challenge question, who can answer this

  • Thread starter Thread starter rinnie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
3rd grade wow. I think that’s when I learned it as well. From Sister Agnelia. Rinnie how do the floors look? Keep him working hard. By the way you didn’t bet on the Patriots did you??
Like a fool i did and im paying for it now. Yes the floors are done but not the trim thanks to eli. I promise ill try to finish this up quick now then you can tear into me. I am now done for work till thurs.
 
Holy Orders ccc 1536-1600

Others are called to share specially in Christs Priesthood. In the old cove. even through israel was a kingdom of priests. exod 19:6 the Lord called certain men to a special priestly ministry exod.19:22. In the new covenant even though Christians are a kingdom of priests 1 pet 2:9 Jesus calls certain men to a special priestly ministry rom15:15-16. This sacrament is called Holy Orders. through it priests are ordained and thus empowered to serve the church 2 tim 1:6-7 as pastors teachers and spiritual fathers who heal feed and stregthen Gods people most importantly preaching and the administration of sacraments.

anointingof sick Bible tells us anyone suffering he should pray any sick summon the presbyters (priests) of the church and they should pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. and the prayer of faith will save the sick…Jas.5:14-15. Anointing of sick not only helps us endure illness but it cleanses our souls and helps us prepare to meet God.

Saints (i trying to get thru this real fast now.

Prayer is most important activities of cc without it no true spiritual life. thru it we prise god express sorrow for our sins and we intercede on behalf of others. l tim 2 1-4 thru prayer we grow with members of Gods family. now this family includes all members of the church whether here on earthheaven or in purgatory. (oh i know im getting it on this one) but lets go on Since Jesus had one body and death cant separate us from him rom 8:38 Christians who are in heaven or who before entering heaven are being purified in purgatory by Gods love l vor 3z:12-15 are still part of the body of Christ. Jesus said love your neighbor matt 22:39 those in heaven love us more than they did on earth they pray for us constantlyrev 5:8. and thier prayers are powerful jas 5:16 CCC 956 2683 2692. Our prayers asking for thier intercession with the father do not undermine Christ role as sole mediator 1 tim 2:1-4
Marys prayers are especially effective on our behalf because of her relationship with her son john 2:1-11
God gave Mary a special role he saved her from all sin luke1:28 47 made her uniwuely blessed among all women lluke 1:42 at the end of her life he took her soul into heaven an image of oour own ressurrection at the end of the world rev.12:1-2

Bottom line the CC teaches what the apostles taught, and what the bible teaches. We are saved by grace alone, but not by faith alone which is what bible christians teach jas 2:24. when we come to God and are justified nothing preceding justification whether faith or good words earns grace. But then God plants his love in our hearts and we should live out our faith by doing good acs of love gal6:2
 
almost done.

Even though GOds grace enables us to love others these acts of love please him and he promised to reward them with eternal life. rom 2:6-7 gal 6:6-10 thus good works are meritorious. when we first come to God in faith we have nothing in our hands to offer him. Then he gives us grace to obey the big 10 in love and he rewards us with the salvation when we offer these acts of love back to him. rom 2:6-11 gal 6:6-10 matt 25: 34-40 Jesus said it it not enough to have faith in him we also must obey his commandments. why do you call me Lord and ya wont lisen Luke 6:46 matt 7:21-23 l-19:16-21. We do not earn salvation througj good works eph 2:8-9 rin 9:16 but our faith in Christ puts us in a special grace filled relationship with God so that our obedience and love combined with our faith will be rewarded with eternal life rom 2:7 gal 6:8-9 Paul said God is the one who for his good purpose works in you both desire and to work. phil2:13

Now that the Catholic Faith. and Church now tear into me. But remember explain it to me in english. dont use big theologian words I dont understand or ill hang myself right off the bat.
 
Oh and Scott if you are still alive im fair game. Other Catholics you wouldnt turn you back on you brother would you HELP
 
onchrist101 Hey it just hit me… About the house do you see what i mean. It has to have a good foundation. Sometimes its not what you see or dont see, or what you want to see, its what it built on which is important. Now was my husband right? OOh thats something i have a hard time admitting because then i couldnt be right. So we have a agreement he wasnt wrong. he always says lets not say you are wrong lets just say you arent right. and then i say thats better.
 
Ok here it is guys. Can someone give me a straight answer. How can any religion, that goes by the bible not believe in the catholic church.
Why don’t Catholics accept the five solas ? Or TULIP ? Or the legitimacy of the Reformation ? Or a hundred other things ?

For all sorts of reasons - & the same applies to any other group.

All groups have their
  • traditions
  • histories
  • sources of authority
  • things they emphasise
  • things they ignore
  • things believed by others they can accept as compatible
  • things believed by others that they shun like the plague
  • institutions
  • phobias
  • limits of every kind
What we don’t know
    • but could know if we looked
    • because we don’t so much as suspect it
    • because it is no longer available to be known
    • because it was never known
      is as important as what we do know - in religion as in anything else. And Protestantism assembles the details of Christian life & faith in a pattern which is both like & unlike that of Catholicism. Nothing in the pattern makes conversion to Catholicism necessary; a bit as having a heart transplant does not require one to have new legs or a new stomach.
So the “Catholic bits” of the Bible can be accommodated within Protestantism, as easily as the Calvinist bits of the Bible can be accommodated within Catholicism. There are strategies for dealing with the “awkward bits”, whatever one’s reading of the Bible:
  • anti-evolutionists interpret Gen. 1’s days vaguely as ages
  • some of them find dinosaurs in the OT
  • others find types of the BVM in the OT where other readers see references to the Divine Wisdom
  • Some take the Gospel allusions to Genesis aas the final proof of their hstorical actuality
  • Some understand the Bible in a way which requires every statement of it to be inerrant Divine truth, so that texts which would be judged contradictory or inharmonious in any other writing have to be harmonised at all costs.
  • Some treat a single translation as being for all practical purposes an exact transcript of the Divine Will.
    As with any other document, not excluding those of the episcopal & Roman teaching authorities, the meaning of a text depends very largely on what the reader is capable of seeing in it. And that, can vary almost infinitely, because it depends on such things as the reader’s education, character, frame of mind at the time of reading, Church background, & many more variables.
 
Why don’t Catholics accept the five solas? …
Answering Rinnie’s question with a litany of rhetorical questions is hardly an answer. Can anyone do a better job than this?

How about, because I have too much pride to swallow to belly up to the Catholic bar and admit that my own self conceived notions might be wrong.

How about, because I like wearing a condom, and birth control, having the illusion of control over life itself, and having control over my own faith as well.

How about, because I prefer to be the master of my own domain.

How about, because this country is all about freedom of expression. The Catholic Church is repressive to me and my own lofty thoughts, feelings and values.

How about, because I accept the French Revolution and the Masonic ideal of personal liberty at all costs which the USA was founded upon. (Almost every founding father of the USA was a Mason, and the french Revolution was spawned by Anti-Catholic French Masons).

How about, I am infatuated with my individualism and am repulsed by the old fashioned notion of a single way of interpreting the Bible. How dare Jesus or any representative left behind by Him dare tell me how to think, what to think about, or how to behave.

How about, because I have been taught the Catholic Church is the anti-Christ, and I believe it, and I don’t want to be “left behind”.

Now, these are not my ideas, and these are not my feelings, but, at least, these might be somewhat more honest reflections as to why some non-catholics might be unwilling to subject themselves to the authority of the Church.

And if they are not, then by God, be honest, and stop putting forward mind numbing drivel as though it were representative of your actual reasons.

I am pointing this at anyone who is being less than candid in response to this sincere question.

Gene
 
But are these “priests” actually priests, as Catholics define “priests” to be?

If they aren’t, how can the host be consecrated if consecration requires a priest, as Catholics define “priests”?

So, if the Church (Catholic) does not see these “priests” as actual priests, then the act of consecration of the host by them would be “non-working”?

I believe, if I’m not mistaken, which I may be, that unlike baptism, consecration of the host actually does require a Catholic priest to perform, which makes a non-Catholic “consecrated host” nothing more than a “symbol” of Jesus, and no real presence at all.

Where am I wrong here?
Some Episcopal clergy were ordained by the Catholic Church, which they then left to become Episcopalian. I think (but am not sure) that the Episcopal Church recognizes Catholic ordinations, although the Catholic Church does not recognize Episcopal ordinations.

Episcopalians believe (wrongly according to Pope Leo XIII) that their priests are validly ordained and that their priests can and do “consecrate” the host. Catholics believe that Episcopalian priests are just going through the motions.

Here is a link to more information regarding why the Catholic Church considers Anglican ordinations invalid:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolicae_Curae
 
Episcopalians believe (wrongly according to Pope Leo XIII) that their priests are validly ordained and that their priests can and do “consecrate” the host. Catholics believe that Episcopalian priests are just going through the motions.
Years ago, at the time of their separation, all of the Episcopal Bishops had been formed under same Apostolic Succession in the Roman Catholic Church. After leaving the Roman Catholic Church, those Bishops originally maintained the sacrifice of the Mass. That teaching has since been abandoned. The Anglican/Episcopal Bishops have since rejected the sacrifice of the mass, and created a new teaching about it. The so called Priest no longer presides over Christ’s One sacrifice. The modern Episcopal Priest goes through the motions without the substance, in every sense of the Word. I am making a play on words here.

But, the point is, without the Sacrifice of Christ, you don’t have a mass, and they have walked away from Apostolic Succession. Every Bishop and Priest formed since that change is no longer being formed as they were before that time. It has to do with the words used at formation. The words used during ordination. The vow the Priest or Bishop is actually making. It is now changed.

Gene
 
Maybe I got an answer after all. And maybe i got the right one too. It just may be because we dont want to do things Gods way we want to do things our way. We dont want anyone telling US what to do. And look where it go us. What a beautiful and wonderful generation we have huh. The new screw them before they screw you. Look out for number one. Well guess what guys that didnt work either. Look what happened, Everyone began to think they didnt need God. We have everything we need God promised us that. Do we? I bet everyone reading this does. But see we dont have everything we want. Dont you think its time especially during Lent to say Thank-You Lord for what you have gave me. MY WANTS ARE MANY MY NEEDS ARE FEW. Maybe for Lent we should look around us, Instead of throwing out leftovers take it over to a old person in the neighborhood. Think of someone else for a change. When we have dinner and there is just enough for maybe one person, instead of putting it in the fridge, Make a plate for a person alone, or older to snack on. Hey im not meaning anyone in particular except maybe myself. Im gonna become a better person. I want the world back to where it used to be. where we went our of our way, for others to help them not ourself. Hey Im just one person I cant change the world, But then again so was Luther, And maybe another answer, to this thread and it just hit me. God BLess and have a Peaceful Lent. Pray Alot Guys.
 
Years ago, at the time of their separation, all of the Episcopal Bishops had been formed under same Apostolic Succession in the Roman Catholic Church. After leaving the Roman Catholic Church, those Bishops originally maintained the sacrifice of the Mass. That teaching has since been abandoned. The Anglican/Episcopal Bishops have since rejected the sacrifice of the mass, and created a new teaching about it. The so called Priest no longer presides over Christ’s One sacrifice. The modern Episcopal Priest goes through the motions without the substance, in every sense of the Word. I am making a play on words here.

But, the point is, without the Sacrifice of Christ, you don’t have a mass, and they have walked away from Apostolic Succession. Every Bishop and Priest formed since that change is no longer being formed as they were before that time. It has to do with the words used at formation. The words used during ordination. The vow the Priest or Bishop is actually making. It is now changed.

Gene
I was Episcopalian for about a decade before coming to the Catholic Church. Although I no longer hold to Episcopalian beliefs, I have respect for the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, because for me, that period in my life was an important stepping stone on the road to Catholicism. Here is what the Episcopal Church currently teaches about Holy Eucharist (from the Catechism portion of the Book of Common Prayer):

"The Holy Eucharist

Q. What is the Holy Eucharist?
A. The Holy Eucharist is the sacrament commanded by
Christ for the continual remembrance of his life, death,
and resurrection, until his coming again.

Q. Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice?
A. Because the Eucharist, the Church’s sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is
made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering
of himself.

Q. By what other names is this service known?
A. The Holy Eucharist is called the Lord’s Supper, and
Holy Communion; it is also known as the Divine
Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offering.

Q. What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?
A. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread
and wine, give and received according to Christ’s
command.

Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the
Eucharist?
A. The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion
is the Body and Blood of Christ give to his people, and
received by faith.

Q. What are the benefits which we receive in the Lord’s
Supper?
A. The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins,"
 
I was Episcopalian for about a decade before coming to the Catholic Church. Although I no longer hold to Episcopalian beliefs, I have respect for the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, because for me, that period in my life was an important stepping stone on the road to Catholicism.
Yes, the Anglican Communion does appear to be trying to reverse a former direction change.

For example, I quote from Wikipedia (The end all of references. :signofcross: ):

"Anglican churches, unlike Protestant churches, claim to maintain apostolic succession. The succession of Anglican bishops is however, not universally recognized.

The Roman Catholic Church judged Anglican orders invalid when Pope Leo XIII in 1896, wrote in Apostolicae Curae that Anglican orders lack validity because the rite by which priests were ordained was not correctly performed from 1547 to 1553 and from 1558 to the time of Archbishop William Laud, thus causing a break of continuity in apostolic succession.

Eastern Orthodox bishops have, on occasion, granted “economy” when Anglican priests convert to Orthodoxy. Changes in the Anglican Ordinal since King Edward VI, and a fuller appreciation of the pre-Reformation ordinals suggest that the correctness of the enduring dismissal of Anglican Orders may be questioned.

In order to reduce doubt concerning Anglican apostolic succession, since the 1930 Bonn agreement many Anglican bishops have been consecrated by bishops of the Old Catholic Church whose holy orders are recognised by the Holy See.

Neither Roman Catholics nor Anglicans recognize the validity of ordinations of ministers in Protestant churches that do not maintain the apostolic succession. Rome also does not recognize the apostolic succession of (high church) Lutheran Protestant denominations."
 
It would also depend on what “version” of the Bible you were reading. It is well known that many versions are out there, that were modified specifically to oppose the Catholic Church.

Please name:​

    1. three of these “many versions”
    1. one specific modification from each…
    1. …made for the precise purpose of “oppos[ing] the Catholic Church”
    1. The non-Catholic Churches issuing each one of those three.
      Thank you 🙂
 
Answering Rinnie’s question with a litany of rhetorical questions is hardly an answer. Can anyone do a better job than this?

How about, because I have too much pride to swallow to belly up to the Catholic bar and admit that my own self conceived notions might be wrong.

How about, because I like wearing a condom, and birth control, having the illusion of control over life itself, and having control over my own faith as well.

How about, because I prefer to be the master of my own domain.

How about, because this country is all about freedom of expression. The Catholic Church is repressive to me and my own lofty thoughts, feelings and values.

How about, because I accept the French Revolution and the Masonic ideal of personal liberty at all costs which the USA was founded upon. (Almost every founding father of the USA was a Mason, and the french Revolution was spawned by Anti-Catholic French Masons).

How about, I am infatuated with my individualism and am repulsed by the old fashioned notion of a single way of interpreting the Bible. How dare Jesus or any representative left behind by Him dare tell me how to think, what to think about, or how to behave.

How about, because I have been taught the Catholic Church is the anti-Christ, and I believe it, and I don’t want to be “left behind”.

Now, these are not my ideas, and these are not my feelings, but, at least, these might be somewhat more honest reflections as to why some non-catholics might be unwilling to subject themselves to the authority of the Church.

And if they are not, then by God, be honest, and stop putting forward mind numbing drivel as though it were representative of your actual reasons.

I am pointing this at anyone who is being less than candid in response to this sincere question.

Gene
How about, "I don’t know what the RC Church teaches, and what I have read here on these fora have done very little to cause me to even want me to investigate things further.

How can I approach what I don’t even know exists? I’m lambasted for ‘being rebellious’ to an entity of which I have no knowledge."

Perhaps this was not your meaning, Gene, but how can one be expected to “play the game” if one doesn’t even know the rules?
Again, you may/may not have been targeting one person in particular, or maybe you were taking all non-RCs to task, but I honestly think Gottle of Geer had a valid point.

In my experience, most people believe what they believe because they have been brought up that way. (Yes, there are exceptions… I am referring to generalities here.) For example, my brother-in-law grew up in the RC church and will likely stay RC because that is what he knows. The average “Joe” doesn’t think too deeply about why he believes what he believes, he simply tries to do the best with what he has.

shalom
 
… We have everything we need God promised us that. Do we? I bet everyone reading this does. But see we dont have everything we want. Dont you think its time especially during Lent to say Thank-You Lord for what you have gave me. MY WANTS ARE MANY MY NEEDS ARE FEW. Maybe for Lent we should look around us, Instead of throwing out leftovers take it over to a old person in the neighborhood. Think of someone else for a change. When we have dinner and there is just enough for maybe one person, instead of putting it in the fridge, Make a plate for a person alone, or older to snack on.
I’m with you, rinnie. 👍

It’s easy to get tangled in the academics of these sorts of discussions (which do have their place), but bottom line is: “Love the L-rd your G-d with all your heart, and with your entire being and with all your might… and love your neighbor (as yourself).”

shalom
 

Please name:​

    1. three of these “many versions”
    1. one specific modification from each…
    1. …made for the precise purpose of “oppos[ing] the Catholic Church”
    1. The non-Catholic Churches issuing each one of those three.
      Thank you 🙂
Ahem… as I know you didn’t ask me… but I would like to answer.
  1. A. King James Version of the Bible; B. Darby Bible; C. Geneva Bible (Just listing three non-Catholic Bibles that I have heard of)
  2. Removal of the books that are called the Deuteronocanonical (or Apocryphal) Books.
  3. The books that are not accepted in Catholic churches point to intercessory prayers and to prayers for the dead. These are two things which Martin Luther opposed.
  4. Sorry, but I can’t tell you which church issued any of the Bibles. The King James Version of the Bible, I don’t think was issued by the Lutheran church.
By the by… had you ever heard that the King James Version of the Bible originally included the seven Deuterocanonical Books? These books were removed later. Those that have the ORIGINAL King James Version of the Bible use the Catholic Canon, and that is 73 Books.😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top