Do you have questions about Catholic beliefs & Practices

[PJM]

“Furthermore, it is taught that we cannot obtain forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God through our merit, work, or satisfactions, but that we receive forgiveness of sin and become righteous before God out of grace for Christ’s sake through faith when we believe that Christ has suffered for us and that for his sake our sin is forgiven and righteousness and eternal life are given to us. For God will regard and reckon this faith as righteousness in his sight, as St. Paul says in Romans 3:21-26] and 4:5]” (Book of Concord, 38:1-40:3).

REALLY
So tell me friend what this means?

John 20: [21] He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. [22] When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

And YES I know what Matt thew Henry’s commentary says on the subject. It is TOTALLY subjective driven by a absolute need in to BE different; easier; ;ess complex and LESS demanding than Catholicism.in ordr to establish faith belief God -competiting churches.

God Bless and GUIDE you my friend

 

[Reuben_J]

It could include a number of possibilities:

A BAD habit w/o a sincere effort to correct it on a number of specific issues such as pornography; drug use; alcoholism come quickly to mind.

It might be an obstinate refusal to ACCEPT and implement Church Moral teachings such as to stop the use of contraceptive sex. Or to honor Holy Day’s of obligation; or to stop a adulterous affair.

There are many possible acts and situations based on NOT having TRUE-Sincere Contrition; evidence not by words BUT by ones actual actions or at least attempted actions…

Great examples.

I was trying to demonstrate that there indeed instances in which sins are retained. Probably this is more for the information of non-Catholics – that the apostles and their successors were true and faithful to the word of Jesus – “that the sins they forgive are forgiven; and the sins they retain, are retained.”

Also it repudiates the often held belief among Protestants that the Sacrament of Confession is a hypocritical passport for committing sins. It is definitely not so since insincere confession will not have the penitent’s sin forgiven.

 

[adrift]

Luther was correct regarding justification.

Not entirely. Luther was both right and wrong

[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[PJM]

Sorry PJM, the Latin fathers looked to the Latin, the Vulgate, to formulate their doctrine of justification. Martin Luther looked to the original Greek of the New Testament to formulate the true doctrine of justification. Imputed righteousness, not infused righteousness. Do your homework my friend.

OK:shrug:

But is the bible wrong or did GOD lie?

Mt 16:18-19
[18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and **the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. **[19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Mt 28: 19-20 **
[19] Going therefore, teach “YOU” 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”: and behold I am with “YOU” all days, even to the consummation of the world.**

"YOU" is singular tense; directly from Jesus to the Apostles and there Successors; and please get this word: Exclusive!

John 17: 17-20
[17] Sanctify THEN [singular] in truth. Thy word is truth. [18]** As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world**. [19]** And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth**. [20] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;"

“THEM” too is direct; precise and esclusive

The Vulgate was translated by St Jerome WHO SPOKE Hebrew; Aramaic & Greek, And languages into the then “worldwide” mother - tongue of Latin. Jerome used ALL of these language Bible text to develop the Latin Vulgate.

Do you REALLY think GOD could have or would have to wait for a Apostate catholic-priest; 1,500 years AFTER HE founded HIS Catholic Church to make KNOWN Hos necessarily SINGULAR faith truths?

God Bless you, and please do shre your thoughts on my points.

Patick

 

[PJM]

Who’s interpretation do you subscribe to? Your faith beliefs as a Catholic are based on your fallible interpretation of scripture and history no? No one, you, me, or anyone has God all figured out. When we see the face of God we will understand, until then all I can say is…

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
“Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”
“Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?”For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen. (Romans 11:33-36)

Amen!

The Catholic Church does not have the Creator of the universe, our Lord and Savior, all figured out, wrapped up nice and tidy in a box.

pax

NO Actually not.

Please read my reply on this issue on page 14 so I don’t have to repeat myself. IF you my friend are still unclear; PLEASE let me know and i WILL ENDEAVOR TO CLARIFY EVEN FURTHER sorry didn’t relaize CAPS was on:blush:

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

You did not answer…but sidestepped it.

So let me reask…is Luther’s the correct one or not? Is there error in Luther’s doctrine or not?

SORRY But actually we Do; because both Jesus and thr HOLY Spirt have promised it and they can’t lie. Maybe its just the bible that’s wrong:shrug:

Luther is absolutely WRONG. PLEASE * so PLEASE read MY reply Posr on Page 14. Then if you still have questions PLEASE ask me again and I’ll get to it just as soon as I am able. Saturday’s are family days in my house:thumbsup:

God Bless; its a great question that really needs to be further discussed.*

 

[PJM]

So…you are saying, by going to the Greek…Luther was able to figure out correctly the doctrine…all by himself?

So Augustine got it wrong, and Luther got it right?

PLEASE READ ALL OF MY POST-REPLIES ON PAGE 14:thumbsup:

 

[PJM]

Luther was correct regarding justification.

Your wrong friend;

PLEASE READ my page 14 POST-Replies to DISCOVER just why:thumbsup: Or maybe the BOTTOM posts [plural] on page 13?

 

[PJM]

Look into St. Augustine’s writings and “do your homework”.

PLEASE be nice were hear to TEACH not give homework

 

[PJM]

I know you are responding to a poster who does not think Luther was right. So this is a fair reply.

Catholic response to this would be in the line … so neither was Luther! (as far as the complete knowledge of the Lord God almighty is concerned. We only know what is revealed to us).

That being so, Luther came in and introduced another theology 1500 years after the Catholic Church existed which meant to say the Church got it all wrong in that 1500 years.

Now, I heard some claim that indeed the Catholic Church was right but gone bad during the time of Luther, who therefore had to correct her. Not sure whether this is the official line but there is indeed an impression that this may be one of such thinking to justify the action of Luther. That the Church Jesus set up was okay but later deviated and thus Luther merely did the necessity to make it right again. In order to do that he had to leave the Church since the Church then did not listen to him.

No Catholic would accept that line of argument because it causes the fragmenting of the Church every time someone disagrees.

I would suppose both Luther and Catholic Church cannot make the claim about who have it right, that in cognizance of respect for each other. Perhaps the most we can say, the Catholic Church had been there earlier than you all, and if she was wrong, then all the 1500 years of existence was thrown into the drain until Fr. Luther came.

Peace

Nicely done; hanks and continued Blessings

 

[PJM]

Great examples.

I was trying to demonstrate that there indeed instances in which sins are retained. Probably this is more for the information of non-Catholics – that the apostles and their successors were true and faithful to the word of Jesus – “that the sins they forgive are forgiven; and the sins they retain, are retained.”

Also it repudiates the often held belief among Protestants that the Sacrament of Confession is a hypocritical passport for committing sins. It is definitely not so since insincere confession will not have the penitent’s sin forgiven.

You’re doing GREAT; you’re (name removed by moderator)ut is much appreciated

Thanks again

 

[PJM]

Not entirely. Luther was both right and wrong

[/BIBLEDRB]

PLEASE be more SPECIFIC so we can respond:thumbsup:

 

[Reuben_J]

Understand. I was not referring to the entire bible, bot but only the verses that PJM posted on the discussion of sacramental confession, in particular Mat 28:18-20,

" And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Hence I posted in response to just that verse(s) of Matt. 28:18-20; " Nothing explicit or implicit on post baptismal sin forgiveness. For sure sin forgiveness thru faith and baptism in the gospel is implied." Hope that makes more sense now.
Correct, but would add that not by baptism itself but by faith and preceding repentance also.(“repent /believe, and be baptized”)
Well, still associated directly with baptism, and I would presume before.
Yes this and the James quotes are the only scriptures possibly dealing with "confession’’. What is not clear is which of our interpretations is the true meaning/practice . But yes PJM and others and I have hashed this verse(s) out . I have stated any interpretation is “implied” and certainly not explicit, or “crystal clear” etc… For sure we need forgiveness of sins, and for sure some will not have them forgiven, and for sure it has something to with the apostles, and lastly with their connection/relationship to the Holy Ghost.
Absolutely. And we know absolutely that they then went out after Pentecost in the Power of the Holy Ghost , and the Holy Ghost (who convicts of sin, judgement and righteousness) thru Peter’s words and consequent faith, repentance and baptism reconciled 3000 souls to God, complete with sin forgiveness. The gospel was preached, and folks got faith, repentance, and baptism with assurance of sin forgiveness, not by confessional or sacrament , but by authoritative ,Holy Spirit piercing declaration. We know this explicitly. What I am asking is where do we see repeated examples of such explicitness that we find in this type of forgiveness, to a post baptismal, sacramental sin forgiveness or retention ?(Again, only James and your John quote come close but still not explicit.) Can it be shown as explicitly that it is post baptismal, and that only the apostles /priests can do this, and not ‘one to another’ ?

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the clarification and the honesty in the post.

I am glad to note the areas where you understood the position of the Catholic Church, so that they would not need any more rehashing. And you stated your position too.

I can only add, don’t know whether this is a bias or not, but I would agree with what PJM said: that Baptism and Confession were two separate activities (we call them Sacraments now).

You seemed to admit that it was not explicit that confession was done before baptism in Mt3:6. I would concur, at least as far as that verse is concerned, simple because it is not stated explicitly. I would take it from PJM, that it was a possibility (my own deduction) that baptism and confession were two separate activities. John baptized and there were also confession. If this happened, then confession was as much an activity done in pre-Jesus time.

You asked for explicitness in the Bible to support a given doctrine. Personally I find problem in this approach. As been mentioned earlier, not every belief that Christianity has now is explicitly stated in the Bible, example such as the Trinity. I would say further, that the Bible is not a book of doctrine which makes us Catholics differ very much with those who believe it is so. I am not sure whether those are in the category of Sola Scriptura but in any case, we oppose to that approach.

Yes, but can you show me where early church, during the apostles lifetime and shortly thereafter, thru their successors, practiced/taught such sacramental, exclusively priestly, confessions ?

Explicitly? I have not seen any writings that have it the way the Sacrament of Confession is done now. But I am not learned in this subject, especially that of the Early Church Fathers. But was any confession took place? The answer was obviously yes.

John 20:23 is still very authoritative on the Sacrament of Confession, one we cannot overlook in its importance. PJM explained that very well. My important take on it is that, I repeat, it makes no sense for the apostles (and their successors) not to carry out what Jesus had sent them out to do.

 

[adrift]

PLEASE be more SPECIFIC so we can respond:thumbsup:

How funny somehow extra code was applied to my answer which causes only a block to be seen. It actually shows up in my post and when I quote my post. Even more amazing if you click on the grey area it will activate the link.
Here it is as I intended.
Justification Sola Fide

I guess it is the bibledrb tag. Don’t know I did it nor do I know what it is

 

[TheAtheist]

http://www.bu.edu/today/files/2015/07/h_butoday_wtd-0731-stagrip.jpg

Alright, i’ll bite on this thread… Consider this a mixed Anthropology/Theology question…

What’s the whole “let’s cover the saint in money” business I occasionally see while moving through either the Italian-esque sections of New York City or the Latino sections of Los Angeles?

Edit - Is there some sort of deep significance? Is this just a cultural practice?

 

[Reuben_J]

Alright, i’ll bite on this thread… Consider this a mixed Anthropology/Theology question…

What’s the whole “let’s cover the saint in money” business I occasionally see while moving through either the Italian-esque sections of New York City or the Latino sections of Los Angeles?

Edit - Is there some sort of deep significance? Is this just a cultural practice?

While we are at it, I am also waiting for someone who can tell us a story on this.

Catholicism encompasses a culture so diverse; often we do not know what the others are doing.

 

[TheAtheist]

While we are at it, I am also waiting for someone who can tell us a story on this.

Catholicism encompasses a culture so diverse; often we do not know what the others are doing.

Pardon I don’t mean to trivialize any of this…but I’m kind of like Pavlov’s Dog at this point whenever I do have occassion to be in LA or NYC (mostly during conference season).

I see one of those setups with your saint and the brass band playing and 2 thoughts come to mind…

Either…

http://f.tqn.com/y/gonyc/1/5/d/X/sausage_peppers.jpg

Or…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Reuben_J]

Pardon I don’t mean to trivialize any of this…but I’m kind of like Pavlov’s Dog at this point whenever I do have occassion to be in LA or NYC (mostly during conference season).

I see one of those setups with your saint and the brass band playing and 2 thoughts come to mind…

I really do not know. Here in Australia, we don’t see much of those things and if there is, I am not involved or not knowing. I hope someone tell us what it is, and then maybe I help to explain to you the theological aspect of it, if any. …

And I was thinking about money. Maybe the saints give us some lottery numbers…

Perhaps ask us about the Sacraments, Mary, Rosary, Popes and veneration of the cross …

 

[eazyduzit]

OK:shrug:

But is the bible wrong or did GOD lie?

Mt 16:18-19
[18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and **the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. **[19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Mt 28: 19-20 **
[19] Going therefore, teach “YOU” 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”: and behold I am with “YOU” all days, even to the consummation of the world.**

"YOU" is singular tense; directly from Jesus to the Apostles and there Successors; and please get this word: Exclusive!

John 17: 17-20
[17] Sanctify THEN [singular] in truth. Thy word is truth. [18]** As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world**. [19]** And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth**. [20] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;"

“THEM” too is direct; precise and esclusive

The Vulgate was translated by St Jerome WHO SPOKE Hebrew; Aramaic & Greek, And languages into the then “worldwide” mother - tongue of Latin. Jerome used ALL of these language Bible text to develop the Latin Vulgate.

Do you REALLY think GOD could have or would have to wait for a Apostate catholic-priest; 1,500 years AFTER HE founded HIS Catholic Church to make KNOWN Hos necessarily SINGULAR faith truths?

God Bless you, and please do shre your thoughts on my points.

Patick

Patrick, your answer to every question always begins with Mt 16 and the saying “and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven”.

How do you define the “kingdom of heaven”?

 

[benhur]

I have previously shared with benhur:
NOT everything is clearly and precisely articulated n the bible [last 2 verse in Jn 20 & 21]

That the above passage DOES support the RCC on Sacramental Confession wHEN it is rightly understood:

Good morning PJM,

Thanks for agreeing that it is not clear and precise. Of course it can support the CC position as you say and it certainly may not contradict it either. But I would hope you can likewise see that the same can be said of the ‘alternative’ understanding also.

WHY? Because Baptism removes ONLY those sins in entirety committed PRIOR to being Baptized.

It is very reasonable to presume that if baptism is effectual and sacramental that you would need another effectual sacrament to cover those sins there after. However, if one believes that faith and repentance preclude and actually effect/obtain forgiveness, and baptism being a rite/sign of that reality, the need for further signs for further sins is not as necessary (as if it were believed to be sacramental). A sign is gracious and nice but do we always need one ? Would you believe that you were forgiven before the Lord privately or would you tell Him you need to hear from someone else ? Or if I told you I forgive your trespass against me would you need verification beyond that ? After all, all interpretations believe that it is thru the Blood and promise of it’s effectualness that any sin is absolved. This is what the priest/confessional represents, and that is what any private or interpersonal confession one also represent. We all plead the Blood. But I understand your position that He has chosen/ordained your ,CC’s, method.

[PJM] NO it is NOT!
1 This was John the Baptist babtism B4 the HS… It was NOT for the forgiveness of SIN which is WHY many were REBAPTIZED later.

Actually the baptism of John also included remission of sins, and I think it says that in one or two of the gospels.

And I too disagree with NOT being explicit; HOW friend could it have been made more so?

Jn 20:23 “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

Now we have gone full circle. You began the post with some things “not being clear or precise” and now we are back to “explicit”. The scripture here is not explicit as to the method of implementation (your sacrament, and my view that it s declarative thru the gospel -accept it and receive forgiveness,reject it retain your sins, are both methods of implementation of the scripture above). This one scripture is also not explicit that others who also received the Holy Ghost were excluded from such authority. If it were implicit then the apostles themselves could forgive sins, yet the CC says it is really Christ who forgives, but through the apostle/priest. That is an implied understanding of the above scripture, not explicit in my opinion.

Blessings