Weekend question
Since the very day the U.S. Supreme Court overturned every state abortion law by its Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions on January 22, 1973, liberals and MSM accomplices have attempted to distort them by saying they only legalized abortion in the 1st three months of pregnancy.
Was there a time when you understood this falsehood to be true? (Perhaps you still believe it?) When did you learn the truth, that the U.S. has virtually no gestational restrictions on abortion?
See page 2 for Roe and Doe docket and page numbers.
Under Roe, the Supreme Court gave free reign for abortion in the first trimester, but seemed to rule that abortion could be restricted significantly or prohibited in the second and third trimesters. However, the court said that later regulations must allow for abortions needed to protect the woman’s health. Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton (issued on the same day as Roe) defined maternal “health” as: “all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well-being of the patient.” These factors are so vague and open-ended that almost any reason can be and is cited to allow abortion in the second and third trimesters.
(SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973); Roe, 410 U.S. at 164; Roe, 410 U.S. at 164-5; Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).
[JLS source: Focus on the Family]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I have a question about falsehoods.
Why were you REALLY fired from Christ Hospital?
This article makes it sound like you pulled something truly unspeakable, something SO bad that neither you nor the hospital will discuss it.
It must have been good, because you certainly would have sued had you been wronged, and you had already secured legal representation:
Chicago, IL — Two years after she first ccame into the national spotlight over her employer’s “live birth abortion” policy, pro-life advocate Jill Stanek said Sunday that she has been fired from her nursing job at Christ Hospital and Medical Center in the Chicago suburb of Oak Lawn, Illinois.
Hospital officials said the discharge Friday had nothing to do with the delivery room nurse’s pro-life views, and Stanek declined to further discuss what her manager or the human resources department head told her Friday until she has a chance to talk with her attorney.
Stanek has criticized the hospital since 1999 and has continued to give frequent media interviews to criticize the hospital’s rare use of labor-induced abortion. She was suspended once for leaking confidential papers to the media, she said, and twice has been put on “final warning” probation after breaking an unspecified rule in her employment contract.
Boy, Laura, you must be really uptight to be resorting to digging in the dirt!
I actually have a comment about the post, since no one has Yet to put anything relevant on here. In Canada, we also have unlimited abortion access. Actually, our laws are more liberal than anything in the US because we have NO law. Most Canadians do not know this however. I learned how little they know in grad school when the subject came up in class. After being enlightened, most students expressed their disapproval because many knew that babies as young as 22 weeks are now viable.
It doesn’t matter which side claims that public opinion supports abortion, you don’t use polls to determine the truth – Abortion kills a baby and killing a baby can never be a truth.
I have a question about falsehoods.
Posted by: FetusFascist at January 26, 2008 9:58 AM
Me too Laura. I responded to your post on the “What the other side is thinking” string. Please review and tell me why you keep repeating the falsehood that abortion isn’t one of the top ten voting issues for Americans…
This was written by Cathi Herrod of the Center for Arizona Policy:
“This past week, I’ve talked a lot about abortion. At the Center for Arizona Policy, the fight for the sanctity of human life is at the center of what we do. No other area of public policy is more important than protecting the most vulnerable among us.
Among those who are most vulnerable are babies prenatally diagnosed with special needs. Nothing breaks my heart more than the fact that 80 to 90 percent of babies with Down syndrome are now being aborted. More and more babies with spina bifida are also being aborted each year. Every single baby is precious in God’s sight. The fact is there are no perfect babies. Everyone has faults and varying degrees of ability. In a world where only perfection is tolerated, very few of us would be welcome.
Parents typically are told they’ve got a week or less to decide whether or not they should abort the child they are carrying with Down Syndrome or spina bifida or some other so-called anomaly. These parents don’t report being given information about the joys and blessings of raising special needs children or being referred to local support groups for information and encouragement. Are these parents even told there are waiting lists of potential parents willing to adopt and love a baby with special needs? If you know of parents with preborn or born children with special needs, take time to pray for them, encourage them, and support them!
As I’ve been discussing in Family Facts this week, there is plenty of hope – we are winning the battle. But there is also much work to be done. We need to all work together. What are some of the things that you can do to help?
First of all, be ready to give a defense for the pro-life position. CAP has available a resource you can carry with you anywhere – a bookmark with information on fetal development on one side and how abortion hurts women on the other. Send us an email with your name and address to info@azpolicy.org to request a copy.
Volunteer at a local pregnancy resource center. There are at least 46 in Arizona, and they could use your help. To find a center near you, visit optionline.org. Call the nearest one and ask if you can be a volunteer.
Vote your values. If a candidate is pro-life, it tells a positive story about his character and worldview. First, consider how politicians stack up on the life issue; then, see how they stack up on the other issues. As long as we elect leaders willing to take innocent human life, we’ll continue to live in a society where expediency, not integrity, reigns.
Pray for an end to legal abortion in our country. Pray for women and men who have experienced the harms of abortion. Pray for leaders who will respect and value the sanctity of human life.”
Jill:
Fetus Fascist’s comments may be bordering on slanderous innuendo. Perhaps you should talk to that attorney she refers to.
I hope you have FF’s contact information.
Also, I suggest you address her question directly, then ban FF from your site.
The SC didnt put restrictions, but it did also state that states could impose any reasonable restrictions once the fetus reaches viability. i.e. yes legal all nine months UNLESS the state places restrictions upon abortions, which just about all states do. Some more than others, but they are there.
You can say these restrictions do nothing, or arent really restrictions at all because everyone is in bed with the abortion industry, but they are on the law books and are apparently being enforced if doctors are being arrested (i.e. Tiller) for performing them illegally.
Now Hisman,
Truth be told if Laura was making a claim as spectacular as Jill’s we’d be questioning her…
I’m sure Jill can clear the whole thing up in three words or less…
Although truth doesn’t always seem to play an important role in the other sides version of reality…
MK:
Words of Wisdom as always!
Yes, some states do have laws that place some restrictions on child-killing; (parental consent, informed consent/waiting periods, etc.) but the intent of Roe & Doe was to legalize child-killing on demand (the children, of course, aren’t making the demands; the population control freaks are, along with the irresponsible parents of the children, or their parents…) throughout all 9 months of pregnancy, at any time, for any reason or no reason.
In one state, for instance, there are restrictions which require legal late-term baby killings to be done in hospitals, not free-standing chopshops because of the increased maternal risks attendant to late term child-killings, and the fact that the chopshops don’t have the backup equipment to deal with many of those complications. But then, in that state, one abortionist only got a cheap dinosaur of an ultrasound machine after being place on suspension or probation for having killed one woman and injuring many others; and in all states, mandatory reporting laws re: statutory rape have been proven to be routinely disregarded by the predators in the child-killing industry…
FF:
Wow. Did you get bit by a rabid dog again? You are a master of diverting the questions.
Dan,
You are right about the state laws, but the post is about Roe v Wade/Doe v Bolton.
Tiller is only being charged because the two doctors that signed the abortion papers, were not unbiased. The actual abortions were not illegal.
Actually, I read/heard somewhere a long time ago, that abortion is still not actually “legal”…there is another word for it. Can’t remember now, but in the semantics/legal jargon world, it’s not really a legal right…
Anybody know what I’m talking about?
Laura, I was fired for 3 reasons.
1. For taking pictures of the Comfort Room without the hospital’s permission. CH created the Comfort Room to take aborted alive babies to rather than the soiled utility room. You can google the photos or scroll down to the bottom of this article to view them:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/jillstanektestimony.htm
2. For saying things on the Jerry Falwell television show that Christ Hospital said were breaches of confidentiality and/or false.
3. I forget. I’m not at home to look at my termination. It’s been awhile. But it had to do with my speaking out against the hospital.
It legalized it until the viability point (which I believe is set somehere in the second trimester, though it very well could be earlier or later), after that it was left to the states to set restrictions. So in all reality, states could ban it all together after the viability point, minus the life of the mother being at risk. The SC legalized it to a point for sure, the rest of legalization was left to states.
and MK, are you thinking possibly of judicial review?
Jill, after your experience, why did you continue your employment for so long? I’d have thought if they were doing something so violently against your morals, you would have quit.
(Note that I’m not accusing you or anything, I’m just curious.)
Jill:
You have extraordinary courage for taking a stand. If more pro-lifers did as you did, perhaps we, as a group, would have even more impact.
Keep fighting the good fight.
Jill:
After reading your testimony about your experience at Christ Hospital, I was saddened to further realize that so many so-called Christians have blood on ther hands with regards to the 50,000,000 children that have been murdered in the country since Roe v. Wade.
Well, here’s what God thinks about abortion:
“Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator,
Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, it negates God as Redeemer,
Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy,
Abortion negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in it’s earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in it’s earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive,
Abortion’s desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness.
Abortion is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for it’s solution; annihilation, it’s goal; death, it’s dream; breaking God’s heart, it’s vision, Satan’s ultimate power.
Abortion is a counterfeit, for the clawprints of Satan are everywhere to be found in its performance;
Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom,
Abortion pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God,
Yes, abortion is Satan’s feeble attempt at killing God Himself, for abortion is a metaphor for Satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him……for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception. Copyright 2007, 2008 by HisMan”
To those people who think that following Christ and supporting choice are compatible I’ve got a message for you….you will be spewed out of His mouth as his children were spewed out of there mother’s wombs.
Believing Christ to be your savior and being pro-choice is not incompatible. Supporting the laws of your country as they stand is not against His teaching. So long as you hold His teaching personally, and follow it, your political alignments do not matter at all. Politics means nothing to Him, nor do your Political beliefs. Truly it is your actions and thoughts about your own personal self, and how you plan to lead your life, that He cares about. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life matters not in His eyes.
“Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give unto God what is God’s” Matthew 22:21
Christ Hospital is a pretty hideous place…I’ve got some stories..but it’s bath time for Gabriella now.
Supporting the laws of your country as they stand is not against His teaching.
Posted by: Dan at January 26, 2008 7:49 PM
It is if that law is against his teaching. Are you really going to say that supporting the Holocaust was not against Christ’s teachings because the law in Germany was to cart all Jews off to a death camp?
If He punished everyone in Germany for their inaction in response to the Holocaust, much of
1930s/40s Germany will be in Hell.
And once again, this is where pro-choice splits hair with pro-life. We are pro choice, not pro-abortion. We are for a woman to have an abortion OR have the child.
Abortion =/= the holocaust. Ive posted my response/ideas/etc about that here multiple times, and im much too tired (and psyced about Obama’s victory) too argue that right now.
liberals and MSM accomplices have attempted to distort them by saying they only legalized abortion in the 1st three months of pregnancy.
I’ve seem more pro-lifers be confused on the first trimester/second trimester deal than pro-choicers.
I haven’t seen any such “distortion,” in the first place. Legal through the second trimester, or to viability, 24 weeks in some states.
Doug
If He punished everyone in Germany for their inaction in response to the Holocaust, much of
1930s/40s Germany will be in Hell.
Posted by: Dan at January 26, 2008 8:31 PM
How do you know they aren’t?
“And once again, this is where pro-choice splits hair with pro-life. We are pro choice, not pro-abortion. We are for a woman to have an abortion OR have the child.”
Posted by: Dan at January 26, 2008 8:31 PM
Are the people who let the Holocaust happen (or any other atrocity) any LESS culpable than those who played a personal part in it? Yes, I guess that IS where pro-choice splits hairs with pro-life.
Not everyone has that courage or the ability to stand up like those heroes of the holocaust. I don’t see Him being like “Okay, so you decided to protect your family and keep them alive rather than risk it all and have everyone you love die, on top of those already being massacred. Well, you go to Hell.” God is just, and doing what I said certainly does not seem just to you. If you believe it just to ETERNALLY punish those who decided to protect their families rather than risk getting everyone who was ever related to him/her killed or tortured, than I don’t know what to tell you.
Not everyone has that courage or the ability to stand up like those heroes of the holocaust…
So are you saying that you don’t have the courage to stand up for the innocent children being sent to the slaughter by abortion?
And no, that is not what I meant. Those that truly felt the Holocaust was unjust helped the Jews, escaped from Germany, or any other number of things to fight the injustice. Then there were those who carried on with their lives and did nothing. They might have even said “I wouldn’t personally kill a Jew, but I can’t stop others from doing it.”
If you think that is okay in the name of protecting your family then I don’t know what to tell you.
And BTW, you should read the about the life of Maximillian Kolbe. Who did give his life for ONE Jew. It might be a good lesson for you.
Kristen- People have families to protect. You say something like that, the Nazis may have killed them all. You’re damn right I would keep my mouth shut in a situation like that to protect my family.
That dude in the quote of the day is ugly! How did he manage to impregnate and give STDs to large amounts of women?
Kristen, I thought as long as you believed in Jesus Christ as your personal savior you went to heaven. People that did stick up for Jews but were not Christian also went to hell too, then. So did all those Jews for that matter! What a horrible time to get massacred.
Then that is a difference between PC and PL. My maternal grandfather helped the Jews, and did as much as he could to hinder the Nazis. All at risk to himself and his family. He was relatively young at that time but his father and mother did the same, and they taught him that perfect life lesson. “All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.”
I thought as long as you believed in Jesus Christ as your personal savior you went to heaven.
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 26, 2008 9:20 PM
I don’t believe that at all. In fact, Our Lady of Medguijore (I think I ALWAYS spell that wrong) even pointed out a Muslim woman whom she said was very faithful and a perfect example of a holy life.
Kristen, you are not risking ANYTHING to be pro-life. That is an asinine assertation. Would I risk my own life to do what I thought was right? Sure. In a second. I would never, EVER, put anyone else’s life in danger, though. Not for a second.
Kristen, theres a difference between reaching Heaven for a faithful life and being rewarded in heaven for going above and beyond the call of duty. Perhaps those who helped aid Jews in the holocaust will be rewarded for going above and beyond, rather than simply reaching heaven for being faithful. who knows.
Kristen, you are not risking ANYTHING to be pro-life. That is an asinine assertation.
Erin, WHEN did I ever say I was? THAT was an asinine assertion!
I was simply pointing out that there WERE people who risked everything to do what was right in Nazi Germany. RELAX! Sheesh!
Kristen I don’t believe it either. I leave it up to Him and hope he is gracious enough to let me in.
Dan, reaching Heaven and rewarded in Heaven? Do you think God treats everyone different in Heaven based on the life they led? Heaven IS the reward.
I do think most people eventually go to Heaven, it’s how much time they spend in Purgatory that’s the issue. The only people who (I believe) go to Hell are the ones who refuse God’s mercy.
Kristen, purgatory is under attack in terms of the Catholic Church, it may be taken out of the Dogma.
There is no definitive scriptural basis for Purgatory.
And it seems that Heaven can certainly have different levels. Heaven is a reward, but what prevents an award from being added to for going above and beyond the call?
Well all, seeing as how I’m sure of Obama’s victory, saw his victory speech, and finished blogging, I think I’m off to bed. I;ve got work at 930 tomorrow morning. Ugh.
G’night
Kristen, purgatory is under attack in terms of the Catholic Church, it may be taken out of the Dogma.
There is no definitive scriptural basis for Purgatory.
No Dan, that’s Limbo. Purgatory is a place of purification and is well taught by the Church. Good night to you as well.
I thought the main scriptural basis was the “prayers for the dead.” If someone is in either heaven or hell, they wouldn’t need praying for.
But I also did hear that theologians are starting to abandon the purgatory thing.
The Holy See regarding purgatory…
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2N.HTM
Right PIP, regarding the prayers of the dead. And theologians are not the Church. The Church is the Pope and his infallible word.
Store brand toasted oat ring cereals aren’t really Cheerios. They are made from oats, by the same processes, oftentimes in the same factories by the same employees, but they come in a different box, and therefore, they cost about a third the price…
When you pour them in your bowl at breakfast time, they look like Cheerios. They taste like Cheerios. But stores can’t call them Cheerios, so they aren’t Cheerios.
If they called them Cheerios, they’d have to charge the higher price for them to help General Mills pay that cute little bee’s salary for buzzing around the box.
General Mills Inc., tells you their brand of Cheerios are superior to the store brand. That’s why they cost so much more. Exactly how they are superior isn’t clear, but millions of people walk right by the store brand and buy the more expensive box.
But nobody eats the box. The nutritional value isn’t in the packaging, it is in the product. It isn’t the contents you are paying for.
It’s the box they come in.
According to a recent document signed by Pope Benedict XVI, God is like General Mills.
It isn’t the message that Jesus Christ was crucified for our sins, rose again on the third day, and extends an offer of pardon to all who repent of their sins and trust Him for their salvation that is important.
It’s the messenger.
The Pope explicitly said that non-Catholic Christians aren’t true Christians and that non-Catholic churches are not true churches.
Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” said the document.
Other Christian communities such as Protestants “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” since they don’t have what’s known as apostolic succession
“And David Colby as the Beaver…”
Amazing –>
(2006) For the third consecutive year, David C. Colby, WellPoint, Inc.’s executive vice president and chief financial officer, has been named the best chief financial officer in America for the managed care sector by Institutional Investor magazine. This is Institutional Investor magazine’s third annual ranking of CFOs.
I guess its the power trip. Otherwise I don’t know one woman who would bang that guy.
But Kristen, the pope is not infallible about all things, just about manners of Dogma.
matters*
I’m off to party. Woo!
Right PIP, that is the teaching of the Church.
Woo! I’m still reading Anon’s post but my eyes are getting blurry. He/She brings up some good points and some not so good. But I’ve got to get through it first….
Source from 9:57pm post….
Jack Kinsella – Commentary – 07/17
http://hallindsey.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=176
Dang, Anonymous…How long DID it take you to write all that?
Lol..I’m sorry..I just don’t have the patience to read right now!
Oh, for cryin’ out loud! You copied and pasted that whole thing?! Good gracious man! Next time just post the link!
Otherwise I don’t know one woman who would bang that guy.
PIP – I have to laugh; my thoughts exactly. At first glance I figured him for a fundamentalist preacher.
Okay, so a couple things I can answer now because they’re easy.
First “Limbo” was not part of the Church Dogma at any time.
Second, the Church accepts Baptism from any Christian Church. If you were Baptized Lutheran then converted to Catholicism there would be no need to be baptized again. So the article is incorrect in stating that only Catholic baptism matters.
David Colby as a young boy.
The real limbo…. on rollerskates. This little Indian dude goes underneath cars (when they’re not moving.)
The concept of Limbo, which has never been formally defined in Catholic teaching, can be dropped “without compromising the faith at all,” the archbishop said. In recommending that move, he said, the Commission is not contemplating a change in doctrine, but only “avoiding the use of images and metaphors that do not adequately account for the richness of the message of hope that is given to us in Jesus Christ.”
At the same time, Archbishop Forte said, one can “set aside certain formulations without compromising the faith of the Church in any way.” Again he noted that the concept of Limbo had “never been defined by the Church, although it was a very common teaching.” In this case, the archbishop said, the International Theological Commission is reaching the conclusion that the concept of Limbo is “neither essential nor necessary.”
Doug –
OUCH!
You’re having fun tonight aren’t you Doug?
In other news: I finally have internet in my apartment! Happy day!
Kristen,
With all due respect, the article I posted above (and sorry for not just posting a link. One usually doesn’t open a link, but the “Cheerios opening” was quite an enticing opening, don’t you think!) did not state that “limbo” was dogma. Here’s a link on what I believe the article was talking about:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm
I’m also confused as to where the article stated that “only” Catholic baptism mattered.
FF:
Maybe you would understand the post better if you used your own analogy of falsehoods. You know… like someone getting their front teeth bashed out by a kick in the chops from a horse and then replacing them with phony divinci veneers. It looks real purty from first glance, but the more you learn about the person, you learn the sad truth that the front teeth are false and if you take those away you have a giant gaping pie hole.
LOL Doug serioulsy! ouw!
Kristen, istn’t there a difference between dogma and doctrine?
Dan and Pip,
Kristen, purgatory is under attack in terms of the Catholic Church, it may be taken out of the Dogma.
*
There is no definitive scriptural basis for Purgatory.
Theologians disagreeing about purgatory is hardly the same thing as “taking it out of the dogma”…that would be called dissent. You know, like the loons that blessed the abortion clinic. Calling yourself clergy, Catholic or a theologian is not the same as being one.
There is no definitive scriptural basis for the trinity, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, or any other number of things that Catholics believe. But these “dogmas” aren’t disappearing any time soon.
Purgatory is here to stay…sorry to disappoint.
Anonymous,
There are so many mistakes in your “post” that I don’t know where to begin. For being a “devout” Catholic, you sure didn’t understand your faith very well.
Jill and I had a long hard discussion about Catholic vs Prostestant on our DC trip…Bottom line is that our premises are different. We (Catholics) have a very different understanding of Grace than you (protestants) do, and if we start off on different premises, the argument is not soundly based.
CCC
“847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
*
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.
*
848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”
MK, there seems to be scriptural evidence for most of the things you mentioned. In scripture all parts of the Trinity play a prominent role. The Immaculate Conception (which I believe is the virgin birth?) does also have its roots in scripture. The Assumption you may be correct about in terms of scripture, as I don’t recall that.
As for your bit about dissent, I believe the current pope had spoken out against purgatory without any formal announcement. Kristen had said I was mistaken and that he had spoken of Limbo.
Dan,
I’m sorry, but I believe you are wrong. Limbo, yes. But limbo is not purgatory. Purgatory is doctrine and will always be doctrine.
As for the trinity, the assumption and the Immaculate conception…no, there are no (in your words) definitive scripture passages to define these doctrines.
The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are two infallible statements made by the pope in the last century. And they are some of the reasons that Protestants and Catholics disagree.
Similary, in the protestant faith, there is no definitive scriptural passage to define sola scriptura.
We infer these things, yes, but there are no DEFINITIVE passages…
At the same time, Archbishop Forte said, one can “set aside certain formulations without compromising the faith of the Church in any way.” Again he noted that the concept of Limbo had “never been defined by the Church, although it was a very common teaching.” In this case, the archbishop said, the International Theological Commission is reaching the conclusion that the concept of Limbo is “neither essential nor necessary.”
Kristen, great posts from you. I’m agnostic but this stuff is interesting. That’s what I had thought, too – that the Catholic Church really never had a hard and fast “Limbo” concept of dogma, but rather that it was a “well, we really don’t know” deal.
Doug
I finally have internet in my apartment! Happy day!
Yay Rae! Got those fingers limbered up? Limboed up?
if we start off on different premises, the argument is not soundly based.
MK, right on, Sis.
Ah, defeated by my own adjectives. Darn. lol ;)
Dan, the Immaculate Conception is when the Blessed Virgin was conceived, not when Jesus was born.
Oh right, now I remember that I think. She was born without Original Sin or something of that sort. Alrighty, now I think I’m recalling it.
Okay, so the more I read in that article the more I see that it’s a bunch of bologna.
There is a difference between infallible teachings (dogma) and directives. No Pope has ever changed another Pope’s infallible teaching. That’s one of the major points of an infallible teaching. The Holy Spirit doesn’t change his mind. Dogma is dogma.
The Church law about not eating meat on Friday was simply a directive. It was not dogma. Times change and the Church, as a Mother, has the right to change with it. The whole point of not eating meat on Friday was simply a penitential directive, to call attention to Christ’s death on Friday. The Church Fathers decided that the idea of not eating meat on Friday wasn’t really much of a penance since you can “pig-out” on lobster or shrimp. There’s nothing penitential about it. So in order to preseve the whole idea behind it, the Church said that you can eat meat if you want (except during Lent) but Catholics should try tot keep the idea of Friday as a day of remembrance of Christ’s Passion, by doing some sort of act of penance, something that will mean something to them. Of course, that was lost in the explanation of the whole thing, and nowadays, few people do anything at all. No one reads the Church documents, which is a shame, because they are full of teaching and insight.
I have my doubts that anyone ever went to Hell for eating meat on Friday. If they ignored the Church’s teachings on a simple matter like that, they were most probably ignoring more important teachings as well. People who use that as an argument simply show their own ignorance of the teachings of the Church.
As for non-Catholics going to heaven, the Church has never said anything about that. It’s not for anyone on earth to decide who is or who is not going to be there. That is a decision only meant for God. The Church teaches that the Catholic Church is the best means to heaven. We are the One, True Church founded by Jesus Christ, and the Catholic Church is the fullness of Christ. We are His Body on earth. The Church provides the means to Salvation in the Sacraments, the Church teachings, etc. However, this is not to say that only card-carrying Catholics will get to heaven. Nor, does it mean that ALL Catholics are going to be there. There’s a lot more to getting to heaven than that. No one knows what might be in a person’s heart, and no one knows how God works with other people. Different people have different theories on the way non-Catholics get to heaven, but only God knows.
Of course, the church teaches that you have to be baptized, and the church does recognize the baptism of other Christiam denominations, if it is done correctly. More important is the question: Do non-Christians, non-baptized people get to heaven? But even then, we can’t judge. Again, we feel the Catholic Church is the best road to heaven, but it may not be the only one. But we don’t know that for sure. Again, the documents that came out of Vatican II never fully define it, simply because they can’t.
Kristen, you cant exactly say Jesus founded ther Catholic church. Historically speaking anyway, his teachings started a whole new movement, including various churches and belief systems. Essentially they all merged into what was the Christian Church after the Counicl of Nicaea, before that it was essentially believe what you want in terms of Christianity. Then of course you get the Schism between the East and the West, forming the Orthodox and what would become the Roman Catholic Church respectively.
In all reality, Jesus founded every form of Christianity, whether intentional or not, whether the others are “right” or not. He founded a movement more than a single religious entity.
Dan, come on. The Catholic Church was the only Church until the reformation. I CAN say exactly that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. It is the ONLY Church that can be traced back to Christ.
The churches didn’t “merge” after Nicaea, they remain separate and believe different things. Nicaea was intended to define the unity of Christians and come to an agreement on when to celebrate the resurrection. All Christians believe Christ is their savior and all believe in the resurrection. Not all follow the Pope as the head of their Church and not all believe in the Immaculate Conception.
Republicans? Who cares?
The Democrats are having the best fistfight EVER on CNN. I think Hillary can take Obama in the late rounds…
Laura, I don’t know about that. She might start crying again, and then the referee is gonna shout,
“Oh no – there’s no crying in boxing!”
MK, what happened to that story where Truthseeker and I were walking hand-in-hand down a road?
Dan,
The reason we claim that the Catholic Church is the first/true church is not because we think we are better or privy to special information. We can trace the church as we know it today back to the first apostles and ultimately to Christ.
While people went different ways, the ones that followed and stayed true to the original apostles (and Jesus) came to be known as the “Catholic” church…Catholic simply meaning “Universal”.
There was agreement, then the Orthodox disagreed and left the church. It is important to understand that they “left” because this shows that they changed and not us. We remained the same. This also happened with the anabaptists, Luther, The Anglican, and many others…
The point is that if you follow their churches you can see where they “left” ours…but if you follow ours you will see that we are the same today as we were when we began…
But Kristen is right…we never claim to know who will make it into heaven and who will not. I do want to clarify that we don’t believe there are different “paths” per se to heaven, as that would imply that all paths are equal. Just that we do not have the final say so on what God will find acceptable.
I liken the two churches (Catholic and Protestant) to the kind of cars that we drive. Protestants (In my humble opinion) are driving cars without AC, stereo, or sun roofs. Catholics have all the “extras”…both cars will get you where you’re going, but ours will get you there more comfortably.
The comparison is lacking to be sure, but we have the 7 sacraments (mosts protestant churches have only one, some as many as three), we have the sacramentals, the saints, the Pope, the Mass, Confession and the list goes on. All tools meant to help along the journey.
And these “tools” can be traced back to Jesus himself.
While you are correct that Jesus established the Church in it’s entirety, protestant, Catholic, Orthodox etc., only the Catholic Church can be traced back seamlessly not only to Jesus but through the Old Testament as well.
Doug (and Truthseeker),
MK, what happened to that story where Truthseeker and I were walking hand-in-hand down a road?
DC happened and then you disappeared (something about a bad internet connection and a new game?)Here’s the next question…
As you are walking down the road you come upon a key. Describe your key and tell me what you do with it…
Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
according to the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
These are all the things the Christian Churches believe. (Note I think Lutheran’s say “We believe in one holy Christian and apostolic church.”) This does not “merge” the differnt Churchs but simply comes to a concensus of what we as Christians do believe.
Good Work Kristen…
In all reality, Jesus founded every form of Christianity, whether intentional or not, whether the others are “right” or not. He founded a movement more than a single religious entity.
Dan, some of the best arguments I have ever seen have been between Protestants and Catholics. I remember some Catholics making a big point of them being right by virtue of “apostolic succession.”
Doug
MK, great analogy! I like what you said about the Saints helping us along. I think many people look back at the suffering of Christ and say “But he was CHRIST.” Implying that his suffering wasn’t as difficult for him.
I tell people to look to the Saints as examples of how we should live our lives, especially St. Therese Lisieux. Even the smallest sufferings are penitential and a means to Heaven.
….forming the Orthodox and what would become the Roman Catholic Church respectively.
Posted by: Dan at January 27, 2008 7:53 AM
Dan –
This sounds like both Roman and Orthodox split from something they were. “Forming” implies something new happened. MK is right that it is an important distiction that the Orthodox side left and we remained as we always were.
MK, I’m up to Level 50 in ‘Titan Quest.’
The key is old and silver, worn but of high quality and workmanship. Is this a picture in my brain from long ago?
There is still mystery in the world, the key seems to have a faint vibration about it, and it feels slightly warmer than the ambient. Not one to pass by. I put it in my pocket, and hold it in my hand from time to time. Is that a far off beautious harmony I hear?
I’m also confused as to where the article stated that “only” Catholic baptism mattered.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2008 11:05 PM
Anon, just saw this sorry…
Yes, I have to admit the Cheerios thing did get me reading…
About the baptism question above the article states “No sinner can be saved, according to the Vatican, unless they are officially baptized, forgiven their sins by a priest, and receive communion in the form of eating a wafer that is, by the ‘miracle of transubstantiation’ the literal Body of Christ.”
I guess I wasn’t reading carefully and picked out baptism and didn’t lump in the rest. But in any case he’s wrong. The Church, as I said before, has never had any doctrine about who does and does not go to Heaven. So when he states “according to the Vatican” he is incorrect. This is a GROSS but very common misconception about the Chruch and her teachings.
Article:
“If you ate a hamburger on Friday and died on Saturday, you wouldn’t go to limbo or purgatory, but would instead go directly to hell. But then, Vatican II determined that eating meat on Friday was no longer a mortal sin. (Another infallible pronouncement bites the dust.)
Can you imagine God’s embarrassment when He was forced to bring all those previously-condemned meat-eaters back into Heaven?
“Sorry, guys, My mistake. The Pope says you can come in, now.”
(Full disclosure: I was a devout Catholic until I thought that one through.)”
Again, as I stated before, this WAS NOT an infallible teaching and therefore this statement only goes to prove how ignorant (sorry, not meant as a put down but there is really no other word to use) the author was about the Faith he gave up.
Article:
“Non-Catholic clergymen (can we call them that?) cannot baptize, cannot forgive sins, neither can they turn bread and wine into the literal Body and Blood of Christ.”
At least part of this statement is incorrect. ANYONE can baptize, priest or lay-person. If I was in the middle of nowhere and gave birth and I knew the baby was going to die I could take the water from my water bottle, bless it and baptize my baby and it would count in the eyes of the Church. No I cannot forgive sins or turn bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ so that is correct but as far as I’m aware only Catholics believe in the true presence so it wouldn’t matter to other faiths, and I don’t believe most other Christian faiths (if any) practice confession.
Well then maybe all Catholic churches teach different teachings. When I went, I was told…point blank…that if I ate meat on Friday, I would go straight to hell. We were talking about this at work the other day, and all of the Catholics there remember the same teachings about meat.
So if this (among many others) was not an “infallible teaching” why was it taught in the first place, and why were we told by the Catholic Priests that we would go to hell if we ate meat on Fridays?
As far a purgatory goes, why did Jesus die on the Cross? For ALL sin. Those who believe in Him are cleansed (baptized by the Holy Spirit) and become part of his body…the Body of Christ. So back to purgatory…was Jesus’ blood just not good enough to cleanse ALL sin????
No, Catholic churches do not teach different things. If a priest told you that then I’m sorry he was a bad priest. If your mother told you that then I’d equate it to my mother saying “If you sit that close to the TV you’ll go blind.”
Again, it was NOT an infallible teaching. It was a directive to give guidance on a penance that would help you to reach Heaven. THAT is why it was taught.
I don’t think I understand the question about purgatory but if you mean that there shouldn’t be purgatory because Jesus died on the cross…well I guess I still don’t get it. Purgatory is a place for purification. Meaning that while you are forgiven sin you still need to be cleansed (be made perfect) to see God in Heaven. It is a difficult concept to grasp/accept but Jesus dying on the cross opened the gates of Heaven, it didn’t negate purgatory.
Maybe it’s easier this way… While on earth our suffering is redemptive. We can lessen our time in purgatory (or skip it all together i.e. The Divine Mercy) by offering up our sufferings to God. We can also perform First Fridays, or a number of other indulgences. Pray for the souls in purgatory, etc… BUT once you die you cannot offer up suffering. You’re pretty much stuck where you are until the suffering you didn’t offer up on earth is completed in purgatory. That is why is it SO important to pray for the souls in purgatory, because they cannot help themselves, only we can help them. Not only is praying for them redemptive but those souls you help to Heaven will come to your aid at the hour of YOUR death to plead with God for your soul.
Does that help?
Should be:
“plead TO God for your soul.”
FYI:
The English term church, along with the Scottish work kirk and German Kirche, is derived from the Greek kuriakon, which is the neuter adjective of kurios, “Lord”, and means “belonging to the Lord”. Kuriakon occurs only twice in the New Testament, neither time with reference to the church as commonly used today. In 1 Cor. 11:20 it referes to the Lord’s Supper and in Rev. 1:10 to the Lord’s Day. Its application to the church stems from its use by early Christians for the place where they met together, denoting it as a place belonging to God, or God’s house.
The doctrine of the Church is not based uopn the English word, but rather upon the Greek word ekklesia that is used 114 times in the New Testament. Ekklesia is dervied from the verb ekkaleo, a compound of ek, “out”, and kaleo, “to call or summon,” which together mean “to call out”.
One would do well to do a more thorough and exhaustive study on the concept of “The Church”. I think it would be an eye opener.
Kristen:
When we say that we need to suffer as part of the redemption process, are we not saying that Christ’s sufferings on the Cross were not adequate?
Or do we suffer as part of the consequence of sin? We all die and some of us will suffer greatly in the process. I believe we are simply reaping the consequence of sin.
Only the eternal Christ, could pay for our sin.
How can a person suffer enough to satisfy the wrath of an eternal God for just one sin?
I think we can also suffer as a result of just doing the right thing. Like Jill standing up to that misguided hospital she worked at and then geting fired. I am sure Jill did not desire to be fired or seek out the suffering that would result.
HisMan, I don’t think I’m saying Christ’s sufferings weren’t adequate. At least that’s not what I meant to say if you interpreted it in that way. I agree we are “reaping the consequence of sin.”
I’ve read several accounts (St. Faustina is my favorite) about the “Illumination of Conscience.” By all accounts, it’s said, that our time in purgatory is of OUR choosing, not God’s. When He allows us to see the graveness of how our sins have offended him it is us who sees His justice and we condemn ourselves to purgatory to make reparation. God allows this in his justice, just as he allows free will while we are on earth.
How can a person suffer enough to satisfy the wrath of an eternal God for just one sin?
I think we can also suffer as a result of just doing the right thing. Like Jill standing up to that misguided hospital she worked at and then geting fired. I am sure Jill did not desire to be fired or seek out the suffering that would result.
Posted by: HisMan at January 27, 2008 11:02 AM
I forgot this part. As far as the first paragraph above goes I think it’s because He is a merciful God and accepts our suffering on earth and in purgatory.
Regarding Jill, I think she probably got huge bonus points in Heaven for what she went through. Suffering is not just what we bring upon ourselves (in terms of saying prayers, helping the poor, etc…) but also in how we handle the sufferings that are put upon us. Jill was fired and has done a huge amount of good with what was handed to her, instead of simply keeping quiet.
Kristen,
It helps to see where you are coming from, but it seems to contradict God’s word. Regarding purgatory & sola scriptura:
The Roman Catholic Church does not teach its people to have confidence in the full forgiveness of their sins through the death of Christ alone. Nor are they taught that the righteousness of God accomplished by Jesus Christ is their permanent possession. The result is that the faithful Catholic is taught never to come to full assurance of salvation during their earthly life, for they are still capable of committing “mortal sin.” A Catholic’s redemption is always dependent on their maintaining a faithfulness to the Church’s doctrine and practice.
Thus Catholics are taught that when they die, if they have not committed mortal sins (and with the exception of the special class of believers they call “saints”), all go to the place the church calls purgatory. The Catechism states, “All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven…”
“The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent” (Catechism 1030-1031). This concept of purgatory led to the unbiblical Catholic doctrine of prayers for the dead (Catechism 1032). Catholic believers are taught that “it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins” (Catechism 958).
God
Anon,
“The Roman Catholic Church does not teach its people to have confidence in the full forgiveness of their sins through the death of Christ alone. Nor are they taught that the righteousness of God accomplished by Jesus Christ is their permanent possession. The result is that the faithful Catholic is taught never to come to full assurance of salvation during their earthly life, for they are still capable of committing “mortal sin.” A Catholic’s redemption is always dependent on their maintaining a faithfulness to the Church’s doctrine and practice.”
I thought that was pretty much what I said. I said we don’t believe all non-Catholics go to Hell nor do we believe that all Catholics go to Heaven.
“The Roman Catholic faith has shown a willingness to raise the pope above Jesus Christ and the Bible by giving him the right to nullify Scripture through papal decrees. The conscience of the biblical Protestant (like that of Martin Luther) is bound by the Bible alone. “The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, the only infallible rule for faith and life.” It cannot be both ways. The traditions of the churches are often of value. But these traditions must always be subordinate to, and constantly corrected by, the Scriptures, which alone are the Word of God.”
I don’t know of anytime that the RCC has put the Pope above Christ. We look to the Pope as a leader and the authority on matters of the Church. Christ isn’t here so we can ask questions, the Pope is. Please tell me what scripture ANY Pope has nullified?
Your verse from John I don’t think helps your point. Of course there were more things that Jesus said/did than could have been written. Are you saying John wanted the “power” to decide so he just left thing out? That’s silly, he means what he wrote, there is too much. The Pope is here to guide us.
“The Catechism states, “All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven…”
Is this what you have a problem with? This is true. If you don’t go to Hell but go to purgatory you ARE assured of eternal salvation. You WILL go to Heaven, the only question is when.
Regarding your statement about the Catholic church saying that people who are ignorant of Jesus but desire to please God can go to Heaven but then say that scripture says “I am the way the truth and the light, no one can come to my Father but through me…” I believe the Catholic Church is still correct in this interpretation. Christ wants us (Christians who know him) to live as he did, through his example. If someone leads a good life is that not the life Christ wanted us to live? The Church sees them as the same, compatible, not different.
Kristen,
Think about it. Jesus died on the cross for all sin, and by believing that He died, and rose again according to the scriptures, we have been purified, and cleansed and are given eternal life through this gift of God. If the concept of purgatory is true, Jesus’ blood was just not good enough to get us to Heaven. There has to be something more or better than Jesus’ blood and God’s word? Exactly what purifies one when they are in purgatory? Something better than the blood of Christ?
Anon, there is nothing I can say to convince you. Like I said purgatory is our own choosing when we die, not God’s.
God is merciful AND just. I think your position shows a lack of responsibility for the state of your own soul. You seem to be saying that you can do whatever you want but since you believe in God and Jesus you have a ticket to Heaven. This is not the case and the life of Jesus in the scripture reinforces it. Think of the story of The Good Samaritan. Jesus was making a point that even though the Samaritan seemingly hated the Jews only the Samaritan helped the man, just as Christ would have done.
Anon, this started out with the article you posted. It was full of holes and misrepresentations. All of which are unfounded in the Catechism. I think you probably were, at one point, Catholic and for whatever reason left the Church.
The thing is, since you posted that article thinking it brought up points all us Catholics would read and hide in shame, you didn’t truly understand the Faith and really THAT is the shame. Unfortunately there were A LOT of untrue rumors/teachings about Catholicism especially in the last generation. I am by no means an expert on the Faith but it is my responsibility to educate myself.
There’s a quote I really like, “Do not believe half the good people say of you, nor half the evil they say of others.” This can be applied to religion as well. (Some) protestants are very quick to tell others (and Catholics) what we believe. I have actually had people tell me that I don’t believe Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. That is absurd.
I do hope you’ll take some time to read about the Faith. A good book to start with is the Pope’s Compendium on the Catechism. The Compendium is meant to bring out the most important issues, and discuss them more in length.
Kristen,
Anon, you are just not getting it. I SAID that we look to the Pope for guidance. YOU are saying that the Pope is REPLACING Christ. The Church says the POPE is the substitute for Christ on earth.
If you have a substitute teacher in school is that teacher greater than your regular teacher? No, just different. Your regular teacher cannot be there so a substitue is put in place to guide your education. How is this wrong?
Anon, to help you along here is the definition of “Vicar.”
Vicar – anyone acting “in the person of” or agent for a SUPERIOR. (Christ being the superior here.)
Archbishops are the vicars of the Pope. Bishops are the vicars of the archbishops, priests are the vicars of the bishops, and so on…
Because God said:
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Okay, last thing then I have to take my kids to the movies.
Christ IS here among us but this doesn’t negate the fact that there are things that need a definitive answer. We can hardly leave moral matters up to each individual, I don’t think we can expect everyone to discern the Holy Spirit at all times in every instance. Do you really think we’d all come up with the same answer? If that were the case this website wouldn’t be necessary, we’d all agree abortion is right or that it is wrong. That is why the Pope is here as the Vicar of Christ.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
“I don’t think we can expect everyone to discern the Holy Spirit at all times in every instance.”
God can’t handle it all on His own? He needs some help? What exactly is the point of the Holy Spirit, then?
Anonymous:
“The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism states:”For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church ALONE, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained”
To put it briefly:
After Christ had commission his disciples, many heretical group sprung up from the wood work. Gnosticism, Montanism , and Marcianism are a few that had attacked the Gospel and St. Paul’s letters. They proclaimed to be the true Church of Christ, but they proclaimed a teaching that was fallacy to the teachings of Christ and his disciples. And they were not the followers of Christ, but they made claims to be the “true followers.” We also see many other Gospels being written that were not in accord with Christ’s teachings that Christ gave the disciples and to St. Paul. for the fist 50 years these teaching and traditions were being preserved orally. IF you had lived at this time, then the only way to find the true church was to find those who were in succession with the disciples. St. Paul’s letters already gives evidence of how the succession was being passed down by the laying on of hands. The Catholic Church still practices this today.
From the begining of the Church, Popes, Bishops and priests have been breaking bread, celebrating the Eucharist and continue to do so. If you ever watch the Pope celebrating the Mass then you will see that he and the church bow at the feet of Jesus (the real presence of Christ in the bread and the wine). The Pope is not worshiped in the Catholic Church. The Pope is the vicar of Christ and he is His servant who gives up his life in order to lay it down for the Church and for Christ mission to spread the Gospel. He is infallible in the excersize of the ordinary magisterium, a teaching that lead to better understanding of Revelation in matter of faith and Morals.
The Pope, bishops and priests have been anointed with Christ power to imitate his life on earth. (a power that has been given to them by Christ and is passed through the laying on of hands) It is through these men the Church recognizes the power of Christ and his love for the Church. This is no super power, but it is a power that has only one shape, which is to bring people to heaven through the practice of the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Baptism and Eucharist. These Sacraments help in this life to persevere in our faith hope and love.
Can you get to heaven outside the Church? We believe this is so…”Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved” (CCC 1260).
Please note:that the Pope has only spoken infallibly once since the doctrine was proclaimed: in 1950 when Pius XII proclaimed the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. Pius IX spoke infallibly in 1854 when he declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
We must be careful not to make careless statements without searching for truth first. If you are asking questions that is one thing, but if you are making false statements then it does not help anyone who is searching for the truth.
I hope this brings us closer to the truth.
On another note:
This is a great way how to find and articulate truth through these posts. I have enjoyed reading many of the posts! Thanks
Br. Dominic:
“The Pope, bishops and priests have been anointed with Christ power to imitate his life on earth. (a power that has been given to them by Christ and is passed through the laying on of hands) It is through these men the Church recognizes the power of Christ and his love for the Church.”
With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, why then were some Popes allowed to “buy” their way into Papacy. I do recall a 13-year old Pope?
Also, if your statement above is correct, please explain the molestation and cover up that took place in the Catholic Church over a period of many years if “bishops and priests have been anointed with Christ power to imitate his life on earth. (a power that has been given to them by Christ and is passed through the laying on of hands)”.
My grandmother attended St. Bede’s church in Chicago where the Priest there embezzled a ton of cash from the parishioners. And correct me please if I am wrong, but I beleive that this was not a “one-time” incident in the Catholic Church.
Also, “Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved”
Isn’t the Gospel of Christ the only means to salvation? Isn’t the truth the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Isn’t the Will of God that all men be cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ so that can live with Him in eternity?
Dan,
I don’t know if you are christian or not but I totally disagree with your analysis of what Jesus asks of people. He certainly asks people to give up everything including their lives in service. He requires followers to defend the weak. He requires followers to proclaim the message even if it means they will be killed. He said directly that those who save themselves will lose their lives while those who give their lives will gain life.
The pro-abortion position is to take someone else’s life to improve your own. Jesus position is to give your life to improve someone elses.
The are opposite and irreconcilable positions.
(2006) For the third consecutive year, David C. Colby, WellPoint, Inc.’s executive vice president and chief financial officer, has been named the best chief financial officer in America for the managed care sector by Institutional Investor magazine. This is Institutional Investor magazine’s third annual ranking of CFOs.
Posted by: Doug at January 26, 2008 10:03 PM
Regarding health insurance company execs,
The way they are compensated, he probably isn’t just sticking it to his girlfriends, he is sticking it to you. Since these guys are doing a great job generating profits (as they increase the overall cost of healthcare for everyone) they are handsomely rewarded.
From your wallet to theirs.
United CEO says he’ll take no more stock options
William McGuire of UnitedHealth Group has accumulated $1.6 billion in stock options
http://www.startribune.com/business/11213701.html
David C. Colby,
Poor guy couldn’t afford another mouth to feed.
Base pay over $4 million
Stock options over $20 million
http://swz.salary.com/execcomp/layouthtmls/excl_execreport_104613.html
First off, its pro CHOICE not pro ABORTION, and their inlies the flaw of your thoughts. Being pro choice means you support the ABILITY of a woman to choose EITHER an abortion or pregnancy. You specifically are not making that choice. Whatever choice the woman makes, whether it be to continue or terminate the pregnancy, is between herself and God. It is she who will have to live with any deciscion she makes, and receive any consequences (physical, spiritual, or otherwise) of those actions. They are not irreconcilable.
There is a difference between following your faith even though it may be illegal or get you killed, and political stances. They do NOT have to be one in the same. So long as YOU follow God’s law, it is of no consequence what anyone else does. You can say I believe it to be against my morality/religion/etc but still think that under the laws of your country, it should be legal. For example, look at what people did to try and get pornography to be illegal. Now looking at the laws , it should be completely legal. Freedom of speech and press guarantees that right. You may think it wrong, so dont use it. But under the freedoms provided by our great country, it should be allowed to be printed and distributed to adults who wish to purchase it.
The Supreme Court has found abortion to be a right. Therefore, if it is a right so be it. You have every right to fight and try to change the law. That is your right as an American citizen. However, so long as you personally don’t want yourself (or a woman in your life) to have an abortion, than you have done no wrong. Under law, abortion is legal. I could support its legality yet still believe it to be wrong or sinful. It is up to each individual to make that choice for themselves, just as God tells His followers to CHOOSE Him, not to just ignore Him or follow Him out of fear.
The plaintiffs of both Doe and Roe have complained about the egregious overextension by the court from their original petition to the court. Doe wasn’t even about abortion.
Roe seems to be one of those cases of “no moral abortion but MY abortion” cases we hear so much about
and Doe WAS about abortion, it was about possible unconstitutional restrictions. However “Doe” has since said her attorney tricked, not so sure if I buy that.
The Supreme Court has found abortion to be a right.
Posted by: Dan at January 27, 2008 3:04 PM
The Supreme Court found holding slaves to be a right.
So what.
They are both wrong and should be illegal.
One man ended slavery by executive order.
Southern states were not allowed to vote which is why the amendment to end slavery passed.
Many died in the civil war and an anti slavery sentiment was incorporated into the Battle hymn of the Republic “as Christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free”
It had to be done, because it was right not because it was popular which also why MLK was wildly unpopular in his day and was eventually killed for speaking out. Many before him went quietly because the weren’t willing to die for what they believed in. They are forgotten, yet his name lives on just like Jesus said.
Yes, but it was only possible to do in lands not held by the US, ie the Confederacy, thus the need for an Ammendment to ban slavery (which only passed because the confeds ratified it). Until the Supreme Court reverses the ruling, or their is an ammendment made to the constitution, abortion will be considered a right under US law.
Anon, your history is mistaken. In order to rejoin the Union, the confeds had to ratify ( i think it was the 14th?) ammendment, which ended slavery. Many of the Northern states didnt wish to ratify it, and the North was considered the heart of the abolition movement.
Yes, SOME individuals are remembered, but do you remember the name of every soldier who fought in the world wars? How bout of germans who protected Jews during the holocaust?
These are all the things the Christian Churches believe. (Note I think Lutheran’s say “We believe in one holy Christian and apostolic church.”) This does not “merge” the differnt Churchs but simply comes to a concensus of what we as Christians do believe.
Posted by: Kristen at January 27, 2008 8:26 AM
************************************************
I’m Methodist. We say:
“I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. The third day He rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the **holy catholic**(!) church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.”
We can trace our church back to Christ, as can any other Protestant denomination, because our founders broke off of mainstream Catholicism when they realized that something wasn’t going right. Now, that’s not to say that Catholics are not wonderful or that you don’t have every right to believe what you want, but I can cite a dozen reasons right now why we don’t agree with you, and they are all legitimate. Besides that, Jesus did not found the church; Peter did. Jesus was Jewish. Please don’t deny the legitimacy of our faiths just because we are Protestant, and we won’t deny the legitimacy of yours just because of the corruption in its past.
I thought as long as you believed in Jesus Christ as your personal savior you went to heaven.
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 26, 2008 9:20 PM
I don’t believe that at all. In fact, Our Lady of Medguijore (I think I ALWAYS spell that wrong) even pointed out a Muslim woman whom she said was very faithful and a perfect example of a holy life.
Posted by: Kristen at January 26, 2008 9:26 PM
*************************************************
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”
~John 3:36
Please be careful what you post on the internet. There’s no telling how many people will see it.
Kristen, I just realized it looks like I’m picking on you. Not my intent! Sorry.
PS Dan, did you see the CNN projections yesterday discussing the fact that Obama’s win in SC would be a race related issue? I’m all for a qualified president, regardless of race or gender, but I hope next Tuesday that Georgia votes on those qualifications rather than irrelevant issues.
Samantha, I think it said something like 30% of voters there are african american. Now if thats the case, how did Obama win the other nearly 30% of voters? Asssuming he won all the african americans, he won close to just as many whites. He performed across the board in south carolina, at least according to exit polls last night. CNN was going over that last night, I do recall.
I did a blogpost on Obama’s victory actually, lol. And I did a small one about super tuesday predictions thus far and whatnot as well.
I had far too much fun with it, lol
I certainly do believe that Obama is a qualified candidate though.
God can’t handle it all on His own? He needs some help? What exactly is the point of the Holy Spirit, then?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2008 1:56 PM
WHAT are you talking about?! God can handle it, WE can’t hence why we need the Pope.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2008 2:23 PM
I don’t want to copy the post in order to save room but anyway. There were corrupt Popes. I don’t think any Catholic will deny that. These men were NOT acting on behalf of Christ. Every religion (unfortunately) has their dirty laundry, but you have to separate the True Church from the sinners.
SamenthaT:
If you open to seek for the truth, then I encourage you to keep on asking questions. This is part of the process. You take everything with a grain of salt and keep these things in prayer.
You can dig all you want into the Catholic scandals of the popes and practices of the church and what you will see the answer clearly. Popes were capable of sin even thought they were the Pope. Their judgment will be greater. To much who has been given much is expected. The graces they were given was to be a Sheppard of Christ’s Church. At the heart of these scandals is man’s ability to choose to sin. This is at the heart of the Reformation. Certain bishops were misguiding God’s people into ill practices. The Council of Trent discuss these issues at length and corrects these ill practices.
I am interested to know how protestants can trace themselves back to the early church. I was protestant, but did not come across anything that was reasonable. (I would like know in true sincerity)
Bottom line:
We are brothers and sisters and it is not my purpose to create divisions. My purpose and hope is to build bridges. We both should be searching for wisdom and truth in all things, so we bring each other closer to Christ and to the truth. These are not contrary to one another. Any less than is this purpose is unproductive.
It is in our nature to ask questions and search for truth. It was my hope to clear up how the Catholic Church’s claim to be the one Church of the Apostles. I am unaware of any other institution older than the Catholic Church.
If we are clearing up misconceptions or statements then we proceeding correctly. That is the purpose of these posts.
I hope this helps.
Dan 3:04PM
Two centuries ago slavery was legal. Could one have vigorously opposed slavery yet at the same time support one’s right to choose to own a slave? Could one argue that slave ownership was a matter between a person and their God and that each person must face the consequences of their decision to own a slave?
The Supreme Court also gave its blessing to segregation and the imprisonment of Japanese American citizens.
Would you agree that so long as segregation was sanctioned by the Supreme Court, then discriminating against and segregating black citizens was acceptable?
Dan, I was at work from 8 yesterday morning until 8 this morning and didn’t keep up with the webcasts. I just saw an interview yesterday morning with Rep. Clyburn in which he and the reporter were discussing the Clintons’ attacks. If they weren’t voting on political issues, I would assume that after the comments that seemed to negate the work of MLK, many people were much less eager to vote Hillary in. Civil rights is an issue that is not taken lightly in the south after so many generations of inequality.
Posted by: SamanthaT at January 27, 2008 3:43 PM
Samatha –
I won’t copy the post but it’s not too far up.
When did I ever deny the legitimacy of your faith? I posted the Creed and only noted that I believed Lutheran’s changed the “Catholic” to “Christian.” That was the point of the Council, to see where we were the same and the Creed came out of that. Personally I think Lutheran’s might have changed the wording because they didn’t want “Catholic” meaning “universal” to be confused with “Catholic” meaning the RCC, but I don’t know for sure.
I have also stated that the religions ARE different. That the Creed is where we are similar. The legitimacy of the differences is irrelevant in this discussion. I’m not saying that the validity of your religion is non-existent.
You can and cannot trace your religion back to Christ. We can point to an (almost) exact point in history that your religion came to be. True it had a basis in Catholicism BUT it was not the church that Christ directed (and yes, he directed) Peter to guide.
The followers of Christ could hardly call themselves Jews. Jews are still waiting for the Messiah; we believe he has already come. The two religions are not the same and to say “Jesus was a Jew” and therefore didn’t start the Catholic Church as we know it today is just silly.
Anon and Kristen,
I haven’t finished reading yet, but am chomping at the bit here, so if someone has already addressed this, mea culpa.
In the Catholic Church we believe that sin has two natures. (I hope I’m saying this right) One is the spiritual offense. The pain we cause God. This is forgiven and forgotten, by the crucifixion. But every sin also has a practical effect. This we must clear up on our own through sacrifice.
Picture this…I have a beautiful vase that was handed down to me by my great grandmother. I love this vase, and it holds an important place on my mantle. One day I go shopping and when I come home I find my vase smashed to bits. My 7 year old is sobbing his heart out. When I ask him what happened he tells me that even tho he knows he is forbidden to play ball in the house, he broke one of the rules and played anyway. Things got out of hand and the vase got broken. He says over and over that he is sorry and I know that he means it. I hug him and tell him that he is forgiven. I completely forgive him because I love him more than I loved my vase, and because his sorrow is real. This is the crucifixion. Nothing else is needed. His forgiveness is complete. This is the spiritual aspect.
However, there is still broken glass all over the floor. (This is sin, and sin has repercussions far greater than we can anticipate)…someone could cut themselves. The dog, completely innocent of the crime, could come along and step on a sharp shard of pottery…someone has to clean up the glass. This is the practical aspect of forgiveness. We must not only repent, but we must also repair. This is purgatory. While Christ’s suffering and death is enough to “let us in”, and His offering is perfect, we are not. We will need to sweep up the glass. Take a shower. Repair as well as repent.
Does this make sense?
Brother Dominic, when I consider the origins of my faith, I think it is very similar to the branching of a tree. Of course it all began in one place, but like growths and changes cause a tree to fork and branch, so has Christianity. It’s still the same tree, but just as Methodists do not have a Pope or go to confession, modern Catholics have formalized policies pertaining to contraception. It is not exactly the same as when Peter and James set about converting the Gentiles and the Jews, because we are not the same Gentiles and Jews. That is what I meant when I said that Protestants come from the early church, too.
Please be careful what you post on the internet. There’s no telling how many people will see it.
Posted by: SamanthaT at January 27, 2008 3:50 PM
I don’t really know what you are trying to say here. I posted something that was told to the visionaries.
And Muslims DO believe Jesus was a prophet. They also believe in the Virgin Mother, John the Baptist, Noah, Moses, and on and on…
Taking this further, we see that our sin can affect others far removed from us. For instance, my grave sin, committed in Chicago, might be responsible for the illness of a man in Japan. Unless I repair, and undo as best as I can (sweep up the glass) that evil is still out there, spreading and affecting innocent parties. Abortion works the same way. Every abortion unleashes evil into the world and that evil must go somewhere. This is why Mother Teresa says that the consequences of abortion are nuclear war.
Conversely, any suffering I do and subsequently offer up, any prayer, any chore, any fasting can be used to “repair” any sins that have been committed, even if I am not the one who committed them. So my prayer/offering here in Chicago can be the cause of a conversion of a person in Siberia.
This is why we have confession. And why we do a penance. So that we can offset the practical ramifications of our sin. And why Catholics offer things up. So that our penances can be used in the same way as Christ’s were. We are in essence, tho imperfectly and only in a small, pitiful way, climbing up on the cross with Him…
MK, thank you! Agh! I’ve been trying to say that but obviously have been miserably ineffective in getting it across.
Yes, your son asking for forgiveness is like confession, but the sweeping up of the glass and the shower is purgatory.
Kristen, the “church” that Jesus directed Peter to guide was the universal church of believers, not specifically what would later become the RCC. I CAN point to an exact period in history when my “religion” came to be — the moment when the women found the angel at the tomb, precisely. Of course there was only one church at first; there only needed to be one. The RCC has made mistakes, and so has every other denomination in history. That doesn’t mean that we don’t practice Christianity, as best we can tell, exactly as it was meant to be practiced.
I don’t really know what you are trying to say here. I posted something that was told to the visionaries.
And Muslims DO believe Jesus was a prophet. They also believe in the Virgin Mother, John the Baptist, Noah, Moses, and on and on…
Posted by: Kristen at January 27, 2008 4:52 PM
***********************************************
I’m saying that the Bible is very clear on the fact that people who do not accept Jesus as their Savior will not go to heaven. I never thought I would say this but — where is His Man?
Posted by: SamanthaT at January 27, 2008 4:58 PM
As I said before Jesus himself used the parable of the Good Samaritan. Back in his time Jews believed they were the one true religion. Do you really think that Jesus would have pointed out a person who wasn’t a Jew as an example to follow if that person could not get into Heaven?
I’m saying that the Bible is very clear on the fact that people who do not accept Jesus as their Savior will not go to heaven. I never thought I would say this but — where is His Man?
Samantha, I agree wholeheartedly. Unless one accepts Christ as their personal Savior, for the redemption for their sins (not merely believing that He existed- because obviously the devil himself believes, and that doesn’t save him)…They are not accepted into Heaven. It is through Christ’s blood alone that we can receive atonement from our sins, because our sins are as filthy rags. There is nothing we can do to achieve the perfection that would be necessary for salvation, which is the whole reason that Jesus died to cover our sins, if we accept His gift.
If we refuse His gift the Bible is clear that we do not go to Heaven. I would love to believe that all people would eventually go to Heaven, but the Bible makes it clear that “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.”
That being said, I hope I haven’t offended any of my Catholic friends. We obviously do have large differences in our beliefs, which may not ever be resolved between us. But I still love each and every one of you.
Samantha T,
I thought as long as you believed in Jesus Christ as your personal savior you went to heaven.
*
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 26, 2008 9:20 PM
Belief is not enough. Even satan “believes” that Jesus was God. Even satan accepts that Jesus is the way to heaven. It is totally possible to believe that Jesus is God and the way to heaven, but reject the offer. Stalin, Hitler, and many other unsavory characters started out as Catholics…
I was born and baptized a Roman Catholic.
While I have great respect for some of the things the Catholic Church does, i.e., its stand against abortion, many of its doctrines are in direct conflict with Scripture and I believe they have lost their way. Sorry MK.
The main doctrine I see a problem with is infant baptism. An infant cannot believe, nor repent which are two of the conditions for salvation (Acts 2:38). I’ve heard all of the arguments, i.e., Cornelius and his family, etc. and don’t by any one of them. Only a person who understands what sin is and how the death of Christ on the cross can erase the penalty for sin is a candidate for salvation. Also, the method of introduction into the family of God is baptism which has also been changed from the original intent. Christ was baptized in the river Jordan. The Ethiopian eunuch and Peter went down into the water, etc. (I’m sure they had water in a canteen or skin as they were in a chariot and on a long trip so why not just sprinkle some water on the dude?) So, every single one of the examples given in the NT of conversion are a sinner hears the Word about Christ, believes it, is convicted of sin, makes a decision to put on Christ and then submits to baptism by going down into the water and being immersed. No examples of infants or sprinkling are given. So, this must be the way that God accepts people into His family and under His terms and conditions. It is my opinion that any deviation from the examples given by God on how to do something are extremeley dangerous and just leads to more and more deception, more and more non-sensical theology and man-made opinions. Salvation is really, really very simple and in whose interest would it be to complicate it, but of Satan himself?
The word baptism is a transliterated word from the Greek word baptizo which was a term used in the garment industry meaning to immerse as dipping a cloth into a tub of dye. The cloth being immersed takes on the color or nature of the dye. So, the biblical example of baptism by immersion was changed by the Catholic Church so baptism came to mean “to sprinkle”. This is one example of how when a group deviates from the simple mandates of Scripture how everything else needs to change to “cover the tracks”.
Paul warns us that we should not listen to anyone who preaches a Gospel other than what he preached which is very simply, “Christ crucified”. If someone wants to learn the Gospel in a nutshell read and study the Book of Romans. It’s all right there.
Bethany, no offense taken. But it IS kind of funny that there is that joke about a Jew showing a Muslim around Heaven and then he says “Be quiet, there’s the Catholics and they think they are the only ones here…” when it doesn’t appear to be that way at all. LOL.
Yes, let us definitely take a moment to pause here.
We ARE all Christians. We do all say the same creed. We all believe that the way to heaven is through Jesus. I love discussing these differences, but I want everyone to promise, that this will not cause us to be angry or close any doors.
Bethany, Kristen, Anon, Brother Francis, Dan, Samantha T,
You are all my friends and every word I speak, I speak in friendship.
Would it be okay if we all said the Lords Prayer together for guidance right now…Dan, just close your eyes and open your mind and heart. No need to actually pray, just think good thoughts…
Our Father (notice I say OUR Father)
Who art in Heaven (The place each of us is trying to get)
Hallowed by thy name.
If your kingdom is to come, then your will must be done.
Here.
On Earth.
Just like it is in heaven.
Give us today, our daily bread (and patience) and forgive us our pride, and big mouths,
as we forgive those who irritate the heck out of us,
And lead us not to be tempted to always think we are right, but to listen, really listen, and hear each other with our hearts as well as our ears…
And deliver us from evil as well as ourselves.
Amen.
So, do you all believe those 6 million massacred Jews are sitting in hell right now?
To All –
I don’t think I’ve said anything to cause hard feelings and if I have I apologize. I am not upset with anything anyone has said and I started out trying to correct Dan on his incorrect points, then Anon posted and I tried again to state the position of the Church.
I didn’t say that anyone’s religion was wrong or bad I’m simply defending my own. If anyone inferred that I said those things I hope they now understand that was not my intent.
See PIP, you should come back to the RCC! LOL!
Hisman,
Only a person who understands what sin is and how the death of Christ on the cross can erase the penalty for sin is a candidate for salvation.
We understand baptism to something different. We don’t believe that it washes away the penalty for sin. We believe that it washes away the actual sin. Original sin. That is what he died for. To erase, eradicate and get rid of the stain of the sin committed by our human parents, Adam and Eve.
You believe that by accepting Jesus into your heart you are baptized and are now saved. But we believe that “something” happens to you in baptism. Something that has nothing to do with you or your desires. Sort of like how Doug is always on about sentience. We don’t believe you need to be sentient to be baptized. You only need to be present, because something inside of you is made different. Grace enters you and “actually” changes you. You are not the same anymore. Not washed, not covered up, not relieved of the punishment for your sins, but really and truly physically (well spiritually/physically) changed.
Confirmation, later, is when you as an adult say that you accept what was done to you in infancy.
It’s not the immersion that causes the change. It’s the water. The blessed water and the rite itself. The water is a sacramental.
Pip,
Oh my goodness NO! NO! NO! first of all remember that the Jews were the first Catholics. Everything we do as Catholics comes from them.
And as Kristen said, it’s not up to us to say that ANYONE is in hell. Not our job, man.
Ask Jill…I spent 7 hours sobbing and sobbing and sobbing at the holocaust museum in DC on Sunday…my only consolation was that they are all in heaven now. They died for their belief in the same God that I believe in. It would be pretty arrogant of me to tell anyone that they couldn’t go to heaven. He makes the rules, He can change or bend or do anything He wants with the rules.
I only know, that once you know, you are responsible for what you know and can’t go back. I know the truth. I am responsible for that knowledge. I, not anyone else, will only get into heaven by being true to what I know.
This is why Brother Francis said that the pope or any other authority figure will be held way more accountable than I will and I will be held way more accountable than someone who doesn’t know what I know…see?
MK,
You have taught me so much, thank-you for that.
Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church
Do you really think that Jesus would have pointed out a person who wasn’t a Jew as an example to follow if that person could not get into Heaven?
Posted by: Kristen at January 27, 2008 5:06 PM
*************************************************
No, of course not. I think that anyone can accept Christ’s grace. However, I do not believe that being a “good Samaritan” is now or has ever been a means of getting in the gate. If so, we could all just go down to the mosque on the corner and open up the champagne. In fact, some of the best people I know are atheists, so everyone would be safe, and there would be no point in anybody dying on a cross.
Belief is not enough.
Posted by: mk at January 27, 2008 5:06 PM
************************************************
If Satan were to fall to his knees and worship, wouldn’t he be saved? Isn’t the crux of the matter whether you accept Jesus’ sacrifice for your sins?
That 5:35 post was me, sorry.
MK, I think PIP was referring to Bethany and Samantha and HisMan, not us. Am I right PIP?
Awww Jasper, (blush),
It’s nothing that you couldn’t learn in the catechism. I love our church. She is so rich and deep and no matter how far you dig, she is deeper still…
I’ve always loved mysteries, the supernatural and alleys. The church satisfies all three of those. Plenty of mystery, loads of supernatural (or preternatural if you will) and all those unexplored alleys…deeeelicious!
Anonymous,
I think you are somewhat mistaken in your interpretation of Jesus’ teachings. While it is true that faith in Jesus and mercy God bestows upon us due to Christ’s obedience even through his passion and death; Jesus also instructed us in his Sermon on the Mount that it is important that we mst continue to conform our actions to God’s commandments as given to Moses.
Please read Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount below; which is Matthew chapter 5 should you like to reference it it the Holy Bible.
***************
When he saw the crowds, he went up the mountain, and after he had sat down, his disciples came to him. He began to teach them, saying: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, 4 for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land. Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you. “You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house. Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
*****************
That is such a beautiful sermon. I touches upon the blessedness of merciful works. It touches upon the graces bestowed when persecuted in Jesus’ name (those pro-life protester in the video above). It touches upon the need to continue to follow God’s commandments and NOT to
use Jesus’ name as an excuse to live in ways that are against God’s commandments. I could go on and on but this is a shining example of why Catholics feel a need to perform good works as we follow Jesus example and his teachings. Another example of this teaching is from the book of James 2:14-18
**********
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them,
Kristen, I was at a BSU meeting one night and the guy leading the Bible study was reading from 1 Thess 5: 16 where it says that “the dead in Christ will rise first.” And he looked right at me and said, “And by that, I don’t mean the Methodists.”
It was funny.
Yes, Kristen I was. LOL sorry for the confusion.
MK is exactly right about God being the ultimate judge of each one of us.
I guess each of our individual responsibilites exist in seeking Him with all of our hearts.
MK may be ahead of me in that search or vice versa, I really don’t know.
The point is that we are both in love with Him and seeking Him to the best of our abilities. I mean what else can we as humans do?
I know this, that MK and I share a love for Christ and that makes us brother and sister. However, I will not, as she would not, believe something just becasue she says it is so. It takes time, study, prayer, experience, etc. I will listen and ponder and meditate and study and ask the Lord to show me The Way and He will.
Look, the bottom line of all this is love. Do we seek to be right or to love. It may seem that I say things so that I can be right about stuff. No, please look at it anoher way. I love, therfore, I want those that are on the wrong path to get right. Am I always right, absolutely not, and I have changed many of my views over time.
I believe abortion is an affont to God. I beleive that the effects of abortion are destructive. I do not want people or babies to be hurt so I take a hard stand against abortion, I must. This I know will not change.
However, I do not believe that being a “good Samaritan” is now or has ever been a means of getting in the gate.
Samantha, I agree with this statement sort of, I was just pointing out that even Jesus picked out examples we could follow, Jew or not.
Mother Teresa’s entire life was basically that of a “Good Samaritan” though, so I do believe it is a means of getting to the gate. However, ONE good act will not buy you the ticket but a lifetime of them just might.
Truthseeker, yes…I agree…but I do not agree that our works keep us saved. We have works as a result of our having died to ourself and become new creatures in Christ.
look at the parable of the seed that has to die before it can grow into a tree. Once we die to ourselves, we become a new creature. It is no more “ourselves” that does anything we do for Christ. It is Christ working through us.
We cannot take credit for any of our works, they are all the work of Christ through us. People are seeing Christ’s reflection through our life if we have been saved.
If we sin after we have accepted Christ, it is our flesh battling our spirit. Even Paul had this problem and said “the good that I would do I do not. And that that I would not, that I do.
So we can still sin after having been saved, but we will NEVER be happy in our sin. We will always be convicted of our sin by the holy ghost which resides within us, and we will desire to ask forgiveness.
We absolutely cannot become unsaved through any of our actions any more than a tree can once again be a seed after having grown into a tree.
Truthseeker, I was taught that once you accept Jesus’ sacrifice, the desire to do as God wills naturally follows.
Anon,
If Satan were to fall to his knees and worship, wouldn’t he be saved? Isn’t the crux of the matter whether you accept Jesus’ sacrifice for your sins?
The Catholic church teaches that angels (which satan was) are purely spiritual beings. They “choose” which side they want to be on at the moment they are created.
We are humans and have two natures…a foot in each world if you will…one in the physical and one in the spiritual. We are given a lifetime, with many chances to change our mind for the good or worse, to choose which “side” we will be on.
Satan made his choice and the rules for angels, say “no going back”…the same rules apply to us after death. Once we are dead, the deal is sealed.
This is why the two most important times in our life are now, and at the hour of our death. We can choose now, but we have til the moment of our death to make the final decision…you know, I want to lock in that answer.
Posted by: SamanthaT at January 27, 2008 5:41 PM
LOL! ;)
protestants, please answer my question, Thanks!
So, do you all believe those 6 million massacred Jews are sitting in hell right now?
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 27, 2008 5:22 PM
***********************************************
I hope not. As has been repeatedly expressed, I don’t know where everyone goes. I just know what I have read about how that will be decided.
Anon,
Did you catch that part about good works and about the need to continue to coform our actions to God’s law?
You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house. Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
PIP, I am sure that sadly, many of them are. How many rejected Christ in their lifetime, I will never know.
However, ONE good act will not buy you the ticket but a lifetime of them just might.
Posted by: Kristen at January 27, 2008 5:46 PM
*************************************************
Kristen, thanks. I wholeheartedly disagree, but I think Catholics are fascinating.
Speaking of Catholics, MK~ I went to St. Lukes!
Truthseeker, yes, I am very familiar with that verse. Methodists and Baptists believe that a true salvation results in reception of God’s plans and an honest effort to follow them.
Kristen, thanks. I wholeheartedly disagree, but I think Catholics are fascinating.
Posted by: SamanthaT at January 27, 2008 5:52 PM
Yes, I always say they should put us in the circus so people can gawk at us! ;) LOL!
I gotta say, this is by far the BEST string we’ve had in awhile and I really liked the discussion. Now I have to go get ready for confession and Mass. I’ll pray for all of you during my Rosary!
“I hope not. As has been repeatedly expressed, I don’t know where everyone goes. I just know what I have read about how that will be decided.”
Well, according to that reading, aren’t most of them already there?
PIP,
For what it’s worth, I feel that the Jews are still “under” the law, as we are saved by Grace. If they kept the law, then yes, they are in Heaven. But of course, only God knows.
Well, according to that reading, aren’t most of them already there?
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 27, 2008 6:03 PM
*************************************************
If they didn’t change their minds, yup.
Oh wait, I don’t think so, not technically, maybe. It’s a little unclear whether people go directly to heaven (or hell) after death or whether that won’t occur until the second coming.
Jill and I were discussing this and I said something like: It’s not that doing good works will get you into heaven, but not doing them might keep you out…
Go Samantha! Go Samantha! Go Samantha! She rocks. Oh yeah!
I do agree partially with the accountability belief, by the way based on this verse:
And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they who see not may see; and that they who see may be made blind. And [some] of the Pharisees who were with him heard these words, and said to him, Are we blind also? Jesus said to them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
****
So if someone is truly blind and does not know of Christ, I do not think that the Lord will condemn them for that. But only God can tell who actually is blind in the heart and who is not.
“Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “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” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.””
MK, as far as using Acts 2:38 as support for the baptism of babies don’t you think the connotation means instead that salvation is available to everyone with the further caveat by additional teaching that babies are simply not candidates? Following your logic, there should therefore be no unbelievers in the world since they were one of the all that were afar off. Isn’t it a strecth to use this verse as justification for baptizing babies?
MK, how can an infant rise and be baptized and call on the name of the Lord when he can’t even get out of his crib and say even goo, goo, gah, gah? I’m sorry the whole foundation of the Catholic Church rises or falls on this theology and I know how Catholics defend it to the death. However, it is simply not the truth.
How can a baby appeal to God for a clear conscience when a baby does not really even know who God is?
And are you telling me that the rite of baptism has some sort of magical power to it in that whoever it is performed on recieves some sort of
grace? Why not then baptize those people who do not believe, perhaps when they are asleep or in a coma? How can a baby who does not even know who Christ is believe in Christ?
And the other thing is that my brand of Christianity directly links the obedience to the command of submitting to baptism as a condition for salvation. Noah believed God (had faith) and built the ark (obedience and works). In fact, had Noah not had faith his works would not have followed. If Noah did not obey God in building the Ark, a world covered in water would not have saved Him and His family, rather they would have all drowned like the rest of the world. Noah and his family were saved by his faith and the resulting works that followed. Without the faith there would have been no salvific works to follow.
I mean here we go: Baby born with original sin, baby not baptized…where does baby go if baby dies? Now you need a limbo doctrine. Many of these false doctrines were created to cover the questions and disastrous psycholigcal implications people experience when they realize their loved ones died out of the faith. One lie created the need for another until the truth is so skewed it cannot even be recognized.
The doctrine of original sin is the greatest lie every perpetrated on mankind. And its emergence created the need for all other types of doctrines that are in direct and utter conflict with God’s word.
Yes we are all born with a sin nature and all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory. However, a baby, while having a sin nature, has never sinned.
The one great problem of original sin is that it clashes with man’s irresistible convictions of justice. These innate, God-given convictions affirm to us irresistibly that it is impossible to hold a man responsible for a deed that he did not commit and that was committed thousands of years before he was born and came into existence. So the theologians who defend the theory of original sin have the impossible task of justifying God for doing what their own conscience affirms he could not be just in doing.
Anon,
For what it’s worth, I feel that the Jews are still “under” the law, as we are saved by Grace.
This is what I meant when I said that they are also following the laws of the same God. I don’t see how a Jewish person could stop being the chosen people. I like how you put it. If they were “good” Jews and died for their faith, I imagine that by their understanding (which as Hisman pointed out, is all that any of us have) they would be in heaven. Although, and I could be wrong here, but I don’t believe that Jews believe in Heaven the same way we do…murkier and murkier the discussion becomes…
Anonymous, what do you think about muslims?
MK, to HisMan: You believe that by accepting Jesus into your heart you are baptized and are now saved. But we believe that “something” happens to you in baptism. Something that has nothing to do with you or your desires. Sort of like how Doug is always on about sentience.
Uh, no, not “always about sentience.” If you ask me what I think makes for personhood, then I will say that sentience has a part in it, certainly.
……
We don’t believe you need to be sentient to be baptized. You only need to be present, because something inside of you is made different. Grace enters you and “actually” changes you. You are not the same anymore. Not washed, not covered up, not relieved of the punishment for your sins, but really and truly physically (well spiritually/physically) changed.
Okay, MK, so in your opinion ‘magic’ happens. All fine and good.
Doug
All, I appreciate the mutual respect you’ve displayed while discussing a topic many have killed and died over: Protestantism/Catholicism.
Yes, MK, sobbed the entire time we were at the Holocaust museum and by the end of the night (following sobbing at the Basilica Mass) got such a bad headache she threatened to hurl at the McDonald’s drive-through. Thankfully, her strawberry shake saved her.
Kristen, 1/27, 11:21a: Thanks.
Erin, 1/26, 6:46p, asked: “Jill, after your experience, why did you continue your employment for so long? I’d have thought if they were doing something so violently against your morals, you would have quit.”
Erin, I believed God allowed me to work at Christ Hospital for a reason. He gave me work to do, work He thought I could handle, and I didn’t want to let Him down, so I handled it.
I believed Isaiah 8:18: “I will hope in the Lord. I am here with the children the Lord has given me.” If I left, things would have settled down and they would have gone back to killing babies unhindered.
All that said, I constantly questioned, prayed, and sought counsel as to whether I should continue to stay. Others might have quit in the same situation, and that would not have been wrong.
Truthseeker,
Yes, I did read your comments on both threads. I agree with Bethany’s post on this one about works.
However, I disagree with your statement that “we mst continue to conform our actions to God’s commandments as given to Moses.” as I believe that Jesus came to fufill the law. Not to abolish it, but to fufill it by offering a blood sacrifice that became payment for all sin. The commandments that He gave to Moses were the “law” that the Jews had to obey. Jesus did not come yet, so the Jews needed to obey God by following these commandments. They offered blood sacrifices by animals to “pay” for their sins.
The law was not fulfilled until Christ died on the cross and rose again. Thus we are now cleansed of our sins through Christ’s sacrifice /God’s grace.
Hebrews 9:11-12
11: When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,[a] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.
12: He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.
Romans 10:9-13
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 Forr there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
The Sermon on the Mount was beautiful. When I read it or hear it, I close my eyes and picture myself there in His presence. It’s a beautiful place, too!!!
Hisman,
We talked about Limbo earlier. It is not and has never been doctrine. It was just an idea that Aquinas(?) threw out there and it stuck.
By the same token, you claim that the unbaptized cannot enter heaven, so what do you do with all of your unbaptized children if they should die?
Again, you view baptism differently than we do. You see it as a conversion, we see it as a sacrament. You see it as something you cooperate with, and we see it as something that is “done” to us…
From your point of view you are right. An infant cannot cooperate in his or her conversion. But from our point of view, we are right. There is no conversion. Not until later. Baptism is a sacrament. Not a commitment.
We don’t have the same premise, see? So any arguments that follow won’t be logical…
PEOPLE,
This is one of the best threads I have seen on Jill’s blog – and there have been some fine ones.
Kudos!
Doug
Now Jill,
What happens in DC stays in DC…not put on the 5:00 news…
You don’t want me to bring up the “incident” at the white house do you???? lol
Doug,
You know I love you, but you have just entered a conversation where as Jill said, people have killed each other over, and yet not one bad feeling has been had…until now.
You often refer to our faiths as “magic” and I don’t know if you realize how very demeaning that is.
Magic is about illusion, sorcery, satanism and lies. We are talking about something very sacred here and I’m actually offended that you would reduce it such petty terms.
Baptism, salvation, grace…these are things that are miraculous, not magical.
I’d love for you to join the conversation, but you need to show some respect. Please?
PIP,
I feel that if Muslims believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins and rose again according to scripture, they are saved. However, I don’t believe that they believe that Jesus is the son of God and did this. They believe (I think) that He was just a prophet, and like the Jews, are still waiting for their Messiah to come. (12th Imam?)
Doug,
Sure just when I’m writing a post chastising you, you writing a post complimenting us…but it is incredible, isn’t it? These are real sore spots for the two faiths and some posting are not of any faith at all…so this is amazing.
Were you raised in any faith, or were you brought up agnostic/atheist?
Anonymous, shouldn’t they be treated the same as Jews? I.e. they follow the statues of their faith, worshipping the same God, etc? What makes them different?
Anon,
The Muslim faith is a tough one. I have read everything from Mohammed was a schizophrenic and his mother actually perpetuated the “myth”, to their faith actually stems from Hinduism.
There might be granules of truth in a lot of what we read, but their faith is really complicated. They do believe in God the father of Abraham, but get uncomfortable with us because our “trinity” sounds too much like the triple God Head in Hinduism. They think we believe in three gods and not that God is three persons in one…
Jill,
God bless you for following God’s lead (faith!) and staying so strong & fighting the good fight. I’m really glad you did and still are, and I’m sure MANY babies are glad too!!!
MK,
I am so sorry you cried at the museum. I think I would have done the same thing. I didn’t read the diary of Anne Frank until about 5 years ago. I cried. The museum had to be such a sad experience, but one I think our world should NEVER forget.
PIP,
Again, who can say…Some things are just too hard for our tiny brains. On the one hand we are told we must believe that Jesus died for our sins and on the other we are told that His mercy is endless. It reminds of the parable of the hired hands that get paid as much for an hours work as the guys that worked all day…in some ways it doesn’t seem fair, but that’s the beauty of being the boss.
Personally, I worry more about my salvation and spreading what I believe to be the truth than any details about who’s getting what “reward” or “punishment”…
After all, when I meet the Man, all He’s going to be asking is “What did I, Mary Kay, do?” and not “What did all the Muslims and Jews do?” As long as I’m doing what he asks, I let the others answer for themselves…
@MK: If I recall correctly, Jews have a problem with Christianity’s Trinity as well, as it *appears* to be polytheistic, where as the Jews don’t acknowledge things like the Holy Spirit and that only God exists, thus being completely monotheistic. I know from what I’ve learned here, that the trinity isn’t three Gods in one, but to Judaism it appears as that is the case, so their opinions would be similar to those of the Muslims in the whole “not being fond of the Trinity.
I still think Hinduism is a pretty nifty religion…very beautiful art has come from it, I think. :)
I’m leaving in a few minutes but I wanted to post this. This morning I emailed my aunt, who is a nun working in Rome as the Librarian at the American College. Since this is basically her life I thought I’d email her the link and get her take on the article. I just checked my email and the following is her response…
One thing about taking a course in Logic is that it helps you to see immediately when someone is making statements that sound true, but are logically wrong. It’s like the old chestnut: My dog is an animal. My cat is an animal. Therefore, my dog is a cat.
The conclusion the author of that article jumped to is that we are not saved by Faith in Jesus Christ, but by belonging to a church (according to the Pope). That is not at all what the Pope said. Besides, let’s take the statement as he himself presented it.
What exactly is Faith in Jesus? Is it just saying Yes, I believe in Jesus. I believe he is God. And that’s it? Now I can go out and do anything I want: support abortion, vote for candidates who I know are not good, defend terrorists, beat my wife, rape my daughter. Oh, but I believe in Jesus, therefore I will be saved. I don’t think so.
If you say you believe in Jesus, then you have to believe everything Jesus said and taught. You can’t just pick and choose. And this is where the guy is wrong. The fullness of Jesus’ teaching lie where? In the Catholic Church. In the Apostolic succession, in the Faith that has been handed down thru the centuries thru Popes and ordained Bishops and priests. The councils of the Church, the writings of the fathers and doctors of the church, the Papal pronouncements and church teachings. There is no other Church on earth that has such a legacy, and can claim that their legacy comes from anyone other than Christ himself. Jesus founded his Church on Peter. So if you’re going to believe in Jesus, you have to accept Peter and his authority. You have to accept that the Church was founded by Christ, you have to believe that the Holy Spirit has always guided the Church. And you have to believe in the teachings of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ in the world. Christ cannot be separated from his Church. He promised that he would be with it until the end of the world. Yes, and the Church offers the most perfect means of salvation, because salvation is only from and in Jesus Christ. We don’t separate Faith in Jesus from the Church. They are not two separate entities. They are one. You can’t have one without the other.
Grandma Huff, who was raised to be a good Lutheran, and was very pious in her own way, even admitted to me at one point that she fully appreciated why the Catholic Church has a Pope. She said the Lutheran church had gone thru a terrible time, and splits, etc. because one branch believe one thing and the other something else. She said there has to be a final authority. Someone who points out the truth, so she could see why there had to be a Pope. And the Pope doesn’t make infallible statements totally on his own. He takes council with his advisers, theologians, the Cardinals and even, at times, the voice of the people, through the Bishops of the world. It is the Church acting as one.
People outside the church, and even many in it, haven’t a clue as to what really goes on, or how the Papacy works. Sometimes I want to shake people and tell them to read up on the Church. The church is full of wonder and mystery and if people knew more about it, they’d appreciate it and love it more.
So, that’s my thought for the night.
This guy has no right telling people what the Pope meant when he hasn’t got a clue himself!
smjo
MK,
many times at this point during such a discussion, they tell me I could not possibly be a Christian unless I actively try to convert people, hence their active condemnation. Agree/disagree?
Anon,
Yeah, it kind of blindsided me…I wasn’t expecting to be so moved…they had rooms filled with their hair and their shoes, and the actual cart that they carried the bodies on. And suitcases, and jewelry, and photographs…God, the photographs of all those hollow empty eyes just staring at me…accusing me.
And there was a ship called the St.Louis that was filled with Jews that got away and not one country, not even the US would let them dock…they just drifted…I was so angry!
Great, now I’m crying again…
But really, we mustn’t let ourselves forget. We can’t just close our eyes and say it wasn’t my time…because that’s what the abortion issue is all about. Speaking out. Standing up. And letting the St. Louis into our harbor!
PIP,
They don’t follow God’s commandments. They follow “their own”, whereas the Jews do follow God’s commandments. This is the best “in a nutshell” reading on the origin of their religion that I can find that’s short, sweet and to the point without getting “deep”.
http://www.allaboutreligion.org/origin-of-islam.htm
MK:
I did not say the unbaptized cannot enter heaven.
Since babies are saved in the womb and when they are born and unbaptized they will and can enter heaven. This is also why abortion is so heinous because of the inherent innocent of children. Is not the Lord who said of the unbaptized Jewish children in His midst, “and the kingdom of heraven is made of such as these”…and “if you do not become as a child you will not see the Kingdom of Heaven”. Now which children was he speaking of? Just those in His midst or of those afar off? I suggest that He was speaking of all children everywhere in every time, no exceptions. Children are absolutely innocent and that is why the Lord made it very clear in three of the Gospels the following:
Matthew 18:6 But whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
I would like to reiterate that God is the ultimate judge and He can save and justify anyone. However, His word reveals some very specific conditions that I am merely pointing out. I am not the judge, He is. I can go to the Bible and find the answer and not a man made catechism.
Further, none of my children were baptized as infants. This despite the pleas of my Catholic mother and father and brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles. The superstirion that follows this teaching is amazing. However, every one of my children was baptized as a cognitive person who realized they eventaully committed sin and needed a way out. Why, because I built an ark, i.e., I brought them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and he rewarded my faith and work and kept His promise that “in the end they will not depart from it” and this promise is to “all those who are afar off”. In fact, they put me to shame. Now was it my faith that resulted in my children believing or some magic holy water potion?
But HisMan like MK said we believe that baptism is the giving of grace. (I hope I got that right MK.) Our confirmation seems to be more like your baptism.
PIP,
What do they mean by “active”?
Do you consider me “actively” trying to convert people? I mean, I talk about my faith, and I listen to you and others, and I often argue through the churches teachings, but I’m not in Africa as a missionary and I don’t stand on street corners.
I pray for you and Erin and Doug and Midnite and Leah and oh all of you every Sunday at mass, every day in my rosary, every week at the adoration chapel. I pray for you all before I fall asleep each night, when I’m driving in the car and when I’m taking my shower. I’m praying for you right now as we are having this discussion. Prayer is action. My specific prayer is for the conversion of your hearts…Is that actively trying to convert you?
You see what I mean?
@HisMan: Please don’t take this as me being a smart @$$ or being rude, but I have an honest question about something:
I recall you saying months ago that your youngest son was begging to be baptized when he was 9 or 10 (or some other young age) and that he’d been begging to do so for years. Now I am just curious, was he asking to be baptized out of fear that if he wasn’t baptized he was going to Hell even if he did believe in God or was he asking to be baptized out of a genuine desire to be more “in step” with God?
Anon said:
*****************
However, I disagree with your statement that “we mst continue to conform our actions to God’s commandments as given to Moses.” as I believe that Jesus came to fufill the law. Not to abolish it, but to fufill it by offering a blood sacrifice that became payment for all sin. The commandments that He gave to Moses were the “law” that the Jews had to obey. Jesus did not come yet, so the Jews needed to obey God by following these commandments. They offered blood sacrifices by animals to “pay” for their sins.
*****************
Jesus did not “fulfill” our responsibility to follow the Word of God or his commandments. I think you may be confusing the fact that Jesus is the “fullfillment” of the law in it’s entirety with saying that Jesus fulfilled our responsibility to follow God’s laws. Jesus went so far as to say he is not abolishing one letter of one word of the law just to make this point so his followers would know that they should continue to obey God’s commandments to the best of our abilities. Jesus would always want us to follow his Fathers commandments and it is heretical for a Christian to say otherwise. Not that you can’t be saved otherwise, but if you are saying that Jesus would condone breaking God’s law would be blatantly against Jesus teachings and heretical.
Look at Luke 11:28 where Jesus says
“Blessed are ye that hear the Word of God and keep it.” The ten commandments are the Word of God therefore we are blessed when follow them as Jesus did. Jesus did not come to fulfill our need to follow God’s laws, only to free us from the penalty when we break those laws. We can certainly take comfort in knowing Jesus died for our sins, but lets be clear that Jesus in no way condones sinning or breaking God’s commandments.
Yes. A while back, before I decided to be a freelancer for a while, some protestants and I got into a discussion. I said that I live my life like I think a Christian should and if someone asks me what my motivation is I will tell them. But I don’t think scare tactics and being pushy will help. They threw a few Bible verses my way and said only real Christians have this obligation to do so. Therefore I am not a real Christian. A few others defended me, but for a while that accusation was very confusing.
(disclaimer here, I don’t think those kids represented any religion in particular and I respect all of your religions, these were some kids and I know the distinction).
Therefore, since Jesus in no way condones sinning or breaking God’s commandments, and every Christian has the responsibility to follow Jesus’ teaching, we are then still bound to follow God’s commandments if we confess Jesus Christ to be our Saviour.
PIP, I think the most convincing people leave the words to the preacher and just set an example to be followed. My mama always says that if you talk long enough, you will end up swallowing your foot.
Truthseeker, do you follow all of the rules in the OT?
At mass today, as often happens, the readings seem to have been picked out especially for me.
Check out todays. Do you think that God knew, years ago, that we would be having this exact discussion today, and that this reading would come in awful handy? lol
1 Corinthians 1:10-13, 17
“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all say the same thing; and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be perfectly united in one mind and in one judgment. For I have been informed about you, my brethren, by those of the house of Chloe, that there are strifes among you. Now this is what I mean; each of you says, I am of Paul, or I am of Apollos, or I am of Cephas, or I am of Christ. Has Christ been divided up? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
And then we sang:
“I the Lord of snow and rain
I have borne my peoples pain
I have wept for love of them
They turn away…
I will break their hearts of stone
give them hearts for love alone
I will speak my word to them
Whom shall I send…
Here I am Lord.
Is it I Lord.
I have heard you calling in the night.
I will go Lord
Where you lead me.
I will hold your people in my heart…
Magic is about illusion, sorcery, satanism and lies. We are talking about something very sacred here and I’m actually offended that you would reduce it such petty terms. Baptism, salvation, grace…these are things that are miraculous, not magical. I’d love for you to join the conversation, but you need to show some respect. Please?
MK, no offense meant, none at all – but where you say as something that is “done” to us – believe me, that sounds like magic.
In no way does that necessarily mean satanic, nasty, bad, etc. It just means “any extraordinary or mystical influence, power, etc.”
I don’t mean to get in the middle of Protestant versus Catholic debate. I very much appreciate it, and have seen some excellent stuff there, IMO, but I don’t have a dime in it, so to speak.
It’s Jill’s blog, and I try not to blaspheme or offend people in general, but it’s not “petty,” not in the least, to recognize that while religion may have its place within the life on one individual person, it is hardly any rational argument with respect to other people.
Doug
Not the rules of church at that time, but the rules God came down and gave to Moses for all people to follow yes. For example, God instructed the people of the time to build their altars in the tabernacle from uncut stone, but I do not feel the need to follow those customs given to the church at that time…although I do think an altar of ncut stone would be cool.
I believe abortion is an affront to God. I believe that the effects of abortion are destructive. I do not want people or babies to be hurt so I take a hard stand against abortion, I must. This I know will not change.
HisMan, that was well said; for all the disagreements in the world and on Jill’s blog, no question that that’s what you believe.
Doug
Hisman,
Now was it my faith that resulted in my children believing or some magic holy water potion?
Again, from your point of view and understanding of what baptism means, it is your faith. But from my understanding it is the “magic” (and I really hate that word) of the rite itself…that’s what I’m trying to tell you.
We have completely different understandings of what baptism is, so we will never agree on how to get there…
You have just stated that your children are innocent and have no sins to remove, and I have said that in our interpretation, they do indeed have sin. It is the original sin…a sin each of us is born with.
This is the sin that baptism removes. If you are older when you are baptized than both this sin and any others that you have committed are erased with baptism.
This is why we baptize infants, to rid them of “original sin”…you baptize to wash sins committed with full knowledge and consent…we have confession for that…
Don’t you see what I am trying to say…we simply don’t have the same understanding of what baptism is or does…so how can we possibly agree on when to do it?
I’d like to remind everyone on this site that I respect MK’s beliefs to the utmost. She is obvioulsy very knowledgable about her Catholic faith as I am and loves God to the utmost and is a true seeker. I still must respectrfully disagree with her. Also, please forgive me for associating Catholic baptism as magic. I just don’t believe there’s any mystical element to sprnkling a baby with water. Nowhere, not anywhere does the Bible teach such things.
My Catholic experience was different and I see the reality of what the Catholic faith produced. I went to 12 years of Catholic school and experienced first hand, how celibacy produced homosexuality and extremen frustration in the vast majoity of priests. I saw more hypocisy in the church from the priest who would take out their frustations by beating my fellow students over the head with books and nuns that that were meaner than bulldogs, and how the vast majorty of Catholics do not follow the faith they proclaim to believe. However, most believed that if they went through the various motions, i.e., infant baptism, holy communion, confirmation, the Eucharist, church every Sunday, etc., etc. they are somehow in the faith and right with God.
Friends, this is simnply not the truth. Christianity is about relationship. It’s about knowing who Jesus Christ is and what He did for all of us. It’s about accepting that and living it out in our every day lives.
Now, I believe there are Catholics that are saved and on their way to Heaven, however, I believe many are so bound up in fear, a fear that was implanted into them from their births, that they cannot even imagine looking at another way of believing.
When I was 23, I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord. Even so, the more I read the Bible on my own, the more I became convinced that the Cahtolic Church was off target. I tried to stay, I really did, I got involved with Catholic Charismatics who at least seemed willing to study God’s Word. I tried to continue to go to Mass, etc. However, my hunger and thirst for the truth was overwhelming and as I said the more I read and studied, the more I realized that the Church was not preaching the full truth.
By they way, there are many, many version of Catholicism, so the comments made about there being no deviseness in the Catholic Church because of the Pope are simply untrue. Did you know that the doctrine of celibacy is predominant in the US Catholic Church? Further, if everything the Catholic Church previously taught were still being practiced today they’d still have collection plates for getting out of Purgatory free tickets.
Here it is guys:
God created us: Adam and Eve sinned. The sin introduced death and dying into the world. When we sin we are condemned to hell. Since God loves us so much He sent His Son to save us by dying on the cross. By trusting that as the truth and living it out on a daily basis we are saved. Living it out demostrates that we trust Him. Simply going though the motions of good works proves nothing. God wants our hearts circumcised and cleansed by His Word.
Doug,
Honestly, I know you don’t do it intentionally, but truly magic is in our world from satan…it’s all tricks and illusions and sleight of hand…all fun and games on a TV show…but when you are dealing with the preternatural or supernatural it takes on a new meaning…
Saints that have visions are dealing in the mystical. The body and blood changing into wine is mystical. It really happens. It isn’t just trickery.
Pulling a rabbit out of a hat, or scarves out of your sleeve can all be understood…magic.
But these things we are speaking of have no “earthly” explanation…they are otherworldly.
That’s why I hate the term “magic” when applied to faith. No real offense taken. I just wanted you to understand that it cheapens what we believe…
Truthseeker,
This is where we differ in our beliefs. You are Catholic, and I am not. I beleive that after Jesus died for our sins, God’s law is written now in my heart and mind. I don’t believe that this gives me a “free ticket” to do whatever I want because I am saved. When I became saved, the Holy Spirit worked inside of me to change me and my thinking to be harmonious with the teachings of Jesus. Yes, I am a work in progress, buy by no means would I ever want to go out and do the opposite of any of the 10 commandements. Like I said, the commandments are written in my heart and mind because Jesus died to fufill the law. Before Christ, one had to follow the law to obey God. Now, after Christ’s death & resurrection, obeying God is believing in Jesus. We are now part of His body, or the “Church” of Christ. I don’t feel that the Church is a building or religious group…the Church is the members of the body of Christ.
There is only one way to God, through Jesus!
God changes the hearts of man when one becomes saved.
TS,
although I do think an altar of ncut stone would be cool.
There is a “hidden” picnic area in the Smokies where all the picnic tables are made of uncut stone…reminds me of Narnia…very cool…
Hi gang,
having read over the posts, just have to shake my head at the many assertions made in the last many posts. How to say what needs saying?
Much of the difficulty in understanding the Christian faith is the limits we all put on God and His activity. These limits are evident because it really is hard not getting tongue-tied and frustrated just trying to find appropriate words, let alone accurate words to express human love. This is even more difficult when taking about loving God. Much too often we forget to understand that these little heart-blazes that we experience often defy categorisation.
We do have a rather large problem with authority, especially when it wields the truth. I thought Catholics are much too formal … particularly American Catholics! Now after reading anon, I see protestants can be even more hung-up on authority (the Pope) than are Catholics.
So here is a brief glimpse into what Catholics mean by ‘infallibility’ … one the Pope major roles is that of a teacher-guide in matters of faith. When he acts this way he does so without error ONLY WHEN HE SAYS HE IS ACTING IN THIS MANNER. At any other time he can make any kind of mistake. In practice, he uses such formal authority very, very sparingly. Please understand that he usually does this to guide the faithful into a new direction and it never dismisses/erases the deposits of faith.
A few paragraphs back, I briefly referred to our misguided sense of formality. It all stems from the word for God we (in the English world) translate as ‘Father’. Almost all the original scriptures were written in Greek and only a few words like ‘Abba’ and some from Jesus’ sermon on the mount and a few spoken on the Cross, are maintained in their original Aramaic (the language Jesus used/spoke). So there are just a few Aramaic words in a sea of Greek. IMO these are very special words to be pondered.
‘Abba’ in all the English world is translated as ‘Father’. But in Aramaic “Abba” is used by a small child and means “Daddy”. I do not know about you, but “Daddy” and ‘Father’ are very different. They both refer to the same being but the informal “Abba” sheds the aloofness and distancing that the use of ‘Father’ promotes. ((Interesting, it was on the basis of intimacy with God that Jesus was condemned.))
SO, Kristen and anon …. eternity begins st baptism not death because eternal life is Abba’s Life … heaven is not a place, but a person, whose name is Abba. Jesus is always in us because He is one in-with Abba … as God is in the eternal NOW … all the past (language) and all the future (imagining) are of this world. Heaven permits entrance to what IS …. the truth, the way, and the life … and Mom too.
((I figure if you’ve got the privilege of calling God – ‘Abba’, calling Mary “Mom” seems appropriate.)) Catholics give it a try …. the rosary will come alive. Start by blessing yourself: “In your name Abba, and yours Jesus, and yours Holy Spirit.”
Now does all this wrangling about the Pope seem strange, eh, eh? Yep the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and Jesus is here because He is IN the Eucharist (He is Eucharist); is IN the Pope; is IN you and me … we are IN His Holy Spirit and we are children of Abba because we are IN Him and He IN us… ref. Jesus’ prayer at the Last Supper.
HisMan,
AMEN!
MK: That’s why I hate the term “magic” when applied to faith. No real offense taken. I just wanted you to understand that it cheapens what we believe…
Okay, Sis, I’ll attempt to avoid that word.
MK we sing the same hymn out of the Methodist hymnal! It is my favorite!
MK I too am a fan of that song
My favorite song from Church was “On Eagle’s Wings”.
I don’t know why. I just liked it. That and “Will You Let Me Be Your Servant…”
Hisman,
I too respect you. I love your knowledge of scripture and your absolute love affair with our Lord.
But the things you describe seeing in the church growing up? These are the sins of men. They are not the teachings of the church. I could point to protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc…all who abused their faith to further themselves. We all sin. We all fall. But step away from the individuals who get it wrong. Look to what the church teaches. You say you want truth? You say your need for the full church is unquenchable? Then I say your journey is not over for there are many truths that you have turned away from. Those souls that repelled you through their behavior and turned you off the path, will have much to answer for. But you looked to people, not the church for your answers and when those people let you down, you blamed the church. You bit off your nose to spite your face, so to speak.
And there are not very many versions of Catholicism. Priests getting married is a changeable law. It is not doctrine. There are different “rites” within the church. In the Eastern rite the priests may get married. In the early roman rite, the priests could get married. In the future priests of the Roman rite could possibly get married again.
Priests are not forced to remain celibate. They choose it. If a man wants to become a priest and get married he is free to join the Eastern rite.
Ask any priest and he will tell you that it is not him who has a problem with celibacy. It is the lay people who misunderstand it.
Brothers, who are not priests, remain celibate also. So do nuns. This is their choice.
As Bishop Fulton Sheen says:
“Few hate the Catholic Church, but millions hate what they mistakenly think is the Catholic Church”.
on eagle’s wings is one of my favorites too!
MK:
Show me one verse in the Bible that supports the baptism of infants and baptism as some mystical right that imparts grace and forgiveness apart from the conscience effort and compliance of the one being baptized. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. It’s a teaching of men, sonmething the Bible condemns when the teaching is not supported by God’s Word.
All of what you speak of about baptism are man made doctrines and teachings. If these man made doctrines conflict with the Bible or are not supported by the Bible they are to be abandoned and that’s what the whole Catholic Church needs to do. To stand up in courage and in faith and reject any and all teaching that are not found in the Scripture.
God is sickened by our desire to please men and not Him. When we adopt and beleive a doctrine contraty to His Word that’s exactly what we are doing.
Now I know in full assurance, that the gates of hell will oppose any and all such attmept at seeking truth as I was attacked mercilessly by satan in my quest for God after I first received Christ. Jesus Himself says that we must hate our parents and family in order to love Him. Now this obviously means that if we are seeking His truth we must be willing to even abandon what our parents taught us if it confilts with his Word. Christ comes first, not our families, not the church, nothing else but Him and what is revealed in His Word…..period. Do you who seek God have the guts and courage to believe this and act on it?
PIP, Rae, and Samantha T,
Sometimes I think songs can touch our hearts much better than anything else. They reduce complicated ideas to something so sweet and simple…no?
We also sang a song called “The Summons”…
The Summons
1. Will you come and follow me if I but call your name?
Will you go where you don’t know and never be the same?
Will you let my love be shown? Will you let my name be known,
will you let my life be grown in you and you in me?
2. Will you leave yourself behind if I but call your name?
Will you care for cruel and kind and never be the same?
Will you risk the hostile stare should your life attract or scare?
Will you let me answer prayer in you and you in me?
3. Will you let the blinded see if I but call your name?
Will you set the prisoners free and never be the same?
Will you kiss the leper clean and do such as this unseen,
and admit to what I mean in you and you in me?
4. Will you love the “you” you hide if I but call your name?
Will you quell the fear inside and never be the same?
Will you use the faith you’ve found to reshape the world around,
through my sight and touch and sound in you and you in me?
5. Lord your summons echoes true when you but call my name.
Let me turn and follow you and never be the same.
In Your company I’ll go where Your love and footsteps show.
Thus I’ll move and live and grow in you and you in me.
Hey,
I really do love you guys.
I learn alot myelf when I go about.
MK, you give me alot to think about.
Somewhere, the truth is in there and I think we help each other.
Peace, and please, if you are thinking of having an abortion. Don’t do it. My Heavenly Father loves you beyond measure and will provide a way. I would stake my life on that.
Last one, I promise, but it’s my all time favorite…
Lord Of The Dance
I danced in the morning when the world was young
I danced in the moon and the stars and the sun
I came down from heaven and I danced on the earth
At Bethlehem I had my birth
Dance, dance, wherever you may be
I am the lord of the dance, said he
And I lead you all, wherever you may be
And I lead you all in the dance, said he
I danced for the scribes and the Pharisees
They wouldn’t dance, they wouldn’t follow me
I danced for the fishermen James and John
They came with me so the dance went on
Dance, dance, wherever you may be
I am the lord of the dance, said he
And I lead you all, wherever you may be
And I lead you all in the dance, said he
I danced on the Sabbath and I cured the lame
The holy people said it was a shame
They ripped, they stripped, they hung me high
Left me there on the cross to die
Dance, dance, wherever you may be
I am the lord of the dance, said he
And I lead you all, wherever you may be
And I lead you all in the dance, said he
I danced on a Friday when the world turned black
It’s hard to dance with the devil on your back
They buried my body, they thought I was gone
But I am the dance, and the dance goes on
Dance, dance, wherever you may be
I am the lord of the dance, said he
And I lead you all, wherever you may be
And I lead you all in the dance, said he
They cut me down and I leapt up high
I am the life that will never, never die
I’ll live in you if you’ll live in me
I am the Lord of the dance, said he
Dance, dance, wherever you may be
I am the lord of the dance, said he
And I lead you all, wherever you may be
And I lead you all in the dance, said he
I previously had a question for Br. Dominic, but it seemed to go unanswered. I am in no way being disrespectful, but can someone PLEASE answer one of my biggest hangups with the Catholic church? I really would like to understand this:
Br. Dominic said:
“The Pope, bishops and priests have been anointed with Christ power to imitate his life on earth. (a power that has been given to them by Christ and is passed through the laying on of hands) It is through these men the Church recognizes the power of Christ and his love for the Church.”
Now, I asked”
With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, why then were some Popes allowed to “buy” their way into Papacy. I do recall a 13-year old Pope?
Also, if your statement above is correct, please explain the molestation and cover up that took place in the Catholic Church over a period of many years if “bishops and priests have been anointed with Christ power to imitate his life on earth. (a power that has been given to them by Christ and is passed through the laying on of hands)”.
My grandmother attended St. Bede’s church in Chicago where the Priest there embezzled a ton of cash from the parishioners. And correct me please if I am wrong, but I beleive that this was not a “one-time” incident in the Catholic Church.
So, my quesion is, is that if “The Pope, bishops and priests have been anointed with Christ power to imitate his life on earth. (a power that has been given to them by Christ and is passed through the laying on of hands) It is through these men the Church recognizes the power of Christ and his love for the Church” how can any of this possibly happen? This was in no way imitating Christ’s life on earth. If these men were given this “power” BY CHRIST, how could this happen?
I LOOOOOOVE On Eagle’s Wings
Hisman,
I feel firmly that I have found the truth, and surely you would agree that I am out there spreading it.
I love God. I love Jesus. I love the Holy Spirit.
We started off this conversation with the Nicene Creed, the prayer that says what all of us, Catholic and Protestant alike agree upon…
Perhaps we should end there also…
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy christian and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Can I hear an amen?
I liked the melodies. That’s why I liked the songs, they were fun to sing. :)
I like “Agnus Dei” too, we sang that one in freshman choir. We sang a lot of Latin hymns in freshman choir actually…and that was apparently “a-okay” because if you can’t really tell it’s about God, it’s okay to sing in a public school. :-p
We sang a lot of Hebrew songs too…like “Shalom” and “Hashivenu” (I probably butchered the spelling of that last one).
If only I could MK, if only I could.
Ive got some of those, but not nearly enough to give it an Amen.
Anon,
Those are good questions and the best answer I can give you is similar to what I said to Hisman…Where there are men, there will be corruption.
Buying the papacy may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but it is not doctrinal. It was a perversion of the papacy.
Priests molesting young boys? Again, an abuse of power. Not the norm, but a perversion.
When a priest is ordained, then he has been given the power to represent Christ. But that is during the sacraments. At all other times, he is just a man, same as you and I, and subject to all the same temptations and sins that we all are.
It is when hearing confession, or saying mass, or baptizing, or confirming or marrying a couple that he is “Persona Christi”…Just as the pope can make mistakes when he is being himself, a priest or bishop can make mistakes too. Some of them pretty serious.
Doesn’t it make sense that satan would strike at the heart of the church to bring her down from within?
**************************************************
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In persona Christi – a Latin phrase meaning “in the person of Christ” – is an important theological concept of the Catholic Church which refers to the action of a bishop, priest, or deacon (though deacons cannot celebrate all the Sacraments) while celebrating a sacrament. The priest acts in the person of Christ, or it could be said, the Person of Christ is acting in the performance of the gesture and the pronouncing of the words of the sacramental rite.
In particular, there are essential moments in the rites where the priest’s words and gestures confect the sacrament. These words are spoken in persona Christi. Two examples include “This is my body” in the Eucharistic prayer and “I absolve you of your sins” in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
I hope that helps…
Ah Dan,
Just say Amen to all of us being friends and agreeing to peacefully disagree. Just say Amen to the parts you agree with. Just say Amen with a small “a” or just say “cheers”…we know what you mean.
mk,
Thanks for trying to explain it. But Br. Dominic said “Br. Dominic said:
“The Pope, bishops and priests have been anointed with Christ power to imitate his life on earth. (a power that has been given to them by Christ and is passed through the laying on of hands) It is through these men the Church recognizes the power of Christ and his love for the Church.”
So, if the Church believes that these men have Christ power, and that the Church recoginzes the power of Christ & his love for the Church through these men, wouldn’t that negate the entire belief that the pope, bishops and priests are given this power to begin with?
Rae,
I like the melodies too..many of them, like the Lord of the Dance, are shaker tunes.
But even the melodies put you in mind of something “else”…you know what I mean? Of course, just ask Jill…all I wanted to do in DC was find some IRISH MUSIC!!! And can you believe it, on our last night we did! I love those melodies too. Some make you want to dance, some to sing…and yes, some make you want to cry…just my luck. They played one of those at the end of the night…
lol MK. You really have no idea how much I do wish I could sincerely believe all of it. I just cant. I take religion seriously enough that I feel I need to believe everything down to a t. You’ve got whatever Amen I can give, as to whether it is worthy of Him or not, I’ll find out upon my death I’m sure.
Anon,
That’s just it…the laying on of hands only passes along the power to perform the sacraments. Then and only then does this “power” come into play. At all other times, the power is, for lack of a better word, dormant.
What Brother Dominic/Francis meant was that priests/bishops/etc. are vicars of Christ, by virtue of the laying on of hands, when acting as the “person of Christ” here on earth during the sacraments…
For ordinary purposes, we are all vicars of Christ…no?
Irish music makes me happy!
I like Irish punk music…Flogging Molly in particular. It’s so jovial!
Dan,
Unless you are dying anytime soon, I wouldn’t give up just yet. Haven’t you been reading? Now-you have given your little teeny tiny amen…but you have til the hour of death to give the Great Amen…
Patience.
Whether you know it or not, just taking place in this discussion and expressing a desire to understand, is a step on that journey…
It doesn’t make sense to jump in without checking for rocks.
Remember when I quoted Sheen about few people hating the Catholic church.
Well, I wouldn’t want anyone loving only what they misunderstood about it.
Don’t want to scare you, but it’s the guys that ask the deepest questions that often join the priesthood…lol
Rae,
My boys like Flogging Molly too…I tend to go for (big surprise) the ballads. I have a number of close friends that are Irish Musicians…(they actually get paid and have for years). Some of them are quite well known in Irish circles. So I tend to get my Irish Music fix live…
@MK: That’s good. :D
You know, when I was an alter girl at my Church, my mom used to tell me I should be a nun. So I asked her, why should I be a nun? And she goes, “Well you look so cute in your little outfit there sitting next to the priest!”
:-p
Not so sure if that’s a good reason to become a nun…
mk,
I guess that makes sense. I must have read his post a different way than what he actually meant.
Please, by no means am I “picking on the Catholic church”…I don’t mean to sound like I am. I do have my hangups with alot of their teachings, as do Catholics with other Churches teachings.
I guess I’m non-denominational because I am truly a “sola scriptura” person. God’s word is enough for me! And if I don’t know, I ask Him, and He said:
Matthew 7:7-8
7: Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
God always keeps His word!!!
lol mk, you arent the only one. My friends think Im going to become a friar because of the side interest I have in religion in general.
I was born and raised in the Faith. And it seems during this time was when I became disenchanted with it. I mean, I still knew everything. Got A’s in religion class, and was the best/most knowledgable student in CCD after I left my catholic school. I’ve always been incredibly spiritual and had a strong faith in God. It’s just some of the things the Church teacheds/stands for (such as being against contraception) make me think that is getting overly ridiculous. I dont see God as someone who cares so much about the little things so much as having the Faith, a feeling of inspired awe, perhaps some fear, and perhaps some humility and the true realization that something greater than you, than mankind, than the universe is out there. The worrying about the details and the politics of the world itself that the Church has is what truly frustrates me, and does drive me away from the Faith. I dont think God cares so much for the politics of man. Lead your life and let the politics do what politics do. It is not a part of His world.
And let us not forget the dancin’!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a34G_hTKn8s
I knew Mark Howard (founder of Trinity School of Dance) when he was just starting out. He dated my sister for awhile…
This is at the Irish Fest in Chicago. Trinity is one of the top schools for Irish Dance in the world…
I LOVE IRISH DANCING!
I’ve always wanted to do it, ever since I watched “Lord of the Dance” on PBS like…12 years ago! Never did it though, not too many places to Irish dance here in Minnesota.
MK, here is a song I want you to listen to. I think it’s a very pretty song and that you might like it (it’s not too “loud” or anything, it’s pretty mellow).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXsORzXKnMs
Dan,
I hear you, but you can’t forget that everything is part of his world. True, we must give to Cesear what is his, but sometimes a line is crossed as in abortion.
As to contraception, perhaps if you study why the church teaches what she does, you’ll come to have a fuller understanding. On the surface, it just seems like a petty rule, but if you step back and really look at the big picture, the church being Christs bride, the union of man and woman reflecting the union of God and man…you might see it differently.
I can tell you that when I was in high school I had no clue what they were talkin’ about…but after having lived a rather wild life, I began to see the reality of her teachings. They are actually quite beautiful and rather poetic.
But taken at face value, I’d probably believe just as you do…remember what I said tho…the church is deep. Wading off shore and thinking that this gives you a clear understanding of the depths…well, you can see where I’m going.
There’s two year old’s splashing and then there is Jacques Cousteau…
“You know, when I was an alter girl at my Church, my mom used to tell me I should be a nun. So I asked her, why should I be a nun? And she goes, “Well you look so cute in your little outfit there sitting next to the priest!”
LOL!
MK, theres a football player named Chad Johnson who use to do the Irish dance when he scored a touchdown -very funny. And when the Red-sox won the world series, the star picture Jonathan Papelbon did the Irish Dance:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5277543639157328954&q=jonathan+papelbon+dance&total=65&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
All,
Thank you for a lovely & DEEP discussion.
It was nice.
-Good night.
Rae,
I love that line…
Take me away, all the pain will change into a memory of when we were…
amazing…
Jasper,
LOL! I don’t think that guy studied with Trinity!!!!
Anon,
It was nice, wasn’t it. Thank you too. I suppose we’ll be back to bickerin’ tomorrow, but for tonight, it was quite beautiful.
God Bless,
and sweet dreams…
Rae,
:-p
*
Not so sure if that’s a good reason to become a nun…
It’s a start…I’ve heard worse…lol.
Well I do understand the reason behind it, its just I think its ridiculous to try and have something like that judge as to whether or not to one can consider themselves Catholic. I also think that contraception does not infringe on anyone giving themselves to anyone else. Your whole self is not defined by your ability to get a woman pregnant and have a kid, or even the ability to ejaculate for that matter. Your whole self is you, your soul. You dont need to have sex to give your whole self to another person, nor do I feel that contraception means your holding anything back from your spouse or lover. I feel there is more beauty to be had in the connection between two souls rather than two bodies, and there is a difference between the two (in my view, perhaps not the church’s). The connection of two souls is hindered by nothing but the people themselves. That is the truest, most raw connection if I can ever think of one. No form of sex, with or without contraception, can truly compare to that in my eyes.
@MK: I thought you might like it, it’s pretty inspirational. It’s the only song that has ever made me cry like a wee lass. :)
@Jasper: I’m glad you thought it was funny that my mom thought I should be a nun. :-p I think it’s funny too.
And with that, I think I will turn in also. I love you guys. All of you. Peace and Pleasant dreams…
Father Dan and Sister Rae…lol…snicker, snicker…
lol, gnight MK
Oh darn it Dan,
I have to respond to that…
A mistake many people make is that they believe that the “body” is something that hinders our souls, something to be overcome.
But we, as Catholics, do not believe that we should separate the body and soul. I agree, sharing ones soul is amazing…I call it soul dancing and it can be done without sex. BUT…this means you are not sharing ALL of you. If you have sex without sharing your soul, you cheapen the act. But if you hold back your body when sharing with your soulmate, then you are not sharing ALL of you either. When you marry someone, you literally, mystically, cease being two people, and become “one” person. Another one of those “mysteries”…
So the ultimate giving of oneself is in the act of “soul dancing” AND sharing ones bodies…This is the ultimate “connection”…
You wouldn’t say your were sharing your soul if you weren’t honest with your partner would you? I mean to truly share your soul, completely, you can’t hold ANYTHING back. No secrets. You are completely open and vulnerable to the other person. The same thing must happen when speaking with our bodies. No holding back. No secrets. When you find someone that you can do this with…well, now you’re talking “Theology of the Body”…
I suggest you read that book (the one by Christopher West) and then get back to me…talk about deep…
and now for sure, good night moon, good night air, good night noises everywhere…
I still feel as if the bodies in this world truly are nothing. They are cast off in the end so that we might join Him more closely. I even feel as if we are supposed to go beyond the body, and not worry so much about it as we do about our soul (of course). Yes the body is there, but I feel as if the bodily can be held back (in some cases, possibly should be held back, i.e. STDs, etc) without consequence. The bodily connection is one that is special, but overall is inconsequential when compared to the other connections one will have in life, and eventually, in death. Thus why being against contraception makes no sense to me.
lol, gnight MK, hope you didnt see my latest response. lol
“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body,” (1 Cor. 6:19-20).
But of course (yawn) I did see your response. Really, read Theology of the Body.
The body is very important. God gave us bodies and will give us knew ones. He put us in a physical world. He took on human form. Surely, then, he views our bodies as good and necessary. Personally, I’m grateful. I love bodies. And apparently, so does He.
walking away now…not reading any more…going…going…going…gone.
Im not saying they’re completely irrelevant or should be tossed aside. They are gifts, but the bodily connection, for me anyway, pales in comparison to a soul t soul connection. If two souls are truly already connected, there is nothing more that they can truly give one another. Even raw sex would do nothing to enhance that connection. The soul penetrates so much deeper than the body. The body is necessary to house it until we return to Him, and needs to be maintained. However I still feel it pales in comparison to the soul, and “holding back” something physically truly does nothing overall.
lol mk, save that one for morning ;)
Anon,
A 13 year old Pope. What are you talking about?
What Pope was that and when did he live?
Anyway, I love Matthew 7 verses 7-8 too. Keep knocking and the door shall be opened to you.
What do you think about Matthew 7 verse 21?
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”
MK,
Do you think that babies who are aborted are in hell because they weren’t baptized? I am just curious. I am a Christ follower. Not a Catholic or Protestant but someone who surrendered my life to Jesus 14 years ago. I read all of these comments and enjoyed the friendship I felt even when some agreed to disagree. :)
I would have to say that my belief system lines up more with HisMan and Bethany.
However-
The common battle that we wage for the unborn is the same and I love that!! We fight together!!
I’m sure MK could say this more eloquently, but I believe it could be said that the physical “marital embrace” is an outward sign of the spiritual union that takes place between a husband and wife and God. Contraception removes God (who is Life) from this union and takes away the totality of the gift of self.
My Catholic experience was different and I see the reality of what the Catholic faith produced. I went to 12 years of Catholic school and experienced first hand, how celibacy produced homosexuality and extremen frustration in the vast majoity of priests. I saw more hypocisy in the church from the priest who would take out their frustations by beating my fellow students over the head with books and nuns that that were meaner than bulldogs, and how the vast majorty of Catholics do not follow the faith they proclaim to believe. However, most believed that if they went through the various motions, i.e., infant baptism, holy communion, confirmation, the Eucharist, church every Sunday, etc., etc. they are somehow in the faith and right with God.
Okay, this IS offensive to me. Celibacy does NOT produce homosexuality and that is the most ludicrous statement that I have EVER seen on this blog. What does it take to get it through to you that these men (as well as the teachers you mention) were not acting in accordance with God?
I hate to break it to you but there ARE married Roman Catholic priests among us and it is perfectly allowed.
As has become SO very apparent today that the vast majority of Catholics (those who claim to be Catholic anyway) have no TRUE understanding of the Church and her teachings just as you say those around you didn’t when you were young. You were as ignorant of those teachings as they. It is by your own negligence that you did not understand the Faith you practiced.
Would it have been nice if the priests and nuns that taught you could have shown and taught you the right way? Sure! But if I want to be a history teacher and I have a horrible history professor that tells me Washington was the 14th president is it not my own failing for not finding out the truth?
Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, as well as scores of other Popes, priests, monks, and nuns would be horrified to hear someone say what you did about their choice to remain celibate. It is a gift? Suffering? Penance? (I’m struggling to find the right word.) That brings (the true religious) closer to God. Ignorance! I can hardly see straight I’m so angry.
Anon2, I understand that perspective, but cannot embrace it. I don’t see contraception as removing God from the mix at all. That connection from soul to soul, between the two and God, between the individuals and God, in my view, is far stronger than anything our bodies re-enact that connection with. I understand the reasoning behind it, I simply cannot accept it because I dont believe that reasoning because there, in my view, are far greater connections unchanged by contraception.
I did not see the post kristen is quoting, but I have to agree, celibacy does not lead to homoesxuality. I also went to catholic schools and had some amazing teachers, including a nun who I absolutely LOVED. My school’s/church’s priest was absolutely AMAZING, though he was later running the parish alone. He did get involved with Alcohol, but with God’s guidance (as wwell as guidance from other’s I’m sure) he rectified those problem and still preaches, albeit at a different parish.
As for Catholic priests being married (at least in today’s sense) I dont believe it is possible. They are “married” to the church, though that, too, bugs me. One should not have to give up a romantic live in order to serve Him. I think He would rest easier knowing there is more love, rather than more people being unable to act upon love for a fellow human being.
Dan, no offense but you say a lot of things about the Catholic Church that are completely untrue. A little research would go a long way. (That being said I appreciate your being on my side about the celibacy.)
But yes, IN FACT, some priests are married and practice in the Roman rite. IF they were clergy of another denomination and convert to Catholicism they can become priests. Some of these men are married and, of course, the Church would not tell them to leave their families.
In my thirty-five years I have come to know 2 married priests.
MK,
Do you think that babies who are aborted are in hell because they weren’t baptized? I am just curious. I am a Christ follower. Not a Catholic or Protestant but someone who surrendered my life to Jesus 14 years ago. I read all of these comments and enjoyed the friendship I felt even when some agreed to disagree. :)
I would have to say that my belief system lines up more with HisMan and Bethany.
However-
The common battle that we wage for the unborn is the same and I love that!! We fight together!!
############
Carla, I know this question was not for me and there’s no doubt MK and other Catholics here who could answer it better, but I looked this up on a catholic website:
the Catechism of the Catholic Church declares:
Ah. I was unaware that that was possible to be honest. But its more an exception than a rule though. I simply know the rules over the exceptions. I ended my religious education (well, coming from the Catholic Church) when I entered freshmen year of high school. I decided not to be confirmed because I could not truly accept what I was being asked to.
I think thats where the original idea of limbo had come in jasper, though, yet again, i am unsure. As for if I’m wrong, or limbo is done away with, I have no idea other than they would be left to God’s mercy, as that passage seems to say….
Thanks Jasper. After my abortion and 2 miscarriages I read I’ll Hold You in Heaven by Jack Hayford. I believe my babies are in heaven and I will hold them someday. :)
I found this, granted its from wikipedia but hey…
The Limbo of Infants refers to a hypothetical permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed personal sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Since at least the time of Augustine, theologians, considering baptism to be necessary for the salvation of those to whom it can be administered have debated the fate of unbaptized innocents, and the theory of the Limbo of Infants is one of the hypotheses that have been formulated as a proposed solution. Some who hold this theory regard the Limbo of Infants as a state of maximum natural happiness, others as one of “mildest punishment” consisting at least of privation of the beatific vision and of any hope of obtaining it. This theory, in any of its forms, has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, but it is permissible to hold it. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope that these infants may attain heaven instead of the supposed state of Limbo; however, the directly opposed theological opinion also exists, namely that there is no afterlife state intermediate between salvation and damnation, and that all the unbaptized are damned.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo
fairly interesting reading though
“Thanks Jasper. After my abortion and 2 miscarriages I read I’ll Hold You in Heaven by Jack Hayford. I believe my babies are in heaven and I will hold them someday. :)”
Carla, I believe the same as well. God (Jesus) is merciful… You will see all of your children in heaven.
@Carla: I just have a question for you. My mom had a half-dozen or so miscarriages that she never talks about (I heard about them from reading my baby books and talking to my cousin). So I was the “miracle” kid (I was IVF). Is it weird that I think about what things would be like had my older siblings been born?
Is it weird that I feel guilty that I was born and they weren’t and that had I not been born my parents would have continued on with the adoption process and adopted children that didn’t have parents?
Dan, heres to you.
*********
Well I do understand the reason behind it, its just I think its ridiculous to try and have something like that judge as to whether or not to one can consider themselves Catholic.
_______
Catholicism has a Cathecism. When people accept what is in the Catechism they are Catholic.
***********
I also think that contraception does not infringe on anyone giving themselves to anyone else.
__________
By inhibiting the chances of sex between a man and woman resulting in pregnancy, contraception is contrary to Gods design for the procreation of mankind through the sexual union of a man and a woman, thus infringing on the parties abilitiy to join body and soul.
***********
Your whole self is not defined by your ability to get a woman pregnant and have a kid, or even the ability to ejaculate for that matter.
________________
I agree Dan. I share my soul with many other than my wife. And I never cheated on my wife if that’s what you were thinking.
**********
Your whole self is you, your soul. You dont need to have sex to give your whole self to another person,
__________
I agree again Dan that you don’t need to have sex in order to give your whole self to a person. You can give you whole person, heart and soul in ways besides sex. That is a very Catholic position.
**********
I feel there is more beauty to be had in the connection between two souls rather than two bodies, and there is a difference between the two (in my view, perhaps not the church’s).
__________
The Catholic church and St. Paul agree with you on that one.
********
The connection of two souls is hindered by nothing but the people themselves. That is the truest, most raw connection if I can ever think of one. No form of sex, with or without contraception, can truly compare to that in my eyes.
________
No argument there, but imho a man and a woman can actually share a “special” part of God’s creation by joining both body and soul together during sexual intercourse while being as open as possibile to the possibility of procreation. :)
Dan, all said you sound pretty Catholic except for your position on contraception. If you don’t mind my asking, what were the parts of Catholicism that kept you from confirmation?
Carla said:
************
Thanks Jasper. After my abortion and 2 miscarriages I read I’ll Hold You in Heaven by Jack Hayford. I believe my babies are in heaven and I will hold them someday. :)
*************
Carla, Jesus says their angels in heaven are always looking upon the face of our heavenly Father. :)
As you are walking down the road you come upon a key. Describe your key and tell me what you do with it…
Upon inspection I did not recognize the key. I thought about putting it in my pocket anyway but instead I placed it back where I’d found it and marked it with a stick. Continuing down the road I asked my neighbor Dan if he had lost a key and told them that I had found one down the road a piece and marked it with a stick. He said that he had not lost a key but he would keep his ears open. On my way back home I noticed that the key was gone. Three days later , I was walking down the same road and I came upon a large crowd of people gathering around this harmonious sound. I couldn’t help myself and I began following along and listening to the harmonious sounds. As I got closer I realized the harmonious that was fillling the air was actually coming from the pocket of the man that the crowd had gathered around. I stopped and asked him his name. He said my name is Doug and that harmonious sound you hear is this old silver key of mine. I said, WOW, that is amazing, I saw that key on the road a few days ago and picked it up but at that time it wasn’t making that beautiful harmonious sound. He told me that the key had originally been given to him by an old mouth harp player named Desert Slim. Legend has it that Slim spent his entire life playing mouth harp with that key in his front pocket and now whenever the winds come out of the West the key vibrates with the sounds of Desert Slims mouth harp. Now whenever the wind is out of the west people from all around come back to this road to find Doug and to enjoy the harmonius sounds emanating from that old silver key.
Doug and Truthseeker,
Wow…I’ve got to admit Truthseeker, you almost have John McDonell beat for original answers…
Okay, you continue on your road and come upon a cup. Describe your cup and tell me what you do with it.
Dan, (etal)
This is from the Theology of the Body…
The Pope’s thesis, if we let it sink in, is sure to revolutionize our understanding of the human body, sexuality, and, in turn, marriage and family life. “The body, and it alone,” John Paul says, ” is capable of making visible what is invisible, the spiritual and divine. It was created to transfer into the visible reality of the world, the invisible mystery hidden in God from time immemorial, and thus to be a sign of it” (Feb 20, 1980).
A mouthful of scholarly verbiage, I know. What does it mean? As physical, bodily creatures we simply cannot see God. He’s pure Spirit. But God wanted to make his mystery visible to us so he stamped it into our bodies by creating us as male and female in his own image (Gn 1:27).
Dan,
Again, you are misunderstanding the idea of celibacy. This is NOT, NOT, NOT something that is doctrine. It is NOT, NOT, NOT something that is forced.
Men CHOOSE to be celibate. They (when they become priests) embrace celibacy. Perhaps Bros. Dominic and Francis can explain better.
You made a statement earlier about “raw” sex not replacing the union of two souls. You see, that is my point. “Raw” sex is not the kind of sex we are talking about.
Take priests. They give up physical union to become priests. Some men perverted this idea and created homosexual havens in the seminaries. Not coincidentally, much of this kind of thing happened right around 1973, you know Roe v Wade time. We Catholics think that this time was about a lot more than just abortion. Our entire world changed that year.
Remember how I said that sin has “practical” effects as well as spiritual ones? Well imagine the evil that was released, is released, every time an abortion is done. All of that residual evil, caused by grave sin, must go somewhere. It is no conincidence that Free Love, Drugs, Abortion and clergy abuses all came about at the same time. And these evils beget more evils. It will be a long time before all of that glass is cleaned up!
But I digress…This too, is from The Theology of the Body and addresses your desire to seperate the body and the spirit…
One of the greatest threats facing the Church today is a “spiritualism” in which people disembody their call to holiness. Living a spiritual life never means eschewing our bodies. Authentic spirituality is always an embodied spirituality.
This is the very “logic” of Christianity. God communicates his life to us in and through the body; in and through the Word made flesh. The spirit that denies this “incarnational reality” is that of the anti-Christ (see 1 Jn 4:2-3).
Think about this for a moment. John Paul teaches us that the human body – in the beauty of sexual difference and our call to nuptial union – possesses a “language” inscribed by God that not only proclaims His eternal mystery, but makes that mystery present to us. If there is an enemy of God who wants to keep us from God’s life and love, where, then, would he go to do it?
Satan’s goal is to scramble the language of our bodies! And look how successful he’s been. Because of Satan’s scheme, most of us are illiterate when it comes to reading the language of the body. How many of us, for example, think that our bodies are the last place to look for the revelation of God’s mystery?
Dan,
In the beginning was the “word”…the spiritual, as God is pure spirit.
But then the “word” was made “flesh”…
This incarnation is crucial to our understanding of the sexual union.
This taking of the spirit (the word) and through pure love, turning it into something tangible (the flesh) is what the marriage union is all about.
Sharing our bodies is a way to make our love (our word) into something tangible, visible (flesh). And the “proof” of that love is the new life which is created.
Step back from yourself for a minute and think about this…
We, mere stupid human beings, lower than the angels on the totem pole and barely higher than the chimp, can voluntarily, imitate God, and with full knowledge, cooperate with Him in making new life.
Heck I get excited when I mix vinegar and baking soda! But this! This is incredible. Me, Mary Kay Hastings, can (and has) bring my love on a spiritual level, with my husband, to a physical level and the result is a completely new and different human being. How awesome was he to give me this opportunity. How cool is it that my spiritual love creates something physical. Right up there with Alchemy.
I’ve said before that while we might be able to implant eggs, fertilized them outside of the body, and clone them…we will never, ever, ever be able to create them (or people) out of thin air. Never.
As a matter of fact, man is unable to “create” anything out of nothing. We can manipulate, and tweak, and recreate from what is already there, but we cannot make something out of nothing.
Why do you think that is?
Don’t you see how satan plays with your head. He creates the illusion that we are geniuses, on par with God himself…when the truth is, we are only imitators. Not true creators.
But in this one area, sharing our bodies, we are able to taste what God tastes, and “join” Him in creating something totally new. A child.
Rae,
I don’t think any of what your wrote is weird. At all. My eldest children, ages 10 and 7 ask about the babies in heaven. How old would they be now? etc. I think it is natural to wonder and question.
I am sorry that your mother never talks about them. They are part of your family. They are your siblings. I believe Satan wants you to feel guilty. God made you. You are here. Your parents love you and want you. They did not adopt. They had their reasons. You are fearfully and wonderfully made and God is in control. There is a peace in acceptance of His will for our lives.
Guilt over something you had no control over is not part of His will. I am glad your are here too!
Carla,
Mary has said in more than one apparition that all the aborted babies in the world are with her in heaven. She is there mother until they can be reunited with their earthly mothers. The joy those babies must feel on the day that their mothers recognize them and admit that they are real. From that point on, as you know, the mother and child bond is recreated.
And as we are talking about the Theology of the Body…you are a perfect example of how important the body is. While you can commune on a spiritual level with your baby, you long to “touch”, “caress” her little physical body.
Everyone who has lost someone, longs for the day when they can be united physically. While here on earth it is possible to maintain a relationship with those that have passed on, we still long to “see” them in the flesh.
Truly, the body is sacred and very important.
Rae,
On occasion we have talked about “survivors” guilt for the siblings of aborted children.
Makes sense doesn’t it? Imagine if you knew that not only did your brothers/sisters didn’t make it, but that your mother/father had willfully ended their lives but kept you.
Just remember, you had no “choice” in the matter, anymore than your siblings had a choice. While your mother had her precious bodily autonomy your brothers/sisters did not.
Bodily autonomy is just another deception of satans. A way to make us feel as though we are as powerful as God. An illusion. And boy, is it working or what?
MK, to Truthseeker: Wow…I’ve got to admit Truthseeker, you almost have John McDonell beat for original answers…
Right on – that was great, TS.
MK, can I read John’s responses (probably after we get through…?)
Doug,
If I can find them…lol.
MK: Okay, you continue on your road and come upon a cup. Describe your cup and tell me what you do with it.
Blue, thin metal coated with enamel, having a handle like an oversized coffee cup. I take it around the next bend in the road, where the little waterfall comes down over the rocks at the side of the road, and leave it for the next traveller.
Doug,
If you promise not to peek yet, here is the link to everyones answers and what they mean…
Wait til you’ve answered all the questions and then you can look. Looking before hand will just ruin the game. It was really, really interesting. Poor Cameron never came back after I “analyzed” his answers…lol.
I sure do miss him.
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/07/the_ban_with_no.html#comments
Johns answers are here:
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 17, 2007 7:22 PM
Just scroll down til you get to that post…but remember…WAIT!!!!
Doug,
Okay, you come to a body of water. Describe it and tell me how you get across it.
Dan,
Would you kindly respond to my post of 1/27, 4:41PM.
Truthseeker,
Pope Benedict IX.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_IX
There are TONS of other links for this, but everyone here seems to like wikipedia for some reason. Hope it helps.
I think more people should read Matthew 7 verse 21. It’s a very important verse for those who think they are going to heaven for reasons OTHER THAN accepting Christ as their Savior because of what He did on the cross and that He rose again on the third day according to scripture.
Did you know that the doctrine of celibacy is predominant in the US Catholic Church?
Posted by HisMan
Did YOU know you’re wrong? The Church has NO Doctrine of celibacy.
Since you so offended me in an earlier part of this post, I feel no obligation to soften the blow here. YOU were ignorant of the Faith you thought you knew everything about and left because what YOU thought the Church was, NOT because what it TRULY is.
Samantha T 4:41PM
Whatever you do, never underestimate the Clintons or their tactics. Dick Morris has written an excellent article how this might well be Clinton’s strategy to create a white voter backlash in the south. If white voters see blacks unifying behind Obama, this could be the response. Like it or not race is an issue and the Clintons will play it to their advantage.
Bill Clinton is a sociopath. He is a brilliant politician and strategist. He is manipulative and cunning. He can brilliantly display any facade necessary. All common traits of sociopaths.
He and his wife, the other side of the same coin, want power and they plan their strategies very well.
We may all think they’re making some stupid slip ups on the issue of race. Believe me, we’re the ones being stupid of we believe this for one minute.
Anon,
The papacy is an ELECTED position. Obviously, others felt that if they voted certain pontiffs in they had a chance to control the papacy and, in effect, be Pope them self. AGAIN, these men were acting outside accordance with God.
Kristen,
Easy girl…lol. Many, many people have these misconceptions. Our faith is a complicated one.
It’s a shame tho, isn’t it, that instead of seeking the real truth, people are so complacent and just accept every negative thing they hear.
The beauty of this thread tho, is that we were able to clear up a few of those misconceptions.
Imagine how the Muslims must feel. Talk about being misrepresented. The only things we “think” we know about that faith, is what we see the fringe terrorists doing.
I can only imagine how many things I have wrong, because my sources are wrong.
I am saddened that men and women who are raised in the Catholic faith, leave because they didn’t bother to dig deep enough and believed the lies that they were told. Hismans says that his leaving the church caused a rift in his family, and rationalizes this by saying that we are often called to “fight” within our families in Jesus’ name. What he fails to realize is that this was meant for people whose families reject Christ and his teaching outright. His family is Catholic, and even by his own admission are still in the “Family of Christianity”. I pray that he rethink his positions and take the time to investigate his doubts about our church further. He might be surprised at what he finds.
Kristen,
It also helps to note that while some popes may have been leading unsavory personal lives, never have they, in the capcity of “Persona Christi” led the Church off of her path. In matters of Faith and Morals in the context of the Church, no pope, good or bad, has “changed” the church or her “teachings” one iota. This is because she is protected by the Holy Spirit. Doctrinally, She is the same today as she was on the “first day”…Her personalities may have fluctuated but her truth remains constant…
Hey MK! I’m just curious about what you thought of that song that I linked you to last night?
Rae,
Don’t you remember I quoted the one line…?
It was really nice. So that’s the famous Darren Hayes, huh? Are all his songs sweet like that?
@MK: Yup, that’s him! A lot of his songs are sweet like that, yes. I think you’d like his stuff from when he was in Savage Garden too. It’s all pretty mellow.
I’m planning on using a lyric from one of his songs to integrate into a tattoo I want to get when I graduate from college:
“Who would’ve thought it could be amazing
Who would’ve thought the tiny courageous
Who would’ve thought that love so belated
Could save me, and bring me back to you?”
I plan to use the first phrase of that, “Who would’ve thought it could be amazing”. :)
Why Rae,
I do believe you are starting to sound like a tentative optimist…lol. Welcome to the world of hope.
MK,
It also helps to note that while some popes may have been leading unsavory personal lives, never have they, in the capcity of “Persona Christi” led the Church off of her path. In matters of Faith and Morals in the context of the Church, no pope, good or bad, has “changed” the church or her “teachings” one iota. This is because she is protected by the Holy Spirit. Doctrinally, She is the same today as she was on the “first day”…Her personalities may have fluctuated but her truth remains constant…
I don’t think I ever said they had.
Kristen,
No, you, never said it, but Anon implied it. I was agreeing with you.
The Church has NO Doctrine of celibacy.
Kristen, MK, et al – I certainly did not know this. Why then are most priests umarried, and does the Church truly permit married priests? Is there no stigma within the Church to being a married priest?
Doug
MK, I come to a body of water.
It is a round lake, jewel-blue, and totally still. Reflected in it are puffy clouds, trundling their way across the sky like majestic sheep. I’m reluctant to disturb it; I sit and just watch it for a while. The nature of the physical world.
Finally I get up and swim across, taking time to dive down and look at the bottom, and to float on my back and see the sheep once more.
ok guys, I just woke up, and there’s A LOT of posts waiting for me. If I miss one please let me know, I’m still very tired and liable to misunderstand something or miss something all together. The answers are coming, it may just take awhile.
Good morning everyone :) I hope you all had a wonderful weekend! :)
Truthseeker, much of what kept me from being confirmed are the views the Church tends to hold in regards to contemporary issues (i.e. contraception, gay marriage et al.)
and MK, I know celibacy isn’t “forced” per se, those who choose to be priests know whats coming (or rather, I’d hope they do), I just still think its a bit ridiculous to do so, as I’ve already said.
And now to continue my downward scroll.
Doug,
The Catholic church has a number of different “rites”…Eastern (These churches after they returned to the fold have generally been treated as separate rites based on their particular location, even though they have similar if not identical liturgy. The churches using the Byzantine liturgy include the Albanian, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Hungarian, Italo-Albanian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian.)
Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite etc…
See here for more info: http://www.mncuf.org/rites.htm
Within these rites, some allow for married priests.
We belong to the Latin rite, and we do not allow our priests to be married. This is not, however, doctrine. It is a practice.
In the church there is “changeable” law and “unchangeable” law. Women have never and will never be permitted to be priests in any of the rites. This is an unchangeable law as the priesthood was instituted by Jesus(God)Himself. We don’t mess with what God planted.
However, the marriage of priests, is a changeable law. Something that was instituted by men, and not Christ. Therefore, with decree from the pope, this law can and my someday be, changed. The first priests (the apostles) were married. And so were priests in the first 3 centuries.
If a man has his heart set on both being a priest AND a married man, he can join one of the other rites. Similarly, tho rarely, if a priest from the Byzantine rite, already married wants to join the Latin rite, he may be able to do so and remain married. Also, if a clergyman from a protestant church wants to convert and continue as part of the clergy, he might be allowed to become a priest even tho he is married.
The reason priests remain unmarried in this day and age is that they choose to do so. Marriage is a vocation and so is the priesthood. Both require total commitment and total devotion. Vocations are not the same as jobs. I imagine it would be difficult to run a parish of 8,000 people AND raise a family.
Not to mention the “uncontrollables” that can happen in family life. Might be a little awkward if Father Bob’s son got his girlfriend pregnant, his daughter was strung out on drugs, his wife left him for the rabbi and his youngest turns out to be gay…A man in secular life would have a hard time dealing with all of this, but imagine a man that was running a large parish in the archdiocese of Chicago coping…
Okay Doug,
On the other side of the water, you find yourself on an island. A large storm is brewing. What do you do for “shelter”?
Dan,
On one hand you say that “sex” is somewhat overrated and you would take a spiritual relationship over a physical one any day.
But when it comes to the priesthood, you balk that they would choose a spiritual relationship (with God) over a physical one with a woman.
Don’t you see that priests are simply doing exactly what you say you would do? They are much more interested in the “soul dance” and are willing to forgo the physical manifestation of love, for a spiritual one.
MK, I truly do understand that sex is supposed to provide a miracle through birth, but in all reality the scientific process is no different than injecting sperm into an egg as done via IVF, yet that is claimed not to be a miracle. Its the same result, the only differences being that one is done by the body, and one is not. I can see that is your point, but I still feel as if (though it is your personal temple to God) that the body is not nearly as important as the soul connection. Also, I dont feel there needs to be “proof” of this love. God knows that its present, as should anyone who wishes to see it. Secondly, not everyone gets to have this “proof,” infertile couples for example.
I loved John Paul the second and thought he was an excellent Pope, but you’ve hit another piece I’m stil sore about, the papacy in general. Despite having a “line to Gos” as its been called, the Pope is still man, and man errs. Not to mention, God is not to be fully understood by any man (with exception of His Son, though he wasn’t just man). Islam accepts this, which I think is an amazing feat. God is not meant to be understood, and therefore, neither is there to be an illusion that one can fully comprehend His word.
Mary, I’m sorry, I’ll try to find the post you asked me about.
Also to MK et al, I just did a MASSIVE (i.e. 15 page, double spaced) paper on essentially comparing the religions. Islam is one where I have the least information (I was out a couple days during those discussions), but if you would like I could post or email the bits about Islam that I do have and wrote about.
Dan,
No problem. Thank you.
MK, I truly do understand that sex is supposed to provide a miracle through birth, but in all reality the scientific process is no different than injecting sperm into an egg as done via IVF, yet that is claimed not to be a miracle.
Dan, whether by IVF,or natural conception, a human being is a miracle every time.
MK, Im saying preists should have the oppurtunity, while members of the Church’s clergy, to have that physical element if they so choose. That does not demean the connection to the Church, and should therefore be able to share a similar connection with another person, and attach the physical relationship if they so choose.
and Mary here was the post you made:
“Two centuries ago slavery was legal. Could one have vigorously opposed slavery yet at the same time support one’s right to choose to own a slave? Could one argue that slave ownership was a matter between a person and their God and that each person must face the consequences of their decision to own a slave?
Yes, that typically was the argument, in fact many actually used the old testament to back slave ownership. Even many of the abolitionists owned slaves and did not release them until their (the “master’s”) death. It seems to have been a commonly held position. Words were different than action during that time.
“The Supreme Court also gave its blessing to segregation and the imprisonment of Japanese American citizens.”
Yes it did, as it made too much of an assumption based on Eastern culture.
“Would you agree that so long as segregation was sanctioned by the Supreme Court, then discriminating against and segregating black citizens was acceptable?”
If you were a Christian, you personally should not do so, but you also have to understand that non-christians (albeit a small population at the time in comparison) may not have such views or hold backs.Just as the Supreme court ruling abortion is legal doesnt mean you personally have to go out and get one.
ok guys, feel free to post, but I need to shower and all that jazz. I should be back soon enough to answer the challenges my posts are sure to be issued.
Dick Morris has written an excellent article how this might well be Clinton’s strategy to create a white voter backlash in the south.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You mean Dick “Toe-Sucker” Morris?:
On August 29, 1996, Morris resigned from the Clinton campaign after reports surfaced that he had been involved with a prostitute named Sherry Rowlands. A tabloid newspaper had obtained and published a set of photographs of Morris and Rowlands on a Washington, D.C., hotel balcony. Accompanying the photo layout was Rowlands’ story of the casual affair, including the revelation that Morris’s favorite sexual fetish was toe-sucking. [4] The article also revealed that Morris had allowed Rowlands to listen in on phone calls with the President, and had given her a copy of a campaign speech before it was delivered.
So, do you all believe those 6 million massacred Jews are sitting in hell right now?
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 27, 2008 5:22 PM
I don’t think you can say that you or anyone else will be in heaven. Only God knows.
You believe and trust. But no one can know for sure.
I’m going to Heaven, and I am sure!!!!
Kristen:
If the US Catholic church has no doctrine of celibacy in the US why are most US Catholic priests celibate?
What would you call it a suggestion of celibacy?
Was your problem with the word doctrine?
I have never met a US Catholic priest who was married or had a family, have you?
Dan,
In order to rejoin the Union, the confeds had to ratify ( i think it was the 14th?) ammendment, which ended slavery. Many of the Northern states didnt wish to ratify it, and the North was considered the heart of the abolition movement.
Posted by: Dan at January 27, 2008 3:21 PM
The 13th amendment was not ratified by Mississippi til 1995. That 1995 is not a typo.
In Kentucky in 1976 and in Delaware in 1901.
They were still in the Union however.
I don’t think you can say that you or anyone else will be in heaven. Only God knows.
You believe and trust. But no one can know for sure.
1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (not might be, not trust and hope that you will be. SHALL be.)
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
“But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name”, (John 1:12).
Acts 16:30-31
“…’Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’, and they said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved… .’ “
There are so many more verses like this…the Bible is clear…we CAN know!
Said with love, hope this is comforting to you…
Amen, Bethany!
Anon- yes there are exceptions, as upon Lincoln’s assassination Jackson went easier on the confederates. however at least 8 of the southern states ratified by December of 1865. Its in history books that Southern states were required to ratify it.
Of the states who did not ratify it until after that time, 4 of the 9 had been a part of the Union. Once the amendment was ratified it did not matter if the other states accepted it or not, it was the Supreme Law of the land, and therefore, states that hadnt ratified were still required to follow its contents
2 of the four who rejected it originally were also part of the union during the civil war. One of which you mentioned- Delaware.
MK:
Yes, I believe every word of the Nicene Creed.
Nothing in there about infant baptism, or clergy celibacy you would have to agree.
By the way, I will always consider myself a Catholic (althoug I think the CC would consider me an apostate) in the sense that I have been ingrained with the teaching of the church and that never leaves you. Probably the reason I am so agasint abortion is becasue of my Catholic upbringing.
I just choose to challenge outright the church’s teachings where thet conflict with Scripture as a matter of conscience and integrity. My Lord comes first and then the Church. I want nothing more than the Catholic Church to come back fully to the Bible. That would be a dream come true for me. Perhaps it is I who need to return, however, until I will never believe any doctrine that isn’t supported by Scripture.
By the way. Do you remember a song “o Solitarus Domine”? When I was a boy, that song moved me and it still moves me as well as Ave Maria. I don’t know all the words, but I want to find it somewhere and listen to it sung by a choir or a buch of monks. Got any clues on where I could find that song. “o Solitarus Domine” online or at a store? I’d be much, much grateful.
Hey, MK, I love you sis and all the other Catholics on here as well. Discussion is good and while we can disagree on dcotrine we have the one common and most important point of agreement and this is, JESUS CHRIST and Him Crucified and Resurrected….Amen.
Just a hypothetical….
A man is “Saved” at age 30 . He knows he’s going to heaven. At age 60, he robs a bank and kills someone in the process. He is then shot dead by the police as he’s trying to flee.
When he was thirty, he knew he was going to heaven. Is he in heaven?
If yes, why?
If no, why?
HisMan, kristen has met 2 Catholic priests, each having a wife and a family. They were converts.
Anon2, I dont believe so, as the bank robbing would show an eventual disregard for His law.
Anon2,
See: Posted by: Bethany at January 28, 2008 10:02 AM
PIP:
The Jews are God’s chosen people. That’s why they have been so persecuted over the millenia. Satan hates the Jews and attacks God directly and hurts God grieveously when He attacks His chosen people. Someday, however, everything will be made right.
It would be a grave mistake to say that any one of the 6 million Holocaust victims are in Hell. God decides eternal destiny and can justify anyone. Besides, the Word says that God will curse anyone that curses teh jews and bless anyone that blesses the Jews. I choose to bless the Jews.
As non-Jews, we have the repsonsibilty of responding to the Gospel. If God has blinded the Jews to the authenticy of Jesus as the Messiah for now, that is His prerogative and His responsibility. God is not a monster. I believe that when the veil is lifted all true jews will respond to Jesus and weep at His appearing.
Personally, I think that everyone of the 6 million Holocaust victims were specifically chosen and when we get to heaven I am sure they will all be honored as heroes of the faith. This is just my opinion. God’s ways are not our ways and His throught are not our thoughts. We can’t figure Him out, we can only trust Him to do the right thing, everytime and in all circumstances.
Hisman,
I agree. God will reveal His mysteries in His time. It is not for us to try to figure out.
Hisman, I have to disagree with you there.
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek. All are one through Christ Jesus.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Bethany:
Yes, we can know that we have eternal life.
The Catholic Church tends to over intellectualize all of there doctrines. Paul warns us about this here: 2 Corinthians 11:3
“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ.”
Look, the Gospel is made simple enough for a small child to understand and accept.
My 11 year old, when he we 6 years old, begged to get baptized. He is now one of the most spiritual kids I know and wants to be a world evangelist.
Oh I know …and I agree with you on almost everything you believe, Hisman.
But you said that all of the Holocaust victims were chosen by God for Salvation, and I see no evidence that they could be saved without having accepted Christ in the same way that we do. From what I have learned from the Bible, they don’t get a free pass simply because of their heritage, is basically what I’m trying to say. If someone rejects Christ in their lifetime, whether Jew or Gentile, they have the same outcome.
Maybe I misunderstood your point.
Posted by: HisMan at January 28, 2008 10:00 AM
HisMan,
All dogmas are doctrine but not all doctrines are dogma. You seem (to me) to have implied that it was a dogma of the Church when, in fact, it is not. There were married priest and Popes for that matter.
The Church changed her position on married men being priests because it is more difficult to administer to a congregation when you have your own family. My husband’s job as a teacher is a point of contention at times because he is frequently at school in the evenings for conferences, plays, open houses, etc… The Church felt that men could not administer to both congregation and family effectively and one would always be lacking. (Much like mothers who work feel they cannot give 100% at either job – I speak from my own and my friends experience.)
Yes, as I stated before I know personally two married priests, but they were clergy of another denomination before they converted so this is allowed in the RCC. I knew this was allowed before I met them and to be honest was excited to meet them and get their take on the issue. BTW, they BOTH said they completely understood why RC priests take the vow of celibacy and had they converted before they were married would have taken it as well.
Posted by: Doug at January 28, 2008 8:46 AM
Priests take a vow of celibacy. Above I noted that HisMan seemed to imply more that it was a dogma of the Church (which it is not) but in fact it is a doctrine (a teaching) of the RCC. Sometimes the words (by non-Catholics or Catholics who do not know their Faith) are used interchangeably but they are different.
Bethany:
Please be very, very careful.
Please study and read fully the Book of Romans and don’t just lift out one verse out of the Book to support an entire theology of the Jews.
Remember, God made very specific promises to Abraham.
Please read Romans 11 (especailly verses 25 – 27) and tell me what you think, here it is:
The Remnant of Israel
1I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah
Bethany,
Sorry Bethany, my post was meant for you. I read your post, hence the hypothetical. Do you know with certainty that a man who was saved at 30 years old and dies after killing someone is still saved?
HisMan, since you like the Bible quotes, here’s one a couple from Paul on celibacy. Paul even makes a case for preferring celibacy to marriage:
“Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband” (7:27-34).
Paul
Kristen:
I fully disagree with you about marraige and ministry.
One can put a thousand to flight and two, ten-thousand. That’s a Bible verse.
A married couple, called by God, working in unison for God’s purposes can do exponentially more than one priest.
I see it in my church.
Please, this is where I have a problem with Catholics. They typically don’t know God’s word and they live by the flesh and mere human reasoning (which is typically at odds with His word) and not by the Spirit, handicapping themselves in the process.
What you say about marriage and ministry in the natural sounds good and makes sense but, in the Spirit, it opposes radically God’s word and the promises He makes that we will do even greaer things than He did.
Kristen:
I think is the same letter Paul said that women shouldn’t talk in church. Is this doctrine or dogma or opinion?
Do you think he may have just been speaking to a select group of people about a specific set of circumstances at a specific time in history?
All Paul is saying is that if you get married and be in ministry it’s going to be more difficult, duh….by definition.
To base a whole theology of celibay on this is ludicrous, especislly when it leads to the debauchery and perversion evident in the Catholic priesthood.
Anon said:
************
I think more people should read Matthew 7 verse 21. It’s a very important verse for those who think they are going to heaven for reasons OTHER THAN accepting Christ as their Savior because of what He did on the cross and that He rose again on the third day according to scripture.
************
It is not just for reasons OTHER THAN accepting
Christ as their saviour, it is precisely cause we accept Christ as our saviour and Christ has told us that just saying you accept him as your saviour is not enough (Matt 7:21). He specifically warns us that we MUST also “do the will of my Father in heaven”. We cannot pick which verses that suit our position about salvation. Jesus preaching in it’s entirety is very clear that doing the will of his Father is heaven is vital to our salvation.
Look at Matthew 20:23 A woman is asking Jesus that her sons may sit at his side in the kingdom of heaven.
“And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with, but to sit on my right hand, and my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared by my Father.”
**************
Bethany said:
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (not might be, not trust and hope that you will be. SHALL be.)
Bethany, we need to look at these verses in within the totality of the context they are spoken in and within the totality of Jesus’ teaching. Read what comes before. The point St. Paul is making here is that Jesus saving grace is not limited to one race. Jesus shall save Gentile as well as Greek and as well as Jew that call upon his name. Nowhere does St. Paul say that the only thing required for salvation is to call upon the Lord’s name and in fact there are places where Jesus specifically instructs us that we nust also be vigilant in
submitting ourselves to the will of his Father in heaven.
Well, HisMan that is your opinion. I believe in my Church and my Faith. While I have not ever said anything derogatory about your faith you have insulted mine.
Did you read the Bible verses I posted from Paul? Why are your quotes any more reliable than mine?
Guys,
I love the banter, however, now I must go make a living.
I’ll try to come back later.
Some rules for Bible reading/study/interpretation:
Pray and ask God for wisdom first. Identify the writer and his audience. Look at the context. Compare what is being said to other statements in the Bible. Never construct a whole theology on one or two verses.
If you’re considering having an abortion, remember that God will provide a way for you and the baby inside of you. He loves you and won’t abandon you.
HisMan, bull. Celibacy does not lead to molestation. A majority of Catholic priests are perfectly fine and did nothing. It was those few who did who destroyed the face of the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general.
Satan himself accepts that Jesus is the Son of God. But he ain’t going to heaven cause he does not follow Jesus’ teaching and submit himself to the will of his heavenly Father.
Posted by: HisMan at January 28, 2008 11:15 AM
Yes HisMan, women not becoming priests IS dogma and will remain that way. I don’t have any issues this that.
The last paragraph in your post just shows your ignorance again and again! Celibacy does not lead to perversion. The devil and the breakdown of will lead to it. Really, I’ve prayed a lot about this overnight because I was so upset. But I know now that you are just ignorant in the Faith and I feel sorry for you that you didn’t have enough of the Holy Spirit in you to find the truth of such a beautiful religion.
MK, Truthseeker, and I have set you straight on a number of things you have incorrectly stated about dogma and you just keep jumping to the next ship. Then we disprove that. Now you are hung up on celibacy (which you obviously don’t have a clue about) and you think that because it isn’t dogma we have no defense. You are so blinded by your experience that you can’t pull yourself out of the dark to find the truth.
Dan:
I think the actual problem is deeper and wider and much more ingrained that has been revealed.
“And the gates of hell will not prevail against it”.
Be careful what you speak my friend.
Christianity was not destroyed as you say, rather, evil was exposed, as well it should have been and will continue to be exposed. For the word says: “and your sins will find you out”.
Truthseeker said,
“He specifically warns us that we MUST also “do the will of my Father in heaven”. We cannot pick which verses that suit our position about salvation. Jesus preaching in it’s entirety is very clear that doing the will of his Father is heaven is vital to our salvation.”
Truthseeker,
What do you think God’s will is?
HisMan, my mistake, I should have been the outward appearance was taken down many notches. People talk about preist molestations now in references to any branch of Christianity as a joke or just to be a jerk. It turned Christianity into the but of an ugly joke.
MK, thank you for taking the time to write that good explanation of the rites, etc.
I’m on the island, and a storm is brewing. I don’t see much decent shelter on the island, so I swin on across to the other shore.
Hisman 11:09, 11:15AM,
With all due respect, there is a lot more dabauchery and perversion outside of the Catholic Church than inside and most of the culprits do not have celibacy to blame. You’re making a very broad assumption.
In defense of the celibacy in the priesthood, I sure wouldn’t want to share my “priestly husband” with 5,000 parishioners. I’d have to make an appointment like everyone else. I believe the AVERAGE Catholic church is LARGER than the average Protestant church, so the Protestant ministers (who are married) have fewer people to minister to, and fewer distractions from family life.
God gave us amazingly complex brains – to say that we Catholics use”Mere human reasoning” is an insult to us and to God. Catholics live by the Spirit and the Word. (The Catholic Mass comes from the Word. Read a Catholic hymnal. MUCH of Catholic music sung at Mass IS from the Word – it is beautifull.) So how are we handicapped? Why is your reasoning superior to mine? There are countless former Protestants who have published their conversion stories. You might want to check them out if you really want to understand how they reconcile Protestantism with Catholicism. God Bless You.
Hisman,
When the Israelites were searching for the promised land, the ones who God did not allow to see the promised land, were the ones who had unbelief. He didn’t spare them simply because they were Abraham’s. He only spared the ones who had faith.
He did not give them all the promised land, simply because of their heritage. It had everything to do with their inward faith, and not with their bodily heritage. The ones who had faith were able to see the promised land, and the ones who didn’t have faith died before reaching it.
You told me to read Roman’s 11…I did, and here are my thoughts:
“But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”
There is an election of grace, and I believe that each and every one of us who believe in Christ and accept His salvation are part of that election.
Here are a couple of verses which I gain this view from-there’s so many more but I don’t want this post to be too long:
***
“And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us” (Romans 8:28-34).
“Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do” (Colossians 3:12,13).
***
I believe that none can come to Christ unless they are drawn by the Holy Spirit. Notice that it does not say that all the Israelites were elected, but that there was a remnant left who had not bowed to Baal. Just a remnant. The Israelites who bowed to Baal were condemned because of their unbelief.
“17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.”
God did not spare the Israelites who had unbelief…he broke them off for their unbelief, and allowed the Gentiles to stand by faith.
He can graft Israelites in who have faith as well.
I don’t see any exceptions being made for the faithless Israelites.
“14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.”
“28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father’s sakes. 29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”
Here is how I read this: the elect (we who are called to grace by Christ’s atonement) are beloved for the Father’s sake, for his gifts and calling are irrevocable.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
Here’s how I read this:
We (gentiles) obtained mercy through the unbelief of the Israelites (because God wanted to provoke them to jealousy- as the prodigal son’s brother was provoked to jealousy when he was allowed to come home to his father).
That mercy was our opportunity, the availability of the free gift of Christ towards us, BECAUSE of their unbelief.
“All Israel shall be saved”….
After the fullness of the gentiles had come in, the Jews, as a people would then be saved. That means that of the Jews who were living, a great part of them would be converted. Not literally every soul there. The “nation” as a collective whole, would return to God.
Ak! I hope this clarifies what I believe but I have a feeling my words are jumbled…I still am half asleep, I think. If anything I said didn’t make sense, just let me know and i’ll clarify what I meant.
Kristen:
Your anger towards me is evidence of your closemindedness to the truth. You have been brainwashed by an ingrained pwer structure, one of the richest and most powerful in the world. True faith demands a verdict. Is the Bible true or not and is what it says the infallible Word of God? If any man disagrees with said Word, who are we to remain allied with?
Where in the world did I say anything about women not becoming priests?
I was just pointing out in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that you used for your rebuttal to me that Paul wrote that women shouldn’t speak in church. Now, do women speak in your Catholic Church today….yes they do and they are not priests. So, are they disobeying Paul’s simple command or did they think that what he said was just his opinion and not a command from the Savior?
Besides, keeping women out of the so called priesthood is a tragedy.
Phoebe was a deaconess, what about Esther and Ruth. God puts calls on women as well as men.
The Bible says that if you’re a believer your a priest. All Christians are priests.
Ever heard of the veil being torn in the Temple at Christ’s death? What was the significance of that?
What did that veil symbolize?
It is absolute heresy to think that you can only reach God through another man or a saint. The whole purpose of the death of Christ on the cross was to eliminate the need for goat and bull sacrifices and the like adminstered by a special priesthood. Read teh book of Hebrews in its entirety.
The Bible says that we can now approach boldy the throne of grace by the Blood of the Lamb. No mention of a priest or saint there.
Besides, you should get your priorities straight and put Christ first and what He says in his word and then the church and then your family.
Bethany, we need to look at these verses in within the totality of the context they are spoken in and within the totality of Jesus’ teaching. Read what comes before. The point St. Paul is making here is that Jesus saving grace is not limited to one race. Jesus shall save Gentile as well as Greek and as well as Jew that call upon his name. Nowhere does St. Paul say that the only thing required for salvation is to call upon the Lord’s name and in fact there are places where Jesus specifically instructs us that we nust also be vigilant in
submitting ourselves to the will of his Father in heaven.
Truthseeker, you know I love you.
Now, here is the entire chapter…I think the point of the chapter is that it doesn’t matter who you are. A jew, a gentile, whoever. If you call upon the name of the Lord to save you, you will be saved. The context doesn’t change anything for me at all. Christ is the end of the law to *everyone* that believes.
1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.
Today is the feast of (St.)Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, who considered REASON A SACRED GIFT FROM GOD.
HisMan,
I agree.
Israel is under God’s covanent with them, hence, covanent people. We have been saved by the Gospel of Grace, whereas the Jew (Israel) is following the Gospel of the Kingdom.
Galatians 2:7-9
7But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
During this “Age of Grace” or “Church Age”, God’s dealing with the Jew has been put “on hold” if you will, only to pick up again after the rapture (or the end of the Church Age/Age of Grace. The 144,000 will be preaching the gospel of the kingdom during the 7 year tribulation period after the rapture.
Matthew 24:14
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall (at a future time.) be preached in all the world for a witness unto (how many?) all nations; and then shall the end come.”
HisMan,
“Where in the world did I say anything about women not becoming priests?”
Um, right here…
“Besides, keeping women out of the so called priesthood is a tragedy.”
HisMan: “Your anger towards me is evidence of your closemindedness to the truth. You have been brainwashed by an ingrained pwer structure, one of the richest and most powerful in the world. True faith demands a verdict. Is the Bible true or not and is what it says the infallible Word of God? If any man disagrees with said Word, who are we to remain allied with?”
First, I’m not angry with you, I pity you. Big difference.
Second, I’m brainwashed? HA, HA, HA. Boy you sure do have all the answers don’t you. How very humble of you. I’m laughing so hard my sides ache!
Thanks Bethany:
I’ll study your viewpoint in more detail and respond later.
You’re brilliant by the way and open minded.
Isrel is a difficult subject and one that theologians have been debating for centuries. I know the Catholic viewpoint on substitution and I simply disagree with it. I could be wrong and am willing to listen.
As much as I love you guys, I have to go. Please talk to Kristen. Her anger blinds her to learning. It’s very immature.
Truth has a way of bringing out well…the Truth.
Phoebe was a deaconess, what about Esther and Ruth. God puts calls on women as well as men.
EXACTLY, these women were not priest, there were no female apostles. Women are called in a different way, think Mother Theresa. I have seen MANY women (so called Catholic) that want to be priests because of feminine equality, not because they have a true calling. They waste their time on earth pushing for something that will NEVER happen instead of using their time to do God’s will. See? There are STILL Catholics who lead by bad example, but I follow the Church and her true teachings.
It was YOU who were brainwashed into thinking the Church was something it’s not because of your ignorance of the Faith.
Her anger blinds her to learning. It’s very immature.
Posted by: HisMan at January 28, 2008 12:16 PM
OMGosh! I am NOT angry. You are so stubborn! How is that a part of Christianity? Pitiful, really.
HisMan, with all due respect. MK and I have proven you were wrong on a great number of things regarding the Church. If you don’t agree with the Church fine, but you continue to say we are wrong. We are not wrong in our Faith, just as you are not wrong in yours.
If you say I am blind to learning you are guilty of the same.
HisMan 11:55,
“Besides, keeping women out of the so called priesthood is a tragedy.”
Does the bible say women should be priests? “To call it a tragedy” seems a bit extreme.
I would venture to say that most Catholic women do not care to change the status quo. That the priesthood should include women is a feminist notion leftover from the 1970’s and often proclaimed by non-practicing Catholics who find fault with MANY of the Church’s teachings, not just this one. Suppose, for argument, this came to be. Where would these female priests live? Would every church have to build or buy a home for them or would you have them live with the priests?
HisMan,
Re: Anonymous2 12:38,
Sorry, I think the above should be directed to Kristen.
There are so many posts and topics, when responding to a specific post could we try to indicate the time of the post being referred to? Thanks
Help!!!! In addition to the time of the post, can you please use quotation marks when quoting someone else?. I’m confused about who is saying what. I apologize Kristen and HisMan, if I have misquoted either of you.
Thanks Bethany:
I’ll study your viewpoint in more detail and respond later.You’re brilliant by the way and open minded.
Isrel is a difficult subject and one that theologians have been debating for centuries. I know the Catholic viewpoint on substitution and I simply disagree with it. I could be wrong and am willing to listen.
I really appreciate that, Hisman. I have always appreciated your knowledge of the Bible and if I’m wrong about this(always possible! lol) then I’m sure you’ll be able to help me see that. I hope you have a good day at work- It’s nice to have you back posting.
Kristen, love you too, girl! :)
FF,
You have an issue with Dick “toe-sucker” Morris but not with Bill Clinton who’s been accused of everything from exposing himself to rape. Who had his attack dogs go after women who accused him. Who had some young intern servicing him in his office while discussing the situation of our troops stationed in Bosnia?
Dan 9:50am
You really don’t address my post. I want to know if you personally consider it possible to vigorously oppose slavery, yet at the same to support the ownership of slaves.
You use the Supreme Court sanction of abortion as a justification. Well, does this apply to all Supreme Court decisions, especially the ones I mention.
I did not raise the issue of religious belief, only Supreme Court rulings.
Does it apply across the board that one can oppose a certain action, yet still support someone’s right to commit it.
Dan,
MK, Im saying preists should have the oppurtunity, while members of the Church’s clergy, to have that physical element if they so choose. That does not demean the connection to the Church, and should therefore be able to share a similar connection with another person, and attach the physical relationship if they so choose.
And I have pointed out that if a “priest” wants to marry, he can, just not in the Latin rite at this time. And why should you have an opinion on what thousands of men are comfortable with. I mean why should your opinion carry weight, not why should you have one. If they are okay with it, why do you use it as an excuse to reject Catholicism? It’s not like you have to be celibate to be Catholic.
I mean in any job, there are requirements. I don’t like the idea that I couldn’t wear jeans to an office job, but that’s the rules…so I have a choice. Choose a different line of work, or lose the jeans.
Fundamentalist attacks on priestly celibacy come in a number of different forms
Hisman,
I think is the same letter Paul said that women shouldn’t talk in church.
I’ve sat behind a few of them at mass, and that quote gets my vote. Same for the movie theater! lol
Seriously tho, women may read the readings but they may NOT read the gospel and they may NOT give the homily. I think this is how we interpret the above passage.
Hisman,
First I need to address your comments about priests and their sexual misconduct.
I have already addressed this numerous times and don’t know if you are ignoring me or just haven’t seen the posts…
Men, in the capacity of men, are often found doing horrible things. The priests that abused children, or the priests that practiced their homosexuality in the seminaries were “off” BEFORE they joined the priesthood. They used this sacred office as a way to get unrestrained access to their victims. Homosexuals found the jackpot when joining the priesthood, as the whole organization is filled with, well, men.
This is not to say that ALL homosexuals are opportunists. It is to say that a certain group of homosexuals took advantage of an all male society and perverted it’s intended use to further their own sexual agendas. Same with the pedophiles. Pedophiles always choose situations where children are available unsupervised.
The priesthood did not come first.
The perversions came first. The priesthood was means to an end.
Please stop implying that the priesthood creates homosexuals and pedophiles. You say Kristen is behaving immaturely, but this takes the cake.
For over 24 hours we have been discussing very touchy subjects and up til now we have proven that religion CAN be discussed in mixed company.
No one is asking you to accept what we believe. We are simply sharing what we believe with you in the hopes that you will understand…not agree.
mk said,
“The priesthood did not come first.
The perversions came first. The priesthood was means to an end.”
———
I’m not trying to pick a fight or anything, so I apologize in advance for this question which I am being sincere in asking, but don’t know how to better rephrase it so it doesn’t sound so cold…here goes:
How do you know?
Did they tell you that?
Hisman,
Secondly, you claim that the bible is the only source of truth. That to know the truth you have only to read scripture. And yet you and Bethany, who both claim to believe the same things, cannot agree on whether or not the Jews will get into heaven.
To us Catholics this is where the danger of relying on oneself to interpret God’s word enters the picture.
For every thousand people that read a scripture passage you can get a thousand interpretations.
We count on the church to do the interpreting for us because we recognize, that contrary to what you say, scripture cannot be fully understood by a six year old.
Yes, the basic truths of Christianity can be understood by anyone, but the nuances, and complexities of scripture when taken in the context of history, language, custom etc are far beyond all but
the most studied scholars.
Read scripture, yes. But be careful about insisting that your interpretations, and yours alone are the correct ones.
Nowhere in the entire bible was a woman ever, ever, ever allowed into the priesthood.
Being a minister is not the same as being a priest. I’m not saying they are better or worse. Just that they are very different.
The church is Christ’s bride. That is scriptural.
You understand that homosexual behavior is wrong. You understand that God created them, male and female. So if the church is a bride (female), it stands to reason that the priest (her spouse as he represents Christ here on earth) would have to be male.
It is not the same in your church because you do not believe in “Persona Christi”…which is the main difference between a Catholic Priest and Protestant minister. You do not believe in the true presence. So you cannot understand the concept of the Eucharist being the physical manifestation of the consummation of the priest (Christ at the moment) and His bride, the church.
The Eucharist is the “baby”, the product of conception, between the priest and his bride. Between Christ and His bride. Every time the consecration is performed, it is the marital act being consummated right there on the altar. The priest is “sleeping with the church” and the product of that love is Jesus, physically present in the bread and wine. THIS is why a priest must be male. This is why a woman cannot be a priest.
Hisman,
And lastly, please, please, please, show me the scripture passage that says scripture is the ONLY source of truth.
Mary, its possible. Its seen at various times in history that people support abolition, but own slaves themselves whom they don’t free until their own death. So seeing as how its documented to have happened, its fairly safe to assume it can.
and MK, I understand they’re comfortable with it. However I’m sure there would be a much larger pool of priests available if marriage were allowed within the Latin rite. I feel as if many people who had thought of becoming priests were deterred because they would rather raise a family, or simply fell in love.
Anon,
I’m not trying to pick a fight or anything, so I apologize in advance for this question which I am being sincere in asking, but don’t know how to better rephrase it so it doesn’t sound so cold…here goes:
*
How do you know?
Did they tell you that?
I’ll never get mad at you for asking a serious question. And that is a good one.
First we know that in secular society, pedophiles take jobs with boyscouts or school children…my birth brother was a magician so he could be around kids. Second, we know from homosexuals own mouths that they didn’t “become” homosexual, but were born that way. You don’t make someone become homosexual just by putting them in a room with men.
Even if they aren’t born that way, but actually become that way, do you really think that simply being around men would change their entire sexual nature? If this were true, then I’d be a lesbian as I went to an all girls Catholic school. In actuality, it had the opposite effect. I was always looking for BOYS! GLORIOUS BOYS!…sorry,
And let us not forget that once again, these men choose to remain celibate. They aren’t locked away and forced to stop thinking about women. They simply choose to forgo one expression of love and exchange it for another.
And there is yet another qualm I have with the church.
I believe Jesus very well may have been married.
It was expected of young Jewish men of the time. It would make complete sense for the man in Him to desire someone, and end up marrying. I still find absolutely nothing wrong with it. In fact, I think it could make other things fall into place.
Dan,
and MK, I understand they’re comfortable with it. However I’m sure there would be a much larger pool of priests available if marriage were allowed within the Latin rite. I feel as if many people who had thought of becoming priests were deterred because they would rather raise a family, or simply fell in love.
First, as I have said, they could have their cake and eat it too by joining an Eastern rite church. The shortage of priests was much more complicated than that.
Secondly, if they were deterred, then perhaps their calling was not the priesthood to begin with.
You don’t choose to be a priest the way you choose to be a stockbroker. It’s a calling that you can’t refuse. They have to go through years and years of discernment before they make the final commitment for exactly the reasons you just stated.
Dan,
It was expected of young Jewish men of the time. It would make complete sense for the man in Him to desire someone, and end up marrying. I still find absolutely nothing wrong with it. In fact, I think it could make other things fall into place.
Been reading the DaVinci code?
lol MK. I actually had that thought bouncing around in my head before i had even heard of the Da Vinci Code.
mk: “Secondly, you claim that the bible is the only source of truth. That to know the truth you have only to read scripture. And yet you and Bethany, who both claim to believe the same things, cannot agree on whether or not the Jews will get into heaven.”
careful, mk…one may have studied it already, and one may have not. Neither claimed to be an expert on the subject. Discussion is usually how someone learns, and by quoting scripture to eachother and discussing it, I’m sure the Holy Spirit is guiding each one’s hearts and minds to be receptive to God’s word and the truth.
Dan,
Actually you are the one that answered your own doubts. You say that while you understand the physical union of two people, nothing can compare to the spiritual union.
Now while it is true that Jesus was fully man, He was also fully God. And His life here on earth had one purpose and one purpose only. To save mankind from itself.
In heaven there is no “marriage” as we know it because there will be no need to procreate. So the unions that we have there will not involve the sexual act. God/Jesus would have no reason to be married as His job did not involve populating the world, but saving it.
Again, His bride is His church. This is who He is married to and the fruit of that union is the Eucharist.
“”For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matt. 22:30).”
Anon,
I didn’t mean to say that either Bethany or Hisman were wrong. Either in reading scripture, discussing it, or interpreting it.
I was just pointing out how easily, even two very, very devout Christians can read the same passages and interpret them differently.
As Hisman said, no one claims to know the answer to the question of whether or not the Jews are saved.
I meant no disrespect to either of them. Sorry if I sounded like I did.
mk,
so let’s say that’s true. Then why would they pick the priesthood instead of being a boy scout leader, teacher, etc? The priests (or, so-called priests) molested children. It’s not their homo attraction, it’s a sick attraction to a child.
Honestly, how do you know that they weren’t “normal” before they entered into priesthood and became corrupted by Satan via temptation?
mk,
Secondly, why the cover-up and shuffeling of the molestors to other churches? I don’t understand the beginning of their nature, and I most certainly do not understand why those who knew covered it up. Was the Church more important than those children and others that may have become victims?
I gotta clear something up…we have an anonymous and an anonymous 2…is there another anonymous also. I’m getting confused, because sometimes anonymous appears Catholic and sometimes they appear protestant. And anonymous 2 appears to be Catholic.
I guess it doesn’t matter except that it can be confusing…
Anon,
Honestly, how do you know that they weren’t “normal” before they entered into priesthood and became corrupted by Satan via temptation?
That is entirely possible, but it might have happened whether they were in the priesthood or not.
How do you know that the boyscout leader wasn’t tempted by satan, and only became perverted after the fact.
Anything is possible, I just think that making a blanket statement like “Priests become pedophiles and homosexuals because of celibacy” is dangerous.
I think these instances would be the exception to the rule and not the rule itself.
As to the coverups…shame, shame, shame on our church. She was bad. I admit it. I’m sure it came from fear, and guilt and knowing what the world would say if they knew. We are just as susceptible to satans tricks as anyone. I can only say that I hope we learned our lesson. Sweeping sin under the rug usually leads to more sin. If I ran the world…
Dang…. Almost 400 comments thus far.
Were you raised in any faith, or were you brought up agnostic/atheist?
MK, sorry – I missed this part.
Pretty much agnostic. My mom and most of her family are Quakers, the silent-meeting type. Mom has been a regular attendee at some times and places, and not at others.
My dad goes to a Methodist church now, and has for 20+ years. His family is largely fundmentalist Christian/born again/evangelical. It turned him off for most of his life, and he still views religion as quite a personal thing. He truly appreciates his church now.
For us kids, religion was not pushed upon us, nor was any atheistic thinking. We went to a Unitarian church in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and I thought it was pretty cool (non-dogmatic). I was roughly 9 to 13 in those years.
I’ve been to Catholic masses and weddings in Catholic churches, and appreciate some parts of that religion and of others as well.
Doug
yeah Doug, lots of comments going. Great discussions.
mk,
thanks for answering. You’ve been the first Catholic to ever answer that question honestly for me. Not to mention the fact that you’ve just cleared up another stigma that I had.
:)
You’re welcome Anon.
When you’re wrong you’re wrong and the church was wrong.
Even now there are liturgical abuses and other unsavory things that go on…I guess there always has been and always will be. All you can do is trust that the Truth will always win, and admit when bad stuff does happen.
In many of the apparitions, Mary appears crying. I’m sure many of these tears had to do with what her “sons” were up to. It was enough to break any mothers heart. I know it broke mine.
Wow, I’m sorry I missed this discussion! Way to defend the faith, MK. You make me proud :) God love you.
Anon,
To say that someone who does not truly accept Jesus Christ as their ruler and saviour could get to heaven just by saying he did is ridiculous. God reads the hearts and knows the truth that motivates people and he cannot be tricked by anybodys lies or deceptions. Take a pedophile priest for example. IMHO all of them are going to make it into heaven if/when Jesus analyzes their actions and their lack of true repentance for the evil they brought upon his children and his church. Do you believe that all the pedophile priests are going to be there in heaven when you get there?
Secondly, and I don’t know why you addressed the celibacy issue to me cause I had never posted on it but my take is that they chose it for an obvious reason…Jesus was not married and they are trying their best to follow Jesus example. St. Paul also spoke highly of the eunuch lifestyle and said himself it was “preferred”. He also said that if you must have sex then it is best to marry and be faithful to your wife. It is really no mystery to me why the church agrees with Scripture in this regard.
Truthseeker,
I didn’t say that.
…and
I never even discussed or typed “Celibacy”.
Maybe it’s another anon? there are 3 here, I think. Maybe you weren’t even directing that to me???
Please post a time the anon in ? made the comment. There seems to be alot of confustionn.
I asked you what YOU think God’s will IS.
Thanks!
**confusion**
(fat fingers!)
we may need to start a registration system or something. So many commenters. But not typekey, not a fan of that system, lol.
Maybe the anonymous members wouldn’t mind coming up with a screen name of some kind? It doesn’t have to be anything specific… it could be something as simple as “prolifer123”, just something to make yourself more easily identifiable. Would any of you be willing to do that?
Mk,
I’m Anonymous2 and 100% Catholic. I may have forgotten to put the “2” after my name once or twice here today. So Sorry. I’m glad you brought this up.
From now on I’m “Janet”. Any Anonymous’s from this point on are not me! Thanks. God bless you.
I just took a little mid-day nap and had the weirdest dream that somehow involved HisMan teasing Doug for wearing a funny hat. I think it was blue.
I’m not reading this stuff right before I sleep anymore.
lol Erin, you arent the only one. I had dream arguments last night. I woke up this morning and shook my head clear. It was weird.
LOL, Dan you and Erin crack me up :)
MK,
I just double checked my posts. All my posts were correctly signed as Anonymous2, except for the short one at 12:08 PM (about the feast of St. Thomas Aquinas). The rest belong to someone else. I hope that helps. (See my post at 5:29 P.M. also.)
Janet (formerly Anonymous2)
ok, with two regular old anonymous’ left, I’ve got dibbs on anonymous. Sorry, other anonymous, you’ll have to dream up another screen name!
:)
Dan,
Would YOU support the argument that one can oppose slavery but still support a person’s right to own a slave.
Also, would you agree that all decisions of the Supreme Court should never be questioned. If the Supreme Court gives its blessing, as it did with segregation and abortion, then the issue is settled.
Mary, I dont know what I would support, I didnt grow up from that time period and wouldnt be able to provide an accurate perspective otherwise. Given other people have, however, probably if I were to have the correct environment and whatnot. Not exactly an easy to answer to question to answer hundred of years later.
And Mary, no. That’s why there’s the amendment system and later court cases, to check the SC’s power.
Janet,
I’m so happy you have a name…don’t suppose you want to add a picture?
And anonymous who insists on remaining anonymous…are you the protestant anonymous or the catholic anonymous, pro-life or pro-choice?
Maybe your screen name could be “anonymous who insists on remaining anonymous…?” lol Or “really anonymous”. Or “He who shall not be named”…
Dan,
I didn’t ask what you would support if you lived in that era, I’m asking if YOU would agree that one can oppose slavery yet still support one’s right to own a slave. Slavery exists in the world today, so you can give an answer.
I see we agree concerning the Supreme Court. Abortion, like segregation, is not right or a right simply because the Supreme Court said so.
Bethany:
Sorry it took so long but here’s my answer regarding the Jews:
For 1,800 years, the church fathers ranted that the church is the new Israel. To prove that God had turned His back on the Jews, they pointed to the wandering, tormented Jews of the Diaspora, saying, “If God is with them, why has this homeless befallen them?”
They forget that for the most part european Jews were living in states controlled by the Church of rome. They were existing without rights, without property, without legal redress, and without human dignity. The medieval church created its own self-fulfilling prophecy. Replacement theologians ignore a fundamental fact in the biblical text. When God removes or destroys something, you never hear from it again. like sodom and gomorrah, which were so thoroughly destroyed that archaeologists can
Magor mistake in previous post.
I do Not think all pedophile priest will go to heaven just cause they profess Jesus as their saviour.
Bethany and Anonomous,
To say that someone who does not truly accept Jesus Christ as their ruler and saviour could get to heaven just by saying he did is ridiculous. God reads the hearts and knows the truth that motivates people and he cannot be tricked by anybodys lies or deceptions. Take a pedophile priest for example. IMHO NOT all of them are going to make it into heaven if/when Jesus analyzes their actions and their lack of true repentance for the evil they brought upon his children and his church. Do you believe that all the pedophile priests are going to be there in heaven when you get there?
MK:
Regarding your question about scripture vs. tradition…here’s a few scriptures:
Matthew 15:3
Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
Matthew 15:6
he is not to ‘honor his father with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
Mark 7:3
The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders.
Mark 7:4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.
Mark 7:5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?”
Mark 7:8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”
Mark 7:9 And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
Mark 7:13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.
Galatians 1:14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever.”
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
In light of those passages, here’s my short answer:
The position I am defending certainly is what is taught in the Bible itself. For example, Deuteronomy 31:9 states:
mk,
Thank you, mk. I’m happy you’re happy. I’ll think about sending a picture…
Bethany said:
************
So we can still sin after having been saved, but we will NEVER be happy in our sin. We will always be convicted of our sin by the holy ghost which resides within us, and we will desire to ask forgiveness.
We absolutely cannot become unsaved through any of our actions any more than a tree can once again be a seed after having grown into a tree.
***************
Bethany, what if we ARE happy in our sin and never feel any repentance….would that make a difference? What if I was a predator pedophile priest who professed Jesus as my Saviour only to get access to little children to abuse them? Would I still be saved?
Truthseeker,
Have you had a chance to answer my question to you yet? If you don’t want to, please let me know. I was actually looking forward to your response. I understand if you don’t want to, though.
Also, if you are in need of answers to questions, you can always pray to God and ask Him to show you. He will.
HisMan,
I know that your posts were not directed to me, but I took the liberty of reading them anyway!
Thank you for your inspiring message of truth. May God continue to bless you and may you always seek wisdom and knowledge through Him.
Good night & God Bless.
I agree with you all and love you very much. Works will not get us saved. I agree with Samantha and Bethany that of course we will continue to sin and that what is required is only for us to “honestly” try to follow Jesus. In my case that means continuing to conform myself as best as possible to God’s will (which includes the LAWS God has set forth for us). They are still the 10 commandments and not the 10 suggestions. If you Bethany or you Samantha do not believe it is required of you in order to follow Jesus’ teaching then God will see this and will not expect repentance or consider it to sin since you do not understand or do not believe it is required of you. God can see into our hearts and our personal relationship to God through Jesus as our mediator is unique based upon our understanding of what we believe God’s will for us to be. I just can’t see how anybody can interpret Jesus teachings to mean they can remain saved if they do not feel repentance for sins they commit after accepting Jesus as their saviour. That being said we will perservere together with Jesus is our buckler and shield. May Jesus bless and protect us all as his Church
here on earth.
Kristen said:
**********
MK, Truthseeker, and I have set you straight on a number of things you have incorrectly stated about dogma and you just keep jumping to the next ship. Then we disprove that. Now you are hung up on celibacy (which you obviously don’t have a clue about) and you think that because it isn’t dogma we have no defense. You are so blinded by your experience that you can’t pull yourself out of the dark to find the truth.
*************
Kristen,
I don’t know why you addressed the celibacy issue to me cause I had never posted on it but my take is that they chose it for an obvious reason…Jesus was not married and the Catholic Church are trying their best to follow Jesus example. St. Paul also spoke highly of the eunuch lifestyle and said himself it was “preferred”. He also said that if you must have sex then it is best to marry and be faithful to your wife. It is really no mystery to me, the Church is just conforming with what Scripture teaches in this regard.
Anonymous,
You asked what do I think God’s will is?
To serve Jesus.
I serve Jesus by meditating on God’s Word.
By passing my faith in Jesus on to others.
By forgiving others who trespass against me.
By following the laws of our heavenly Father. By striving with all my heart and soul to never grieve the Holy Spirit.
By praising God in good times and in bad.
By sharing in Jesus cross by carrying the burdens of others whenever possible.
Dan said:
************
Truthseeker, much of what kept me from being confirmed are the views the Church tends to hold in regards to contemporary issues (i.e. contraception, gay marriage et al.)
*************
Dan, In one respect the church’s stance against contraception and against homosexuality both have something in common. Contaception is an attempt at sterilizing sex and homosexuality is sterile sex.
But the “gay marriage” thing is a whole nother issue. Marriage in the church has always been and is now the union of a man, and a woman, and God. Maybe you could answer a couple questions about this for me. What exactly is it that homosexuals want out of marriage? Is it the secular benefits like tax breaks and medical coverage for their partners that they are after?
Cause acceptance from the Catholic church is not needed in order to gain those types of benefits. Please enlighten me and tell me just what it is that want to get out of marriage.
There are no limits to God’s saving power.
Hisman,
While those are good arguments for using scripture they hardly work for ONLY scripture…
2 Timothy 2:2
“And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well…”
2 Thessalonians 2:15
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the TRADITIONS that were taught, either by ORAL statement or by a letter of ours”
from: http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit “Christ?s word” to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. “?But the word of the Lord abides for ever.? That word is the good news which was preached to you” (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been “preached”?that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.
This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6?8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.
Hisman,
We could probably play scripture tag all day, but you won’t convince me that your passages “prove” that scripture is the only place to find “The Truth” and I won’t convince you of the apostolic succession.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree here.
But I am curious about this. If you claim that scripture is truth, and that not one word can be changed, why is it that you completely dismiss the entire last supper as symbolic and do not acknowledge the literal meaning of “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood”…
It seems odd to me that you would pick apart the letters of Paul and Timothy, but totally dismiss the words of Christ himself…
Hi Hisman. You clearly have an enormous love for our Lord and a knowledge of scripture that is second to none. But Hisman, have you ever read Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ignatious of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Tertullian, Origen, or any of the other early church fathers? While they are not scripture, they give us an insight into how the early church functioned and what the early church believed. I encourage you to read these men to disprove the Catholic faith. I think we would agree that we want to worship and believe just like the apostles did and consequently, just like those who were taught by the apostles did. I hear story after story of men like Steve Ray, Tim Staples, and Scott Hahn who attempting to prove that the Catholic Church is wrong by studying history and the early church only end up converting to Catholicism.
Cardinal John Henry Newman converted to Catholicism while writing a book called “Development of Christian Doctrine.” He made the observation that “To be steeped in history is to cease being Protestant.” It is also worth noting that in the new book ”
Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction ” by Bryan M. Litfin (who I believe is associated with the Moody Bible Institute), the author notes that (I’m paraphrasing) ‘we must keep in mind that the early church fathers were not Evangelical.’ If we are not practicing the religion that those who knew the apostles practiced, what are were practicing? A good place to start reading is William Jurgen’s 3 volume set “Faith of the Early Fathers.” An amazing defense of the papacy can be found in Steve Ray’s book “Upon this Rock” where he hammers one with quote, after quote, after quote, after quote from the early church defending the papacy. The belief in the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is irrefutably taught by the early church, which can be evidenced in “The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist by James T. O’Connor.” And Hisman, I will read anything you suggest. I’m always open to reading anything, learning anything. Like you, my friend, I want to be in the Light and know the truth. God love you, Hisman.
Bethany, what if we ARE happy in our sin and never feel any repentance….would that make a difference? What if I was a predator pedophile priest who professed Jesus as my Saviour only to get access to little children to abuse them? Would I still be saved?
If you never repented, you never were born again. If you are happy in your sin, you never repented. If you profess Jesus outwardly, yet inwardly have not put off the old creature, then you are not saved.
17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
mk,
Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn’t this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?
Anon, the Greek Orthodox broke off from the Catholic Church. Can bishops or priests or theologians apostatize? Yes. But Christ’s Church will never. God love you.
Hisman, I think our differences in thought about this subject may come from the fact that I believe that Matthew 24 has been fulfilled already.
I know I’m probably going to get in trouble here with as many premillenialists as there are on this blog, and I’ve tried to avoid bringing it up on many occasions, but I have to tell you this in order to help you understand where I am coming from.
I used to be a premillennialist – for over a decade in fact-(still go to a premillennialist Baptist church), but there were some things that made me realize this was only a recent theology (about 150 years old) and didn’t really add up with the scriptures and what the early church believed about those scriptures for, I believe about 1900 years. (read Luke 9:27,Matt 10:22,Matt 16:27, 1 Cor 10:11, Luke 21:32, Mark 13:30 to see what I used to be confused by as a child) If you’ll read “Last Days Madness” and “End Times Fiction” by Gary Demar, you’ll understand more about where I’m coming from on that- he really explains it well, using the Bible and history as his reference for everything. If you do happen to take a look at the book, can you let me know your thoughts on it? (From the book, and from the writings of Josephus, I learned a lot about the Destruction of Jerusalem, which I was never really taught about as a child) That is another discussion for another time though…maybe I should email you if we want to discuss that one further. ;) I hope I haven’t offended you at all, and I hope you have a great day today! :)
Anon,
At the point that the Greek Orthodox church “broke off” from the Roman Catholic church, they ceased being in apostolic succession…
All it proves is that the Greek Orthodox left and the Roman tradition continued. If anything, it proves my point. Anyone who was taught under Timothy and continued in the true church is part of that succession, any one who bailed is not…seamless, remember?
Anon,
When the Mississippi River branches off, you can show that the new branch came from the Mississippi, but it is now a new and different river. It gets it’s own name. But the Mississippi remains the Mississippi. The Missouri is a river in it’s own right, but it flows from the Mississippi. Would you be correct in referring to the Missouri river as the Mississippi? No, because at some point it leaves it parent river and becomes a river all on it’s own.
Same for the apostolic succession.
The Catholic Church is the Mississippi and any churches that split from her, are no longer part of the Catholic church…Following one of them backwards might lead you to the original, but it is still the original and feeds all of the others…Without her, those other rivers wouldn’t even exist. Visiting the Missouri river does not mean you have visited the Mississippi.
mk,
If anything, I think it disproves your point. You said, “Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6?8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.
But like I stated: tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn’t this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?
seems to me that the “chain” was broken and totally disproves apostolic succession in the Roman Catholic Church.
And while all of these other rivers may be legitimate waterways, the Mississippi is the only one that is a straight shot to the St. Lawrence seaway…
Hey Anon. Apostolic succession usually refers to either the office of Bishop of Rome (the Pope) or the unbroken teaching of the apostles, so the actual office that Timothy held which has now no longer a teaching office of the Catholic Church is not considered part of apostolic succession. I think the idea that we want to convey is that Tradition has not been lost throughout the ages because God has preserved it. Just like he was able to keep his written Word from corruption, so he is able to keep his oral, living Word from corruption. God has the power to do that, no? It’s just a matter of whether or not he has chosen to reveal himself in that way, which is of course what we are arguing. God love you.
@MK: Um…the Missouri River flows into the Mississippi River.
And the St. Lawrence Seaway doesn’t come anywhere near the Mississippi. :-/
oh, the irony…
Anon,
I guess I’m just not getting your question…or your point. The two churches were one. Then they were two. The Greek Orthodox church left the Catholic church in the 11th Century, Martin Luther left it 500 years later…If you leave, you are breaking the succession…
The Greek Orthodox church shares its religious roots with the Roman Catholic church, but the two are now distinct branches of Christianity.
*
Until the 11th century, the two faiths were one.
”It was called the Christian faith,” said the Rev. Nicholas Pastrikos, pastor of Kimisis Greek Orthodox Church in Poughkeepsie.
*
In 1054, the Greek Orthodox church split from the Roman Catholic church. The reasons were political and cultural, as well as religious, Pastrikos said.
*
The western Church, which included Rome, became the Roman Catholic Church.
*
The Eastern Church, which included Greece and nations to the east, became the Orthodox Church.
*
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/projects/cultures/lo061302s4.shtml
Rae,
I was looking the Mississippi up on the computer, but had to drive my husband to work…posted before I checked. Geography ain’t my forte!
I came right back here to fix it but you beat me to the punch! Brat!
The point is the same, ANON’s sarcasm notwhithstanding. Just change St. Lawrence Seaway to Gulf of Mexico…
:D
I was a geography nut in junior high. I used to know every country in Europe and Asia as well as most of the capitals in Europe.
Cheerzzz!
Rae,
The 5 Great Lakes link the Mississippi River to the St. Lawrence Seaway.
@Janet: Nope. The Mississippi River starts in Lake Itasca (which I believe was formed by a glacier that melted), which is in Northwestern Minnesota. There is no direct link between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi.
But I do know the Great Lakes link the St. Lawrence Seaway. My great-grandpappy came from The Netherlands to South Dakota via the St. Lawrence Seaway. :)
mk,
sorry about the sarcasm. Sometimes I just can’t help myself!
so both churches had their roots in the same place, right?
you said,
“The Greek Orthodox church shares its religious roots with the Roman Catholic church, but the two are now distinct branches of Christianity.
“The western Church, which included Rome, became the Roman Catholic Church.
*
The Eastern Church, which included Greece and nations to the east, became the Orthodox Church.”
But both churches claim to be the one, true church. That can’t be. There can only be one.
Here’s a new believer in Christ: how can this new believer know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure this method cannot apply also to the Orthodox church.)
I would say to look at the writings of the early church fathers which give us a very good idea of how those closest to the apostles taught and believed. In their writings, you will find that the Bishop of Rome was considered to have a PRIMACY, not just to be the first among equals. Hence, the Church established by Jesus is the one that still considers the Chair of Peter to hold primacy. I might also exegete Matthew 16 in light of the context of the kingdom and the keys that Jesus was alluding to from Isiah 22. There would be scriptural evidence that Jesus intended for there to be one man who had primacy over all other bishops. God love you.
Anon,
For one thing the “Roman” Church came first. She wasn’t called the Roman church at the time. She was called the “Christian” church. Then certain groups began to question things that had been accepted by all Christian churches up til that point.
When they continued to disagree, they broke off. This would address Hismans point that you shouldn’t “change” what was established by Jesus. And at the same time it shows that contrary to Hismans take on it, the Catholic church is the one that has preserved the faith, in all of its fullness, since the beginning.
The second thing I would point to are the sacraments. Baptism is only one of the outward signs of our connection to God. There are six more and most Christian churches have dropped some or all of them.
The third thing IS this apostolic succession. Peter, the first pope, laid his hands on Pope Linus who laid his hands on Pope Anacletus who laid his hands on Clement who laid his hands on Evaristus all the way to Pope Benedict the IVI.
They also laid their hands on (ordained) bishops, who then laid hands on men and ordained them priests.
Every single Catholic priest in the world today can follow his priesthood back to Peter. I’m not saying it would be easy but the records are there.
And finally, I would have to say that the Eucharist, the Heart of our church, is the single most important reason to remain in the Catholic church. This is Christ alive again, in the flesh, in physical form, here on earth. You can’t get that at a Unitarian church.
Hisman says we must put Jesus first. Well, what does he think we do in the hundreds of thousands of masses everyday around the world. Here, Japan, Egypt, France….In all these places, everyday, Jesus is physically being made present through our priests. You don’t get more personal than that.
When I sit in front of Him at the adoration chapel on Sundays, I am sitting with the man, not the idea. He is actually there. How much closer can one get. When I receive him, and consume Him? Is there any way to be closer to someone? I don’t know of any. So if you want to be close to Jesus, you need to place yourself where He is. And that is in the Catholic church.
There is your Protestant that worships the Jesus that allows the intentional killing of his creation by abortion. He learned his killing God from a Shaking Quaker and a Methodist. Doug.
This makes Doug a second generation product of the Protestants that made Jesus into the God that allows the intentional killing of babies in the womb.
Doug follows the common path of the Protestants that are fading away into oblivion by their numbers decreasing daily. Now Doug is a self willed intentional killer of fetuses by the logic of want.
Ah, the fruits of the , Methodist, and shaking Quakers don’t fall far from their family tree. Your mother and father must be proud of ya Doug, taking their love of making Jesus into a God that intentionally kills human life by the act of abortion. Oh Abba, let us be silent and quake at the Almighty Jesus who has pre-destined abortion and be silent at the killer God named Jesus.
Least he might Make Doug into the fool raised by fools known as Quakers and Methodist, who made Jesus the God that allows the abortion of his creation.
@Janet: Nope. The Mississippi River starts in Lake Itasca (which I believe was formed by a glacier that melted), which is in Northwestern Minnesota. There is no direct link between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi.
But I do know the Great Lakes link the St. Lawrence Seaway. My great-grandpappy came from The Netherlands to South Dakota via the St. Lawrence Seaway. :)
Posted by: Rae at January 29, 2008 12:47 PM
For what it’s worth:
The connection is not at the origin of the Mississippi river in Minnesota. It’s further south (in either Illinois or Missouri, I think) ).*The Mississippi leads to Lake Michigan via natural and man-made waterways built in the early 1900’s. From there a boat can travel through all the Great Lakes which are connected, to the St. Lawrence Seaway and ultimately reaching the Atlantic Ocean. I’d stake my life on it.
Anon,
Also, it’s important to note that the Orthodox church has very few doctrinal differences than we do. I’m not very knowledgable on the subject, but I do know that other than papal infallibility, we are pretty much on the same page in things that matter.
If there were no other Catholic churches around, I believe that in a pinch, I could attend a Greek Orthodox church. (By attend I mean partake…not just be there physically)…I’ll double check tho.
But of all the churches that split, the Greek Orthodox is the closest to remaining true to it’s origninal roots.
“If there were no other Catholic churches around, I believe that in a pinch, I could attend a Greek Orthodox church. (By attend I mean partake…not just be there physically)…I’ll double check tho.”
Yes, that is my understanding as well.
Rae, Since you’re a geography buff, here’s a more accurate description:
Illinois Waterway 336 mi (541 km) long, linking Lake Michigan with the Mississippi River, N Ill.; an important part of the waterway connecting the Great Lakes with the Gulf of Mexico. The Illinois Waterway extends from the mouth of the Chicago River, on Lake Michigan, following the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, the lower Des Plaines River, and the Illinois River to the Mississippi at Grafton, Ill. The Calumet channels branch southeast from the waterway and link it with the Calumet industrial region along the Ill.-Ind. border. Principal cargoes, carried chiefly by barges, are coal, petroleum, and grain products. Recreational areas have been developed along the waterway.
Author not available, ILLINOIS WATERWAY., The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition 2007
However, there are circumstances when non-Catholics may receive Communion from a Catholic priest. This is especially the case when it comes to Eastern Orthodox Christians, who share the same faith concerning the nature of the sacraments:
“Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned” (CIC 844
Bobby Baby and MK:
I respectfully have received your comments.
I’ll study the recommended literature.
And Bro, seriously, I’ll read anything you recommend to me, if you wish. If the Catholic Church isn’t the church founded by Christ, then I want to know, and I want to join whatever church or way of life or philosophy or whatever it was that Jesus intended to establish. I owe him everything. God love you, Hisman.
@Janet: Thanks for the correction. I was unaware of that connection. :)
Thus, I retract my statement that the St. Lawrence Seaway is not connected to the Mississippi because apparently it is!
That’s cool by the way, I never knew that. Thanks again! :)
Bobby,
That is the most beautiful, humbling comment that I have ever read. I feel EXACTLY the way you do. God loves you, Bobby.
Rae said: Thus, I retract my statement that the St. Lawrence Seaway is not connected to the Mississippi because apparently it is!
——
shoot, Rae! now I have to retract my sarcasm!
(sarcastic irony comment retracted.)
Snap! :D
Rae 5:13 P.M.,
You’re welcome!
There is your Protestant that worships the Jesus that allows the intentional killing of his creation by abortion. He learned his killing God from a Shaking Quaker and a Methodist. Doug.
Nonsense, yllas. It was never an issue in our family, and my parents never even tried to orient us kids any certain way on it.
If Methodists, Catholics, Buddhists, Pentacostals, Church-of-the-second-Chancers, pirates, and even post-office machine-gunners feel that people like you have no place telling pregnant women what to do, then I agree with them.
Doug