Can God's True Church commit sin?

[fellowChristian]

I have a question for you malachi_a_serva how many baptisms can a Christian have?

** Ephesians 4:**

4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

And did you ever wonder why the Jewish people did not wait for their children to grow up and then ask them if they wanted to be circumcised ?

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant -

The child is never “asked” the parents “carry” the faith for the child until they can carry it for themselves. Just like Catholics do for the children.Us “carrying” the baby is symbolic of us “carrying” the faith for them.

Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

Just wondering.If you ever thought about that way. My parents could not “teach” so I had to teach myself about our faith.

Baptism is not just a symbol it saves us.
**Acts 2:38 **

38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ** for the forgiveness of your sins**. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

to read more
scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-III

 

[malachi_a_serva]

JaneFrances:
Thanks so much for the info, I shall review it in detail.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

I have a question for you malachi_a_serva how many baptisms can a Christian have

One.

In my case, I received a Catholic “baptism” as an infant - 1965.

I was Born Again on Feb 29th 2004 - and asked and received an Adult Baptism a short time later. I prayed to God on where to attend church and he lead me to where I was baptised.

My position - whatever event that took place with me as an infant was not “baptism”.

My choice as an Adult - was my “one” baptism".

So you and I agree - one baptism - that’s it - tha’s all.

 

[Tom]

I see your point - that is a good example. Lets expand on that if we could. Was it not a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays at one point? (before Vatican II perhaps). If it was, what happened to those who ate meat on Friday? Well, if it was a Mortal sin they went to Hell.

The sin would have been disobedience, nothing to do with the fish at all, just doing what you’re told not to do. It’s simply rebellion. “They” can’t tell me what not to eat! Well, abstinence from fish on Friday is meant as a communal act. Something the whole of Christianity can do together as a simple way of saying thank you to God. Was it a “mortal” sin, depends on several factors. As I’m sure you know to be a mortal sin one must commit or omit an act with three criteria present; it must be a “grave” offense, you must have full knowledge, and you must have full consent. The Church tells us what is grave matter, both in Scripture and in doctrine. So it would depends on the full knowledge and full consent. I can’t answer the question of full knowledge since I have no way of telling if the fictitious person we’re speaking of knew he was being disobedient in the first place. Did he understand the ramifications of his act? Did he do it as a rebellious act against God? Did he understand that committing a mortal sin separates himself from God? All these (and more) can only be answered by God. God knows his heart. Let me just say, the Catholic Church has never said ANY ONE has gone to hell for eating meat on Friday EVER. If anyone knows of any Church proclamation that says otherwise please provide it. So it’s really an issue of obedience to authority. I can only imagine anyone who rejected the disciple of abstinence from meat, or some other form of sacrifice on Friday, in all probability rejected many other things much more important.

 

[fellowChristian]

One.

In my case, I received a Catholic “baptism” as an infant - 1965.

I was Born Again on Feb 29th 2004 - and asked and received an Adult Baptism a short time later. I prayed to God on where to attend church and he lead me to where I was baptised.

My position - whatever event that took place with me as an infant was not “baptism”.

My choice as an Adult - was my “one” baptism".

So you and I agree - one baptism - that’s it - tha’s all.

Technically the Catholic “baptism” as an infant, is where you were “born again”.

And because Jesus built,created,founded the Catholic Church and gave her all His teachings including “Baptism” any time someone is baptized in any church (in the proper formula, water and saying "I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit) You are baptized into the Catholic Church. Technically. So your first baptism “counts”

Why wouldn’t it?

Acts 2
38Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be **baptized in the name of Jesus Christ **for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

39"For the **promise is for you and your children **and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

Children can be sanctified by their parents

1 Corinthians 7

14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

And in Mark 9:22-25 Jesus exercises the child’s unclean spirit based on the father’s faith. This healing is again based on another’s faith.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

What is the process for establishing or repealing disciplines? Is it solely under the Popes authority?

Basiclaly yes. The headmaster says that all boys must wear brown overcoats on their way to and from school. It’s not a law of the land, but it is not completely arbitrary either. Social convention dictates something similar.

A few years later the amount of traffic on the road increases and fluorescent cagools come available. One of the teachers encourages his boys to wear these cagools. Strictly he is exceeding his authority, but the move is so obviously prudent that the overcoat rule will become a dead letter. It may or may not be formally repealed, but probably what will happen is that the head will issue a clarification that high-visibility dress is now approved.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I see your point - that is a good example. Lets expand on that if we could. Was it not a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays at one point? (before Vatican II perhaps). If it was, what happened to those who ate meat on Friday? Well, if it was a Mortal sin they went to Hell.

Now - it is no longer a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays. So, someone can eat meat on Fridays and not go to Hell. Is that just for the person who went to Hell previously for eating meat on a Friday?

That being the case… did the church sin in either:
1)telling us it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays;
or
2)telling us it is no longer a sin to eat meat on Fridays.

Or was it just mistaken? How could God’s True Church error in its teaching regardless if it is a tradition, dogmas, doctrince or what have you?

The eating meat on Friday is not a Church Tradition (capital T), dogma or doctrine–it was simply a Church discipline–which the Church has a right to change. You’ll never find anyone here arguing otherwise. You need to learn the difference between disciplines which can change and Tradition and dogma which cannot. Also the sin is not the eating meat per se but the willfull disobendience. So no the Church was not mistaken–it simple made the determination that not eating meat had lost some of its value as a penetential practice–no Church error here. I guess you can try again.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

I opened this thread with the question "Could God’s True Church Commit SIN? -

Thank you for you’re various responses. It would seem preposterous to think that God’s True Church - as a whole - could sin. I do not think it could.

I am reviewing a No.3 Most Rev. Dr. Butler’s Catechism - The Complete Catechism Series - Revised Copyright, Canada 1928.

On page 65 - 66 it states:

CHAPTER XXVI
The Seventh and Tenth Commandments
5. How do we sin against the Seventh Commandment?
(1) By stealing.
(2) By cheating
(3) By not giving back things found to the owner
(4) By not paying our debts.
(5) By damaging or destroying that which belongs to another. Deut. xxv, 13, 16; I Cor. vi, 13.

Now this seems self-explanatory. Many Arch Dioceses have declared bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy leaves debts unpaid.

How could the Arch Diocese do this, as it is a sin?
How could the Vatican allow this to happen and/or not bail them out and pay all debts?

Proof the RCC is not the True Church…

 

[Church_Militant]

I opened this thread with the question "Could God’s True Church Commit SIN? -

Thank you for you’re various responses. It would seem preposterous to think that God’s True Church - as a whole - could sin. I do not think it could.

I am reviewing a No.3 Most Rev. Dr. Butler’s Catechism - The Complete Catechism Series - Revised Copyright, Canada 1928.

On page 65 - 66 it states:

CHAPTER XXVI
The Seventh and Tenth Commandments
5. How do we sin against the Seventh Commandment?
(1) By stealing.
(2) By cheating
(3) By not giving back things found to the owner
(4) By not paying our debts.
(5) By damaging or destroying that which belongs to another. Deut. xxv, 13, 16; I Cor. vi, 13.

Now this seems self-explanatory. Many Arch Dioceses have declared bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy leaves debts unpaid.

How could the Arch Diocese do this, as it is a sin?
How could the Vatican allow this to happen and/or not bail them out and pay all debts?

Proof the RCC is not the True Church…

Phooey!

For that to have been sin it would have had to be intentional, which it clearly was not.

So much for your wishful thinking, and BTW…
Proof that MaS is just another a-C seeking any means he can find to bash the True Church… The Catholic Church!

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Phooey!

For that to have been sin it would have had to be intentional, which it clearly was not.

So much for your wishful thinking, and BTW…
Proof that MaS is just another a-C seeking any means he can find to bash the True Church… The Catholic Church!

I guess what I am trying to do is expose truth. This catechism states exactly what I typed. The church transgressed the seventh commandment. Please do not add words or explanations that are not in the catechism. What would Jesus do? Would he declare bankruptcy? Not likely.

You may not like what I say - but it is the truth. “Anti-C” - I guess I am against cover ups. Stuff like this is what convinved me to leave the RCC. I guess another word would be that God’s trur church is hypocrites…given the teaching here…and then not following it itself.

 

[Hellisreal]

Judas sinned.

Jesus chose him.

Tell me about how Jesus was wrong, I am all ears.

 

[Church_Militant]

I guess what I am trying to do is expose truth. This catechism states exactly what I typed. The church transgressed the seventh commandment. Please do not add words or explanations that are not in the catechism. What would Jesus do? Would he declare bankruptcy? Not likely.

You may not like what I say - but it is the truth. “Anti-C” - I guess I am against cover ups. Stuff like this is what convinved me to leave the RCC. I guess another word would be that God’s trur church is hypocrites…given the teaching here…and then not following it itself.

“Expose truth”? Yeah right…

You are dead wrong of course in that (if you bothered to read that Catechism), you’d have known that one of the conditions of sin is intention…in other words, “full consent of the will”, since it was not their intention, you have made a specious argument.

You probably didn’t need much to get you to leave that faith…you have proved to be woefully ignorant of Catholic teaching anyway…especially if you now consider yourself some sort of “Bible Only Christian”.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

“Expose truth”? Yeah right…

You are dead wrong of course in that (if you bothered to read that Catechism), you’d have known that one of the conditions of sin is intention…in other words, “full consent of the will”, since it was not their intention, you have made a specious argument.

You probably didn’t need much to get you to leave that faith…you have proved to be woefully ignorant of Catholic teaching anyway…especially if you now consider yourself some sort of “Bible Only Christian”.

I challenge you to get a copy of this Catechism - or I can scan all pages and email you - and find where it elaborates on the “full consent of the will” part regarding this. It is plain and simple. People aren’t paid by the RCC. That is a transgression of the seventh commandement according to this Catechism.

By the way Church Militant - you left the church - shouldn’t be too critical. …we will give an account for every idle word…

I know “phoey”…

 

[Hellisreal]

Church Millitant
Church Suffering
Church Triumphant

Which are you malachi_a_serva ?

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Church Millitant
Church Suffering
Church Triumphant

Which are you malachi_a_serva ?

Not following you.

 

[Hellisreal]

Not following you.

Oh, I thought you were a Catholic. Sorry.

Church Millitant:

Those here, now

Church Suffering:

Those who are going through purification, and will be

Church Triumphant:

In The B.V.

 

[fellowChristian]

So if every denomination is made up of sinners (which they are) and every denomination has a scandal (which they have) then by your opinion (because that is all it is) there is no Church of Christ.

And if there is no Church of Christ, then by your opinion Jesus lied or Jesus did not exist.

**
Matthew 16:18 **
18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

When you read this verse where Jesus tells Peter He is “building” (creating,founding,starting,) a church. Do you think Jesus is lying?

**Matthew 16:18 **

18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the **gates of Hades will not overpower it. **

And when you read this part of that verse about “Hades” (hell,evil,devils) not overpowering it (His church) Do you say Jesus did not tell the truth?

**Matthew 10 **
19"But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say.

20"For it is not you who speak, but it is the **Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. **

Jesus says the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals. Do you think He was lying?

**Luke 12:12 **
12for the **Holy Spirit **will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

Here it is again.

**Matthew 18:17 **

17"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

The Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.
**
Matthew 28:20 **

20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo,** I am with you always, even to the end of the age." **

Jesus is with His church always, and with His presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

**John 14:16 **

16"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;

Jesus (God) asks the Father (God) to send another “Helper” the Holy Spirit (God) to be with His (God’s) church.

Do you believe what you read in scripture? Or is it you just don’t believe in what Jesus promised? Or maybe you don’t believe in God at all? I have to wonder.

**John 14:26 **
26"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

John 16:13 **
13"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth**; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

The more you look back and learn our history, the more you begin to realize Jesus did build a church and the gates of hell have not overcome it. It was there in the apostles and taught to all believers and grew. It was first called the “Way”, then members were called “Christians” and as a whole we were called “Catholic”.

The man made denominations came after 1517ad. Over 1,400 years later. Every denomination can be traced back to the Catholic Church.

So if you base your theories on the “true church” not having scandals or sinners. You then run out of any possibility of the Church of Christ being existent.

**Acts 22:7 **
7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’

Notice Jesus did not say “My church”? He said “Me” He is one with His church.

Acts 5
30 for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and **the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. **

What church? Well we know it was not a Protestant Denomination.They were not around for another 1,480 years later.

**1 Timothy 3:15 **
15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

You were right where you were suppose to be all along.Then you left. Come back home.

 

[Church_Militant]

I challenge you to get a copy of this Catechism - or I can scan all pages and email you - and find where it elaborates on the “full consent of the will” part regarding this. It is plain and simple. People aren’t paid by the RCC. That is a transgression of the seventh commandement according to this Catechism.

You talk a lot of smack, but like I said…you don’t know what you’re talking about.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent

. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.So, again…since this was something forced on the churches by an outside entity. That’s “full consent”? Yeah right…

Now, since you have persisted in bearing what appears to be a false witness against the Catholic Church, would you like to shift gears and answer for a transgression of the 8th commandment?

By the way Church Militant - you left the church - shouldn’t be too critical. …we will give an account for every idle word…

I know “phoey”…

So? I repented and came home.

As for idle words…is that your best? Let’s look at what it actually means.

phoo·ey /ˈfui/
Pronunciation[foo-ee]
–interjection Informal.
(an exclamation indicating rejection, contempt, or disgust):
as in: Phooey on all those political promises!

You seem to have come in tonight with nothing but rhetoric MaS. Why? Catholics offering scriptural answers that actually have merit taking all the fun out of trying to debate with us.:knight2: Oh well…

 

[ncgolf]

I opened this thread with the question "Could God’s True Church Commit SIN? -

Thank you for you’re various responses. It would seem preposterous to think that God’s True Church - as a whole - could sin. I do not think it could.

I am reviewing a No.3 Most Rev. Dr. Butler’s Catechism - The Complete Catechism Series - Revised Copyright, Canada 1928.

On page 65 - 66 it states:

CHAPTER XXVI
The Seventh and Tenth Commandments
5. How do we sin against the Seventh Commandment?
(1) By stealing.
(2) By cheating
(3) By not giving back things found to the owner
(4) By not paying our debts.
(5) By damaging or destroying that which belongs to another. Deut. xxv, 13, 16; I Cor. vi, 13.

Now this seems self-explanatory. Many Arch Dioceses have declared bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy leaves debts unpaid.

How could the Arch Diocese do this, as it is a sin?
How could the Vatican allow this to happen and/or not bail them out and pay all debts?

Proof the RCC is not the True Church…

Best thing for you to do is understand what bankruptcy is. Here is an overview from the Cornell Law Library.

"Bankruptcy law provides for the development of a plan that allows a debtor, who is unable to pay his creditors, to resolve his debts through the division of his assets among his creditors. This supervised division also allows the interests of all creditors to be treated with some measure of equality. Certain bankruptcy proceedings allow a debtor to stay in business and use revenue generated to resolve his or her debts. An additional purpose of bankruptcy law is to allow certain debtors to free themselves (to be discharged) of the financial obligations they have accumulated, after their assets are distributed, even if their debts have not been paid in full. "

Now it is possible for some debt to be left unpaid but in legal terms the debt is discharged … it is also possible that all debts be will repaid but in the interest of all there are mechanims to prevent assets of the debtor be sold by a forced liquidation which would result in debts being left unpaid due to liabilities exceeding assets.

Bankruptcy, when used properly, allows entitites to continue operating while paying off debts.

Personally, I do not know what the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings are but your rush to judgement on the bankruptcy declaration is suspicious given your lack of knowledge on exactly what is happening. You do not know whether those debts will be repaid in full or not.

Please educate yourself on what bankruptcy is and why it is used. You seem to lump all bankruptcies into the “getting out of debt free” card when really when properly used aids both the debtor and those seeking payment.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Best thing for you to do is understand what bankruptcy is. Here is an overview from the Cornell Law Library.

"Bankruptcy law provides for the development of a plan that allows a debtor, who is unable to pay his creditors, to resolve his debts through the division of his assets among his creditors. This supervised division also allows the interests of all creditors to be treated with some measure of equality. Certain bankruptcy proceedings allow a debtor to stay in business and use revenue generated to resolve his or her debts. An additional purpose of bankruptcy law is to allow certain debtors to free themselves (to be discharged) of the financial obligations they have accumulated, after their assets are distributed, even if their debts have not been paid in full. "

Now it is possible for some debt to be left unpaid but in legal terms the debt is discharged … it is also possible that all debts be will repaid but in the interest of all there are mechanims to prevent assets of the debtor be sold by a forced liquidation which would result in debts being left unpaid due to liabilities exceeding assets.

Bankruptcy, when used properly, allows entitites to continue operating while paying off debts.

Personally, I do not know what the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings are but your rush to judgement on the bankruptcy declaration is suspicious given your lack of knowledge on exactly what is happening. You do not know whether those debts will be repaid in full or not.

Please educate yourself on what bankruptcy is and why it is used. You seem to lump all bankruptcies into the “getting out of debt free” card when really when properly used aids both the debtor and those seeking payment.

Thank you. In a nut shell. A man made thing to justify not repaying your debts. Regardless of its acceptance in society (allot of things are accepted in society…abortion, contraception, masterbation, etc.) I believe not morally correct.