CrackerJackAg said:

---

We don't actually use the term pastors.

We have Priests but I know what you mean.

In my opinion, the great thing about the Orthodox Church is the clarity of the hierarchy and Apostolic Succession.

No one is free to just do what they want. Everyone is held accountable by the level above them. Patriarchs and the autocephalous (self-governing) Churches are held to account by one another.

The Patriarch oversees the Metropolitans, Metropolitans oversee the Bishops, and the Bishops are responsible for the Priests and Deacons.

In Orthodoxy, we believe the local Church is centered around the Bishop.

The Priest functions as the Bishop's representative in the parish. Because of that structure, the Bishop is accessible to any member of the laity. If there is a serious issue with a local Priest that can't be resolved internally, the Bishop is the person who holds the ultimate authority to step in and handle it.

---

But nothing may be done, even in that case, no? The bishop may disagree with you, or permit the priest to continue serving.

In which case you pray for your priest, for having such a prideful parishioner as yourself who knows better than said priest how to shepherd a flock and carry the weight of office.

That's what I do at my church when I disagree with my priest, anyways. And that's why, hazor, I can stand before God and say I submitted to his ordained authority, and have it be to my credit (rather than leave because I self-interpreted the scriptures, since submission is one such virtue in the church).

Captain Pablo said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

We don't actually use the term pastors.

We have Priests but I know what you mean.

In my opinion, the great thing about the Orthodox Church is the clarity of the hierarchy and Apostolic Succession.

No one is free to just do what they want. Everyone is held accountable by the level above them. Patriarchs and the autocephalous (self-governing) Churches are held to account by one another.

The Patriarch oversees the Metropolitans, Metropolitans oversee the Bishops, and the Bishops are responsible for the Priests and Deacons.

In Orthodoxy, we believe the local Church is centered around the Bishop.

The Priest functions as the Bishop's representative in the parish. Because of that structure, the Bishop is accessible to any member of the laity. If there is a serious issue with a local Priest that can't be resolved internally, the Bishop is the person who holds the ultimate authority to step in and handle it.

---

Wouldn't it be easier to just call an elder's meeting and fire the guy?

---

Thankfully, we don't allow the laity to dictate to the Church in that fashion.

I can assure you that if there was that much of a concern the Bishop would do what was required to correct the laity or remove the priest.

A priest can be removed for really any reason including the parish is suffering under their watch.

AGC said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

We don't actually use the term pastors.

We have Priests but I know what you mean.

In my opinion, the great thing about the Orthodox Church is the clarity of the hierarchy and Apostolic Succession.

No one is free to just do what they want. Everyone is held accountable by the level above them. Patriarchs and the autocephalous (self-governing) Churches are held to account by one another.

The Patriarch oversees the Metropolitans, Metropolitans oversee the Bishops, and the Bishops are responsible for the Priests and Deacons.

In Orthodoxy, we believe the local Church is centered around the Bishop.

The Priest functions as the Bishop's representative in the parish. Because of that structure, the Bishop is accessible to any member of the laity. If there is a serious issue with a local Priest that can't be resolved internally, the Bishop is the person who holds the ultimate authority to step in and handle it.

---

But nothing may be done, even in that case, no? The bishop may disagree with you, or permit the priest to continue serving.

In which case you pray for your priest, for having such a prideful parishioner as yourself who knows better than said priest how to shepherd a flock and carry the weight of office.

That's what I do at my church when I disagree with my priest, anyways. And that's why, hazor, I can stand before God and say I submitted to his ordained authority, and have it be to my credit (rather than leave because I self-interpreted the scriptures, since submission is one such virtue in the church).

---

I honestly have not interacted with a bad Orthodox priest to date. I'm sure some are "better" than others but the, not retired, Bishop Basil has done a fantastic job placing priests.

Here is a biblical text, John 6:48-58, from the RSV-CE -

John 6:48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread[a] which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"[b] 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

Sacred Tradition says the following: The Communion ("with union") host becomes the physical and spiritual body and blood of Jesus Christ (This IS my body, This IS my blood). "IS" means the substance of something, not a symbol of something (This is a table, this is my nose). Some reformers saw the word "symbol" in this text (it isn't there), other saw the text as referring to the spiritual presence of Christ in the bread; others saw it as Christ is in the bread along with the bread; But the 2000 year old teaching of the Church and the martyrs in the coliseum is that the bread really and substantially becomes the body and blood of Christ, invisibly, of course, but since Catholics walk by faith and NOT BY SIGHT, it isn't a showstopper if we can't see it or taste it. The Eucharist is the antidote for the forbidden fruit. Why? Because according the Leviticus, THE LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD. So, if you want the life of Christ in you, you partake of the Eucharist, foretold in Psalm 116. Sacred Tradition - I love it!

Here are three biblical texts:
Mark 1:8
I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Acts 11:16
And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit even appeared at the Baptism of Jesus in Jordan. And yet, there are still Christians who say that Water Baptism is just a Christian ritual where the Holy Spirit doesn't show up. Amazing...

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Here is a biblical text, John 6:48-58, from the RSV-CE -

John 6:48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread[a] which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"[b] 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

Sacred Tradition says the following: The Communion ("with union") host becomes the physical and spiritual body and blood of Jesus Christ (This IS my body, This IS my blood). "IS" means the substance of something, not a symbol of something (This is a table, this is my nose). Some reformers saw the word "symbol" in this text (it isn't there), other saw the text as referring to the spiritual presence of Christ in the bread; others saw it as Christ is in the bread along with the bread; But the 2000 year old teaching of the Church and the martyrs in the coliseum is that the bread really and substantially becomes the body and blood of Christ, invisibly, of course, but since Catholics walk by faith and NOT BY SIGHT, it isn't a showstopper if we can't see it or taste it. The Eucharist is the antidote for the forbidden fruit. Why? Because according the Leviticus, THE LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD. So, if you want the life of Christ in you, you partake of the Eucharist, foretold in Psalm 116. Sacred Tradition - I love it!

---

What makes the bread and wine Catholics partake in different from the bread and wine Protestants partake in? Just that you believe it's flesh and blood because it's been blessed by a priest?

Also, why can only Catholics partake in communion during mass? Is it just because anyone who doesn't believe it's flesh and blood is…what? Harming themselves? Being disrespectful?

How do the priests know that everyone who goes up to receive communion is able to receive it? Or maybe they don't and I'm making an assumption on how things work.

Quote:

---

What makes the bread and wine Catholics partake in different from the bread and wine Protestants partake in? Just that you believe it's flesh and blood because it's been blessed by a priest?

Apostolic succession by the Church and its priests guarantee transubstantiation. We don't just "believe." It actually becomes the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Luther didn't believe in this, and threw away his commission as a priest to do this.

Also, why can only Catholics partake in communion during mass? Is it just because anyone who doesn't believe it's flesh and blood is…what? Harming themselves? Being disrespectful?

Catholic Sacraments are for Catholics only. The word "sacrament" is Latin for "sacred oath." The sacred oath a Catholic takes is that everything the Catholic Church teaches is true. When the priest gives a Catholic the host, he holds it up and says "The Body of Christ," to which the communicant says, "Amen," or, "Yes it is, I believe it is truly the body of Christ." Prots don't believe this, so why would they take a solemn oath that it is? They would be lying. Catholics can't receive communion in the state of mortal sin, and there is no way a prot can be free of mortal sin if he is guilty of it unless he has cleansed himself in another Catholic sacrament; Confession.

How do the priests know that everyone who goes up to receive communion is able to receive it? Or maybe they don't and I'm making an assumption on how things work.

They don't. It's up to the communicant whether or not he wants to be blessed with the body of Christ, or if he wants to curse himself by receiving Jesus sacriligeously.

---

Quote:

---

How do the priests know that everyone who goes up to receive communion is able to receive it? Or maybe they don't and I'm making an assumption on how things work.

---

Honor system

Captain Pablo said:

---

Quote:

---

How do the priests know that everyone who goes up to receive communion is able to receive it? Or maybe they don't and I'm making an assumption on how things work.

---

Honor system

---

You could lie. Mostly the priests know their flock though.

I think orthodox trend to be more strict about knowing who is visiting etc

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

Quote:

---

How do the priests know that everyone who goes up to receive communion is able to receive it? Or maybe they don't and I'm making an assumption on how things work.

---

Honor system

---

You could lie. Mostly the priests know their flock though.

I think orthodox trend to be more strict about knowing who is visiting etc

---

Well, an Orthodox liturgy service is usually considerably smaller (fewer attending) than a Catholic mass. If I show up at St Thomas Orthodox in Fredericksburg, I'll stick out like a sore thumb

At St. Mary in College Station? Not so much. The priest knows probably a tiny fraction of Mass attendees

But of course you could lie. People lie and get stuff they shouldn't all the time

Captain Pablo said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

Quote:

---

How do the priests know that everyone who goes up to receive communion is able to receive it? Or maybe they don't and I'm making an assumption on how things work.

---

Honor system

---

You could lie. Mostly the priests know their flock though.

I think orthodox trend to be more strict about knowing who is visiting etc

---

Well, an Orthodox liturgy service is usually considerably smaller (fewer attending) than a Catholic mass. If I show up at St Thomas Orthodox in Fredericksburg, I'll stick out like a sore thumb

At St. Mary in College Station? Not so much. The priest knows probably a tiny fraction of Mass attendees

But of course you could lie. People lie and get stuff they shouldn't all the time

---

Depends on the location.

St Anthony and St George go into the 400+ range.

We do tend to focus on smaller Churches but also because we have different Churches, Russian, Serbian, Greek, Antiochian etc…

I've seen some super tiny Catholic Churches too.

Buffalo TX

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If tradition means being reliant on your local pastor to teach the Bible because he is the only one who can actually read it, then I am pro-tradition also. I guess we can all go home now.

---

So that is the pastor's interpretation of Scripture, correct? If that pastor is of a particular theology/denomination then he has church tradition also,, correct? And those interpretations vary widely. So is there a definition of what Sola Scriptura interpretation is correct? And who decided what was heresy like Marcion?

---

Lost in the sola's is that the 5 work in conjunction. In the reformed tradition, if just referring even to the Baptist one, we have/had congregationalism, which is a foreign concept to EO/RCC adherents (and some Episcopalian etc. denominations) imho, where the congregation is responsible even for selecting the pastor. It's a true democratization of the faith, dependent on a community of believers.

Though by nature I think all christianity is schismatic as it empowers and values the individual, the fine line distinctions we sometimes vehemently argue about on this forum are not in the grand scheme of things as significant as many posit. Arguing about 16th century Reformed views vs. the RCC is really too abstract for most imho, as 'sola' of course is a contradiction when they have to go together:

Quote:

---

The five solas of the Reformation, which distinguished the Reformers from the teachings of Rome, include sola scriptura (Scripture alone), solus Christus (Christ alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), and soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone).

SUMMARY
These five statements of the evangelical faith lay at the center of what distinguished the theology of the Reformation from the theology of the Roman Catholic church in the 16th century. Sola scriptura is the belief that because Scripture is God's inspired Word, it is the only inerrant, sufficient, and final authority for the church. Solus Christus is the assertion that Christ alone is the basis on which the ungodly are justified in God's sight. Sola fide maintains that the believer receives the redemption Christ has accomplished only through faith. Sola gratia proclaims that all of our salvation, from beginning to end, is by grace and grace alone. Because of these things, the Reformers held fast to the phrase soli Deo gloria, that only God receives glory for our salvation.

---

The Sandy Creek confession etc. all flow from these core concepts more than the verbose writings of Calvin himself imho.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If tradition means being reliant on your local pastor to teach the Bible because he is the only one who can actually read it, then I am pro-tradition also. I guess we can all go home now.

---

May I ask what Catholic/Orthodox traditions you think are not based on Scripture? You and I may not agree on the interpretation of that Scripture but they seem to be based on Scripture.

---

We can take clerical celibacy for one.

---

Paul didn't say it was better to be celibate than to marry?

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If tradition means being reliant on your local pastor to teach the Bible because he is the only one who can actually read it, then I am pro-tradition also. I guess we can all go home now.

---

May I ask what Catholic/Orthodox traditions you think are not based on Scripture? You and I may not agree on the interpretation of that Scripture but they seem to be based on Scripture.

---

We can take clerical celibacy for one.

---

Paul didn't say it was better to be celibate than to marry?

---

God said to be fruitful and multiply. Priests in the OT had children. I think we should go a bit further in our analysis.

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If tradition means being reliant on your local pastor to teach the Bible because he is the only one who can actually read it, then I am pro-tradition also. I guess we can all go home now.

---

May I ask what Catholic/Orthodox traditions you think are not based on Scripture? You and I may not agree on the interpretation of that Scripture but they seem to be based on Scripture.

---

We can take clerical celibacy for one.

---

Paul didn't say it was better to be celibate than to marry?

---

God said to be fruitful and multiply. Also, Jesus refers to Genesis when addressing divorce. I think we should go a bit further in our analysis.

---

He say there was no biblical basis. You agree with that? I'm not trying to use one verse to prove a position (like many protestants do) but one verse should be enough to show that there is greater than zero basis in scripture

Revelation 14 talks about the celibate priesthood, and how they follow the Lamb....

Quote:

---

God said to be fruitful and multiply. Priests in the OT had children. I think we should go a bit further in our analysis.

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If tradition means being reliant on your local pastor to teach the Bible because he is the only one who can actually read it, then I am pro-tradition also. I guess we can all go home now.

---

May I ask what Catholic/Orthodox traditions you think are not based on Scripture? You and I may not agree on the interpretation of that Scripture but they seem to be based on Scripture.

---

We can take clerical celibacy for one.

---

Paul didn't say it was better to be celibate than to marry?

---

God said to be fruitful and multiply. Also, Jesus refers to Genesis when addressing divorce. I think we should go a bit further in our analysis.

---

He say there was no biblical basis. You agree with that? I'm not trying to use one verse to prove a position (like many protestants do) but one verse should be enough to show that there is greater than zero basis in scripture

---

Fair point.

Jewish priests could not have sex for a time before offering sacrifice. Catholic priests offer sacrifice every day....

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Revelation 14 talks about the celibate priesthood, and how they follow the Lamb....

Quote:

---

God said to be fruitful and multiply. Priests in the OT had children. I think we should go a bit further in our analysis.

---

---

Revelation? Really?

Moses seems to be doing ok, popping in and out and talking to people despite being married. Celibacy does not stem from early Christian practice or the practice of the priesthood, generally. We know of disciples with in-laws.

Meh, you can have whatever point you want. It's not there.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Jewish priests could not have sex for a time before offering sacrifice. Catholic priests offer sacrifice every day....

---

But that's not the origin of it, since we know early on they passed on wealth and items belonging to the church to their children instead, because RCC priests weren't celibate.

Don't read anachronistically.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

What makes the bread and wine Catholics partake in different from the bread and wine Protestants partake in? Just that you believe it's flesh and blood because it's been blessed by a priest?

Apostolic succession by the Church and its priests guarantee transubstantiation. We don't just "believe." It actually becomes the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Luther didn't believe in this, and threw away his commission as a priest to do this.

Also, why can only Catholics partake in communion during mass? Is it just because anyone who doesn't believe it's flesh and blood is…what? Harming themselves? Being disrespectful?

Catholic Sacraments are for Catholics only. The word "sacrament" is Latin for "sacred oath." The sacred oath a Catholic takes is that everything the Catholic Church teaches is true. When the priest gives a Catholic the host, he holds it up and says "The Body of Christ," to which the communicant says, "Amen," or, "Yes it is, I believe it is truly the body of Christ." Prots don't believe this, so why would they take a solemn oath that it is? They would be lying. Catholics can't receive communion in the state of mortal sin, and there is no way a prot can be free of mortal sin if he is guilty of it unless he has cleansed himself in another Catholic sacrament; Confession.

How do the priests know that everyone who goes up to receive communion is able to receive it? Or maybe they don't and I'm making an assumption on how things work.

They don't. It's up to the communicant whether or not he wants to be blessed with the body of Christ, or if he wants to curse himself by receiving Jesus sacriligeously.

---

---

(I'm not meaning to argue) How do you KNOW it becomes this if nothing about it changes. By all senses, it still seems to be bread and wine?

Oh, I didn't remember the oath part in my one experience at a Catholic mass. I had to go do some quick research on a mortal sin. So, what you're saying is, because I wouldn't confess to a priest, I am not clean enough to take communion in a Catholic church, even if I did not "lie" by taking the oath. Confessing to my Lord is not enough to cleanse me of mortal sin. So, then how do Catholics believe any Protestant can be saved? (I see my original question opened a can of worms…)

AGC said:

---

We know of disciples with in-laws.

Meh, you can have whatever point you want. It's not there.

---

From scripture we know Peter had a mother-in-law. There is nothing in the Bible that tells us Peter's wife was still living. The scriptures are silent on the marital status of the Apostles with the exception of Paul who was not married.

If confessing mortal sins directly to God is good enough, why did Jesus give His priests the power to forgive sins in John 20? Nowhere in the NT does if say to confess your sins directly to God. It does say to confess your sins to one another, and that Paul has the ministry of reconciliation...

Thaddeus73 said:

---

If confessing mortal sins directly to God is good enough, why did Jesus give His priests the power to forgive sins in John 20? Nowhere in the NT does if say to confess your sins directly to God. It does say to confess your sins to one another, and that Paul has the ministry of reconciliation...

---

We know from scripture that only God has the authority to forgive sins. It's a basis for the Jewish leaders' anger against Jesus and a way Jesus demonstrated He was God.

More like the apostles (which is a different office from preacher/pastor/priest/teacher/whatever you want to call it) were given the authority to declare that God has forgiven sins as they spread the gospel.

Also, do you believe I'm in trouble since I haven't confessed my sin to a priest? What will happen to me?

I guess, at the end of the day, it just always seems to me that Jesus alone is never good enough to Catholics.

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If tradition means being reliant on your local pastor to teach the Bible because he is the only one who can actually read it, then I am pro-tradition also. I guess we can all go home now.

---

May I ask what Catholic/Orthodox traditions you think are not based on Scripture? You and I may not agree on the interpretation of that Scripture but they seem to be based on Scripture.

---

We can take clerical celibacy for one.

---

Paul didn't say it was better to be celibate than to marry?

---

God said to be fruitful and multiply. Also, Jesus refers to Genesis when addressing divorce. I think we should go a bit further in our analysis.

---

He say there was no biblical basis. You agree with that? I'm not trying to use one verse to prove a position (like many protestants do) but one verse should be enough to show that there is greater than zero basis in scripture

---

Shots fired!

What does Rome do with the exhortation of Elders and Deacons having one wife? Does that equate to some other position?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If tradition means being reliant on your local pastor to teach the Bible because he is the only one who can actually read it, then I am pro-tradition also. I guess we can all go home now.

---

May I ask what Catholic/Orthodox traditions you think are not based on Scripture? You and I may not agree on the interpretation of that Scripture but they seem to be based on Scripture.

---

We can take clerical celibacy for one.

---

Paul didn't say it was better to be celibate than to marry?

---

God said to be fruitful and multiply. Also, Jesus refers to Genesis when addressing divorce. I think we should go a bit further in our analysis.

---

He say there was no biblical basis. You agree with that? I'm not trying to use one verse to prove a position (like many protestants do) but one verse should be enough to show that there is greater than zero basis in scripture

---

Shots fired!

What does Rome do with the exhortation of Elders and Deacons having one wife? Does that equate to some other position?

---

1. Saying that someone must have only one wife is not the same as saying someone HAS to have a wife. It reads as putting a cap on the number of wives, not a command to go get married. Many of the ordained Church fathers were celibate during their ministry (Augustine, Basil, Jerome, Athanasius, etc)

2. Clerical celibacy has some roots in scripture. Paul says it's the better calling. That was my main point.

That said, the discipline to enforce it across the clerical ranks was a prudential choice by the Church. It's a "requirement" only inasmuch as that is the current standard of the Church. The Church can go back to married priests tomorrow if it believed it to be the better prudential choice. It's not a theological issue at it's core. This can be proven when we see some married, Anglican priests convert to Catholicism and get a dispensation in order to be a married, Catholic priest. Also some Eastern Catholic priests are married.

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

If confessing mortal sins directly to God is good enough, why did Jesus give His priests the power to forgive sins in John 20? Nowhere in the NT does if say to confess your sins directly to God. It does say to confess your sins to one another, and that Paul has the ministry of reconciliation...

---

We know from scripture that only God has the authority to forgive sins. It's a basis for the Jewish leaders' anger against Jesus and a way Jesus demonstrated He was God.

More like the apostles (which is a different office from preacher/pastor/priest/teacher/whatever you want to call it) were given the authority to declare that God has forgiven sins as they spread the gospel.

Also, do you believe I'm in trouble since I haven't confessed my sin to a priest? What will happen to me?

I guess, at the end of the day, it just always seems to me that Jesus alone is never good enough to Catholics.

---

Thaddeus already took care of the first two lines. For line 3, confession is for YOUR benefit and cleansing. If you have been taught falsely about confession and haven't gone, God will judge based on what you are morally culpable for.

I would rephrase your last line. Jesus alone did all the work for us. And He said it's those that do the will of His Father that love Him. Not the people who just say they believe, but those that do His Father's will. Our doing right does not detract from Him. Its obeying Him as He told us to.

Obedience is not a buffet line. It's not something we figure out for ourselves. It's an all or nothing proposition. Reading the bible and deciding for yourself what it means, or only ascribing to secondary, fallible authorities when they happen to align with what you believe is not obedience. It may be well meaning and done with charity, and I believe God is merciful in His judgments for those that do, but it still misses the point: Jesus established a Church and gave it true, Divine authority. We don't get to ignore that because we think we are right.

---

Thanks for your comments and kind manner of speak.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

If confessing mortal sins directly to God is good enough, why did Jesus give His priests the power to forgive sins in John 20? Nowhere in the NT does if say to confess your sins directly to God. It does say to confess your sins to one another, and that Paul has the ministry of reconciliation...

---

We know from scripture that only God has the authority to forgive sins. It's a basis for the Jewish leaders' anger against Jesus and a way Jesus demonstrated He was God.

More like the apostles (which is a different office from preacher/pastor/priest/teacher/whatever you want to call it) were given the authority to declare that God has forgiven sins as they spread the gospel.

Also, do you believe I'm in trouble since I haven't confessed my sin to a priest? What will happen to me?

I guess, at the end of the day, it just always seems to me that Jesus alone is never good enough to Catholics.

---

Thaddeus already took care of the first two lines. For line 3, confession is for YOUR benefit and cleansing. If you have been taught falsely about confession and haven't gone, God will judge based on what you are morally culpable for.

I would rephrase your last line. Jesus alone did all the work for us. And He said it's those that do the will of His Father that love Him. Not the people who just say they believe, but those that do His Father's will. Our doing right does not detract from Him. Its obeying Him as He told us to.

Obedience is not a buffet line. It's not something we figure out for ourselves. It's an all or nothing proposition. Reading the bible and deciding for yourself what it means, or only ascribing to secondary, fallible authorities when they happen to align with what you believe is not obedience. It may be well meaning and done with charity, and I believe God is merciful in His judgments for those that do, but it still misses the point: Jesus established a Church and gave it true, Divine authority. We don't get to ignore that because we think we are right.

---

Thanks for your comments and kind manner of speak.

---

Yeah he's a pretty damn good poster

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

The Church that is upholding tradition and protecting from heresy and error.

---

Lets take the easiest example to show the problem.

Rome claims the Pope is has not just primacy, but supremacy.

claims "church tradition" and whatnot. All found outside Scripture.

EO claims the Pope/Bishop of Rome has primacy, but not supremacy.

claims "church tradition" and whatnot. More defensible from Scripture, but not clear.

Who has the correct "church tradition" and how do we determine that? Both groups claim to represent "the historic church and to have the tradition handed down from the apostles." Yet only one can be correct. Which one is committing heresy and error?

Paul says that the Church is THE pillar and bulwark of truth, in 1 Timothy 3:15. The question is whether or not this church waited for 1500 years to appear on the scene, in Germany, or if it existed in Paul's day. A quick reading of the Early Church Fathers (aka the Coliseum Martyrs) says that it is Catholic.

AgLiving06 said:

---

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

The Church that is upholding tradition and protecting from heresy and error.

---

Lets take the easiest example to show the problem.

Rome claims the Pope is has not just primacy, but supremacy.

claims "church tradition" and whatnot. All found outside Scripture.

EO claims the Pope/Bishop of Rome has primacy, but not supremacy.

claims "church tradition" and whatnot. More defensible from Scripture, but not clear.

Who has the correct "church tradition" and how do we determine that? Both groups claim to represent "the historic church and to have the tradition handed down from the apostles." Yet only one can be correct. Which one is committing heresy and error?

---

Primacy of Rome or supremacy of Rome. Either way it sounds like communion with Rome is a big deal, and one side isn't. They= East agreed they needed to be in communion with Rome twice at two different councils before backtracking.

Then come the claims that it was all political and there was no interest in the East in reuniting. Ok then. Even if it's only the Primacy of Rome that is noted and there is zero interest in reuniting with the Prime See, zero overtures made to attempt reunification and even when forced to come to the table it's done in bad faith (no true interest in uniting with intent to recant later) what does that say about how well you are following your own tradition? And it's important to note that the schism didn't start with the filioque but because of the growing presence of western rite churches in Constantinople, making the patriarch uncomfortable

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Paul says that the Church is THE pillar and bulwark of truth, in 1 Timothy 3:15.

---

Funny, my ESV says "a pillar" not "the pillar"

I am not sure your point though. In your mind is Paul not speaking of the catholic (universal) church?

Banned just called protestants out for using single verses as proof for doctrine. Keep going in v16...what is the chuch a pillar of....?
"Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory."