May 17, 2009
-
Catholic Roots
Before I leave for the summer, I thought I should update my blog. Please forgive me, everyone, for failing in this. The last month of the semester was so full, and things demanded a great deal of my time. But I remembered all of you in prayer, and I kept up on my subscriptions, and even came to know a few more of you along the way; I love all of you very much. I hope that the summer camp I am headed to has internet access that I can use to check up on things once in a while, so please be patient with me this summer! I am being missioned, and with that comes a priority to the mission. If I have the time and the permission as well as the opportunity, I will look in on all of you. If not, please always remember that I am praying for you throughout the summer and will be back in late August.
I thought for this update I would talk about something I’ve been meaning to for many, many months. I have come to know many Catholics here on Xanga, and a common sense among them is a feeling of unwelcome at Revelife, a blog I enjoy most of the time. But among comments on many posts I, too, find many people referring to the Catholic Church with a degree of hostility, and very rarely (thankfully) even a degree of hatred. I know that most people who frequent Revelife are not Catholic Christians, so it is understandable that most Revelifers understand very little about Catholicism and Catholic teaching. In the hope of bringing peace to this conflict and a higher degree of understanding to Revelife readers and Catholics on Xanga, I thought that I would offer this post reminding all Christians of what I call their “Catholic roots.” It is very important for Catholics to know their history and their faith, and I think that it is important for Protestants to remember, too, where they came from and, hopefully, where they are going. Most of all, with these things in mind I think it is important for both groups to love and respect one another, Catholics in that all other Christians are at least their brothers and sisters in the same baptism and saved by the same cross, and Protestants for the same as well as (hopefully) a tremendous gratitude for all that they have come to have from their Catholic heritage.
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Here in Matthew 16 we have the laying of the foundation of the Church, with Christ choosing Peter specifically for a special leadership role, which we see affirmed after the resurrection along the seashore when Christ entrusts “the flock” to Peter, making him shepherd once Christ ascends to heaven. I read this, and other parts of the Gospel (one flock, one shepherd, for example) and notice very quickly and clearly, as the apostles and early Church Fathers did, that Christ established one Church and intended it to be one. While there was a dispersion of Christians across the known world at the time, apostles spreading out to various population centers such as Ephesus, Rome, Alexandria, etc., there was a great effort to keep everyone on the same page. This led to the gathering of several councils of bishops, all men appointed directly by the apostles, who appointed others and so on, or sometimes bishops were chosen by groups of other bishops and appointed to a particular city. Regardless, there was an established chain of authority going all the way back to the apostles, which leads to Christ himself, the point being that the men gathered at the councils (Nicea, for example) were not just a bunch of random people making decisions for everyone (neither is this the case today).
Two efforts to come of these councils that I would like to point out in particular would be the Nicene Creed and the canon of the Bible. The Nicene Creed, one of the most widely used articulations of fundamental Christian beliefs, is a part of many Christians’ heritage today and, though perhaps not employed by some Christians, the theology summarized in the Creed (one baptism, virgin birth of Christ, Trinitarian things) are still seen in every Christian group I have encountered. All of that is part of everyone’s Catholic heritage.
The canon of the Bible is another part of the same heritage. Certainly, the Bible is scripture and being scripture is important (some Christians would say it is the most important), but the canon or layout of the Bible is not itself scriptural. The books of the Bible were chosen, ordered and assembled by human beings. The Old Testament was fairly set by the time of the apostles and the very early Christians, and they also circulated letter written by apostles (such as Paul) and their followers. Also around that time some apostles and close followers of them began recording Gospels. Over time various communities preferred different texts, and by the 5th century the canon of the New Testament was set basically to what we see today in the Catholic Church. Since the Reformation, some denominations have altered the canon a little, removing some things and placing varying degrees of doctrinal value on others, but all in all the Bible has reached the people of today through the Catholic Church, its texts painstakingly copied by hand throughout the centuries until the printing press.
Touching on the Reformation; this is for me a very painful time in Christian history. What once was one became two, three, and today the Body of Christ has been fractured into approximately 38000 denominations, the Catholic Church and those churches in communion with her remaining the largest by a large margin. Granted, there was the Great Schism which caused a great division between the East and West Church, but with the split did not come the radical alterations of doctrine and tradition that the Reformation would eventually see.
In a nutshell, as I understand it, the Reformation led by Martin Luther (an Augustinian monk before he broke his vows of poverty, chastity and obedience), was undertaken to address certain issues he had with the Church at the time, including indulgences (chiefly the perceived buying and selling of them), and the corruption of the clergy (quite a valid concern in some cases, but not all clergy were corrupt), but mainly the controversies surrounding indulgences. There are other issues that arose after this initial effort, such as a dislike of priestly celibacy and religious chastity, as well as papal authority, along with the theology of the Eucharist regarding transubstantiation; forgive me if I haven’t touched all the issues.
I agree with the need to reform the use and abuse of indulgences and corruption of the clergy, at the time. Luther’s brave case came at a necessary time in the Church’s history, but the issue was handled quite poorly on both sides. Some officials in the Church were unwilling to listen to anyone who would dare suggest anything of the like, and I believe that Martin Luther could have endeavored further to be faithful to his vow of obedience and patiently and appropriately sought to have his case heard. But it seems to me that pride on both sides ended up tearing the Church apart, a wound that to this day has not healed. But looking back at the things Luther had the biggest problems with and then looking at the Church today, I can’t help seeing that the necessary reformation of indulgences did come about (patience is a virtue, especially when reforming a worldwide, millennia-old Church), and there is much more oversight and monitoring of priests today. Granted, yes, there are still problems with corrupt clergy, but they are, as they always have been, the exception; priests and men studying to be priests (like myself) are not all child-molesters, despite the media’s attempt to portray us as such whenever a new scandal breaks. But every organization, be it a police force, the US Congress, or a school is prone to corruption from within, being that all human endeavors are staffed with sinners. Again, I look back at the main problems Luther had with the Church of almost 500 years ago and ask myself, “Why and what are they still protesting? When will they come home?”
Despite the great divisions seen since the Reformation, there are many traditions, some scriptural and some completely traditional, that remain in many denominations today. For example, the Our Father; not only do we see the prototypes of the prayer in the Gospels, but the form most Christians use in the world today was transmitted orally over time, through many different tongues and translations. I’ve found it interesting that most Christians do not pray the prayer as it is found in most Bibles; we pray what we learned from our parents and teachers. Either way, this prayer that is known by almost every Christian and beloved by them is, again, a gift of every Christian’s Catholic roots.
Other traditions include pews, stained glass windows, candles, the altar, liturgical vestments, church buildings, and the other “stuff” that many Christians see within their church and use in their celebrations. The sermon, the role of pastor, the pulpit; all of these things have been handed down. Some of these things were Christianized long ago, adopted from Jewish practices for example, but all have reached us through the Catholic Church.
However, the greatest gift of every Christian’s Catholic heritage is Jesus Christ himself. If the Catholic Church, the very same church that grew from the one established by Christ with Peter, propagated by him along with the other apostles, and further by their disciples and appointees, has guarded and made available the Gospel to all people throughout history. When the Reformation and other events in the Church’s history led to the division of Christ’s flock entrusted to Peter, the one thing that always without fail went with the departing group was the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Despite horrific persecution in her earliest years, despite every war and natural disaster since the life of Christ was put to paper, despite every effort anyone has made to rid the world of the most powerful message ever recorded, the Catholic Church has preserved Christ’s words for all peoples and all times.
Please, the next time you are on Revelife or talking about the Catholic Church, remember these things and all the rest, and show her and her members the dignity and respect they deserve or, in the very least, “love your enemies” (hopefully we are not considered such!). For all Christians owe the Church all that their faith tradition holds dear; you may as well hate your very own mother, if you decide to hate the Catholic Church! Certainly Catholics and other Christians do not see eye-to-eye on every issue, but we all have too much to be grateful for to show her disrespect, and certainly we should all at least be grateful enough for our Catholic heritage to show Christ’s love to each other, despite doctrinal differences.
I hope this post proves a little helpful, I hope it provokes much thought and promotes peace and love amongst all Christians here on Xanga. Revelife is a wonderful opportunity for Christian unity on an internet full of division. To all Catholics: love your brothers and sisters in Christ. To all other Christians: the same; remember your roots!
If anyone finds this Revelife-worthy, please let me know and let Revelife know! Rec and spread the word! And if ever anyone would like to know or try to understand anything about the Catholic Church, ask!
EDIT: I forgot to add the address of this beautiful video about the Church that has brought many people home. The actual website, www.catholicscomehome.org , is very good for people thinking of becoming Catholic, or for people who just want to learn more. Enjoy, and God bless!
Post a Comment
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Comments (78)
You are brilliant and wonderful.
Have a fantastic summer.
i really like this post and what you said about when will they come home, i thought that was cool. I would really like to learn more about the catholic church, because i’m very interested in becoming catholic the only thing holding me back is that i would like to major in christian education to become a pastor. i don’t think i could be a nun because i want to get married and let little mini-lorna-offspring rebel against society
do you have any advice for me? i would really appreciate your guidance
Amen! It’s very difficult to be on Revelife as a Catholic, there is so much distrust and dislike for a Church that many only misunderstand Her to be!!
btw- you’ll have to let me know your address for camp and for where you will return to – as I too will be leaving in Late August – God Willing.
Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t you believe that in order to be saved that we must take communion in a Catholic church under ordained Catholic priests? If that’s true, then Protestants are not saved according to Catholicism.
I’m Protestant, but nothing irks me quite as much as ignorance about such things as Catholicism.
Excellent! Thank you for posting this.
Thanks again! God bless in your mission, both abroad and on the world wide web.
Sadly, it seems our paths may not cross for quite some time. I will be leaving in early August. However, I will also be on a mission of sorts. 
netusa.org
Either way, I will be keeping you in my prayers. Best of luck.
@musterion99 -
Well, here’s a passage from the Cathechism concerning salvation those who do not even know the Gospel:
“Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.” p. 244
Consequently, it is entirely in God’s hands for all Christians and non-Christians. Most of the Catechism reflects the unfathomable and unknowable mercy of God, and, not to mention, it is also entirely possible for a Catholic in full communion with the Church to go to hell, depending upon that person’s soul. I hope that helps! Catholics certainly don’t believe that non-Catholics are automatically doomed to hell. That was the case at times, sadly, in the past, but no longer, and our beliefs reflect that. God bless!
Great Post!
I also hope you have internet over the summer, so you can post more like this.
“Blessed are they who are persecuted for justice’s sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.” I hang on to that verse more and more, even to the point of embracing the hostility and hoping that it shortens my time in purgatory, should I be so blessed as to get that far.
Excellent Post! I would love to sit and talk with you more about the Catholic Church. It’s something I’ve been getting increasingly more interested in (I was raised in the Reformed Tradition and now don’t really affiliate with any one denomination within protestantism per se). Unfortunately, I’m guessing grabbing some coffee with you isn’t going to happen (Unless you’re in South East Michigan), but when you get back, let me know. I’ll be praying for you and your work,
-Your Brother in Christ
@sheepthatsblack - Nope, I won’t be anywhere near Michigan! But you can always message me any questions you have about the Church.
@Sprnatural_luver - Please feel free to message me any time if you would like to talk! I will pray for you, that the Holy Spirit will help you to discern which path in life will bring you closer to Christ and deeper into his service. God bless you; what a beautiful work He is doing within your heart!
@Ancient_Scribe -
You should’ve totally put up the passage from Isaiah 22 involving Eliakim…
Thank you for posting this!
and have a good summer.
Love it!!
“You are Cephas, and upon this Cephas I build my Church.” “Whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven, whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven.” The Pilgrim Militant Church is in full union with the Heavenly will of the Father.
The loss of souls to Reformation and the original actions of Luther are most saddening. I recently saw a friend leave the Church for Calvary Chapel, and its a sad sight.
Hopefully your post here will serve as a reminder of our similarities among Catholics, Protestants, and the Orthodox. When I hang out with my Orthodox and Coptic friends there is none of this bitterness. It ought not to exist among my Protestant friends. Let it start here on Xanga.
@NightCometh -
Did you not read his post at all? It is in response so such comments that Ancient_Scribe composed the post. That you might come to see that we have similarities, and to lessen the degrees to which you claim that we are ignorant.
@maje_charis -
Protestants DO know the gospel, so that doesn’t apply.
[Catholics certainly don't believe that non-Catholics are automatically doomed to hell. That was the case at times, sadly, in the past, but no longer, and our beliefs reflect that.]
Why would God tell the Church that it was right in the past and now all of a sudden change his mind and it’s no longer true?
@Ancient_Scribe -
How come you haven’t replied to my comment? Is what i say true or not?
@musterion99 -
In light of the rest of my post, I would offer this from the Catholic Catechism, basically, the teaching of the Catholic Church, as it refers to your question:
846: How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? (Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21: PL 3, 1169; De unit.: Pl 4, 509-536). Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: “Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it” (LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5).
Regarding communion/Eucharist specifically, I would refer you to John 6:
51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
As Catholics we believe that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine at Mass actually become the living Body and Blood of Christ for us to eat and drink. As we read above, this teaching of Christ was hard for many to accept, and many walked away right then and there. It was no parable; he did not immediately explain his use of allegory or metaphor, such as the parable about the Good Shepherd when he explains what he means when he says shepherd, gate, etc. But his apostles, who would go on to build Christ’s Church from which the Catholic Church came, believed him even though they did not understand him. This is what the apostles taught their disciples, and the Eucharist (understood as actually being the Body and Blood of Christ) was so important to them that it became the identifying characteristic of the earliest Christians, for what was it that the Romans and others chiefly accused Christians of being? Cannibals.
Now please understand also that the Church does not condemn non-Catholics to hell for not being a part of her. We also believe in the great mercy of God. Because salvation is a gift from God through the Church, the Church is merely the custodian and dispenser of the gift; not the originator or executor of the gift itself. Therefore we leave it up to God to decide “who goes where” when they die.
But as I tried to illustrate in my post, the entire Christian world at one time was Catholic, for many hundreds of years. That unity brought us through terrible persecutions, through wars, and every misfortune imaginable. As Christ clearly intended to establish one Church, and seeing clearly through historical analysis the undeniable and unbroken connection to that first foundation that the Catholic Church today has, it is my very great hope that “they will all be one” again someday. In the meantime, though, we must remember to love one another as Christ would have us, the same Christ that unites all Christians in a common baptism. God bless you.
@Ancient_Scribe - </p[it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head THROUGH the Church]
So, we can only be saved through the Catholic church?
[the Council teaches that THE CHURCH, a pilgrim now on earth, is NECESSARY for salvation:]
The Catholic church is necessary? Again, only through the Catholic church? Which means Protestants aren’t saved.
[He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the NECESSITY OF THE CHURCH which men enter through Baptism as through a door.]
Does it have to be baptism in a Catholic church from ordained priests?
[Hence they could NOT be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it"]
This is exactly why so many Protestants have problems with Catholics. You’re saying that we CAN’T be saved UNLESS we enter or remain in Catholicism.
[Regarding communion/Eucharist specifically, I would refer you to John 6:]
My question was whether we need to receive communion in a Catholic church by ordained Catholic priests in order to be saved.
[As we read above, this teaching of Christ was hard for many to accept, and many walked away right then and there. It was NO parable;]
If it was no parable, then they would have had to LITERALLY eat Jesus’ flesh right at that moment he was speaking it. Obviously, it IS symbolic.
[Now please understand also that the Church does not condemn non-Catholics to hell for not being a part of her.]
????? – Then cathecism 846 is wrong.
[Now please understand also that the Church does not condemn non-Catholics to hell for not being a part of her.]
????? – Then you need to change the cathecism.
[But as I tried to illustrate in my post, the entire Christian world at one time was Catholic, for many hundreds of years.]
They were catholic as in universal, not Roman Catholicism.
[and seeing clearly through historical analysis the undeniable and unbroken connection to that first foundation that the Catholic Church today has]
There are divisions in Catholicism between Traditionalists and Contemporaries. While some groups are in union with Rome, others have been independently governed by their own bishops, in the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox church, for well over 1,500 years.
The White Robed Benedictine Network is a Catholic community, but not Roman, dedicated to making the world a more compassionate place. Guided by its own Bishop/Abbott, it celebrates the seven sacraments and follows the spirit of reforms initiated in Vatican Council II. It is a place for those who might be catholic or spiritual, but not necessarily religious. The Eastern and Western churches have many externals that are vastly different.
[we must remember to love one another as Christ would have us, the same Christ that unites all Christians in a common baptism.]
I agree, but what is a common baptism? And as I’ve already said, baptism and communion ONLY through the Catholic church? If that’s so, then everything else you’ve said is moot and is the problem that Protestants have with Catholics. In this post you say that you don’t understand why Protestants have a problem with Catholics. Well, now you know. I personally believe that there are saved people in both Catholicism and Protestantism and it’s NOT only through Catholicism.
@Ancient_Scribe - I am pleasantly surprised to see a Jesuit espousing Orthoxy! my blog is about whether Obama is the AntiChrist. I invite you to read it, add comments. I just read his speech at Notre Dame. He is trying to foment a schism in the US Catholic Church. Hear ye!
@musterion99 -
I don’t have a lot of time right now, but I wanted to make a few responses right away; I hope to continue our dialogue again soon! But as mentioned in the post, I’ll be traveling soon and internet access might be sparse.
First I would like to say something regarding baptism. Baptism has been understood, at least since the Donatist controversy in the 300s, to be done not by the person but by Jesus Christ himself. The Catholic Church teaches that, though the ordained (be it deacon, priest or bishop) ordinarily carries out the baptism, any human being (even non-Christians) can baptize someone if need be. This is because Jesus Christ is the one that baptizes “with the Holy Spirit and fire,” and thus any person that would allow the Spirit to work through them, baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, can baptize. Again, Jesus Christ baptizes; there is only one baptism, not many. There is not a Catholic baptism, a Lutheran baptism, or a Vineyard baptism. There is one, because there is only one who baptizes, and He is One. All who are baptized with the Trinitarian formula are baptized, and the groundwork for salvation is laid.
Regarding divisions: there are divisions of a sort in the Catholic Church, but when I refer to the Catholic Church I am referring to all rites and communities in communion with her, communion meaning that there are no impassible divisions. Certainly there are disagreements, such as what music to sing, should Mass be in Latin or the vernacular and so on, but those in communion are not at odds about anything truly divisive; communion remains. Other groups, such as traditional groups that reject Vatican II are not in communion with the Catholic Church but have broken off, though they retain close ties in practice and belief. Regarding the Eastern Orthodox Church and other rites that have remained independent for a great long while: yes, there have been breaks even before the Reformation, but still they broke from what is today the Catholic Church, and yet there is not nearly so much bitterness, and their theology and tradition has not been drastically altered from our own despite the passing of time, whereas many Protestant practices and theologies have become nearly unrecognizable over only a few hundred years. Within the Church, too, there are many different rites, many of them of Eastern origin that on the surface appear to be totally different. But when one endeavors to understand the meaning behind their practice, to understand their tradition and theology, you realize that they received all of it from the same apostolic tradition that we did. Hence, communion.
While I know this doesn’t attend to all of your questions, I thought it might attend to a good portion of them. May I ask you a couple of questions, though? And I mean this respectfully, because I wish to understand; not because I am trying to be uncharitable or insensitive. It seems clear that you are not Catholic, so I wish to ask you about which Christian denomination you think is the Church that Christ established? Additionally or instead (you may choose) why do you choose not to be Catholic, in other words, what are you protesting? Thank you for engaging in this discussion; these are the kind that need to happen. God bless you.
@Ancient_Scribe - </p[The Catholic Church teaches that, though the ordained (be it deacon, priest or bishop) ordinarily carries out the baptism, any human being (even non-Christians) can baptize someone if need be.]
Ok, can you show me this please?
[It seems clear that you are not Catholic, so I wish to ask you about which Christian denomination you think is the Church that Christ established?]
There was no denomination per se. As I said, the word catholic was not a denomination but meant universal as in describing those in the body of Christ. In the early church there were divisions and disagreements. I believe that Jesus established ONE BODY of BELIEVERS which is present today amongst both Catholics and Protestants. God foreknew there would be divisions and has allowed them to happen through our freewill. Neither the Catholic church or Protestant church is perfect, but God is the one who truly knows our hearts. Catholics have changed what they believe. Just one example. God used to think it was wrong to eat fish on Fridays but now he doesn’t. One more, God changed his mind about babies being in limbo.
You didn’t address the main points I made in my previous comments, so I will wait till you have the time. Thanks.
Thank you for posting again! I always look forward to reading you! May God continue to bless you this summer.
@musterion99 -
“it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head THROUGH the Church]
So, we can only be saved through the Catholic church?
[the Council teaches that THE CHURCH, a pilgrim now on earth, is NECESSARY for salvation:]
The Catholic church is necessary? Again, only through the Catholic church? Which means Protestants aren’t saved.”
Yes and yes. We can only be saved through the Catholic Church. Happy, now?
@musterion99 -
I can answer your first question quickly before I head off to bed:
1256
The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize,by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
@megankendall -
Thank you!! You made my point. If you read this post, it says – “I have come to know many Catholics here on Xanga, and a common sense among them is a feeling of unwelcome at Revelife, a blog I enjoy most of the time. But among comments on many posts I, too, find many people referring to the Catholic Church with a degree of hostility, and very rarely (thankfully) even a degree of hatred. I know that most people who frequent Revelife are not Catholic Christians, so it is understandable that most Revelifers understand very little about Catholicism and Catholic teaching.”
And your reply is exactly why. We are not misunderstanding about Catholicism and Catholic teaching as you have plainly and blatantly spoken.
@Ancient_Scribe -
What does it mean in the case of necessity? Does that mean that all Protestant baptisms are valid?
@musterion99 -
I don’t get your point at all. Are you saying my response is the cause of some sort of hostility? I simply confirmed what you were asking about.
@musterion99 -
To your point about Catholic teaching, then no, you don’t misunderstand the specific teaching regarding the Church’s part in salvation. You still have plenty of other things to misunderstand, and most all Protestants misunderstand plenty and usually show very little interest in getting it right.
@Kate_Hutchinson -
I know, and I was agreeing.
@scrambledmegzntoast@hardestlevel - </pThank you!! You made my point. If you read this post, it says – “I have come to know many Catholics here on Xanga, and a common sense among them is a feeling of unwelcome at Revelife, a blog I enjoy most of the time. But among comments on many posts I, too, find many people referring to the Catholic Church with a degree of hostility, and very rarely (thankfully) even a degree of hatred. I know that most people who frequent Revelife are not Catholic Christians, so it is understandable that most Revelifers understand very little about Catholicism and Catholic teaching.”
And your reply is exactly why. We are not misunderstanding about Catholicism and Catholic teaching as you have plainly and blatantly spoken.
@maje_charis -
Sorry, that last comment to you was meant for someone else. I hit the wrong reply button. But I did reply to your comment to me earlier.
@scrambledmegzntoast@hardestlevel -
You don’t understand what I said? It’s very clear. Please re-read what I”ve written here. I showed what the post said and you confirmed what I’ve been saying to Ancient_Scribe, which he has been trying to show otherwise. The reason Protestants don’t respect Catholics is because you and they tell us we aren’t saved. As you admitted, Protestants AREN’T saved and – “We can only be saved through the Catholic Church. Happy, now?”
What don’t you understand?
@musterion99 -
First off, Ancient Scribe was not trying to say otherwise at all, please quite attempting to frame the debate to suit your own needs.
Secondly, most Protestants say the exact same thing about Catholics. Most Protestants believe Catholic baptisms to be “unbiblical” and most Protestants, mistakenly, believe that we believe we are saved by works alone. Yet, despite this, I still respect most of you. It’s a shame that you feel the need to be disrespectful and condescending, though. I feel the only reason you are here is to start a fight, though, so I see no point in even being bothered with you.
@scrambledmegzntoast@hardestlevel - </pFirst off, Ancient Scribe was not trying to say otherwise at all, please quite attempting to frame the debate to suit your own needs.]
Wow! It’s extremely frustrating to even try and have a discussion with someone like you. I showed you verbatim what Ancient_Scribe said and I was replying specifically to that and he and I were discussing it. I’m glad that you see no point in even being bothered with me. Thank God! I will continue the discussion with Ancient_Scribe. At least he’s willing to talk with some type of understanding of context.
@musterion99 -
Yeah, and he, along with someone else copied and pasted the exact part of the CCC that states the Church’s teaching on salvation. Both times you responded “Ahhhhh, duhhhhhh, soooooo, ummmmmmm, duhhhhhhh, the Catholic Church teaches you need the Church for salvation…uhhhhh dooooyyyyyuhhhhhh?” So I restated it, for the third time, in words that perhaps someone with a severe reading comprehension problem might understand. There is no context. You are stuck on the question of salvation, and it has been explained to you three times now. I gave you your little gotcha moment so you could go on the attack, which is exactly what you were waiting to do.
Due to his vocation, Fr. Jacob is required to be nice to you and tolerate your foolishness. How he continues to have such patience with you is amazing. I am under no such obligation.
@scrambledmegzntoast@hardestlevel - </pYou are stuck on the question of salvation, and it has been explained to you three times now. I gave you your little gotcha moment so you could go on the attack, which is exactly what you were waiting to do.]
Duh!! Wow, you are just so smart beyond comprehension. Of course I was talking about salvation. Sheeesh! You’re a dingbat.
@musterion99 -
It means that if someone is close to death, for example, anyone can be the minister of baptism. But in ordinary circumstances when there is no urgency, such as the baptism of an infant or an adult at Easter time, the deacon, priest or bishop is the minister.
The second half of your question, about the validity of Protestant baptisms: Every. Single. Protestant. Baptism. is valid, and what a blessed and beautiful thing. I don’t know exactly what book you would have to read, but as I mentioned before it was an issue that came up during the Donatist heresy in the 300s and was tackled by St. Augustine, who helped people to realized that Christ is the one who baptizes, and therefore one needs only be baptized one time, is baptized forever, and anyone can baptize.
It also seems to me, and this is my own reflection and may or may not be a correct interpretation, that Jesus Christ commissioned all of his followers, not only his apostles, to go and baptize all nations, whereas the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the others are reserved in ministry for the ordained.
@scrambledmegzntoast@hardestlevel -
And just to clear things up a little: I’m not a priest yet! I have two more years of philosophy, three years of teaching in a high school, and three to four years of theology before ordination. But because I have already made my perpetual vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, it is customary for Jesuit scholastics to wear the collar on occasion. Don’t worry about the mixup; it used to confuse me, too!
Now to finish breakfast and get on the road! Remember, love is patient.
@musterion99 -
I never meant to imply that Protestants do not know the Gospel, so you have my sincerest apology! My only intention was to illustrate the unfathomable mercy of God.
“Why would God tell the Church that it was right in the past and now all of a sudden change his mind and it’s no longer true?”
I was referring more to what individuals believed, not necessarily a blanket doctrine of the Church. I do not know the official teaching on this matter, only that in the Protestant Reformation, individuals condemned each other.
God bless!
@Ancient_Scribe -
Ok thanks.
@maje_charis -
Thanks for clearing up what you meant.
I want to come back and read this. It’s been a long time, but I was once treated badly by a Protestant Christian on Xanga for being Catholic. God called me into this Church from my Protestant roots. I came in kickign and screaming because I believed many of the standard false teachings about the Catholic Church. Since obeying God and becoming CAtholic, I have fallen DEEPLY in love with His Church. It can be difficult in my Protestant family, but they have come to respect my faith since I married. My husband comes from an all-Catholic (and mostly all practicing) family, and he has a deep faith and lots of knowledge. My family loves him for the way he loves me. Anyway, I’m coming back to read this in depth…I only got a chance to skim here. I’d love a healing of Christian faiths and a oneness.
@Ancient_Scribe -
Yeah, I forget. You did tell me that before. So more appropriately, you are Brother Jacob, right?
@musterion99 -
And you’re a jerk, so…I think I would rather be a “dingbat”.
@scrambledmegzntoast@hardestlevel -
It’s plainly obvious that you are not a woman of your word. You told me – “I see no point in even being bothered with you.” But you PERSIST in talking to me. Why don’t you just drop it?
OH, you just CAN’T. Go ahead. Have the last word. I just know you HAVE TO. Insult me and say whatever your little heart desires. I promise I won’t respond back to you. Good bye.
@NightCometh -
sorry about that. a quick perusal of your comment can make it sound like you were saying that Catholic faith is ignorance. I’ll need to be more careful next time.
This is an excellent blog and the links are good too. I shared them with my friend Monsignor Cusack and a few others.
Great post which should be featured on Xanga or Revelife. As always you’re the go to guy for someone who knows what they are talking about in re the Church. I miss you and wish you well. I hope you do get to be around somewhat this summer.
I followed a rec here and am so glad I did! This was a lovely, enlightening piece , meant to bring us more together, and I hope it will touch hearts that tend to be combative towards the Catholic church. I will look forward to reading more when you return from your mission!
@scrambledmegzntoast@hardestlevel - Just Jacob!
“Again, I look back at the main problems Luther had with the Church of almost 500 years ago and ask myself, “Why and what are they still protesting? When will they come home?”
As a proud Protestant Lutheran, the indulgences issue might have been one of the basic reasons for Luther’s split with the church, but when he split he wasn’t going to be welcomed back to the church with open arms was he?
That’s a problem for me with the Catholic Church. How can I be willing to take a step outside and disagree with the higher-ups, knowing the retributive forces of such a powerful institution ? The church back then was just as powerful as the local government, and had even more sway than they do today.
Luther was just one of the first to publicly split with the Catholic Church and wouldn’t have got as much attention if the movement wouldn’t have gone anywhere. I’m sure others tried to split before Luther, and there have been several after.
But to answer that question there, we still have issues we’re not united on when it comes to the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches, especially the right for ministers/clergy to marry and raise families. I’m not saying one way is right over another, but being raised in a close family with a female Lutheran pastor who is married and has kids, I know how hard it is for her to balance family and church life. I can see why the Catholic Church would have problems with that idea, and embraces the one they do. I know not all priests are child abusers, and the percentage is far lower on those issues than the number of news stories reported seem to indicate. That’s the problem with our society, though. We focus way, way, way too much on the negative. Just turn on cable news each evening, and you’ll see it. They don’t report news, they report the controversial issues. Nancy Grace has her stance on any missing children case. Lou Dobbs his stance on illegal immigration. Olbermann and MSNBC has disagreements with Fox News. Fox News their disagreements with MSNBC. No one is reporting just news stories, except the local stations, and even they are looking for the hot-button issues, because those make good stories for television. Real reporting is done in newspapers.
That being said, if I was having problems with a child or a spouse, I’d feel safer approaching someone who could relate to those problems over someone who has sworn off those connections to follow God. I think the Catholic Church might be coming close to allowing that sooner rather than later, but like you pointed out, change in a 2,000 year organization takes time. I bet, however, it will come in my lifetime, like the Cubs winning the pennant (A man has to dream, right?)
Protestant Churches, however, seem to thrive on diversity and fluidity of change.
Even within the Lutheran Church as young as almost 500 years, we still have at least three divisions: Missouri or Wisconsin Synods and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (and if the Human Sexuality Study passes in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Churchwide Assembly, there could be even more forming from people who don’t like the churches new stance).
What I think is important is the point you’re trying to make in this blog, though. We all believe pretty much the same things: The apostles creed, Lord’s Prayer, resurrection of Jesus Christ… All these are as important (or should be) to Protestants as they are to Catholics. I try to keep an open mind when reading the views of others, and I’ve disagreed with you and others before. That doesn’t make me any less your friend, or you mine. It makes us diverse and of differing minds.
Hope you have a great summer!
@musterion99 -
//As I said, the word catholic was not a denomination but meant universal as in describing those in the body of Christ. In the early church there were divisions and disagreements.//
It’s interesting that you brought this up, since the first person to use the term “catholic” in reference to the Church also said:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).
“Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed…Let nothing exist among you that may divide you ; but be ye united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, 6 (c. A.D. 110).
‘Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbyterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist may be regarded as legitimate which is celebrated with the bishop or his delegate presiding. Where the bishop is, there let the community be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.’ Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Symyrnaens 8 (c. A.D. 110).
————
Not trying to start another discussion; merely food for thought.
@QuantumStorm -
Oh, and this is from scripturecatholic.com FYI.
@QuantumStorm - </p”They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).]
YOU are interpreting Ignatius to mean literal flesh. Protestants believe it represents the literal flesh. As I’ve already said earlier, if Jesus was speaking literally in John 6, then they would have needed to literally have eaten his literal flesh. And besides that, using Ignatius because he used the word catholic as though that means everything else he said is true, is a false premise.
[Not trying to start another discussion; merely food for thought.]
No problem.
@musterion99 -
I wasn’t trying to start another discussion, but… oh well. Weeee!
//As I’ve already said earlier, if Jesus was speaking literally in John 6, then they would have needed to literally have eaten his literal flesh.//
Yep. That is what we do at Mass.
//And besides that, using Ignatius because he used the word catholic as though that means everything else he said is true, is a false premise.//
… which is a straw-man argument, as that was not my intention. My intention was to point out that St. Ignatius of Antioch wasn’t using “catholic” in the sense that the Church is universal AND self-contradicting; he was referring to the Catholic Church in particular as a Church that spanned many regions. As for heresies, well… Iggy wasn’t particularly friendly or accepting of them – otherwise he could have used it in the same sense that Protestants use it today.
@QuantumStorm - </pM99//As I’ve already said earlier, if Jesus was speaking literally in John 6, then they would have needed to literally have eaten his literal flesh.//
[Yep. That is what we do at Mass.]
You completely missed what I said. I’m saying that at the time Jesus spoke that to his disciples, if he was speaking literally, then they would have had to literally have eaten Jesus’ flesh right then. Not at Mass.
@musterion99 -
//
You completely missed what I said. I’m saying that at the time Jesus spoke that to his disciples, if he was speaking literally, then they would have had to literally have eaten Jesus’ flesh right then. Not at Mass.//
Why should they do it right then and there?
@QuantumStorm -
If he’s speaking literally, then they would have had to literally eaten his flesh, not a wafer.
@musterion99 -
The accidents may be a wafer and wine, but the substance is Christ’s body and blood. It’s based on the Catholic understanding of Transubstantiation. (Also see the last supper and link with John 6).
@QuantumStorm -
That’s a red herring.That’s not what I’ve been saying. You just don’t get it. I know that Catholics believe in transubstanciation.
Hi Jacob… I feel like I’ve lost a very big part of myself… I don’t know how to find it and I don’t know how to reconnect myself with God. What do I do?
@musterion99 -
I’m not trying to divert the argument. You claim that if Jesus was being literal, we must literally eat Him. I’ve pointed out that that’s what we do, yet you deny this. Again, our concept of literally eating Christ is based on our understanding of Transubstantiation. We believe we are literally consuming Him, even though the accidents of the body and blood of Christ are wafers.
@musterion99 -
If you look at the last supper, especially in Greek, Christ not only reiterates the literal interpretation of His words, but He also links it with our concept of Transubstantiation via the bread and wine shared in the supper. He is pointing out that by consuming the bread and wine in the supper, we are eating His flesh, even though it has the physical appearance (the “accidents”) of bread and wine. If you link that with John 6 you will see that He is only reinforcing the literal interpretation.
@QuantumStorm -
I’m not denying that Catholics believe they are eating Jesus’ literal flesh. I’m talking about the disciples literally eating Jesus’ body. Going up to Jesus and biting his flesh off and eating it. Not the transubstanciation of the wafer or bread into Jesus’ flesh. If we’re going to talk about literal, then let’s be consistent.
@musterion99 -
And I’m pointing out that transubstantiation is equivalent to going up to Jesus and tearing into Him.
@QuantumStorm -
Ok, well we’re definitely at a standstill. Thanks for your input.
@LitlKittyKat -
Please forgive the delayed response; I’m away from internet access but, lucky you, I stumbled across access today!
I will pray for you over the summer, and I’ll try and check in when I am able. But it seems to me that your heart is looking in the right place to reconnect with what part of yourself you feel that you have lost. What I have found helps some people and has helped me in the past is to remember always where I have come from, who I am and where I am going.
Remember always, dear sister, that you are the Daughter of the Most High God; He is your Father who loves you more than anyone can possibly fathom. Your Lord is also your Brother who died for you, and He has given everything to you. You are constantly immersed in the deepest love possible; trust in your Father, get to know your Brother and you will find the healing that your heart yearns for. God bless you always and abundantly.
Your brother in Christ, Jacob
@Ancient_Scribe - Thank you very much for your prayers and your response. You don’t have to apologize… I’m just glad you were able to respond.
Life has been overwhelmingly difficult as of lately. I don’t know where to go… yes, I’m trying very hard to rekindle my life with God because I lost it… but I’m also trying to make things right. I don’t know if my path will be the right path this time, but I don’t want to do what I’ve been doing. I don’t want my heart to keep breaking. I want to keep looking up to God and praying, knowing He will be there for me. Jacob, I’m sorry for constantly pestering you… but I was hoping you would be able to provide me with some spiritual guidance. I guess this is what I really need. Thank you, thank you so much.
How Jesus must ache at all this. At the lack of love so often here; at the divisions. At the way people lose sight of Him so easily. At the lack of any humility when folk argue. There is ONLY Jesus; period. Nothing else; and no one owns Him. Period. He is all there is and all and all and all. The rest is dross and distraction. Blessings this night from Ireland. Where the Church is sadly corrupt to its very core. We rest in Jesus and His utter love and see and need nothing more; there is nothing more.
Hello. I hit this post on your site before I got a chance to read the one you referred me to. I have not read the comments here so excuse me if the matter has been discussed. You wrote…
“Again, I look back at the main problems Luther had with the Church of almost 500 years ago and ask myself, “Why and what are they still protesting? When will they come home?”
In your list of issues that you mentioned, the one that is at the heart of the matter is glaringly absent. It is the doctrine to which Luther calls ” the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae (“article of the standing and falling of the church”): “…if this article stands, the Church stands; if it falls, the Church falls.” That doctrine of course is Justification by faith alone, or Sola Fide.
When Rome takes away the anathemas of Trent and returns to the teaching of the Apostles, Augustine as well as the Canons of the Council of Orange in 529 AD, then we Reformers shall contemplate our return. I am curious if you actually knew that Sola Fide was what eventually became the “heart of the matter” with Luther?
Grace and peace to you!
~Michael
@MC_Shann -
No, I don’t think the issue had been brought up yet. I did not realize that sola fide had been the heart of the matter with Luther, and I’m surprised that no one else I have dialogued with has brought it up. I’m very happy that you did so that I can learn about it for future discussions. I have also printed off the Canons of Orange 529AD and will review them.
You mentioned also the teachings of St. Augustine and the Apostles. Are there any in particular that you believe the Church teaches in opposition to, that I should also look at?
@MC_Shann -
Quick update: I have read the canons of the Council of Orange (529AD) and I have not come across anything contrary to what the Church still teaches, and in my formation toward the priesthood so far I have not been taught anything contrary. I can see, however, where it may seem that the Catholic Church “teaches” differently, because individual Catholics understand and practice erroneously or are unable to articulate their beliefs adequately. I would venture that a majority of Catholics whose practice differs from these canons, if dialogued with and instructed well, would turn out to believe these canons after all. The problem is that religious formation/education for the past few decades, sadly, as been very poor, so many Catholics do not have a good understanding of their faith and why that believe and practice what they do. I was one of them once, and it is only in the past few years that I’ve been able to learn so much important things about my faith and share them with others.
So again, while it may appear on the surface that the Church teaches against or in error when compared to this council, it may be your unfortunate experience with individual Catholics who simply need help learning more about their faith.
If there are any canons in particular, though, that you believe the Church teaches in opposition to, please let me know and I will have a closer look. Also, again, any apostolic teachings and teachings of St. Augustine that you believe the Church teaches in opposition of, please let me know of them also. Thank you!
Regarding the anathemas of Trent: in 1999 a commission of Lutherans as well as authorized representatives of the Catholic Church discussed the matter of justification and published a document here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
One section states:
41.Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.
So while not all of the anathemas have been lifted, tremendous progress has been made and continues to be made, step by step.
Continued blessings from God this day!
@MC_Shann -
OK so that wasn’t a “quick” update! Sorry!
First let me say that this exchange has been done very well and I want to complement you on your peaceable conversation. As I read the Canons of orange I see a very distinct view emerge. One that as far as I know is not held by the RCC. That view is the act of salvation fully rests in the person of God via His grace alone and that it is not brought about by the “free will” of man in co-operation in any way. The ideas found in the Canons would be better known today under the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity or as it it better stated “total inability”. It is my understanding that the RCC teaches that grace is infused at baptism (and this does not affect the will of man) but it is up to the person to keep it through good works and their own free will that is co-operating with God. Is this correct? The Canons seem to be saying that any “will” on mans part is a gift of grace.
I am aware of the Catholic/Lutheran talks and the documents. Although I am not Lutheran I listen to a fantastic show called Issues Etc. It is a Lutheran radio show and they discussed the issues at length. As Reformed Lutherans they were VERY upset at the concessions that the Lutherans involved were making. (Wow, how many times can I use the word Lutheran?) A great many Lutheran churches are moving away from their original confessions.
Grace and peace to you my new friend!
~Michael
@MC_Shann - Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I have not abandoned our dialogue! But the days since last we communicated have been very busy, transitioning from vacation in Wisconsin (where I was when we first began) to a few days in St. Paul, and then back to school in St. Louis. I am hoping to have time this weekend to pick up where we left off. I hope all is well, and I look forward to continuing!
@Ancient_Scribe - Take your time friend! I totally understand that sometimes life comes at us hard and fast…
Grace and peace!
~Michael