My dilemma

[The Biblicist]

IT IS NOT A BLOODY SACRIFICE. It is a bloodless sacrifice.

This is amusing! Jesus explicitly says the blood is for remission of sins but guess what? Rome never provides the cup to the sinner only the bread. So it is not only a bloodless sacrifice but it is a oxymoronic exercise of futility as the very thing said to be for the remission of sins is withheld from sinners. Only the Priests drink the cup.

Of course this just one oxymoronic characteristics of those who teach that the Lord's Supper is literally for remission of sins.

 

[Walter]

This is amusing! Jesus explicitly says the blood is for remission of sins but guess what? Rome never provides the cup to the sinner only the bread. So it is not only a bloodless sacrifice but it is a oxymoronic exercise of futility as the very thing said to be for the remission of sins is withheld from sinners. Only the Priests drink the cup.

Of course this just one oxymoronic characteristics of those who teach that the Lord's Supper is literally for remission of sins.

This is a false statement and is just ONE example of BAD information being posted on this board about the Catholic Church. I took communion this morning in a Catholic Church and received the cup. So, obviously you are VERY wrong. Every Catholic Church I know of offers the cup also to those who wish to commune in that way.

 

[DHK]

This is a false statement and is just ONE example of BAD information being posted on this board about the Catholic Church. I took communion this morning in a Catholic Church and received the cup. So, obviously you are VERY wrong. Every Catholic Church I know of offers the cup also to those who wish to commune in that way.

Every RCC church I have ever known has never allowed any other person to take of the cup. The priest alone takes from the cup, not even attending nuns were allowed.

If it has changed it would seem to be a change in doctrine, the ever changing monster of the RCC. Thank God the Bible never changes; Christ never changes; the same: yesterday, today, and forever.

 

[Rebel]

Every RCC church I have ever known has never allowed any other person to take of the cup. The priest alone takes from the cup, not even attending nuns were allowed.

If it has changed it would seem to be a change in doctrine, the ever changing monster of the RCC. Thank God the Bible never changes; Christ never changes; the same: yesterday, today, and forever.

Of course the RCC believes in and practices continuing revelation and development of doctrine. But that comes only to and through the pope and the magisterium, and everybody else is bound to believe it. The RCC charges non-Catholics with private interpretation, but they are guilty of it, too, the difference being that theirs comes through a privileged, select, restricted hierarchy. I had much rather be able to read and interpret the Bible myself through the Holy Spirit than to have to get my doctrine from the dictates of a hierarchy and an "infallible" pope.

Actually, in this respect, the RCC is no different from groups such as the Mormons, and the SDA with their inspired "prophetess" Ellen White.

 

[annsni]

This is a false statement and is just ONE example of BAD information being posted on this board about the Catholic Church. I took communion this morning in a Catholic Church and received the cup. So, obviously you are VERY wrong. Every Catholic Church I know of offers the cup also to those who wish to commune in that way.

I grew up in a Catholic family and had first communion. From the earliest memories to 7 years old when we left the Catholic church, I never saw a communal cup. I then went to Catholic school from 7-12th grades and went to mass 3x a week and never saw a communal cup. My father has been attending the Catholic church all his 88 years and he said one church he went to for something had a communal cup but none of the churches he's been a member of has done it.

So no, he's not wrong.

 

[OldRegular]

Is it "Time Waits for No One" Or "Time Changes Everything"?

FURTHER CHANGES

The following innovations also took place:

1. unleavened bread in the form of thin wafers made by consecrated people, usually nuns, was used from around the ninth century, and wine was specially made as ‘altar wine’ (this was making the elements sacred before the celebration)

2. communion was given on the tongue with the communicant kneeling to show penitence and subservience

3. only the priest gave communion and did the readings

4. the cup was not given at all to the laity from the fourteenth century

5. only a priest could touch the ‘sacred vessels’ such as the chalice and the ciborium

6. the cloths (corporals and purificators) had to be washed three times by a priest and the water poured down the sacrarium so that it went into the garden, before the sacristan could wash and iron them

7. altar rails were installed to define the sacred area, the sanctuary, where only priests, male ministers and altar servers could be present during Mass

8. a white altar rail cloth ran the full length of the altar rails; this was lifted and turned over the altar rails before communion, and the communicants had to place their hands under the cloth and hold it up under the chin to catch any crumbs that may break off the host; as a further safeguard the altar boy had to follow along with the priest and hold a ‘communion plate’ under the chin of the communicant

9. the Eucharistic prayer was recited silently by the priest except for the words of consecration which were voiced a little louder but not so loud as to be heard by the people
because the people couldn’t hear the Eucharistic prayer, and even if they could they would not understand the Latin, many filled in the time by reciting the rosary or other devotional prayers during Mass.

https://theeucharist.wordpress.com/index/chapter-1/

Notice Item 4 above. I read somewhere years ago that the reason the cup was refused the "laity" was to avoid the spread of disease since a common cup was used. I have as yet been unable to find any reference to this but it does make sense. I believe that was when the bread became both the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Then there is this:

CHAPTER III.
On the excellency of the most holy Eucharist over the rest of the Sacraments.
The most holy Eucharist has indeed this in common with the rest of the sacraments, that it is a symbol of a sacred thing, and is a visible form of an invisible grace; but there is found in the Eucharist this excellent and peculiar thing, that the other sacraments have then first the power of sanctifying when one uses them, whereas in the Eucharist, before being used, there is the [Page 78] Author Himself of sanctity. For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless Himself affirmed with truth that to be His own body which He presented (to them). And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul. Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof.
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html

******************************************************

 

[Walter]

I grew up in a Catholic family and had first communion. From the earliest memories to 7 years old when we left the Catholic church, I never saw a communal cup. I then went to Catholic school from 7-12th grades and went to mass 3x a week and never saw a communal cup. My father has been attending the Catholic church all his 88 years and he said one church he went to for something had a communal cup but none of the churches he's been a member of has done it.

So no, he's not wrong.

He is absolutely wrong. He made the statement that the RCC NEVER gives the cup to the laity and that ONLY the priest takes of the cup. It may have been the practice before Vatican II but it isn't now. And, he is wrong with the conclusions he makes for those who would just take of either the host or the cup along, which is an option for the communicant. Just like DHK was wrong about married priests in the Catholic Church. Just like 'Protestant' was wrong about the chalice being required to be made of gold. Even after I gave evidence that both DHK and Protestant were wrong Protestant never admitted he was wrong and DHK, reluctantly, made a bit of a concession. It has become evident to me that most on this forum believe what they want to believe about the Catholic Church and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your minds. Any wonder why Baptist are known for being closed minded? What was once PRACTICED is no longer.Both the host and the cup are offered in every Catholic Church I have ever attended (and I have been to a LOT).

The PRACTICE, not DOCTRINE of offering the cup to the laity began after Vatican II. Most churches here in the U.S. are giving both the host and the cup. There is a big difference in discipline & practice and what you keep calling doctrine. Even the Latin Rite could begin allowing married priests and it would not be a change in doctrine but discipline. Here is evidence for you concerning the administration of the cup to the laity.

"http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/

Holy Communion Under Both Kinds
17. From the first days of the Church's celebration of the Eucharist, Holy Communion consisted of the reception of both species in fulfillment of the Lord's command to "take and eat . . . take and drink." The distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium of Catholic liturgical practice.
18. The practice of Holy Communion under both kinds at Mass continued until the late eleventh century, when the custom of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful under the form of bread alone began to grow. By the twelfth century theologians such as Peter Cantor speak of Communion under one kind as a "custom" of the Church.28 This practice spread until the Council of Constance in 1415 decreed that Holy Communion under the form of bread alone would be distributed to the faithful.
19. In 1963, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council authorized the extension of the faculty for Holy Communion under both kinds in Sacrosanctum Concilium:

 

[Zenas]

Every RCC church I have ever known has never allowed any other person to take of the cup. The priest alone takes from the cup, not even attending nuns were allowed.

If it has changed it would seem to be a change in doctrine, the ever changing monster of the RCC. Thank God the Bible never changes; Christ never changes; the same: yesterday, today, and forever.

In the Latin Rite, which is the vast majority of Catholics in Western Europe and the Americas, both species of the Eucharist were offered to the laity until the 11th Century. Thereafter, only the bread (Body of Christ) was offered to the laity until after the Second Vatican Council. At that time most churches resumed offering both the bread and the cup to all their members. However, the bishop and the parish priest may still withhold the cup at their discretion. This is rarely done in the United States, but is more common in other places.

The reason behind the Church's decision to withhold the cup from the laity in the 11th Century is fuzzy (meaning few if any people know). Many suspect it was done simply out of expediency. If there is only one priest presiding, it takes a lot longer to offer both species. After all “Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of the Eucharistic grace." Catechism Section 1390. The Church now has deacons and, since Vatican II it has brought on lay persons as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, thus making distribution of both species much more efficient.

So why did they change back? The thinking was that if Jesus commanded the people to eat His body and drink His blood, it was not a good idea to attenuate this liturgy. Father Gregory Collins, in his book "Meeting Christ in His Mysteries," put it this way:

If one can receive the total Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity through communion with the host alone—-so runs the objection—-then why be concerned with receiving the chalice? Apart from Christ’s original intention in instituting the mysteries, (i.e.’take this all of you and drink from it’) and of the almost universal prevalence of general communion from the chalice in the worship of the early church, such arguments completely miss the point. The liturgy is a sign-language made up of symbolic actions through which Christ manifests himself. It is not a matter of ‘more’ or ‘less.’ Rather it is about recognizing the symbolic significance attached to the actions of eating and drinking and the richly symbolic meaning of the chalice as set forth in Holy Scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

He is absolutely wrong.......

The PRACTICE, not DOCTRINE of offering the cup to the laity began after Vatican II.

On one hand he claims the Catholic church DOCTRINE demands remission of sin is inseparably connected with both the cup and the bread but in ACTUAL PRACTICE Walter admits that Rome "BEGAN AFTER VATICAN II" to even offer the cup to the laity.

Think about that admission!!! On one hand their DOCTRINE demands it is essential for remission of sins but on the other hand their PRACTICE has not historically agreed with their DOCTRINE and even now they only OFFER it but don't demand their PRACTICE matches their DOCTRINE! Is it, or is it not essential for remission of sins????????

However, their DOCTRINE is straight out of hell and perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ. Abraham is given TO US as the PATTERN for remission of sins and imputation of righteous WHICH IS Justification (Rom. 4:5-8) as there is no justification of those still in sins and without righteousness and Abraham was justified as a completed action at the point of faith while "IN UNCIRCUMCISION" (Rom. 4:9-10).

Paul explicitly denies Abraham was justified "IN CIRCUMCISION" - v. 10-11 using the Aorist tense of completed action demanding it occurred PREVIOUS to circumcision. Hence, PRIOR TO DIVINE ORDINANCES justification was a completed action at the point of faith.

Only by perverting Romans 4:16-21 does Rome attempt to justify PROGRESSIVE JUSTIFICATION when this text is not dealing with Justification but with the nature or kind of faith involved in the act of justification, which is not PROGRESSIVE FAITHFULNESS but simply taking God at His Word that he is able to obtain the promise rather than a partnership in obtaining the promise.

However, Catholics are spiritually blind and committed to their errors and are incapable exegetes.

 

[The Biblicist]

Catholics are deceived and deceptive. Here is the evidence to prove it.

1. They claim "without works" in regard to justification refers to Judiasm and becoming a Jew rather than good and bad deeds defined by both conscience and Law. The proof they are wrong is that Paul uses Abraham as the example of "works" who lived 430 years prior to the Law or Judaism - proving it has nothing to do with becoming a Jew or judaism. - Rom. 4:1-6

2. They claim that justification is a progressive action only completed in final judgement after the resurrection but Paul denies justification occurred "in circumcision" but was a completed action "Had" while "in uncircumcision" - Rom. 4:9-11

3. They claim that justification is inclusive of divine ordinances while Paul using Abraham as the pattern of justification by faith for "all who are of faith" both Jews and Gentiles demands it was a completed action PRIOR TO the only divine ordinance given Abraham - Rom. 4:9-11.

On one hand he claims the Catholic church DOCTRINE demands remission of sin is inseparably connected with both the cup and the bread but in ACTUAL PRACTICE Walter admits that Rome "BEGAN AFTER VATICAN II" to even offer the cup to the laity.

Think about that admission!!! On one hand their DOCTRINE demands it is essential for remission of sins but on the other hand their PRACTICE has not historically agreed with their DOCTRINE and even now they only OFFER it but don't demand their PRACTICE matches their DOCTRINE!

However, their DOCTRINE is straight out of hell and perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ. Abraham is given TO US as the PATTERN for remission of sins and imputation of righteous WHICH IS Justification (Rom. 4:5-8) as there is no justification of those still in sins and without righteousness and Abraham was justified as a completed action at the point of faith while "IN UNCIRCUMCISION" (Rom. 4:9-10).

Paul explicitly denies Abraham was justified "IN CIRCUMCISION" - v. 10-11 using the Aorist tense of completed action demanding it occurred PREVIOUS to circumcision. Hence, PRIOR TO DIVINE ORDINANCES justification was a completed action at the point of faith.

Only by perverting Romans 4:16-21 does Rome attempt to justify PROGRESSIVE JUSTIFICATION when this text is not dealing with Justification but with the nature or kind of faith involved in the act of justification, which is not PROGRESSIVE FAITHFULNESS but simply taking God at His Word that he is able to obtain the promise rather than a partnership in obtaining the promise.

However, Catholics are spiritually blind and committed to their errors and are incapable exegetes.

 

[OldRegular]

He is absolutely wrong. He made the statement that the RCC NEVER gives the cup to the laity and that ONLY the priest takes of the cup. It may have been the practice before Vatican II but it isn't now. And, he is wrong with the conclusions he makes for those who would just take of either the host or the cup along, which is an option for the communicant. Just like DHK was wrong about married priests in the Catholic Church. Just like 'Protestant' was wrong about the chalice being required to be made of gold. Even after I gave evidence that both DHK and Protestant were wrong Protestant never admitted he was wrong and DHK, reluctantly, made a bit of a concession. It has become evident to me that most on this forum believe what they want to believe about the Catholic Church and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your minds. Any wonder why Baptist are known for being closed minded? What was once PRACTICED is no longer.Both the host and the cup are offered in every Catholic Church I have ever attended (and I have been to a LOT).

The PRACTICE, not DOCTRINE of offering the cup to the laity began after Vatican II. Most churches here in the U.S. are giving both the host and the cup. There is a big difference in discipline & practice and what you keep calling doctrine. Even the Latin Rite could begin allowing married priests and it would not be a change in doctrine but discipline. Here is evidence for you concerning the administration of the cup to the laity.

"http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/

Holy Communion Under Both Kinds
17. From the first days of the Church's celebration of the Eucharist, Holy Communion consisted of the reception of both species in fulfillment of the Lord's command to "take and eat . . . take and drink." The distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium of Catholic liturgical practice.
18. The practice of Holy Communion under both kinds at Mass continued until the late eleventh century, when the custom of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful under the form of bread alone began to grow. By the twelfth century theologians such as Peter Cantor speak of Communion under one kind as a "custom" of the Church.28 This practice spread until the Council of Constance in 1415 decreed that Holy Communion under the form of bread alone would be distributed to the faithful.
19. In 1963, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council authorized the extension of the faculty for Holy Communion under both kinds in Sacrosanctum Concilium:

Walter, Walter, Please! It is not the Catholic Church because it is not the universal church. It is the Church of Rome or The Roman Catholic Church if those names make you feel happy. But the use of the name Universal Church, rather than Church of Rome, then places every other Church of whatever denomination outside the Universal Church which consists of the redeemed of all time.

So as long as you insist on using the name "Catholic" don't expect much respect from those outside the Church of Rome since you are denying and showing contempt for their faith and Salvation.

I believe I could make the argument that the Orthodox Church supersedes the Church of Rome. I am quite certain any Orthodox Church members would be willing to debate you on that subject.


***************************************************************************************************

 

[Zenas]

Of course the RCC believes in and practices continuing revelation and development of doctrine. But that comes only to and through the pope and the magisterium, and everybody else is bound to believe it. The RCC charges non-Catholics with private interpretation, but they are guilty of it, too, the difference being that theirs comes through a privileged, select, restricted hierarchy. I had much rather be able to read and interpret the Bible myself through the Holy Spirit than to have to get my doctrine from the dictates of a hierarchy and an "infallible" pope.

Actually, in this respect, the RCC is no different from groups such as the Mormons, and the SDA with their inspired "prophetess" Ellen White.

Rebel, the Catholic Church does not believe in continuing revelation, as the Mormons do. The Church recognizes two kinds of revelation.

(1) Public revelation is that given to by Christ and His apostles. It is meant for all the faithful of all time. It is the deposit of faith referenced in Jude 3. Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. It is complete.

(2) Private revelation is sometimes given to specific persons for their own edification. It is beneficial to that person, sometimes even demanding that he or she perform certain works, but it never becomes applicable to the whole Church. It never becomes a part of the deposit of faith.

The Reformers never quite got it as far as private revelation is concerned. For them it seemed to be an either/or situation where if someone received a revelation it ought to apply to the whole Church. Thus they rejected all revelations and in doing so they rejected the command of Saint Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21: "Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good."

 

[The American Dream]

Hebrews 1 makes it clear revelation is complete in Jesus Christ. Everything we need is in the Bible. There are no more words of faith, words of knowledge, except in the warped theology of charismatics. Supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit such as tongues, miracles, healings, etc have ceased. God can of course do any, but no man today possesses them except the frauds on TV.

I would be interested to know, since the Lord's Supper in relation to the RCC is being discussed below, I have always wondered how Christ manifested a physical presence in the wafer and wine? How does that work in practical terms?

 

[Zenas]

You misspeak when you use the term Catholic Church. First it is not the universal Church which is what catholic means. Second only God knows whether it is truly a Church or not. I have no doubt there are many people in the Roman Communion who are saved since I believe in Sovereign Election and Grace. In fact I know some. However, the Roman Communion has departed so much from the teaching of Scripture it is unrecognizable as a body of believers.

This is not something on which you and I can ever agree unless you became a Catholic (yes, it's Catholic, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) or unless I joined you in your thinking.

You see, if you believe that the Bishop of Rome, the occupier of the Chair of St. Peter, is the Vicar of Christ; if you believe that the Church whose leader on earth is the Bishop of Rome; if you believe that the Church of which Jesus spoke in Matthew 16 is the same Church that is today headquartered in Rome, then you will be a Catholic. You will also believe that it is indeed the universal church.

If you don't believe these things, then you will probably find my references to the Catholic Church to be offensive. I'm sorry if it offends but this is a forum for the exchange of ideas. Frankly I find many things said here offensive, not the least of which is the elitist positions taken by the doctrines of grace crowd.

 

[OldRegular]

This is not something on which you and I can ever agree unless you became a Catholic (yes, it's Catholic, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) or unless I joined you in your thinking.

You see, if you believe that the Bishop of Rome, the occupier of the Chair of St. Peter, is the Vicar of Christ; if you believe that the Church whose leader on earth is the Bishop of Rome; if you believe that the Church of which Jesus spoke in Matthew 16 is the same Church that is today headquartered in Rome, then you will be a Catholic. You will also believe that it is indeed the universal church.

If you don't believe these things, then you will probably find my references to the Catholic Church to be offensive. I'm sorry if it offends but this is a forum for the exchange of ideas. Frankly I find many things said here offensive, not the least of which is the elitist positions taken by the doctrines of grace crowd.

The Bishop of Rome is as close to being the Vicar of Jesus Christ as Judas Iscariot. Judas and his Jewish cohorts betrayed Jesus Christ to pagan Rome and the so-called Bishop of Rome has betrayed Jesus Christ because he has corrupted and blasphemed the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

*************************************************************************************************

 

[The American Dream]

The Bishop of Rome is as close to being the Vicar of Jesus Christ as Judas Iscariot. Judas and his Jewish cohorts betrayed Jesus Christ to pagan Rome and the so-called Bishop of Rome has betrayed Jesus Christ because he has corrupted and blasphemed the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

*************************************************************************************************

Aside from that, how do they get a list of Popes back to Peter when the RCC was founded in 453 AD?

 

[Zenas]

I would be interested to know, since the Lord's Supper in relation to the RCC is being discussed below, I have always wondered how Christ manifested a physical presence in the wafer and wine? How does that work in practical terms?

What you are asking cannot be fully explained any more than we can explain the Trinity. It is a mystery. However, I sense you are interested in the physical aspects of transubstantiation. To comprehend this, you must go to Greek philosophy where physical objects have two components—substance and accidents. Take a loaf of bread for instance. Its substance is bread. It has a number of accidents—a particular smell, a certain feel, a certain taste. Accidents are aspects of an object that can be detected by the various senses. The substance cannot.

Substance can change without the accidents changing, and that is what is known as transubstantiation. This brief article may be helpful in your understanding, although I submit that this is a mystery not susceptible of fully understanding. http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha4.htm

 

[Zenas]

The Bishop of Rome is as close to being the Vicar of Jesus Christ as Judas Iscariot. Judas and his Jewish cohorts betrayed Jesus Christ to pagan Rome and the so-called Bishop of Rome has betrayed Jesus Christ because he has corrupted and blasphemed the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Oh, I detect a measure of hostility here. Calm down, OR, so we can have a civil discussion.

 

[Zenas]

Aside from that, how do they get a list of Popes back to Peter when the RCC was founded in 453 AD?

This question presupposes a founding date of 453 A.D., which is wrong. The Catholic Church was founded in 32 or 33 A.D. The Chair of Peter was recognized quite early in the history of the Church. For example: Iranaeus of Lyons wrote around 180 A.D.:

[T]radition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles . . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

 

[Croyant]

I just want to say I do not mind at all the derailment, in fact it's the very issue I am trying to get a better understanding of.

So far I would say my beliefs have become a hybrid of both. I am still not totally convinced of salvation by grace alone or the lack of any authority of the Catholic church and the Pope, for instance. To me it looked like an excuse by people who wanted to be freed from the authority of the Catholic church, to instead create hierarchies of their own.