The Key to understand the bible is common sense… However, though common as it sounds, most people don’t use common sense when reading the bible… What do you do when you read a book? Do you ask the question, Who, When, Where, What, Why? Are you aware that the bible is historically accurate… You have to also check the events of history regarding a period in the bible since every book in the bible was written at different periods with different events.
is penance the same as repentance?
In the documents of councils and popes. In the writings of the early church fathers. In the writings and lives of saints.
Maybe, maybe not. Some CCD programs do not teach what they are scheduled to teach, others run out of time. In general, it is the duty of the parents to instruct the children, not the Church. And many parents neglect that for various reasons.
Some neglected it, taking it for granted. Others deliberately pitched it out, thinking Vatican 2 made it irrelevant. But this has been a recurring problem over the centuries.
Dear MrS
The bottom line here is who were really the original and who went out?
Penance includes repentence.
Alright, I wasn’t going to do any posting tonight, 'cause I’m learning what a danger it is to my sleep banking. But as I was just reviewing some of the dialogue on this thread, I just HAD to ask this question…
Wouldn’t I have learned it if I was witnessing it lived out before my very eyes by all those in fellowship with me? Why is there such a repression of JOY in the church? Why isn’t there a place for folks to share what God is actually doing for them? He’s a LIVING God, why don’t we talk about what He’s doing then?In the documents of councils and popes. In the writings of the early church fathers. In the writings and lives of saints.
Maybe, maybe not. Some CCD programs do not teach what they are scheduled to teach, others run out of time. In general, it is the duty of the parents to instruct the children, not the Church. And many parents neglect that for various reasons.
Some neglected it, taking it for granted. Others deliberately pitched it out, thinking Vatican 2 made it irrelevant. But this has been a recurring problem over the centuries.
You may as well be one of the children of Adam and Eve asking how you missed out on the Garden of Paradise.
It wasn’t necessarily your fault, but you had to suffer anyway. Still, the right thing to do is see God’s good Will in it all, and be grateful for what He has deemed it good to do. I think many Catholics here went through the same thing you did. I sure did. We now see how important it is to love and serve God as our highest priority, how valuable His Church is for our spiritual well-being, and how terrible are apathy and error and neglect.
Meanwhile, find access to those precious teachings that you missed out on, something at your level of comprehension. Perhaps this forum will provide the best starting point until you find some good books. I have recommendations, but it depends on what you are ready for.
hurst
eaglesmark said:
MrS:
Firstly, doesthis prove anything? Of course not, just as your attacks on the crusades and whatnot have no effect. You are arguing by emotion. This is a fallacy. I do not wish to see any arguement that is not based on facts. I can produce just as much evidence of horrible things purportedly done by non-Catholics as you can by Catholics. Whether any of it is true or not does not prove a thing. Even if the Church did participate in such things (which I contend She did not), and even if it were wrong, since when does sin prove that a church or person is not truly of Christ? All churches and all people will always have sin. Indeed, Peter denied Christ, a sin worse than every war and crusade in history combined, and yet he was a leader of the true Church.
As far as the Leo quote, I can find virtually no evidence that it is authentic. The only evidence that exists at all is that of the heresay of one supposed priest. Even reputable anti-Catholic sites have no evidence of this. If it were real, they most certainly would be using it. I am only able to find this quotation on personal anti-Catholic sites, sites so filled with plain nonsense that I cannot hold them credible. Even more is that Mr. Boettner supposedly referenced this quote in his book Roman Catholicism. Any quote used in that book automatically belongs on the bottom of the credibility ladder.
The point is that if this were real, some legitimate source, some encyclopedia would have it. I cannot find such a reference.
eaglesmark:
prove anything? Of course not, just as your attacks on the crusades and whatnot have no effect. You are arguing by emotion. This is a fallacy. I do not wish to see any arguement that is not based on facts. I can produce just as much evidence of horrible things purportedly done by non-Catholics as you can by Catholics. Whether any of it is true or not does not prove a thing. Even if the Church did participate in such things (which I contend She did not), and even if it were wrong, since when does sin prove that a church or person is not truly of Christ? All churches and all people will always have sin. Indeed, Peter denied Christ, a sin worse than every war and crusade in history combined, and yet he was a leader of the true Church.
The point is that if this were real, some legitimate source, some encyclopedia would have it. I cannot find such a reference.
Ok… But i would just like you to know that I grew up in a catholic school. BAck when i was in my sophomore through my senior years, i had always been searching catholic encyclopedias as a reference for my report especially on history of the church, church issues, and expecially on the crusades. I know this since, this one was my report. I forgot however the volume of the caatholic encyclopedia. Ok, lets forget about Dr. de Luca, since i just copied it somewhere out there, i too have not seen this in a encyclopedia. But regarding the crudades, i personally have read of it. And regarding the churches i have given you, what do you mean by scriptural and non-scriptural. Have you read their doctrinal stand?
Matthew 28:16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain … 18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you …
Jesus clearly instructed his apostles to teach others to comply with the things that He has taught, that did the apostles.
However, as we can see in the bible, as the church grew, there were some of those whose heart wasn’t true for the service of God. That is why we can see 1 John 2:19, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us”.
Can you see the big picture here? There is a church, and within that church there are some who “went out”. Now, what do you think are the characterisitics of those who went out? They may make a new church with some doctrines copied from the original church and then with doctrines concieved from their own minds and philiosophies.
Now we can see here, that there are already two churches claiming authenticity. How can we know the authentic? Of course, the authentic are those who obeyed fully what Jesus said, “…teaching them to observe all things whatsoever i have commanded you”. Did you realize that Jesus was strict on his command that the church should comply with what he has taught. Jesus, did not tell us, “…teaching them to observe some things whatsoever i have commanded you”.
Have you seen in the scriptures, that Jesus teached Mary as our advocate?
Try to look at 1 John 2:1 And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
Mary was never called an advocate by the apostles, but only Jesus.
Like when we pray the rosary, what do we do? ?We have the rosary, and recite again and again, hail mary mother of God…
Check out, Mat. 6:7 “7”: But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Those were just a few example of what you say scriptural.
And Oh, why is it that we can see in history im sure ou would agree to this priests used latin in churches while majority of the people that belong to the church cant understand latin?
Isn’t the word of God for everyone or just to a select few, and the vast majority are to follow blindly? We can see, that the church wants most of the people ignorant in the word of God at those time. Didn’t God appoint special persons for people to know what God want such as the prophets?
Devout Catholics do this also in one way or another, and there are also various prayer groups that gather to pray the Rosary or Divine Mercy chaplet, among other things.
Parishes differ according to the people who volunteer their time. In any case, there is less likely to be as much emphasis on scripture as in the Protestant denominations because Catholics stress the Blessed Sacrament as the “source and summit” of its life. Scripture leads to Christ and is not an end in itself. The Blessed Sacrament is Christ, and is worshipped as God. He has become our bread! Yet, we only receive in proportion to our desire and faith, though the sacrament itself lacks nothing.
Lazerlike42:
I am going to bed now because I am completely exhausted. I will respond to the rest of this tomorrow, but for now I want to address the latin.
The Liturgy of the Church was originally in Greek. At the time, Greek was the “English” of the day. It was the language that everyone spoke. After some time, Greek phased out as the language in standard use, so the Church changed it to latin. This was done because vritually everybody spoke latin. (There were other rites of the Church which did use other languages, of course). Latin was thus used to enable to most number of people possible to understand the Liturgy. Latin remained the most widely used language in the world until the 1700s or so. The Church kept Latin as the Liturgical language because of this.
In the 1960s, the Church changed the Liturgy to permit the vernacular for several reasons. One was that there waa no longer a language so widely used in the world as latin once had been (English had not taken hold then as it has today). Another reason is that the modern age was far more compatible with a vernacular Liturgy than in the past. One thing the Church was always concerned with was making sure that the Liturgy and the Scriptures were accurate and not erroneous in translation. In times past, it was much harder to ensure this. For one thing, the task of maintaining Liturgical accuracy in a time when information took weeks or months to travel was very difficult. Having a single translation made this much easier. Secondly, the basic task of composing so many vernacular Liturgies was much aided by the technology and resources of the time.
So in terms of the Latin, the Church probably did come in late by 100 years or so. In fact, She could have updated the Liturgy at Vatican I had the council not needed to be closed early due to unforseen circumstances. So the fact that the Church did not update this until Vatican II is actually relatively consistent with the time frame that one would have expected.
God Bless, more tomorrow.
eaglesmark:
prove anything? Of course not, just as your attacks on the crusades and whatnot have no effect. You are arguing by emotion. This is a fallacy. I do not wish to see any arguement that is not based on facts. I can produce just as much evidence of horrible things purportedly done by non-Catholics as you can by Catholics. Whether any of it is true or not does not prove a thing. Even if the Church did participate in such things (which I contend She did not), and even if it were wrong, since when does sin prove that a church or person is not truly of Christ? All churches and all people will always have sin. Indeed, Peter denied Christ, a sin worse than every war and crusade in history combined, and yet he was a leader of the true Church.
As far as the Leo quote, I can find virtually no evidence that it is authentic. The only evidence that exists at all is that of the heresay of one supposed priest. Even reputable anti-Catholic sites have no evidence of this. If it were real, they most certainly would be using it. I am only able to find this quotation on personal anti-Catholic sites, sites so filled with plain nonsense that I cannot hold them credible. Even more is that Mr. Boettner supposedly referenced this quote in his book Roman Catholicism. Any quote used in that book automatically belongs on the bottom of the credibility ladder.
The point is that if this were real, some legitimate source, some encyclopedia would have it. I cannot find such a reference.
I see… Protestants( luther, calvin, zwingli, etc) too have launched violent attacks where theyare the majority, they lauched attacks against ana-baptist.
Regardless of my answer, what is the point of your question? I dont know what you are trying to communicate here - you have simply asked a question and have not provided a hint of what you think the answer to the question is and why it is relevent. Say what you think - clearly.
Again, you appear to suggest that I have read it “flatly” and that when I don’t, I will interpret things differently. I still don’t know what YOU think - please tell me how not reading it flatly will alter my interpretation and more closely parallel your understanding of all the verses that speak to marriage and celibacy. I want to know your opinion of the topic - I already know that context is critical. What I dont know is what you understand the context the context to be and how you believe that influences our understanding of the passages, and how that validates your post which initiated this exchange. Get busy!
The point is a “normal Joe” can.
eaglesmark…