I
- Status
D
DebChris
Guest
Lectio Divina is practiced by monks who meditate on a single verse of scripture throughout the day. They pray the Liturgy of the Hours which includes the psalms and scriptural readings. The first half of the Mass is the Liturgy of the Word, which includes one Old Testament Reading plus the Gospel everyday. A New Testament reading is added on Sunday. The homily that the priest gives is meant to focus on the readings.
G
guanophore
Guest
I am sorry that you have had a struggle about your marital status and your Catholic faith. This is very common in our current culture of death and infidelity.Nope, I quote something close to my heart from
*Matthew 19:3-9
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”[a]*
The RC church doesn’t accept the word of Christ from a key witness, particular reference to point 9; otherwise I would of been able to marry in a RC church
Have you ever studied why the Church understands what is written in the way she does? It does not sound like it will help your situation, but it might help your misunderstanding.
The term here translated “sexual immorality” is a reference to an invalid marriage. A person who has already been married cannot marry again. If a person enters the ceremony of marriage who was not free to do so because he or she was already joined to someone else is not free to marry. It is not a reference to sexual immorality that occurs after the marriage (adultery).
It is easy to see why Jesus called the lack of acceptance of marital struggles a “hardness of heart”. There is very little love left in marrianges nowadays.
T
THEYEHOVAH
Guest
ACTS 1:4–JESUS BEING “HE”–and, being assembled together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which,'said he , ye heard from me: 5For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence. THIS IS A SEPARATE BAPTISM–AS MENTIONED BELOW
HEBREWS 6:1Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF GOD INCLUDE THE FOUNDATION OF BAPTISMS–ABOVE–WE MUST UNDERSTAND BEFORE PRESSING ON…
THIS IS NOT WATER SPOKEN OF GENERALLY AND THUS PLURAL BUT REFERRING TO WHAT THE APOSTLES ASKED ABOUT–HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT–WHICH WAS SEPARATE FROM WATER AS BELOW–AND WHICH WAS DESCRIBED AS A BAPTISM
ACTS 19:1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples: 2and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they’said unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given . 3And he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John’s baptism. 4And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus. 5And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7And they were in all about twelve men.
LUKE 3:15And as the people were in expectation, and all men reasoned in their hearts concerning John, whether haply he were the Christ; 16John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire: 17
SO YOU SEE LAYING ON OF HANDS AND ALSO DESCRIPTION OF BAPTISM: GOD GIVES THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT!
MARK 1:I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit. [SAID BY JOHN BAPTIST]
(THIS IS ALL THE AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION) ACTS 2:
1And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place. 2And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them. 4And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
AND NOTICE PETER SAID DEFENDING HIS BAPTIZING IN WATER IN 11TH CHAPTER OF
ACTS:12And the Spirit bade me go with them, making no distinction. And these six brethren also accompanied me; and we entered into the man’s house: 13and he told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, Send to Joppa, and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14who shall speak unto thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house. 15And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. 16And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. AND HE TELLS US THAT THIS IS THE SAME BEFELL THEM AT PENTECOST AND REFERS BACK TO THE EVENT DESCRIBED…HERE
ACTS 10:–THIS CLARIFIES THAT THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE BAPTISM WITH WATER AND HAVING IT BEFORE OR AFTER IS NO MATTER BUT FROM THE LORD WHETHER BY LAYING ON OF HANDS OR NOT
44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. 45And they of the circumcision [THE JEWS–MY CLARIFICATION] that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
NO DOUBT I COULD BE BRIEFER–YOU MUST READ TO UNDERSTAND AND NOT RELY ON CLIPPING BY ANOTHER BUT WILL NOT “RECOGNIZE THIS” LIKELY WITHOUT HAVING EXPERIENCED IT…YET…
<3+
HEBREWS 6:1Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF GOD INCLUDE THE FOUNDATION OF BAPTISMS–ABOVE–WE MUST UNDERSTAND BEFORE PRESSING ON…
THIS IS NOT WATER SPOKEN OF GENERALLY AND THUS PLURAL BUT REFERRING TO WHAT THE APOSTLES ASKED ABOUT–HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT–WHICH WAS SEPARATE FROM WATER AS BELOW–AND WHICH WAS DESCRIBED AS A BAPTISM
ACTS 19:1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples: 2and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they’said unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given . 3And he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John’s baptism. 4And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus. 5And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7And they were in all about twelve men.
LUKE 3:15And as the people were in expectation, and all men reasoned in their hearts concerning John, whether haply he were the Christ; 16John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire: 17
SO YOU SEE LAYING ON OF HANDS AND ALSO DESCRIPTION OF BAPTISM: GOD GIVES THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT!
MARK 1:I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit. [SAID BY JOHN BAPTIST]
(THIS IS ALL THE AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION) ACTS 2:
1And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place. 2And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them. 4And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
AND NOTICE PETER SAID DEFENDING HIS BAPTIZING IN WATER IN 11TH CHAPTER OF
ACTS:12And the Spirit bade me go with them, making no distinction. And these six brethren also accompanied me; and we entered into the man’s house: 13and he told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, Send to Joppa, and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14who shall speak unto thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house. 15And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. 16And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. AND HE TELLS US THAT THIS IS THE SAME BEFELL THEM AT PENTECOST AND REFERS BACK TO THE EVENT DESCRIBED…HERE
ACTS 10:–THIS CLARIFIES THAT THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE BAPTISM WITH WATER AND HAVING IT BEFORE OR AFTER IS NO MATTER BUT FROM THE LORD WHETHER BY LAYING ON OF HANDS OR NOT
44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. 45And they of the circumcision [THE JEWS–MY CLARIFICATION] that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
NO DOUBT I COULD BE BRIEFER–YOU MUST READ TO UNDERSTAND AND NOT RELY ON CLIPPING BY ANOTHER BUT WILL NOT “RECOGNIZE THIS” LIKELY WITHOUT HAVING EXPERIENCED IT…YET…
<3+
G
guanophore
Guest
It is difficult for me to discern which text belongs to whom, so please forgive me if I attribute something wrong.
In this way, it is just like what happened to the Apostles’ in the upper room. They had already been baptized, sealed with Holy Orders by Christ, but not until the fire of the HS came upon them some time later could they actually experience and live out their baptism and Holy Orders.
Another is that Jesus and the Apostles’ taught that we are born again in baptism, and that it is right to baptize infants. Now one expects infants to manifest those signs.
Another is that the concept of “born again” is connected with many heresies, including the rejection of infant baptism as valid. It is commonly used in non-Catholic ecclesial communities in an effort to invalidate and repudiate the sacramental life of the Church founded by Christ. This is nothing new, and has been going on since before the Reformation (at least 600 years). It is connected with the Anabaptist tradition that rejected the grace of the sacraments.
We would say that the graces you received in baptism and confirmation as an infant and a child have come to fruition and been released in your life. Some people have many expereinces like this, some have none. Reading the life of Mother Teresa, she describes the majority of her life as dry and desolate. Yet no one would doubt that she acted according to the grace of God all her life.
Yes I thought the same thing when I read that statement. I think that the renewed zeal is because of the personal encounter with the HS and the zeal that is activated. If what DebChris is trying to say is that their identity and vocation as a priest demonstrates renewed zeal, then I understand it that way too. This is the case with all the sacraments. People expereince renewed zeal for scripture, the eucharist, and are more effective in their confirmation and marital sacraments as well. It is as if the grace bestowed in Holy Orders, and these other sacraments, comes alive in the HS.
In this way, it is just like what happened to the Apostles’ in the upper room. They had already been baptized, sealed with Holy Orders by Christ, but not until the fire of the HS came upon them some time later could they actually experience and live out their baptism and Holy Orders.
This is not an accurate (and hence not Catholic) perspective. We believe that when Jesus makes a statement, it is true. When He says “this is my Body” we believe He speaks true. When He says “you must be born from above by water and Spirit”, it is true. Our felt experience or what our senses tell us is irrelevant. Today the gospel was about Jesus talking about eating his Body and drinking His Blood. Many disciples left him because they could not receive the saying. The Apostles could not understand it either, but remained with Him because He has the words of eternal life. We believe that spiritual events occur that we cannot see because Jesus says they do.
There are authentic physical signs of the outpouring of grace, but the grace is not dependent upon these. Not everyone who is filled with the Spirit does these things, and it is not necessary that they have such an expereince for the grace of God to be validly given and received. Such a perspective is a heresy.
There are many reasons for that. One is what you have suggested here, that an authentic spiritual expereince must be physically visible to the participant or to the observer. It may or may not be.
Another is that Jesus and the Apostles’ taught that we are born again in baptism, and that it is right to baptize infants. Now one expects infants to manifest those signs.
Another is that the concept of “born again” is connected with many heresies, including the rejection of infant baptism as valid. It is commonly used in non-Catholic ecclesial communities in an effort to invalidate and repudiate the sacramental life of the Church founded by Christ. This is nothing new, and has been going on since before the Reformation (at least 600 years). It is connected with the Anabaptist tradition that rejected the grace of the sacraments.
Glory to God!
We would say that the graces you received in baptism and confirmation as an infant and a child have come to fruition and been released in your life. Some people have many expereinces like this, some have none. Reading the life of Mother Teresa, she describes the majority of her life as dry and desolate. Yet no one would doubt that she acted according to the grace of God all her life.
It is my prayer that all experience the zeal for the Word of God that you and I have experienced. It was that zeal, and the study you describe here, that let me back from 20 years in Protestant ecclesial communities to the Church founded by Christ.
This is the same attitude we have toward Catholics who have not yet understood and apprehended the grace of their baptism. We believe they were sealed in the HS because this is what the Word of God tells us. We pray that the fruits might be made manifest in their lives.
T
THEYEHOVAH
Guest
while you might think of it as clarifying: The above statement does more to confuse–by requiring readers to memorize more terms which they must understand to communicate clearly; catholic believers act like a club who get so familiar that they start using initials for everything so that outsiders have no idea what they are talking about; however–our mission is to bring outsiders in! Outsiders are going to be trying to identify us as legitimate! They were searching the scriptures to see “whether these things were true”! That was how the bereans [sp] received the apostles–and were praised!
So they will search the scriptures–jesus qualified himself by the scriptures properly interpreted–and not recognize us! Why: “charism”…
This is like using “nypd” and expecting a yugoslavian to know that in english that stands for “new york police department”… We might know we are speaking the language of the first church because we are the first church if we are in the first church legitimately but cannot assume everyone will know and have to state outright what matches bible terms by which people know us who are not yet believers and making sure we jive with the word of god…
Use the language of the bible–familiarize yourself with the bible and speak about these things the bible way! Stop trying to match yourself to the tradition about these things and explaining the tradition explaining the truth; explain the truth!!! People do not need the explanation of the explanation; you be the explanation–explaining the truth. The bible–anointing and gifts; use those terms… If you are familiar with club-eze then find what club-ezes stand for in the bible! Use those–bible–terms… This goes for all catholics; your power is in your ability to use the word first by demonstration rather than your explanation of it because the word itself has power–so it says! No one is interested what we have to say–we want what god has to say… Yes: I know i am wordy–see!!!
BY THE WAY–THANKS TO IANGE AND I THINK WE STARTED A NEW THREAD? <3+
T
THEYEHOVAH
Guest
confirming belief is not the same as receiving the baptism of the holy spirit–which is the baptism john foretold given by the lord! The disciples believed: They later received the baptism of the holy spirit… They were already disciples! They had not received the anointing. Infants have received the water. They have yet to receive the belief and they have yet to confirm the belief in front of witnesses and they have still yet to receive the holy-spirit baptism…which is different!
We do not just “believe” dogma and the word match–they must match and we do not blindly accept without checking that they do; we do not “believe” we have received the baptism of the holy spirit… It is impossible not to know! If you do not know then you did not receive! Jesus said…ask. That is a command. <3+
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
PATENT NONSENSE. Cite your sources…including the basic documents and who did the translations. This is nothing more than Evangelical Christian pap, and I think you are sailing under false colors calling yourself Catholic. Any member of the Catholic Church who has been properly catachised would never make the statements you do-even if only for arguments sake!
J
jmcrae
Guest
The only reason marriage would be denied you in the Catholic Church would be, a) the parties to the marriage are not Catholic, or b) one of the parties is already married - or c) you are attempting to marry your close relative or god parent/sponsor.Nope, I quote something close to my heart from
*Matthew 19:3-9
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”[a]*
The RC church doesn’t accept the word of Christ from a key witness, particular reference to point 9; otherwise I would of been able to marry in a RC church
These are the “sexual immorality” to which Jesus is referring. If your spouse cheated on you during the marriage, this is the “for worse” that you promised when you said, “In sickness and in health, for better or for worse, until death us do part.”
D
DebChris
Guest
The Catholic Church teaches that Sacraments are “efficaceious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us by the work of the Holy Spirit.”
What I should have written is that the zeal of the Charismatic priest comes from the Sacrament of Holy Orders. That would have it kept the thought better in line with my previous statements. The gifts (charisms) that we have received by virtue of the Sacraments we received are activited by the “Release of the Holy Spirit,” also called “Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” in our lives.
One way of looking at this is by seeing Sacraments as the gifts they are. When given a gift, we have several choices. We can put the gift on a closet shelf; we can open the gift and admire what we have received; or we can use the gift. With the “Release of the Holy Spirit,” we take our gifts off the shelf and begin to put them to use for the building up of God’s kingdom. We allow Christ to more fully live in our lives. As John the Baptist says, “I must decrease that He might increase.”
G
guanophore
Guest
Not really. No one is compelled to come here to “memorize terms”. When people of different faith traditions come together as they do here to discuss their faith, it is helpful to clarify what is meant by the terms being used, because many of us have different meanings attached to the same terms. If these differences are not made clear, misunderstanding will occur. This is the case whether the discussion is about religion, or any other topic. Scientists need to do this all the time.
If it is any consolation, I am a cradle Catholic and never encountered many of these alphabet soups till I came here to CAF. I don’t want you to think that the learning curve for online discussion is any different for Catholics than it is non-Catholics!
Your previous comments indicate that you are the one who feels like an “outsider” on a Catholic forum. Who are “us”? What does it mean to be “legitimate”?
You hit that nail on the head. What made the Bereans more noble was the attitude with which they received the Apostolic Teaching. This is a far cry from most moderns who claim to be noble as the Bereans, yet begin by rejecting and villfying the Apostolic Tradition.
I think you lost me there.
It is easy to search the scriptures, apart from the Apostolic faith, and be unable to identify the Source of them. Many people who search the Scriptures very sincerely today do not recognize the Church that produced them.
You may not realize this, but modern believers have changed the definitions of many biblical terms to the extent that the writers of the books would not recognize them. The reading of the Scriptures often takes place out of context. The context of the New Testament is the Catholic Church. The 27 books that comprise it were written by, for, and about Catholics. It is impossible to understand their contents properly when they are removed from the Catholic faith that produced them.
What you are saying is that the bible should be read and understood according to your perspective. I know you believe it is “the bible way”, but the bible does not interpret itself. Interpretation is the activity of a thinking mind, so everyone who reads the Bible understands and interprets it according to their experience and education (or lack of it).
The Apostles taught that the Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Tradition are not to be separated from one another, and that the two together compose the fullness of Divine Revelation. It is entirely appropriate that we should “try to match” ourselves with the Sacred Tradition, because it is the Word of God.
It is true that we need to live our faith and exemplify it, but this does not require replacing the Teaching of the Apostles with our own ideas.
I find it presumptuous of you to come to a Catholic forum and instruct Catholics in how to believe and express their faith. “This goes for all Catholics”. Honestly! When did the Sacred college of cardinals announce the death of the Pope, and elect you to replace him?
You might want to consider reading the forum rules before you post more. It is not appropriate to come here for the purpose of making converts to your own faith.
G
guanophore
Guest
It is possible that you may not understand what the nature of sacramental confirmation really is. Your posts sound like you may be a poorly catechized Catholic who has left the church for an evangelical bible based community. You are right, infants may not have a felt experience of the HS, although John the Baptist did while he met Jesus within his mother’s womb.
We understand the Scripture differently, of course. We believe that Jesus creates by His own word, and that what He calls into being becomes real. For that reason, when he told the Apostles “receive the Holy Spirit”, they did, at that moment, receive Him. The power of the HS was not released within them until the day of Pentecost. In the same way, when infants are baptized, they are born again through wanter and Spirit. When they are older, they cna choose to recieve the Power of the HS. The Apostles never separated the HS from the water, so we do not do so either. This is a modern innovation.
It sounds like you are basing your faith on your own experience, and your own perceptions. Your own personal human knowlege is what tells you something spiritual has happened, and if your own human senses don’t confirm it, then it did not happen. You have replaced the revelation of God with your own human perceptions.
You are also saying that the statements of Jesus mean nothing, unless they match with your own perceptions and expereince. You have made your own opinion the standard, rather than what God has revealed to mankind.
G
guanophore
Guest
It is true that the Authority to teach comes from Jesus, but there is much more to it than “to any who believe on Him”. From the time of the NT, teachers are an office to which one is confirmed by the laying on of hands (ordiination). Yes, all the ministries and offices are callings from God, but they are also commissioned for their duties by the authority that Jesus placed over His Church. You are also right that “oaths of obedience to Rome are not good enough”. Many who have been ordained sin against God, the Church, and humanilty despite their oaths. Unfortunately, none of this behavior invalidates their calling, or their ordinaiton.In fact, the situation is made much worse because they have been authorized by the Church.
Clearly by the number of your posts, this is not “nuff said”.
We are all called to live out the great comission, but not all of us are called to the same ministry of office. You seem to have a very anti-Catholic perspective for a person who claims to be Catholic.
M
muffindell
Guest
I fail to see how something stated that is clear as ‘sexual immorality’ can be in any way translated into ‘invalid marriage’ and is not a reference to sexual immorality that occurs after the marriage (adultery), as you nicely put it. Sorry, I just cannot understand how the church can read a witness statement and say something totally different, another agenda is in play here:shrug:.
I
IanGE
Guest
I
This is not an accurate (and hence not Catholic) perspective. We believe that when Jesus makes a statement, it is true. When He says “this is my Body” we believe He speaks true. When He says “you must be born from above by water and Spirit”, it is true. Our felt experience or what our senses tell us is irrelevant. We believe that spiritual events occur that we cannot see because Jesus says they do.
All those who have given their LIVES to Jesus - of whatever creed - obviously believe whatever Jesus says.
There are authentic physical signs of the outpouring of grace, but the grace is not dependent upon these. Not everyone who is filled with the Spirit does these things, and it is not necessary that they have such an expereince for the grace of God to be validly given and received. Such a perspective is a heresy.
At the end of Mark, Jesus appears to the eleven and says: “Go into the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever BELIEVES and is BAPTISED will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. AND THESE SIGNS SHALL ACCOMPANY THOSE WHO BELIEVE: In MY NAME they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues…They will lay hands on the sick and they will recover.”
After that, Jesus ascended into Heaven. “Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and CONFIRMED HIS WORD BY THE SIGNS THAT ACCOMPANIED IT.”
If you believe the Word of God to be true, then the signs seem to be obligatory. You must also believe that, to be saved, a person should BELIEVE and then be baptised. Of course, my infant baptism was a gift of my mother to God and she stood in for the infant me and believed FOR me by proxy. In our charismatic groups we often ask someone to stand in for an absent sick person and lay hands on the proxy. With God EVERYTHING is possible!
PS I seem to recall somewhere in my school catechism that we are allowed to “follow our consciences”? I’m sure the experts will shoot that down.
Another is that Jesus and the Apostles’ taught that we are born again in baptism, and that it is right to baptize infants. Now one expects infants to manifest those signs.
This is the same attitude we have toward Catholics who have not yet understood and apprehended the grace of their baptism. We believe they were sealed in the HS because this is what the Word of God tells us. We pray that the fruits might be made manifest in their lives.
M
MarMax
Guest
16 pages… sorry, I’m not reading every single post and dissecting each post as if I know for sure what each poster means by each term, philosophical background, etc; perhaps I’m repeating something someone else has said… or not.
The Bible: what does it mean to teach FROM the Bible? Well, in terms of the Catholic Church, which is the Church Christ founded, we must understand two things:
So, if you were to dig into grandma’s old cedar chest, and found all grandpa’s letters over the years, would you be able to decipher much of the little things, and even more importantly, understand the context? Possibly, if grandpa was a complete simpleton, not romantic, and essentially a total bore of a husband. But Our Lord, Christ, The Word, the HUSBAND is not only so multifaceted it takes this word called “eternal” to describe Him, but He is also the most romantic husband ever (seriously, died for His Bride in the most horrific way ever to bring about children like [hopefully] you and me), but also is most awesome and definitely NOT boring. Have you seen a sunset, closed your eyes and smelled the spring, or heard the harmony of notes together? Yeah, He made all that. So, you’d kinda expect the letters, combined in a book, to be necessarily interpreted by the Bride: aka the Catholic Church.
Now, if you asked Grandma to interpret the letters, or rather, read them to you, it might result in a totally different understanding than you, or another, reading them and trying to put together this story of grandpa and grandma. Duh.
What does St. John tell us first? He recaps the first few words of the book of Genesis:
In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God.
But wait… was? Don’t you mean IS? Yeah. But we’re now dealing with an eternal concept in time. And who/what is the linear/time-based symbol of God? Israel. And what was promised in Jeremiah 31:31? A New Covenant. And what does Romans 11 say about Israel? And what does Matthew 16 say about this New Covenant’s leader? And what entity on earth has the successor of this leader? And who, then, is really the only qualified entity to teach about the word of the Word?
The Catholic Church is the only qualified entity, who, in Her Glory via that of Her Husband (ya know, the whole 2 become 1 thing), explains this awesome, giant love letter called the Holy Bible which is all about the unfathomable love of God after our physical first parents (Adam and Eve) screwed up in direct contradiction to orders not to do so passing on Original Sin. <<
It’s beautiful, actually. But I didn’t get it until I listened to the Wife of the Husband.
The Bible: what does it mean to teach FROM the Bible? Well, in terms of the Catholic Church, which is the Church Christ founded, we must understand two things:
- The Church is the Bride of Christ.
- The Church, being the Bride, is joined (2 become 1) to Christ, which is the understanding of No Salvation Outside the Church-- being the Mystical Body of Christ.
a) the Husband is visibly “away”, leaving the wife in charge.
b) the Husband is present, in a manner unseen vis-a-vis the Blessed Sacrament.
c) Not a single legitimate child can be the result of adultery or polygamy insofar as this example; ALL salvation is THROUGH the Church, which is to say through Christ (CCC#846): this is where it gets all abstract and nuanced, and the physical, earthly examples become rather deficient lest we end up with Feeneyism or the more modern, and lacking, misunderstanding that people can be saved BY their false religions rather than merely IN them. (See Baltimore Catechism #3 Questions 510-513, Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X Questions 27-29, and for the uber-traddy lurkers: Chapter 10 of Open Letter to Confused Catholics by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre.)
So, if you were to dig into grandma’s old cedar chest, and found all grandpa’s letters over the years, would you be able to decipher much of the little things, and even more importantly, understand the context? Possibly, if grandpa was a complete simpleton, not romantic, and essentially a total bore of a husband. But Our Lord, Christ, The Word, the HUSBAND is not only so multifaceted it takes this word called “eternal” to describe Him, but He is also the most romantic husband ever (seriously, died for His Bride in the most horrific way ever to bring about children like [hopefully] you and me), but also is most awesome and definitely NOT boring. Have you seen a sunset, closed your eyes and smelled the spring, or heard the harmony of notes together? Yeah, He made all that. So, you’d kinda expect the letters, combined in a book, to be necessarily interpreted by the Bride: aka the Catholic Church.
Now, if you asked Grandma to interpret the letters, or rather, read them to you, it might result in a totally different understanding than you, or another, reading them and trying to put together this story of grandpa and grandma. Duh.
What does St. John tell us first? He recaps the first few words of the book of Genesis:
In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God.
But wait… was? Don’t you mean IS? Yeah. But we’re now dealing with an eternal concept in time. And who/what is the linear/time-based symbol of God? Israel. And what was promised in Jeremiah 31:31? A New Covenant. And what does Romans 11 say about Israel? And what does Matthew 16 say about this New Covenant’s leader? And what entity on earth has the successor of this leader? And who, then, is really the only qualified entity to teach about the word of the Word?
The Catholic Church is the only qualified entity, who, in Her Glory via that of Her Husband (ya know, the whole 2 become 1 thing), explains this awesome, giant love letter called the Holy Bible which is all about the unfathomable love of God after our physical first parents (Adam and Eve) screwed up in direct contradiction to orders not to do so passing on Original Sin. <<
It’s beautiful, actually. But I didn’t get it until I listened to the Wife of the Husband.
K
kkollwitz
Guest
From the original post:
“I think the teachers should stress reading the Bible and actually understanding why we do things and where we got them from, instead of reviewing what to do at confirmation everyday.”
I agree completely. If it’s any comfort to you, I have been teaching Catholic Sunday School using the Bible as the textbook for a couple of years now. This September begins my 3rd year of doing so.
“I think the teachers should stress reading the Bible and actually understanding why we do things and where we got them from, instead of reviewing what to do at confirmation everyday.”
I agree completely. If it’s any comfort to you, I have been teaching Catholic Sunday School using the Bible as the textbook for a couple of years now. This September begins my 3rd year of doing so.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Don’t you think it is sexually immoral to attempt marriage with a close relative, or with someone who has already been married before, or with someone whose spiritual values are so completely different from your own that you have to marry them on neutral ground, instead of with your home community?
G
Godfollower
Guest
Well, keep in mind that the penalty for adultery at the time was death by stoning. The idea that Jesus was tell His Jewish listeners “Moses let you have divorces whenever you want, for any reason, but what I say you you is that you cannot have divorce at all (well, except for adultery)” doesn’t make sense. Anyone who could satisfy the rabbinical courts that adultery had occurred wouldn’t need to give a bill of divorce, because remarriage was permitted to widows and widowers.
I’m not sure what you’re addressing here, so I can only comment generally that no tribunal – ecclesiastical or civil – is required to believe every witness statement it receives. If that were true, every plaintiff would always win; and so would every defendant. I’ve won cases in American courts where my client’s testimony was the only thing going against all the documents. Any tribunal can only find what it believes to be the truth. In most court cases, that means someone loses despite evidence in that person’s favor.
I’m sorry you’re hurting for whatever happened. I pray that you find peace (or, if you already have, that you continue in God’s peace).
I
IanGE
Guest
I checked Muffindell’s reference in the Greek Testament; interestingly, Jesus says "except for “porneia”, which Zonderman translates as “fornication”. “Adultery” is another word altogether, “moichattai” The mind boggleth!Nope, I quote something close to my heart from
*Matthew 19:3-9
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality/]*, and marries another, commits adultery.”[a]
The RC church doesn’t accept the word of Christ from a key witness, particular reference to point 9; otherwise I would of been able to marry in a RC church
However, take heart, brother: the church may grant you an annulment. I stayed unmarried for some 30 years because my wife divorced me. My confessor (the priest who baptised me in the Holy Spirit - whatever you want to call it) said, “you can get an annulment, Ian; apply and leave it in the hands of The Father.”. Anne and I (in our sixties!) married in our Catholic church. My eldest daughter, a Methodist Minister, complained “does that make us bastards!” I was stumped, but she forgave me!
- Status