I'm not really even sure how to introduce this. The following exchange took place on a completely different forum than the one I normally hang out on, but I had heard that there was some discussion going on about the "revival" phenomenon in Lakeland, Florida being led by Todd Bentley. (If you are curious just go to YouTube and do a search on those key words.) Anyway I started poking around this forum and found a whole 'nother kettle of fish and I have SUCH a hard time keeping my mouth shut. I spent much of the afternoon typing up what follows so it will just have to suffice for a blog entry today.

Well Eastern Orthodox Christians for starters.

No. They are not. They don't even pretend that they are in communing with Jesus in the same way and most Protestants I know go out of their way to say that the communion is only symbolic. In Catholic theology the Sacrament of Holy Communion is intimately connected with the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage. It is not at all hyperbole to draw the parallel between the intimate communion enabled by the Real Presence of Jesus in Holy Communion and the act of marital intimacy. Many of the Church's teaching regarding marriage, including the RCC's rather unpopular and persistent notion that marital intimacy must be a total self-giving, life-giving embrace….ie….no artificial contraception. It's also why Catholics are prohibited from receiving communion outside of the Catholic Church and why we do not knowingly allow those who are not IN communion with the Catholic Church to receive Holy Communion. Spiritual adultery anyone? Yes. It's that serious.

OK. Seriously. After reading quite a bit on this board (www.revivalschool.com) you SERIOUSLY want to argue that you are unified with Catholics? That we are unified with the same Head? Merciful heaven! I am probably already on y'alls prayer lists for getting me "saved." You don't get it both ways. Either the Catholic Church is right in which case you are definitely not in communion and you need to be checking out your local RCIA classes (classes for those converting to the RCC) or you think that Catholics are apostates on the "Road to hell" as I have read multiple times on these forums.

Sorry. But you are mixing up your early church problems here. 1 Corinthians 11:18-29 is speaking of the Eucharistic meal and those partaking unworthily and NOT of the other meal offered after worship.

How is it possible that you believe that partaking of a symbol unworthily makes you guilty of the Body of Our Lord? If I tear up your picture, I might be guilty of disrespect but certainly NOT guilty of your body. As for Judas, it isn't just a Catholic interpretation of the gospels that our Lord instituted the Eucharist AFTER Judas left the room.

Yes. They were churches under the authority of the bishop. Elders (presbyters) were appointed to assist the bishop in governing ONE church that happened to meet in different places.

Agreed. And yes, I think you are playing a semantics game.

WE?….excuse me but just WHERE does it say that individual believers are to execute judgment on on Our Lord's Church? If you examine the writings of the early church fathers and the history of the early church, you can see the context of the warnings of those "wolves in sheep's clothing"…it is those who teach without the authority of the Church. Or those who continued to preach heresy after they were disciplined by their local bishops. The mere presence of the writings of the ECF's is stark testimony to the fact that the early church was indeed highly organized and the bishops held the teaching authority. They [the early bishops] wrote letters to churches in far flung places as if they expected that they had authority over these congregations and guess what? They DID! It is for the bishops to determine who are the wolves in sheep's clothing and NOT for the lay people. In fact, it was the bishops who continually had to remind the faithful that they were to remain faithful to the teachings of the bishops and NOT make their own judgments about the many heretics running around.

which of course begs for the question…..What did they do BEFORE the Bible was written? And who was it that decided what was and was not Sacred Scripture? And how is it that so many people who accept without question the judgment of the men who were so full of the Holy Spirit that they were able to discern what was and was not supposed to be in canon…then reject what those men believed it to be say. They men who set the canon of Sacred Scripture were NOT sola scriptura. They were not sola fide. They believed in purgatory. They believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Another really good verse in Timothy is this one…..

Just because something is hard to do, doesn't mean it is impossible. The hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church….and the Eastern Orthodox Church….was established in Sacred Scripture and by the testimony of the lives of the Apostles and their successors. Martin Luther was not the only voice in the Catholic Church at that time, or before him, or after him for that matter, that quietly, persistently and fruitfully worked for reform. And reform when it does come from within the structure of the church bears much positive fruit. The Reformation was a blood bath and there were gross sinners on all sides. As many as 100,000 peasants were killed in Germany. By contrast the Spanish Inquisition which killed perhaps as many as 10,000 in 350 years was a walk in the park! Not that I am condoning either btw!

In some respects they were submitted to each other. Servants of each other, but I am sorry there was a whole lot of "domineering" going on in the early church and some of it is even recorded in Sacred Scripture. The entire book of Galatians for example….talk about your dressing down!

Well I would say that if anointing came from man then it wouldn't count would it? And this whole apostolic succession thing would go up in smoke. But the anointing is something that comes from God working though us his servants. Just like Saul was anointed king and STAYED anointed king even when God anointed David as his successor. David understood that he was not the one to execute judgment on God's anointed and that was for God himself to so. God might have used Samuel to bring the message that judgment was coming but Saul never ceased to be God's anointed king until he DIED.

Just because he didn't get along with Peter doesn't mean that Peter didn't anoint him. In fact, God worked through Peter to inflict the first ecclesiastical punishment (Acts 5:1-11); excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:21); received the revelation (Acts 10:44-46) allowing gentiles into the Church without circumcision and imposed that over the vociferous objections (Acts 15:19) of many (thus the entire book of Galatians)…yeah, he had a hypocrisy problem which led to Paul giving him a stern talking to but that doesn't put Paul in charge.

Yes. Through Peter. At times, God may raise up others with special charisms to correct and to chasten those in the chair of Peter….such as St. Catherine of Siena….but God gave to Peter and his successors a special gift. I believe that God can work through sinful men who appear unworthy…..and I am grateful. It gives me hope after all.

By what authority?

Studied papal history have you? You might be surprised at the number of miracles attributed to Popes throughout history. You could start here. Beyond that if you are looking for miracles, look at the lives of the Catholic Saints! I know many miracles that happen in Catholic churches….even my little parish. By the priests, and the old ladies, and the children. Even so the absence of flashy miracles or reports of such is hardly a matter of disqualification for the papacy. God gives the charism for healing and miracles to those He wills and it's pretty clear that not every one of us has it. It's one of the reasons we need each other.

And speaking of miracles, where is the miraculous confirmation of Protestant doctrines such as symbolic Holy Communion? Take a look at Eucharistic miracles here.