A question for some Protestants who feel it is necessary to proselytize Catholics

[LittleSoldier]

IMO, “Forced” fasting is not fasting for the glory of God. If people are told it is a sin to eat meat on Friday, they are being forced to fast. I believe that Paul was against this form of ‘fasting’ by complusion.

I look upon this in a different way. I could use the rule of abstaining from meat on Fridays during Lent to my advantage. I don’t like meat very much; however I do like seafood. So I could gorge on Dungeness crab and that would be acceptable.

Or would it? Isn’t the idea to make a sacrifice? I do abstain from meat on Fridays during Lent. I also abstain from seafood. I’m not forced to abstain from seafood but I feel it is appropriate.

I’m also not forced to abstain from meat because I have a health condition that releases me from the obligations of fasting and abstaining. Yet I do abstain because I love God and I love His bride and I want to do what He wants me to do. I try to fast and if I am not able to do so I am disappointed.

It’s not really “forcing” Catholics to give up meat, anyway. A Catholic is happy to do this and to many it is a sacrifice (I remember my Dad being a “meat and potatoes” man), albeit a small one. It is the principle behind the sacrifice that is important. The idea of it being a “sin” doesn’t really enter into the equation. It’s a sacrifice in unity with every other Catholic. It’s a small sacrifice made by many, many people. It brings Catholics closer together. We are happy to do it.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Since you were so poorly catechized and can’t cite any Scriptures from the Mass, despite attending “many a First Friday vigil”, I will give you the answer.

(BTW: It most likely was not your fault you were so poorly catechized. The CC has done an abysmal job providing catechesis to its members.)

But you can be assured, Hisalone, that you did not know the faith in which you left. (You also do not know the Scriptures very well, else you could have gone from memory and cited verse after verse)

We lift them up to the Lord. (Lam 3:41)

                                    Let us give thanks to the                                          Lord Our God. (Col 3:17)

                                    It is right to give him                                          thanks and praise. (Col 1:3)

Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might, heaven and earth are full of your glory. (Is 6:3)

Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest. (Mark 11:9-10)

A death he freely accepted, (John 10:17-18)

he took bread and gave you thanks. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take this all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you. When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this is memory of me. (Mark 14:22-25)

Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life, Lord Jesus, come in glory. (Heb 2:14-15)

In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup. (John 6:51)

We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you. May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor.10:17)

May we praise you in union with them, and give you glory though your Son, Jesus Christ. (2 Thes 1:4-5)

It’s sad that he couldn’t do it; it’s even sadder that he couldn’t admit he couldn’t do it.

 

[LittleSoldier]

LOL PR I was funnin you.

None of those are in the mass but they all should be.

Why should they be in the Mass?

 

[eucharisteo]

This statement reminds me of some catholics here on CAF. They fit this description pretty well.

I agree and met some of those types of Catholics in a catechetical education setting. What I think I should say is that so many people are just so judgmental. I find myself having to be just as charitable with Catholics by restraining from pulling out their eyelashes. But these are not people who are being judgmental towards other faiths, but rather towards our own children. No wonder Catholics grow up running away from home. People, you can’t teach children like a professor, lecture style. You have to integrate crafts and activities at that age to keep their attention.

They’re everywhere.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Kathleen I am of the same denomination as Peter, Paul James and John

You must be Catholic then. But you don’t eateth Jesus Christ’s flesh, and drinketh His blood. Also, you don’t follow the tradition that they taught, (2 Thessalonians 3:6)

 

[Teneas]

If I believed that the Catholic faith was the fulness of truth I would be a Catholic. I believe the Catholic faith has mixed the profane with the holy the pagan with what is true. What is charitable about leaving you in apostasy.

What does have the fullness of truth?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This statement reminds me of some catholics here on CAF. They fit this description pretty well.

Sadly, we all can have our moments where we can truly be more ‘condemning’ than welcoming.

We do have to be careful though to separate appearance from reality.

Suppose you can only ‘hear’ a parent and a tiny child, not see them. You hear the parent yell’ No’ in a loud, harsh tone and then you hear the sound of a slap and then a child crying loudly.

What would you think? Many would think that the parent was abusing the child. Many would find the ‘tone of voice’ of the parent to be offensive. Many would find themselves feeling extreme ‘sadness’ and pity at the child crying.

Now suppose that suddenly you see what was happening as well as ‘hear’ it.

You see the child about to pull over a pan of boiling water which would scald him severely. You hear the parent yell, see the child, though startled, still reaching, and see the parent slap the child’s hand away before he pulls over the pan. The child is safe but crying from the slap.

Suddenly the harshness in the parent’s voice is seen to be from fear of the child’s hurt and LOVE of the child. The slap is done not to ‘hurt’ the child out of anger but to save the child from a dreadful burn. While the child suffers a momentary ‘sting’ of pain, it will soon be over and indeed, the parent, after a moment to breathe a sigh of relief --the child is safe!–will be moving in to soothe and comfort the child, to explain what happened and why.

Often a harsh ‘tone’ (especially noticeable in a medium where the printed word is often all we see) is ‘perceived’ by a reader as being anger and hate toward the reader, but it is actually more fear and love (just as above). A child does not know that Mommy or Daddy’s ‘angry voice’ can be used in situations of more than simple ‘anger at me’. Only the child growing older and becoming more mature and having more experience, indeed often only the child growing up and having children of his or her own and then experiencing things from the ‘parental’ point of view, can enable the child to understand that Mommy and Daddy were not ‘mad’ at him when he was about to pull over boiling water.

I’m not saying that all ‘angry voices’ are coming from people who are really all sweetness and light. And I’m not saying that all the readers who react with “why are you so angry at me” are as simple and inexperienced as a 2-year-old. No analogy is perfect and none covers all situations. But we do need to be aware that mere ‘perception’ by any of us (no matter what the perception is) is not necessarily an accurate understanding.

That being said, there have been a few remarks here on this thread that did appear to cross the line to personal anger. Hopefully they were made in a combination of ignorance and haste and are being repented. Hopefully too we will be aware of these and repudiate the erroneous sentiments, whether these statements are made about those who ‘support’ us or not.

 

[Dokimas]

Well, since fasting is a spiritual discipline that can only be entered into willingly, then that leaves you without much to say, does it not? ** I agree it can only be done willingly to have meaning. Tell that to those of the CC faith that felt forced to fast Friday’s or they’ll be in sin.**

One cannot be coerced into serving God, or making spiritual devotions. Agreed.

Fasting is a method of sharpening one’s spiritual perceptions through the denial of the flesh. One cannot be “forced” into relationship with God. Agreed.

What you are saying is that authority should not go against how you understand the bible. you refuse to follow someone who understands what scripture says differnently than you do. You have made yourself your own authority. Thanks for your opinion.

Sorry Doki, but no one can force anyone into a spiritual experience. It is just not possible. Agreed; then why did the CC do so?

A person cannot be forced into sin, either. Agreed. If someone is compulsed to engage in an act, by force, then they are not responsible for the deed. ** Agreed; then why … **?That is why Jesus said “he who delivered me to you has the greater sin”.

The fact that Catholics understand the scriptures differently than you does not mean they “missed the verse”. The Catholic church does not forbidmarriage (priests and other leaders - pope), or command that eating any food is wrong.

Do you remember what the converts did after they were baptized on Pentecost? They devoted themselves to something…remember what? The apostles’ teaching; where did they teach their followers couldn’t eat meat on Friday’s or they’d be sinning?

Do you think they were "forced’ to do this? Nope.

 

[benidict]

Dokimas:
i dont get it. you two have gone round and round many times dokimas. are you offended somehow? maybe im reading it wrong. that not like you. Peace

 

[Dokimas]

That’s fine.

But the point has been made that mathematically, just from that list I made of 28 different issues, there can be a very, very big number of different combinations of understandings of them. We could then see how a very, very big number of denominations could exist, each teaching their own combination of that list.

Of those that call themselves catholics, I’m sure their differing beliefs/opinions (abortion, divorce, etc.) makes your church a divided ‘denomination’.

 

[Teneas]

Of those that call themselves catholics, I’m sure their differing beliefs/opinions (abortion, divorce, etc.) makes your church a divided ‘denomination’.

I believe this is merely a hope you have, not truth.

 

[PRmerger]

The fact that Catholics understand the scriptures differently than you does not mean they “missed the verse”. The Catholic church does not forbidmarriage (priests and other leaders - pope), or command that eating any food is wrong.

First of all, Doki, I can’t respond to your posts in the usual manner if you insert your comments into someone else’s.

It would be helpful if you would put this: at the end of the quote you’re responding to, THEN type your answer.

Anyway, the CC does not forbid marriage; we allow it for all of its members except the majority of priests in the Latin rite. In fact, the CC celebrates it, elevates it, makes it a sacrament. If you mean it “forbids” it for the clergy: **No one forces these men to take the vow of celibacy. No one forbids them to be married. They voluntarily take this vow in order to better serve the Lord and His people.

**If the Church allowed adultery for all of its members except the majority of priests in the Latin rite, do you think [Protestants] would ever say that the Church “forbid” adultery? Of course not. [They] would be yelling from the rooftops that the Catholic Church not only allows adultery, but promotes it. That is what is called being a hypocrite. We “forbid” marriage if we allow everyone but the majority of priests in the Latin rite to marry, but we do “NOT forbid” adultery if we allow everyone but the majority of priests in the Latin rite to commit adultery. quoted from John Martignoni’s Newsletter.

 

[guanophore]

I agree it can only be done willingly to have meaning. Tell that to those of the CC faith that felt forced to fast Friday’s or they’ll be in sin.

CAF is here to correct the misconceptions of Catholics as much as it is for non-Catholics.

One cannot be coerced into serving God, or making spiritual devotions.

Agreed.

This is why your accusation that the Catholic Church has pronouced certain foods to be forbidden has no merit.

Sorry Doki, but no one can force anyone into a spiritual experience. It is just not possible.

Agreed; then why did the CC do so?

This Church did not, and cannot do this because it is spiritually impossible. The Church does not have the power to do that which is spiritually impossible.

Priests are not forbidden to marry. The Church does not have the power to forbid marriage.

Do you remember what the converts did after they were baptized on Pentecost? They devoted themselves to something…remember what? Do you think they were "forced’ to do this?

The apostles’ teaching; where did they teach their followers couldn’t eat meat on Friday’s or they’d be sinning?

Nope.

The disciples followed the Apostles’ teaching. They devoted themselves to the prayers and practices embraced and taught by the Aposltes.

The Apostles were their example and shepherds in the faith. The disciples trusted that whatever they were teaching and doing was for their benefit.

The disciplines for fasting vary in the rites and litugical calendar of the Church.

The Aposltes followed Jewish standards for fasting and prayers.

 

[PRmerger]

Of those that call themselves catholics, I’m sure their differing beliefs/opinions (abortion, divorce, etc.) makes your church a divided ‘denomination’.

Abusus non tollit usum.*

This is a basic philosophical principle which says: Abuse does not take away use, i.e., is not an argument against proper use.

Thus, just because a person does not follow the proper “use” or teaching, does not negate the proper use.

 

[guanophore]

Of those that call themselves catholics, I’m sure their differing beliefs/opinions (abortion, divorce, etc.) makes your church a divided ‘denomination’.

Well, your "sureness’ of this does not make it so, Doki. A denomination is something that is taken from another. Those that reject the Teachings of the Apostles preserved in the Catholic Church automatically excommunicate themselves from the unity of the One Church founded by Christ. Most of these Catholics have become Protestants, and don’t realize it. In ignorance, they continue to call themselves Catholics after they have willfully departed from the Catholic faith.

The Church is unified because Jesus, the Head, makes it so. Those that disconnect from the Head cause a wound to unity.

 

[benidict]

Well, your "sureness’ of this does not make it so, Doki. A denomination is something that is taken from another. Those that reject the Teachings of the Apostles preserved in the Catholic Church automatically excommunicate themselves from the unity of the One Church founded by Christ. Most of these Catholics have become Protestants, and don’t realize it. In ignorance, they continue to call themselves Catholics after they have willfully departed from the Catholic faith.

The Church is unified because Jesus, the Head, makes it so. Those that disconnect from the Head cause a wound to unity.

nice

 

[Dokimas]

I believe this is merely a hope you have, not truth.

Why on earth would I hope this???

 

[Dokimas]

First of all, Doki, I can’t respond to your posts in the usual manner if you insert your comments into someone else’s.

It would be helpful if you would put this: at the end of the quote you’re responding to, THEN type your answer.

Anyway, the CC does not forbid marriage; we allow it for all of its members except the majority of priests in the Latin rite. In fact, the CC celebrates it, elevates it, makes it a sacrament. If you mean it “forbids” it for the clergy: **No one forces these men to take the vow of celibacy. No one forbids them to be married. They voluntarily take this vow in order to better serve the Lord and His people.

**If the Church allowed adultery for all of its members except the majority of priests in the Latin rite, do you think [Protestants] would ever say that the Church “forbid” adultery? Of course not. [They] would be yelling from the rooftops that the Catholic Church not only allows adultery, but promotes it. That is what is called being a hypocrite. We “forbid” marriage if we allow everyone but the majority of priests in the Latin rite to marry, but we do “NOT forbid” adultery if we allow everyone but the majority of priests in the Latin rite to commit adultery. quoted from John Martignoni’s Newsletter.

There is NO exception in the Bible for adulery being WRONG because it is wrong. I haven’t seen any exception in the Bible for mandating church leaders being unmarried. Sure Paul would prefer it, but he also says that church leaders should have but one wife. (Not mandating is the key)

Apples with apples.​

I sometimes have limited time to comment and at other times I’m plain lazy so I make comment within quotes. It’s easier that way. Sorry.

 

[Dokimas]

Black - guanophore; colored - Doki.

This is why your accusation that the Catholic Church has pronouced certain foods to be forbidden has no merit. Not true. Apples with apples.

Priests are not forbidden to marry. The Church does not have the power to forbid marriage. **So a young male seminarian which becomes a priest CAN get married and remain a priest, work his way up the rank to bishop then cardinal and one day pope? **

The disciples followed the Apostles’ teaching. They devoted themselves to the prayers and practices embraced and taught by the Aposltes.

The Apostles were their example and shepherds in the faith. The disciples trusted that whatever they were teaching and doing was for their benefit. Your first pope was married.

The disciplines for fasting vary in the rites and litugical calendar of the Church. And shouldn’t be mandated!!!
The Aposltes followed Jewish standards for fasting and prayers. What Jewish standard tole the Jews to fast from meat on Friday’s? That’s what this discussion is about.

 

[Dokimas]

Abusus non tollit usum.*

This is a basic philosophical principle which says: Abuse does not take away use, i.e., is not an argument against proper use.

Thus, just because a person does not follow the proper “use” or teaching, does not negate the proper use.

Never said it did. That’s not in question as far as I’m concerned.

It’s your claim of the ‘factorial’ math of the 40,000 denominations vs the 100’s of thousands of differing views within the CC. It’s a poor argument against the CC and against non-catholic Christians. That’s why it’s getting OLD.​

As you know, there are many common beliefs between the CC and non-catholic Christians. Beliefs that separated us from ALL non-Christian belief systems. That’s what we should be majoring on, IMO.