So…. This sounds like they’ve decided that they don’t reject the tradition of the church, just that Rome is corrupt….

It’s been heard before.

Hus tried to reform Rome, and was burned for it. (And later canonized, at least by the Orthodox.)

Luther didn’t want to start a new church, he wanted to reform Rome.

Likewise, the Orthodox didn’t have a problem with Rome, until it tried to claim it could tell the rest of the churches what to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
So…. This sounds like they’ve decided that they don’t reject the tradition of the church, just that Rome is corrupt….

It’s been heard before.

Hus tried to reform Rome, and was burned for it. (And later canonized, at least by the Orthodox.)

Luther didn’t want to start a new church, he wanted to reform Rome.

Likewise, the Orthodox didn’t have a problem with Rome, until it tried to claim it could tell the rest of the churches what to do.

Well, not really. Protestant reformers wanted to change doctrine. They had radically different beliefs than the Church. Sola Scriptural, Sola Fide, rejection of the Eucharist, etc.They were heretics.

What's complicated about the traditionalist movement is that they, with the exception of papal authority (and even that is complicated) have very Catholic beliefs. Like I mentioned before, 60 years ago, there would be no argument. And they argue that from a continuity standpoint, they are still practicing the Catholic faith and that Rome has changed course. Rome doesn't really argue that they have changed course, either.

I don't think that any reasonable Catholic would say that the fruits of Vatican II have been bad. Again, I'll just keep praying for the Church, for the Holy Father, and for all people to be in communion with Rome. He wants ONE Church.

quote:

All of that being said, I find that stuff to be distracting. I need to focus on my own sinfulness, not that of others. I need to make sure that Christ's light shines from within me and shines from my family. I need the Sacraments. I need Jesus. I don't know everything, but I know that He left a Church. That's where I'll be. Quietly praying that wrongs are righted and that hearts are softened.

Amen.

quote:

My faith is in Christ, not the worldly, sometimes sinful, leader of the earthly Church.

I don't think this renewed discussion has had a looking-down-the-nose attitude. Luther perceived and reacted to corruption in the interest of folks' salvation. The SSPX perceives problems with the post-conciliar church, and wants to maintain "the old ways" in the interest of folks' salvation. The second Vatican council was motivated by an interest in folks' salvation.

Of course we can say of any of them that it's possible the devil is behind it, depending on our outlook or bias.

We're all sinners in need of a Savior. As a result of attending a Pentecostal Holiness camp meeting Friday evening, a friend and I were discussing sanctification. Varying denominations have varying outlooks. None of them seem to believe that "total" sanctification in this life is possible. All of us: from the newest convert who is still ignorant of much of his sin but under daily Holy Ghost conviction, to the pope, are inherently wicked and daily struggling against the flesh. As much as I'd love for a priest or pastor to be a reliable shining example of holiness, I know the ugly pull of temptation's power. Thank God for the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ.

quote:

I don't know everything, but I know that He left a Church.

I recently read The Didache for the first time. I've been curious about it, and finally got a copy. Very short, supposed first-century "church manual" of sorts. The subtitle is something like The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles. As a mere trivia point, it's not pronounced the way I would have thought. It's "DEED-ah-khay".

There were three things that jumped out at me:

One part specifically mentions pedophilia in a list of condemned practices. It also lists sexual immorality. It does not specifically cite homosexuality. Of course homosexuality is under the sexual immorality umbrella, but I found it curious that they went out of their way to specifically mention pedophilia, as it'd be under that umbrella as well.

Another part implies that we should treat church leaders as we would the Lord. I thought that was a bit odd. To assign an equality like that. I can't remember the exact wording of the statement, and I don't have the book with me right now.

I also can't currently remember that third thing that struck me. I'll get the book back in hand later, and post again.

As with the Bible itself, this document may give varying impressions depending on its translation "style". I don't know if there are multiple translations of the Didache. The one I have is dated 2017.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

Lutherans have the Eucharist, as do some Anglicans, TMK.

They do have the Solas, but there is respect for teachings prior to Reformation, but Scriptural primacy is definitely a foundational part of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
Lutherans have the Eucharist, as do some Anglicans, TMK.

They do have the Solas, but there is respect for teachings prior to Reformation, but Scriptural primacy is definitely a foundational part of it.

They do not have the Eucharist. They may have communion practices that would appear similar.

quote:

Lutherans have the Eucharist.

They do not have the Eucharist.

The way I understand it is it's a matter of the real presence vs. transubstantiation. I don't feel qualified to comment any more than that. I am sure Cous can educate us. I think he already has, and can perhaps refer us back to the previous page and comment in which he explained.

I remembered the third Didache thing...

It encouraged fasting before baptism. Ideally two days for both the one being baptized and the one doing the baptizing. At the very least one day for the one being baptized. Fasting is something that I think is misunderstood and undervalued by Christians in 21st century North America. Several men in my congregation conduct 24hr fasts on a weekly basis, as they pray about the upcoming weekend service. Even more men will conduct 24hr fasts as they pray about upcoming special events at the church. I suspect the women do as well, though I don't know for sure.

I already mentioned the correct pronunciation. I had been incorrectly saying di-DAH-kay.

Two more things on the SSPX...

I read an NCR article recently that had an almost mocking tone. They said (I'm paraphrasing) The SSPX is going against the pope because they are obsessed with conducting mass in a language no one even understands. Obviously that is not even close to the core issue, or the total scope of issues that the SSPX is wanting to address with their opposition. I thought the article's attitude was dishonest.

It's also interesting to have a more thorough understanding of the SSPX history. Certainly more opportunities for finger-pointing, due to various actions by various people getting us to where we're at.

1988 Excommunication, 2009 reversal by Benedict, 2015-17 outreach by Francis which included granting them "special faculties", which brings us to the current 2026 "controversy".

The Whole Story of the SSPX Schism

This may be more appropriate for a separate thread. If so, I apologize and will do so. But I know knowledgeable people frequent this thread that may be able to provide insights.

I’m still reading / studying the OT and haven’t touched the NT yet (although I’m familiar with the well known parts). At a high level, Judas is a betrayer and traitor. But the series on Prime re: the story of Jesus seems to be portraying him as a believer who tried to accelerate what he thought was an eventuality; he was impatient for it to come (kingdom on earth, dispel the romans, good life, etc). He’s obviously completed misunderstood the basis of the current affairs and the purpose of Jesus (eternal salvation through faith, not really anything changing on earth).

Stupid question: is Judas a complete betrayer and traitor looking out for his own interests? Or a somewhat misguided believer who tried to accelerate what he believed would be the eventual (good for all) outcome (bring the conflict to a head sooner, so to speak)?

Think through this, and remember entertainment is mostly people devoid of faith, philosophy and morals.

Judas either a) Thought Christ was who He was but thought that Christ was making a mistake and b) wanted money as part of correcting Christ’s mistake. Or Judas was a Judas..

To believe Jesus is to trust Jesus. Popular Judas theories can't be reconciled with that. Like Aglifter implied, you can't trust Jesus and think He's doing things wrong.

I am not an expert on the matter, but I don't think there's any scriptural basis for the various Judas theories, including the one that's seemingly presented in the show you mentioned.

Thanks guys. Okay, so sounds like Judas made a bad decision. The basis of the decision isn't explicit and subject to speculation but doesn't really matter - he did wrong. Whatever was presented in the show is speculative and has no scriptural basis - should be ignored and is irrelevant regardless. The bottom line is the bad decision and action; the basis doesn't matter.

If that's the gist, then got it and I'll leave it at that. Thx.

I’m still making my way through the OT. It’s a bit slow going but I think I’m on track to finishing most of it (skipping chronicles) in 3 months.

It’s seems that the Chosen people repeatedly follow paths of injustice, iniquity, corruption and/or paganism despite experiencing time and again cycles of punishment and redemption. Leading ultimately to the destruction of the Temple and the exile to Babylon.

I don’t know where this is all leading, but seems like the pattern repeats - a perfect example of the saying “those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.”

Which makes me wonder about current affairs. Seems like the current societies are repeating the same sinful behaviors, adding field to field or lives for sandals. We see daily the injustice, the corruption of the justice system. All that lead to the fall of the Chosen people, we seem to be doing. If God will let his Chosen fall, seems like so much for the rest of us, despite Christ.

As an atheist, one probably wonders how current societies will be subject to the pattern of the fall of empires. As one who is developing deeper faith, one wonders what is in store given the example of the fall of the Temples to Babylon and Rome. It doesn’t seem to bode well, the state of society today.

To return to this...

quote:

Stupid question: is Judas a complete betrayer and traitor looking out for his own interests? Or a somewhat misguided believer who tried to accelerate what he believed would be the eventual (good for all) outcome (bring the conflict to a head sooner, so to speak)?

I was reading in John this morning. Jesus uses the term "son of perdition" (man doomed to destruction) in reference to Judas Iscariot (17:12). The term is used one other time in the KJV, in reference to the antichrist. Judas is a special kind of bad.

According to my infinitesimal theological understanding, Judas was a man who God selected, according to His foreknowledge of his ultimate rejection of Christ, and used in the execution of His perfect plan.

So, Judas wasn't any "worse" than any other man who rejects Christ as the perfect Lamb of God; God doesn't rank. Lost is lost, and he was chosen to be useful in that famous role.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

This might help a bit

That video doesn't really do it for me.

He betrayed him for money... for the purpose of fulfilling prophecy (Zechariah 11:12-13).

Also, you can't betray someone who knew you'd betray him since before you were even made. Jesus never "trusted" Judas, the way the priest in the video implied is required for betrayal. Jesus mentions his knowledge of Judas' betrayal as early as John chapter six, and obviously knew since creation.

As I suggested, Judas was used by a sovereign God to bring about the manifestation of His perfect grace in the sacrifice of His only begotten Son.

This is not to imply that God is a puppet master, and overrides anyone's free will. Judas wasn't ever going to exercise his free will in the only way that really matters (faith in Christ), and God knew it.

Judas could have come back to Christ in contrition and repentance, like Peter. Judas could have been saved, the same way we all can. But Judas wouldn't. God knew it, and used Judas accordingly.

I am not suggesting I fancy myself more learned than this priest. I am suggesting that he omits some meaningful aspects of the discussion. I respect his deference to scripture, in the matter of the money. But I think it's an error to ignore the fact that the money was significant because it was prophecy fulfilment.

There is a GOD shaped vaccuum in the heart of every man that cannot be satisfied by any created thing but by GOD the creator,made known through Jesus Christ.
-pascal

Seeking input from y'all on this...

John 12:42-43
"Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God."

Elsewhere in scripture, when we see a person or people "believe on Jesus", it seems to me that they are saved, according to John 3:16-18. However, here, though it is said they believed on Him, it is implied they're not saved.

Does this bring those other mentions in scripture into a condition of uncertainty, or is their face value retained, with the understanding that a qualifier is required in order to introduce doubt, as seen in John 12:42-43?

On Judas "betraying Jesus for money"...

Ignoring the prophecy fulfilment aspect is like saying the soldiers gambled for Jesus garments because they wanted the garments and liked gambling. Sure, both are likely true, but it's so important because it fulfilled messianic prophecy.

God made sure it happened.

So that the world might believe and be saved.

So if Judas was made to do what he did, and its Gods plan, and he never had a choice... He's a hero, not a bad guy.

He followed Gods plan.

Being instrumental in God's perfect will is not to be equated with heroism. Being instrumental is not the same as being obedient.

Keep in mind that he wasn't "made to do what he did" in a way that implies divine puppetry. God's foreknowledge of Judas' ultimate rejection of Christ (by his own free will choice) allowed Him to righteously use Judas instrumentally in the execution of His perfect will, so that the world could be saved.

He had a choice the same way we all do.

He did not "follow God's plan" out of free will, spirit-led obedience.

He is neither hero nor bad guy. He's merely a guy. A guy like any other who rejects Christ. God uses men like him every day, to draw others who will be receptive and responsive to the Gospel Truth.

This isn't a perfect example, but I think there are aspects of "Judicial Hardening" in the Judas conversation. It's something I am still learning about, and this is an excerpt from an essay I recently found somewhat helpful due to the analogies it offers...

Judicial-hardening: This is God’s active role in blinding an already rebellious person in their rebellion so as to prevent their repentance for a time. God’s motive is ALWAYS to accomplish a greater redemptive purpose through their rebellious actions (often including the potential redemption even of those being judicially blinded).*

In my view, judicial hardening is simply hiding or confusing the revelation of truth that could otherwise lead to repentance (Mark 4:11-12; Rom. 11:8). So God is not said to have caused or enticed anyone. He simply lets them continue down their already contra-causally free, self hardened path and makes sure no revelation convinces them to repent prior to His redemptive purpose being served.

Consider this analogy: When a police officer sets up a speed trap he has one ultimate desire: to stop speeders for the safety of all. However, by hiding the truth of his presence he is ensuring that those who want to speed will continue to do so. Thus, in one sense he wants the speeders to continue to speed so as to catch them speeding, but his ultimate purpose is the same: to stop speeders for the safety of all. The police officer does not determine the speeders desire to speed in any way, he simply hides the truth so as to ensure the speeder will continue to speed, something they have contra-causally chosen to do.

Let’s look at another analogy. Suppose my 4 year old daughter was told that she is not to take cookies from the cookie jar. In another room, out of sight, I see into the kitchen that my daughter is looking at the cookie jar. She looks around the room to see if anyone is watching. As a parent, I can tell what she is thinking. She is about to steal a cookie and she knows she is not supposed to.

Now, I could step into the room so that she sees me prior to her committing this sin. Upon seeing me she would forego her evil plot and give up the idea of getting the cookie (at least until the next time she was alone). However, suppose I decide to not step into the room. I remain out of sight to allow her to be tempted and then pounce into action to catch her with her hand in the cookie jar.

Now, by not stepping in at the moment I saw she was being tempted did I cause the temptation? No. I allowed it to continue, but I did not cause it. I did not determine for her to desire to steal. I could have prevented the action by simply showing myself, but I chose not to do so.

This is like judicial hardening. By simply hiding the truth (i.e. that I was present and watching) I allowed my daughter to be tempted and to act in sin. Am I in any way culpable for that sin? No. I merely allowed it though I could have stopped it.

Full essay:
https://soteriology101.com/201...e-of-sinful-actions/