For You; seeking opinions

[MartinJordan]

Ahh, I always knew Catholics believed they had a special power to look into men’s souls and know their intermost thoughts.

Or perhaps you alone have this “ability”:shrug.

Now according to you…you 'attack" the person who can’t accept your beleifs because…why?

I do got to the Communtiy of Believers…each First Day…as a community…as a “society” we experience His Presence in our midst…as I’m sure your community does…He is the Same Lord and Saviour…He makes Himself known thur the means we are able to embrace Him…His Love and Mercy is deeper…more profound than we can conceive of…He will be with those when "two or three are gathered together in His name…“He is in their midst”…is He not? he gave no qualifiers other than “in my Name”. We have much more than “two or three” in the Meeting I attend.

Why? Who attacked who? Go and learn from St. Paul.

BTW it’s not my own belief. It is the Church that has nourished me with Jesus’ teachings.

Perhaps Ive been a tad bit defensive but I can’t help it as my family and generations has been Catholic for 500 years. I apologize if you take it as an attack.

Peace.

MJ

 

[adrift]

“Eucharist” means thanksgiving…Friends give thanks each First Day for the Light Within revealed and experienced in our lives…and the lives of “every man” Where in the Didache does it mention “blood”? Where in the Didache does it mention “flesh” being confected? Where in the Didache are the words 'This is my body…this is my blood" occure?

Eucharist has more than one meaning.
Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way.
Obviously they are using Eucharist to mean the last supper. It wasn’t a dissertation
on what the Eucharist is but how to give thanks for the Eucharist.

I noticed you ignored my question.

Your questions are meaningless but if you want to pursue that avenue where does it say anything about the Eucharist accept how to give thanks? Absence of comment means nothing.

 

[adrift]

Though his repines is a bit course, I can vouch that Publisher has a history of kindness on these forums.

Exactly why I was surprised and why I didn’t report it. As I have already stated, he could have made his point without being disrespectful.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I still don’t see a validity in negation of the Eucharist historically.

St Ignatius of Antioch- “Give ear the Bishop and Presbytery with an undivided mind. breaking one Bread. which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Christ” Letter to the Ephesians 110-AD

The Didache provides source also but I do not see where its dated prior to 140-AD. Nor where it does anything but coincide with Apostolic teaching. It is argued it is witten in 40-60 AD but not proven. Ignatius is a fact.

4,14- Confess your offenses in Church.

9, 1- In regard to the Eucharist- you shall give thanks thus: First in regard to the cup: We give you thanks. our Father, for the Holy vine of David your son, which you have made known to us through Jesus your Son. Glory be to your forever. In regard to the broken Bread: We give you thanks Our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have made known to us through Jesus your Son. Glory be to You forever.

As this broken bread was scattered on the mountains, but brought together was made one, so gather Your Church, from the ends of the earth into Your Kingdom. For your is the Glory and the Power though Jesus Christ. Let no one eat or drink of the Eucharist with you except those who have been Baptized.

14, 1- On the day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so the your sacrifice may be pure.

I don’t see the argument but in semantics. De-facto, historically and in reality. Where is the other side of the argument historically?

“The Didache basically describes the same ritual as the one that took place in Corinth/Paul The order of cup and bread differs both from present-day Christian practice and from that in the New Testament accounts of the Last Supper, of which, again unlike almost all present-day Eucharistic celebrations, the Didache makes no mention.” [wiki-pedia]

Nevertheless its does mention the Eucharist and the practice, it’s taking a liberty to suggest what it doesn’t state. Its does state this is the practice which is consistent to NT, the Church in time and today. No-where does it state disregard this and just believe in Christs saving power, very much on the contrary.

 

[PJM]

=Publisher;10679851]Friend I am not trying to “insult” you…but answer the question of the OP…go back and readi it.

As far as the “hypothetical priest” point…do you deny that a priests moral and religous standing has nothing at all to do with them being able to “confect” the sacrament? Even if a priest has become an athiest…or an “unrepentat child molester” or a “uncelibate” priest who beds a deifferent woman every night, he still is able to speak the ‘special words’ of consecration and confect the sacrament…is this not so? A totallly bereft priest who has no belief what soever in what he is doing can still confect the sacraments? Is that not so? How could such a priest stand “in Christ’s stead” when his life is 180 degrees oppsite of Christ in every way? Is this not Catholic teaching? Please…answer…this is one of the things I can’t get my mind around…in answer to the OP’s question…I have answered…if I have not been gentle enough perhaps the OP should withdraw their questin since an honest straight forward answer is not acceptable.

We’d have to have specific information on a case by case basis to answer precisely.

Please try to understand the dynamatics of the Priesthood and the Eucharist.

First: IF a priest was known to do all that you suggest; he would be taken out oc circulation; counciled, and closely watched. IF he did not change it is extremely likely that his “Powers” and “authority” would be recinded Mt.16:19 and he could no-longer LICITLY say the Mass or participate in any other Sacrament in a “preistly role.”

That said: Like Baptism and Confirmation; Ordination DOES leave God’s permnant mark on the Soul.

The Eucharist is:

FROM God the Father

OF Jesus the Son

BY God the Holy Spirit through His priest.**

** **Theologically this means:

That God “Cannot” do this without HIS Priest & The Priest certainly cannot do it without God’s direct and personal intervention each and every time. Which BTW, applies to every Sacrament **

It is this “God’s absoutley participation” in each and every sacrament that your missing.

A year or so ago I was in a deep discusiion with a local Baptist Minister and his son. The Conversation was back and forth until the minister asked: DO YOU [ME] BELIEVE GOD USES SINFUL MEN."

I had never been asked that; or given it much though; so my answer was very [too quickly I might add]YES!.. They shook thier heads and left. End of discussion.

I puzzled and prayerd about this; trying to figure out what “hot button” I had hit or missed? I’m STILL not sure I have a FULL understanding of what happened.

From a Catolic perspectice; we UNDERSTAND that man’s “BASE” nature is prone to sin.

ALL MEN have; and ALL men do sin [except Mary; Chrisr Mother]
1 Jn.1:8-10 " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.**If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. **

SO; Abram, Noe, Moses, Aaron. David; Soloman; the kings and Prophets ALL were sinners. As were Peter and ALL of the Apostles; EVERY Pope, priest and Religious and Saint. SO THEN WHY THE “air” of superiority

IF GOD DID NOT USE “sinful men” HE WOULD HAVE TO DO EVERTHING IN PERSON. … SO THIS CONTINUES TO BE A POINT OF PUZZLEMENT FOR ME.

Notablly: each of the men I specified REPENTED; CONVERTED and went on to live Exemplar lives so far as we know.

It’s ignorant to deny men sin: Its what men do with their sins that God cares about. Amen? Amen!

Luke 15:7
I say to you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance.

2 Luke 15:10
So I say to you, there shall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance.

3 John 9:25
He said therefore to them: If he be a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.

I hope this, in small small manner will get you past this issue on which you seek to be “stuck?”

God Bless you,
Pat /PJM

 

[aidanbradypop]

“For you”
Are there any convoluted, difficult beliefs or practices of the CC?

What are they ann WHY?

Hey Pat,

When I convert some 15 yrs ago, I had a hard time with prayers to the Saints. I was not against it, but rather just felt more comfortable with praying to God through Christ. I felt as if I was betraying Christ with St. Patrick or St. James. I never had an issue with The Blessed Mother. As time went by, I came more aware of what exactly the prayers to the Saints meant.

I believe a better RCIA is needed with converts to teach them the teachings of the Church. Sept to Easter is not really long enough IMHO.

Dustin

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Pat,

We can’t emphasize on 1 John 1:8-10 enough!

1 John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

He includes himself in this equation.

We also can’t ignore:

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

John21:24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Thanks to these “men” that Jesus chose, we have the blessing of a direct line of witnesses to “know” that their testimony is true, living today in the Catholic Church.

A fact and truth that is trampled to the ground by ignorance and hate.

 

[FoundGodOutside]

“Quaker” is a name given to us by those who sought to shame us…we called them to “Quake in the power of the Lord”…so “Quaker” fit…we call ourselves “Friends” because Jesus did…“Up to now, I have called you servants, but now, I call you friends”…so while not every “friend” is a Quaker…every “friend” is a friend.

California Yearly Meeting had a “slogan”…Did you ever meet a Quaker and find out he was a Friend?"

In the first chapter of John there is a verse that has been called the “Quaker verse”…There is a Light coming into the world which enlightens every man"…we each share in the same Light Within.

I know Friend and I hope you understood I meant no offense. I just noticed you used “Quaker” in your religion profile. And actually all I was trying to convey is I think it’s great that Friends embrace other believers as being members of the same Body. Peace.

 

[butbob]

Did you know that Christians have not always been called “Christians”?

The earliest apprentices of Jesus only became know by this title later in the first century A.D. in the large, ethnically diverse, Syrian capital of Antioch (Acts 11:26).

It’s even likely that the term “Christian” was used by Antioch’s general population as a derogatory name for these followers of Jesus. The title of “Christians” was given because this group of Jews and Gentiles were followers of Jesus, whom they believed to be the Christos, meaning “the anointed one,” or the Messiah.

Throughout the pages of the New Testament these earliest of believers seemed to select other names for themselves like “saints,” “brothers,” and “disciples.” However, in referring to what and who they were following, the earliest self-description we know of is followers of “the Way” (Acts 9:2; 11:26). And this description has no little significance. In describing what we call “Christianity” today as “The Way,” these first followers of Jesus made a radical claim about the person and work of Jesus.

Torah As ‘The Way’

The Hebrew people (and their own Scriptures) have employed the word “Torah” to describe not only the first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), but also the entire collection of 39 books which make up the Old Testament.

And while English translators often bring the Hebrew word “Torah” over into English Bibles as “decrees,” “judgments,” “commands,” or simply “law,” there’s a much more holistic understanding of Torah. Torah is God’s self-revelation given to humanity. And it conveys much more than just true principles and propositions (though it does contain that too).

Torah has been classically understood by the Hebrew people as laying out the way in which Israel might experience human flourishing. The book of Proverbs displays a constant refrain to the recipient (“my son”) to embrace the particular path of wisdom (the way) being passed down in order that he might experience full life (human flourishing). So, Torah, or God’s Word, comes to be viewed as the singular way in which Israel was to live in order to experience human flourishing. “So,” you might ask, “what does this have to do with the name which the early Christians chose for themselves?”

Jesus As ‘The Way’
Think about how radical to the Jewish mind it was when Jesus of Nazareth stated, “I am the way and the truth and the life.

No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him” (Jn 14:6-7). Jesus was putting himself on the same level as Torah.

He asserted that only as one accessed God the Father through the person of Jesus could one expect to have a relationship with the Father. He daringly maintained that our human flourishing could only be realized by coming in contact with him.

You see, this is one primary way in which Jesus differentiates himself from other religious leaders/thinkers (Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad, Moses, etc.). Such religious icons claim to be “way-showers” or “signposts.” That is, they point away from themselves and to the end or goal of human flourishing. But none claims to actually be “the way”, in and of himself. As John Stott writes in his classic book “Basic Christianity,” “[Jesus] was not just another signpost, but the destination to which the signposts had led.” So, in the midst of the common “way-shower” model of religious leading, Jesus comes along and boasts quite dramatically that, (1) all human sins are, at their root, a sin against himself (Mk 2:1-12; Lk 7:36-50), and that (2) he will return at the end of time to be the final judge of all human beings, and that the nature of their judgment will be dependent on how people have responded to himself (Jn 5:22, 28, 29; Mt 25:31-46). It can’t easily be doubted then that Jesus saw himself as ‘the Way’ to God and therefore, the way to human flourishing.

Jesus’ Apprentices as Followers of ‘The Way’
These first Jewish “Christians” then, understood Jesus to be equal with, even superior to, in function, Torah—God’s self-revelation to humanity. This is what prompts Jesus’ closest follower, John, in his Gospel to write, “In the beginning was the Word [logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . .The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” (Jn 1:1, 14). Jesus is the divine logos, the true Torah, who makes God the Father known not just in his words or declarations, but in his very personal presence. He is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Heb 1:3), only because “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him [Jesus], and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Col 1:19, 20).

This is why Christians, or followers of the Way, have the most highly exalted view of Jesus possible. It would be inappropriate, even blasphemous, to offer worship to a mere mortal creature. But what about this Jesus, the God-man? What are we to make of one who, claiming to be “the gate,” then asserts that “all who ever came before me,” and all who “climb in by some other way” are “thieves and robbers” (Jn 10:1-10)? What other response besides worship and adoration is appropriate for the One who was “before all things, and in [whom] all things hold together” (Col 1:17)? To be a “Christian,” Jesus’ contemporaries understood, means nothing more and nothing less than throwing one’s entire life in to follow, and be identified with, the one who is the only door into which anyone may enter human fulfillment and flourishing. To be a Christian, for us too then, is to recognize that Jesus is quite simply, the only Way.

 

[butbob]

We’d have to have specific information on a case by case basis to answer precisely.

Please try to understand the dynamatics of the Priesthood and the Eucharist.

First: IF a priest was known to do all that you suggest; he would be taken out oc circulation; counciled, and closely watched. IF he did not change it is extremely likely that his “Powers” and “authority” would be recinded Mt.16:19 and he could no-longer LICITLY say the Mass or participate in any other Sacrament in a “preistly role.”

That said: Like Baptism and Confirmation; Ordination DOES leave God’s permnant mark on the Soul.

The Eucharist is:

FROM God the Father

OF Jesus the Son

BY God the Holy Spirit through His priest.**

** **Theologically this means:

That God “Cannot” do this without HIS Priest & The Priest certainly cannot do it without God’s direct and personal intervention each and every time. Which BTW, applies to every Sacrament **

It is this “God’s absoutley participation” in each and every sacrament that your missing.

A year or so ago I was in a deep discusiion with a local Baptist Minister and his son. The Conversation was back and forth until the minister asked: DO YOU [ME] BELIEVE GOD USES SINFUL MEN."

I had never been asked that; or given it much though; so my answer was very [too quickly I might add]YES!.. They shook thier heads and left. End of discussion.

I puzzled and prayerd about this; trying to figure out what “hot button” I had hit or missed? I’m STILL not sure I have a FULL understanding of what happened.

From a Catolic perspectice; we UNDERSTAND that man’s “BASE” nature is prone to sin.

ALL MEN have; and ALL men do sin [except Mary; Chrisr Mother]
1 Jn.1:8-10 " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.**If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. **

SO; Abram, Noe, Moses, Aaron. David; Soloman; the kings and Prophets ALL were sinners. As were Peter and ALL of the Apostles; EVERY Pope, priest and Religious and Saint. SO THEN WHY THE “air” of superiority

IF GOD DID NOT USE “sinful men” HE WOULD HAVE TO DO EVERTHING IN PERSON. … SO THIS CONTINUES TO BE A POINT OF PUZZLEMENT FOR ME.

Notablly: each of the men I specified REPENTED; CONVERTED and went on to live Exemplar lives so far as we know.

It’s ignorant to deny men sin: Its what men do with their sins that God cares about. Amen? Amen!

Luke 15:7
I say to you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance.

2 Luke 15:10
So I say to you, there shall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance.

3 John 9:25
He said therefore to them: If he be a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.

I hope this, in small small manner will get you past this issue on which you seek to be “stuck?”

God Bless you,
Pat /PJM

thanks PJM-- it’s interesting to ponder the difference betwee the truth and a lie in the CC triditions

Traditions can blind us from the truth and cause us to wander in the myopic fog of man-made religious systems for an entire lifetime.
Joinus on a journey “out of Babylon” and away from its pagan traditions to uncover long lost truths preserved in the Biblical record.

youtu.be/5GF5iRgYWpo

i do like the christion forum – it offers a greater understanding of what is the predominate questions that belivers are still trying to figure out–

but you are right-- the (Roman) catholic church has the more elaberate ceremonies that were created in “Jesus’s’” name-- – a little bit different than what is in the TORAH–

why would Jesus create a whole – new set of rules-- which is what todays’ catholic church is all about–

 

[PJM]

=aidanbradypop;10680998]Hey Pat,

When I convert some 15 yrs ago, I had a hard time with prayers to the Saints. I was not against it, but rather just felt more comfortable with praying to God through Christ. I felt as if I was betraying Christ with St. Patrick or St. James. I never had an issue with The Blessed Mother. As time went by, I came more aware of what exactly the prayers to the Saints meant.

I believe a better RCIA is needed with converts to teach them the teachings of the Church. Sept to Easter is not really long enough IMHO.

Dustin

Thanks!

we agree

That’s why I started a internet Ministry [FREE OF ALL COST] to do exactly that.

let me know if you have any questions; maybe I can be of help

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Publisher]

I know Friend and I hope you understood I meant no offense. I just noticed you used “Quaker” in your religion profile. And actually all I was trying to convey is I think it’s great that Friends embrace other believers as being members of the same Body. Peace.

No offense taken friend…yes…Friends embrace all who seek to “mind the Light” as “Friends”…we all aren’t “Quakers”…be we all certainly can be “Friends” in the manner Jesus called us friends.

 

[Publisher]

The tenth reading isn’t any better than the first. You weren’t just answering the OP you were being disrespectful. You used the words “magic words” when you could get the same thought across by saying the specific words must be used.
You said Even a priest in mortal sin living a leacherous life and denying the very God… Could have been stated as a priest in sin.
It isn’t that you gave your opinion but how.

Again you state your point in a most unchristian way. The answer to your question was decided long ago as another has already pointed out. No a priest doesn’t have to be perfect or sinless to carry out what Jesus commanded. Jesus knew the sinfulness of man and still He chose to have them represent Him.

If I have insulted you, I am sorry…it was not my intention…I intended to answer the question in a way that would pehaps allow you to understand not only the “why” but the “feeling” and “tenor” those Catholic beliefs evoke in me so that I find it impossible to embrace those beliefs…because for me that is how I view them…just like my views are “heretical” to you.

To what was decided “long ago”…my point would be I have no wish to go to someone who claims to “stand in the stead of Christ” who does not accept Him as Lord or lives a life that He intended of His People to live…he is outside of the household of faith IF he lives a life such as that…how can a man in “mortal sin” be “in Christ’s stead”? It makes no sense what so ever to me…I just can’t get my mind around it. I CAN HOWEVER approach the One who loves me and gave Himself for me and who’s life is the perfect reflection of the Father…and He is the Only One I can be sure of to stand in the Father’s Will and bring me to Him.