the argument I was referencing. It makes no differentiation between intercession of a saint in heaven or a saint on earth; it applies to intercession in general.

 

[Servus]

Alright, I guess we're just going to ignore the "one another" issue then.

For context, here is the rest of the post I was originally replying to:
This is the argument I was referencing. It makes no differentiation between intercession of a saint in heaven or a saint on earth; it applies to intercession in general.

Hmm I might have meant for that initial reply to you to be for someone else's post.

 

[RandyPNW]

To be fair I believe most people ( Lutherans included) believe immaculate conception refers only to the birth of Jesus and have not given it much thought beyond that. They don’t believe or understand Catholics infer a sinless life to the words.

Luther tried to reform almost systematically, it seems, listing 95 things that required attention from his pov. Immaculate Conception may not have been the immediate concern, and it may not even be the concern of some Protestants today. But for me, it fits in with the whole concern Luther had about the Catholic Church having no redress to matters of Catholic Tradition.

The Scriptures were, for Luther, the rule by which the Catholic Church could correct any errors that may have developed over time. If Mary was not viewed as "sinless" in the Bible, then believing that would be a Catholic Tradtion subject to crititicsm by the word of God.

We would all agree that Jesus was born sinless. And so, the birth itself happened through Mary in a sinless way. Some may have incidentally thought that in the act of giving birth Mary was therefore "sinless." I do not--it doesn't make sense if we are to think about it at all. Mary called God her "Savior." Mary was descended from Adam, who spread his spiritual disease throughout the human race, contaminating Mary, as well.

It doesn't matter to me what Luther felt about this particular belief, or how many Lutherans todday even think about it. The point is, Scripture is king, and Catholics need to be willing to submit to correction by it, rather than just claim to be the exclusive authority, marking Tradition and Scriptural authority equal.

Even if the enemies of Catholicism file a legitimate complaint against it on the basis of Scripture, such as complaining about pedophilia among priests, Catholics need to recognize the authority of God outside of themselves and make themselves responsible to people beyond their own congregation and leadership.

 

[AV1611VET]

Suggested reading: The Trail of Blood, by J.M. Carroll.

 

[jas3]

Suggested reading: The Trail of Blood, by J.M. Carroll.

It does make for a good laugh!

 

[AV1611VET]

It does make for a good laugh!

Have you read it?

 

[jas3]

Have you read it?

Yes, and Carroll's scholarship on ancient heretical and schismatic sects is abysmal. To his credit, he doesn't try to say that those sects were secretly Baptist, but he does make some incredible stretches to say that they held "Baptist distinctives," and if I remember correctly he also asserts without evidence that the Catholic Church changed the surviving evidence of these groups to remove evidence of a connection to modern Baptists.

I will say, one thing I appreciate about The Trail of Blood is that Carroll correctly recognizes the need for a church to be able to trace its history continuously back to the Apostles. But otherwise, the history of Christianity he presents is a fabrication.

 

[AV1611VET]

I will say, one thing I appreciate about The Trail of Blood is that Carroll correctly recognizes the need for a church to be able to trace its history continuously back to the Apostles. But otherwise, the history of Christianity he presents is a fabrication.

You were there?

 

[jas3]

You were there?

Were you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Were you?

No, but Mr. Carroll's book uses 79 books as a partial list of references; including the Encyclopedia Britannica.

 

[JSRG]

No, but Mr. Carroll's book uses 79 books as a partial list of references; including the Encyclopedia Britannica.

A lengthy list of sources by itself means little; plenty of works I've seen that cited a high number of works were still worthless because they misrepresented their sources, used poor sources, or a combination of both.

But if a lot of references makes something valid, would that not make Baptist Successionism : a Crucial Question in Baptist History (James Edward McGoldrick's critique of Carroll's claims) more reliable? I did not do a complete count of its number of works in the bibliography for it would take too long, but with 27 pages of references in the bibliography, about 10-15 works cited on each page, he has at least triple the number of references.

 

[AV1611VET]

A lengthy list of sources by itself means little; plenty of works I've seen that cited a high number of works were still worthless because they misrepresented their sources, used poor sources, or a combination of both.

But if a lot of references makes something valid, would that not make Baptist Successionism : a Crucial Question in Baptist History (James Edward McGoldrick's critique of Carroll's claims) more reliable? I did not do a complete count of its number of works in the bibliography for it would take too long, but with 27 pages of references in the bibliography, about 10-15 works cited on each page, he has at least triple the number of references.

You're welcome to go with your sources, and I'm welcome to go with mine.

 

[Diamond72]

differentiation between intercession of a saint in heaven or a saint on earth

The difference is that the saints in Heaven know the will of God better than the saints on earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

The difference is that the saints in Heaven know the will of God better than the saints on earth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's how it works.

The idea is that the respective saint you pray to knows what you're going through better than you do, and can communicate your plight to God more intelligently.

 

[Diamond72]

The idea is that the respective saint you pray to knows what you're going through better than you do, and can communicate your plight to God more intelligently.

Really, when you pray Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will be done. You think you know as much about the Kingdom of God here on earth as the people in heaven do? First of all they are in Heaven so they have already proven themselves. The so called saints on earth we do know if they will go to Heaven or not. The Bible is clear that MANY that think they are saved are actually not saved at all.

Matthew 7 22 23
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

What I question is if we can communicate with the Saints in Heaven. I was under the impression that to make that claim could be a strike against you on this web site.