"If any one comes to me without hating his father and and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters..."???

[excubitor]

Once we start looking at things in these terms many things become very clear. Jesus said “No man can have two masters, either he will love the one and hate the other”. Therefore if we have families who are opposed to the church of to a life of holiness we have a choice. Who are we going to serve? The family of the Church with God as our father and the Church as our mother, of the earthly biological family? Of course we must love the former and hate the latter if they are opposed.

Our earthly biological families are a part of the World which is contrary to the Catholic church. Jesus said other things along these lines.
“he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal”

“19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts [2] of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful”

“what shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul”

Trust me. If we lose our eternal soul because we have allowed ourselves to be influenced by our earthly families then we will hate them with an eternal intensity for ever and ever in the fires of hell. Better to hate them now for a fleeting moment for the right reasons than to hate them for all eternity.

The apostle Jesus loved said this
15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Our earthly biological families are things that are in the world. The apostle says “Love not”. “Love not” is not the same thing as “Love less”. An absence of Love is hatred just like an absence of light is darkness and an absence of good is evil.

Now this is going to send many people into a tailspin, but hear me out. The apostle then goes on to say “He that doeth the will of God abides for ever”. What is the will of God? Well go to church, do your prayers, keep the commandments (INCLUDING HONOUR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER), provide for our families emotional and material needs.

So can we see what has happened here. We hate our anti-catholic families so that we may fully and entirely love the father, and then within this context of love for the Father and as an act of service to the Father we extend love an honour to our families. In this way our love toward our families becomes properly ordered. In fact it becomes properly ordered. It is in no way dependant on the family but is a free gift from the Father himself enlivened and empowered by the Holy Spirit. In fact in loving our families we are actually loving the Father.

To give an example. Let’s say a glutton who is addicted to food and his appetites. It would serve him well to foster a hatred for food and a love for prayer. He would devote himself to fasting and when eating live on bread and water. After a while he notices that his dependance on food is gone. He loves the Father, he then might start to eat other things but always to glorify the Father and honour God with his body. He can then properly love his food because he loves the Father more and is serving the Father by choosing wisely what and how much he eats. But in this scenario he does not love the food directly, he loves the Father directly and enjoys the bounties of God as a blessing from him with thanksgiving.

Families are no different to food. People can be addicted to their emotional attachments with family every bit as much as a glutton can be addicted to food. So we have to substitute a disordered “earthly love” directly given to families with an intense hatred for that “disordered earthly attachment” and a corresponding intense love for God and the Church. Then in loving God and the church and in service and love for God we serve him by giving love and affection to those around us.

So this principle applies to all earthly things, food, money, entertainments, pleasures, emotional dependancies, families. Everything of this physical life. We have to go through the process of hating and rejecting everything with prevents us from coming to Christ. If we don’t then we know that we are serving two masters.

Whatever we reject and hate God will restore a hundredfold. So we do not need to fear that God will leave us destitute without any emotional or physical support. He promises.
“Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.”

Sorry again but if you forsake your family then you are hating them. Forsake means "to give up or renounce (a habit, way of life, etc.). "

Therefore let everything be done in Christ’s name. Forsake your families if necessary for Christ’s name sake and he will give you a family back. Maybe even the same family that you forsook. A family who is accepting and encouraging of your faith instead of one that try’s to tear it down.

But most importantly you will have eternal life with God and the family of the Saints.

 

[Jimmy_B]

My dear friend, may the Peace of our Lord be with you. Let me offer you my humble (name removed by moderator)ut by sharing with you a personal experience. In the late 1970 I met her for the first time in our youth group. She had an internal beauty that permeated through her skin and my heart was never the same. We began to date while we were attending the university. In 1975 I married a gift from God, a humble but bold God fearing woman. By the year 1980 we already had three sons. She was always a very spiritual woman; my teacher, my mentor and my heroe. In 1996 we both agreed that it was God’s call for me to begin my diaconate formation. We joined the process with a heart overwhelmed with great joy and expectations. Two years later a heavy storm arrived into our life, my beloved wife was diagnosed with “cancer.” My heart was broken and I began to battle with my Lord.

We called our best spiritual friend, a member of our Charismatic prayer group, and we met at the church where we spent around 5 hours of intensive prayer in front of the Tabernacle. My spirit was in turmoil and my pain was destroying my whole being. It felt like I have been betrayed by my Lord. At the end of the night, when our prayer session was coming to an end, my friend received a message for me from the Lord. The Scripture says that the Light exposes the darkness. Well, in a blink of an eye the genuiness of my faith and trust in my Lord was being tested. This message, like a double edge sword, pierced my whole being. The Lord said to me***"My son, do you realize that Elaine and your children are a gift that I gave to you. From the begining, since the day I created you, you became my son and I became your Father. If I decide to take her away from you, are you still willing to serve me?***

I was ordained in 1999 and she went with her Lord, my Lord, in 2001. Sincerely, I believe this personal experience may help you to understand that scripture.

Wow, what a beautiful, moving, expression of love. Your love for your wife, Elaine and your love of our Lord. I am so sorry for your loss. I have been with the love of my life for 26 years now and feel very blessed. Thank for sharing a part of your heart with us and for your service to our Church and to God. Your experience, certainly puts this discussion into context. You’re a good man. May God bless you!

 

[Jimmy_B]

Once we start looking at things in these terms many things become very clear. Jesus said “No man can have two masters, either he will love the one and hate the other”. Therefore if we have families who are opposed to the church of to a life of holiness we have a choice. Who are we going to serve? The family of the Church with God as our father and the Church as our mother, of the earthly biological family? Of course we must love the former and hate the latter if they are opposed.

Our earthly biological families are a part of the World which is contrary to the Catholic church. Jesus said other things along these lines.
“he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal”

“19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts [2] of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful”

“what shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul”

Trust me. If we lose our eternal soul because we have allowed ourselves to be influenced by our earthly families then we will hate them with an eternal intensity for ever and ever in the fires of hell. Better to hate them now for a fleeting moment for the right reasons than to hate them for all eternity.

The apostle Jesus loved said this
15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Our earthly biological families are things that are in the world. The apostle says “Love not”. “Love not” is not the same thing as “Love less”. An absence of Love is hatred just like an absence of light is darkness and an absence of good is evil.

Now this is going to send many people into a tailspin, but hear me out. The apostle then goes on to say “He that doeth the will of God abides for ever”. What is the will of God? Well go to church, do your prayers, keep the commandments (INCLUDING HONOUR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER), provide for our families emotional and material needs.

So can we see what has happened here. We hate our anti-catholic families so that we may fully and entirely love the father, and then within this context of love for the Father and as an act of service to the Father we extend love an honour to our families. In this way our love toward our families becomes properly ordered. In fact it becomes properly ordered. It is in no way dependant on the family but is a free gift from the Father himself enlivened and empowered by the Holy Spirit. In fact in loving our families we are actually loving the Father.

To give an example. Let’s say a glutton who is addicted to food and his appetites. It would serve him well to foster a hatred for food and a love for prayer. He would devote himself to fasting and when eating live on bread and water. After a while he notices that his dependance on food is gone. He loves the Father, he then might start to eat other things but always to glorify the Father and honour God with his body. He can then properly love his food because he loves the Father more and is serving the Father by choosing wisely what and how much he eats. But in this scenario he does not love the food directly, he loves the Father directly and enjoys the bounties of God as a blessing from him with thanksgiving.

Families are no different to food. People can be addicted to their emotional attachments with family every bit as much as a glutton can be addicted to food. So we have to substitute a disordered “earthly love” directly given to families with an intense hatred for that “disordered earthly attachment” and a corresponding intense love for God and the Church. Then in loving God and the church and in service and love for God we serve him by giving love and affection to those around us.

So this principle applies to all earthly things, food, money, entertainments, pleasures, emotional dependancies, families. Everything of this physical life. We have to go through the process of hating and rejecting everything with prevents us from coming to Christ. If we don’t then we know that we are serving two masters.

Whatever we reject and hate God will restore a hundredfold. So we do not need to fear that God will leave us destitute without any emotional or physical support. He promises.
“Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.”

Sorry again but if you forsake your family then you are hating them. Forsake means "to give up or renounce (a habit, way of life, etc.). "

Therefore let everything be done in Christ’s name. Forsake your families if necessary for Christ’s name sake and he will give you a family back. Maybe even the same family that you forsook. A family who is accepting and encouraging of your faith instead of one that try’s to tear it down.

But most importantly you will have eternal life with God and the family of the Saints.

This post and the one before it, were outstanding! Thank you.

 

[KathleenGee]

DeaconJAR,

Thank you for sharing such a beautiful gift of yourself in serving the Lord and sorry for the loss of your dear wife. I am sure she is praying for you in heaven…every moment you live.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hating evil and recognizing how it is the body that leads us to sin, its war against the spirit…in that context hating evil is indeed an act of love.

 

[benedictus2]

Padrej; 6760254:

OK you are working from the NAB commentary I am not.

If you re-read my post, the NAB commentary was NOT about this section but rather the section on Acts. I think you are confusing things.

You have a point that Mary Magdalen did not recognize the risen Christ and supposed him to be the gardener.

You missed my point again.

You said that the men were hiding in disbelief and fear.

What I am driving at here is that when you think back immediately to the resurrection, the women did not believe either. It was not just the men who did not really believe that Christ will rise from the dead. Everyone (men and women disciples) not believe this was possible. That is why Mary Magdalene was not expecting to meet Christ hence asked the “gardener” where they have put the body that she might anoint it.

Other than John, was it not women who were at the foot of the cross?

This has completely no bearing on the point I was making. But since you’ve brought this up, the other reason that the women were there could probably be because women were not persecuted. In spite of the Jews’ rejection of Christ, and the fact that they thought little of women, I don’t think they were into persecuting women as they were the men. But that is just my opinion and I am not a Biblical scholar.

I suppose by your thinking that the Holy Spirit told them to stay away also, being that you want to say erroneously that it is on MY timetable

I am sorry to have to say this Padre but your reading of my post is totally askew and all over the place.

The Holy Spirit had not been sent yet at the time of the crucifixion! My comment about the Holy Spirit’s timetable was in reference to when and where the apostles were supposed to go after Pentecost and not before.

See above.

No. Your above post does not address this point.

You were criticizing the apostles for dragging their feet after Pentecost. So I replied: "So what? Don’t you think that since they were being guided by the Holy Spirit they would know exactly when and where to go?"

You werecomplaining because they were not working according to your timetable?

That is why I said it seemed that you wanted them to work under YOUR timetable instead of just trusting that the Holy Spirit knows as to when they were to leave Jerusalem and where they are supposed to go. The Holy Spirit knows more than you when, where, what and how to lead them.

Are you saying that Stephen who the Church has called the FIRST Deacon should not be ministering the word? Chapter 6:8 states that he was “full of faith and power and did wondrous signs among the people” are you saying that the Holy Spirit was not with him then to do these things? Or do you think “waiting of tables” is another matter that he should have stuck with?

Please Padrej, read my post properly before you reply.
Did I say that Stephen should not have been ministering the Word? All I said was : “It seems however that after being chosen to “serve at table”, Stephen instead attended to the ministry of the word but this is not the original intent of their appointment. “
I made no judgment on whether he ought or not have done this.
I only wrote this comment because you said* “Chapter 6 the apostles are still in Jerusalem and send Stephen and Phillip out when they were commanded to do such",* implying that they were shirking their responsibility. It is always your absurd conclusions that I have a problem with.

I noticed that the NAB says “modern scholars” on this, funny I have been berated as well as FrJohn on another thread for quoting modern scholars. I am having a hard time understanding this Catholic thing here, it is OK if some quote a modern scholar but not OK if it does not make your point?

I don’t know what you were berated for but Fr John was not berated for quoting modern scholars. Fr John was rightly told off for saying modern scholars said this without quoting fully the text. There was something rather disingenuous in extracting a preface of an article that spoke of what modern scholars think when the conclusion of the same article was otherwise. Unless he did not read the article and read only the preface which is rather odd.

 

[benedictus2]

Padrej; 6760254:

I have no problem with the persecution was because Stephen was a Hellenist. Notice it says however, “perhaps because their attitude toward the law and temple was still more in line with that of their fellow Jews.” “Perhaps” is a strong word that would indicate that we don’t know this for sure. With that in mind, why would it be that far fetched that perhaps the apostles were not being persecuted because they were not a threat. “

But Padrej I have no problem with them not being persecuted because they were not a threat; after all they were not the leaders of the group and the Jews obviously went after the leaders. Other than Peter and John was there much written about the other apostles before Christ died? No. The only account of his apostles being accused by the Jews was that of Peter at his denial.

Once again it was your conclusion that I had an issue with. You came up with this completely absurd (to say the least) conclusion that the reason they were not a threat was because they were somehow working towards Satan’s purposes!!!

For goodness sake, these men were martyred for the faith!!

Furthermore, have you ever thought that God WILLED this to be so to ensure that they did not die from persecution so that they can go out to the world to proclaim the good news?

See note above on “Perhaps”

The “perhaps” did not address my point.

I am not saying that they were not being guided by the Holy Spirit. Peter and John were obviously out in the streets as it indicates so, but where are the rest???

Padrej, padrej, padrej. The things that you are reading into the Bible have gone far beyond the ridiculous.

What does it matter???!!! How often did we hear of the other apostles even before the crucifixion?

It is really arrogant to demand “where are the rest”. This is what the Holy Spirit CAUSED to be written! But I suppose Padrej knows better than the Holy Spirit.

Eventually they did go out.

Eventually!!!

More to the point, according to God’s time. Not yours. It is arrogant and the height of pride to presume to know better than the Holy Spirit on how, when and where the proclamation of the gospels is to come about.

 

[benedictus2]

This is a little off topic but I really like your signature here (below)

Thank you

I love this very much I have made this and the last line “Solo Dios Basta” into a poster (the benefit of working in a graphics company) which now hangs at my place and at my mom’s. I have also given these away as presents.

I have also made this in to my desktop wall paper and screen saver. That gives you an idea how much I love this poem.

I sometimes imagine it is Our Lady herself who is saying this to me.

 

[benedictus2]

A Marist said we can learn the most about Mary not by what was written, but what was not written…She wants the glory for Jesus…

Mary is very subtle…it is learning to know her presence without all the sensationalism and extraordinary events…but her quiet presence that is there for us to learn to seek…to pray for us, be our bridge to Jesus in a way she knew and shares with us in spite of our sinful humanity…and our greatest advocate at death.

Yes, yes, yes. “Do whatever He tells you”.

And that is why, when we are truly close to Mary we are close to Jesus.

I also think that when we are relationship with Jesus has progressed, He says: Hey come home with me. I want you to meet my mother.

And Mary says all the time - 'You must get to know my Son."

 

[benedictus2]

My dear friend, may the Peace of our Lord be with you. Let me offer you my humble (name removed by moderator)ut by sharing with you a personal experience. In the late 1970 I met her for the first time in our youth group. She had an internal beauty that permeated through her skin and my heart was never the same. We began to date while we were attending the university. In 1975 I married a gift from God, a humble but bold God fearing woman. By the year 1980 we already had three sons. She was always a very spiritual woman; my teacher, my mentor and my heroe. In 1996 we both agreed that it was God’s call for me to begin my diaconate formation. We joined the process with a heart overwhelmed with great joy and expectations. Two years later a heavy storm arrived into our life, my beloved wife was diagnosed with “cancer.” My heart was broken and I began to battle with my Lord.

We called our best spiritual friend, a member of our Charismatic prayer group, and we met at the church where we spent around 5 hours of intensive prayer in front of the Tabernacle. My spirit was in turmoil and my pain was destroying my whole being. It felt like I have been betrayed by my Lord. At the end of the night, when our prayer session was coming to an end, my friend received a message for me from the Lord. The Scripture says that the Light exposes the darkness. Well, in a blink of an eye the genuiness of my faith and trust in my Lord was being tested. This message, like a double edge sword, pierced my whole being. The Lord said to me***"My son, do you realize that Elaine and your children are a gift that I gave to you. From the begining, since the day I created you, you became my son and I became your Father. If I decide to take her away from you, are you still willing to serve me?***

I was ordained in 1999 and she went with her Lord, my Lord, in 2001. Sincerely, I believe this personal experience may help you to understand that scripture.

Wow DeaconJAR, that is beautiful!! Yes, the important thing is to be able to say like Job " The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away blessed be the Lord.

When I broke my foot and it seemed to be taking for ever to heal, I got so frustrated and cried to God. But after the tears, all I could pray was that : “The Lord Giveth and the Lord Taketh. Blessed be the Lord.”

I think it is important to pray even before the “bad” things happen to always be disposed to His Will.

 

[Padrej]

If you re-read my post, the NAB commentary was NOT about this section but rather the section on Acts. I think you are confusing things.
What I am merely saying is that I do not have a NAB commentary I use another, please read my comments carefully too.

You missed my point again.

You said that the men were hiding in disbelief and fear.

 

[Padrej]

benedictus2:

I don’t know what you were berated for but Fr John was not berated for quoting modern scholars. Fr John was rightly told off for saying modern scholars said this without quoting fully the text. There was something rather disingenuous in extracting a preface of an article that spoke of what modern scholars think when the conclusion of the same article was otherwise. Unless he did not read the article and read only the preface which is rather odd.

From what I saw of FrJohn’s posts I could see that he read the whole of the article he posted. Was he crystal clear in what he posted? Not altogether, I thought that he tried to clear this up later with subsequent posts. What I saw was more misunderstanding on the parts of the Catholic posters who wanted to discredit him. I did see another who was Catholic who defended him as well as he understood what Fr John was doing. Some got the point some did not. I can however respect that your opinion on the matter was that he was wrong. I think people went overboard in berating a priest of the Catholic church for perceived problems in the post when that could have been done by PM. As I posted, why would a person want to convert if this is how priests are treated? The written word does not always come off as clear as we want it to, that is why I had several proof readers for my published book that could correct me as I knew what I wanted to write but it did not always come by clearly. I think we both need to step back and say, “OK we both are not getting what the other is saying.” “Hello my name is Padrej, nice to meet you.”

 

[benedictus2]

What I am merely saying is that I do not have a NAB commentary I use another, please read my comments carefully too.

I did read your post carefully. But you posted this comment in reply to the Mary Magdalene section of our discussion, so I was right in my comment.

Yes the men were hiding and yes I agree that Mary also had disbelief. MY point is that I had always thought of Mary Magdalen as the first Lay Evangelist, It is clear we are not going to see eye to eye on this.

And as I have said in a previous post, if you had left it at that then there would have been no problem. It is your conclusions based on your speculations that I had a major problem with.

OK Now, do we not believe that Pentecost is a giving of the Holy Spirit for strength, much like at confirmation? The Disciples had already been given the Holy Spirit in John 20:22 when Jesus breathed on them and said “receive the Holy Spirit whatever sins you forgive they are forgiven and whatever you retain are retained.” So the confirmation is that of Pentecost for the strengthening and sending forth into the world. Would that not be agreeable to you?

Yes, I agree with that.

I do not have a timetable,

Then why do you keep complaining at their (from your vantage point) apparent tardiness in getting out of Jerusalem?

I was pointing out, that they were instructed to GO and stayed, but eventually they did go forth.

And I pointed out that we have no cause to question when and where they went because they were being guided by the Holy Spirit. It was God’s timing. Not early, not late, God’s perfect time.

If Stephen was “full of the Holy Spirit” as the Bible says it would stand to reason that he is also guided by the Spirit. If his original intent was to as you say, “serve at table” then it leaves out the power of the Spirit on a person’s life to preach and proclaim the Word. Are not deacons allowed upon occasion to preach in the Catholic church, they are in the Anglican. I do not think that the Holy Spirit limits it power and says , youa re this office in the church so you cannot go further than this place.

But as I have said before I have no problem with this. Deacons preach in the Catholic Church. It was wonderful that Stephen ministered to the Word.
Once again, it was only your conclusion that I had a problem with, because you indicated that instead doing this job for themselves, the apostles instead sent someone else to do the job that they should be doing. You implied by your statement that they had shirked their own responsibility. THAT was the part that was erroneous.

The 12 had the commission to go forth by Christ, they were to wait in Jerusalem until the spirit fell upon them, then go forth. That is God’s timetable NOT Padrej’s

Here is the portion of Acts 1 relating to your argument:
*"In the first book, Theophilus, I dealt with all that Jesus did and taught *
until the day he was taken up, after giving instructions through the holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He presented himself alive to them by many proofs after he had suffered, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. While meeting with them, he enjoined them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for “the promise of the Father about which you have heard me speak; for John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.”

When they had gathered together they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

He answered them, "It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has established by his own authority.

                    *But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.*"

Where did it say that they were not to “wait” in Jerusalem? Where did it say that what they were doing in Jerusalem was “waiting” as if they were twiddling their thumbs doing nothing?

As a matter of fact Jesus said : *"It is not for you to know the times or seasons *that the Father has established by his own authority.

They followed the prompting of the Holy Spirit as regards times and places. That is all there is to it.

My comments stand. You want them to work in your time rather than God’s. If God is capable of rising from the dead, God is quite capable of getting to move sooner than when they did if GOD SO WANTED.

See above: The 12 had the commission to go forth by Christ, they were to wait in Jerusalem until the spirit fell upon them, then go forth. That is God’s timetable NOT Padrej’s. That is what the Word of God says, how pray tell am I supposed to think otherwise.

See above where I quoted from Acts1

 

[Padrej]

Here is the portion of Acts 1 relating to your argument:
*"In the first book, Theophilus, I dealt with all that Jesus did and taught *
until the day he was taken up, after giving instructions through the holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He presented himself alive to them by many proofs after he had suffered, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. While meeting with them, he enjoined them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for “the promise of the Father about which you have heard me speak; for John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.”

The Gospel writer Luke (who also wrote the book of Acts) said in Luke 24:49 “But tarry (wait) in Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.”
The imperative conveyed in the original Greek is that they were to wait and then go after the event of receiving the Holy Spirit. This is why I say it was God’s timetable NOT mine. I am trying to take the Acts and the Gospels in their entire context so that there is a complete time line.

This if taken with the following…

                  *But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.*" You have a time line set up by the Lord Jesus that they wait in Jerusalem and then when they receive the Holy Spirit they are to GO.

Where did it say that they were not to “wait” in Jerusalem? Where did it say that what they were doing in Jerusalem was “waiting” as if they were twiddling their thumbs doing nothing?
See the passage from Luke’s Gospel cited above and you will see they were told to tarry/wait until the Holy Spirit comes.

As a matter of fact Jesus said : *"It is not for you to know the times or seasons *

Se the above and if Jesus did not command them to wait and then go how is it MY time?

 

[benedictus2]

From what I saw of FrJohn’s posts I could see that he read the whole of the article he posted. Was he crystal clear in what he posted? Not altogether, I thought that he tried to clear this up later with subsequent posts. What I saw was more misunderstanding on the parts of the Catholic posters who wanted to discredit him. I did see another who was Catholic who defended him as well as he understood what Fr John was doing. Some got the point some did not. I can however respect that your opinion on the matter was that he was wrong. I think people went overboard in berating a priest of the Catholic church for perceived problems in the post when that could have been done by PM.

Okay, I don’t think we should be discussing another person here but to clarify.

The reason Fr John’s post could not be left to PM was because the error that he wrote was out there in public domain and even to the end, even though he said he did abide by what the church teaches, he still did not rectify his erroneous posts.

I wrote a two post analysis of his errors. And his error was not due to bad phrasing because it was consistent. He was a priest who should have been explaining the truths of the Catholic Faith instead of the misinformation and lie that he posted. It was no wonder people questioned whether he was a priest at all.

He bit JimmyB’s head off for pointing out his error.

Instead of acknowledging the errors in his post, he kept justifying them with “scholars said this” when a full reading of the text he supplied showed that the 'scholars" were proved wrong.

If he wasn’t sure of his information, he should have done a little bit of research. The lay people in that forum were doing a much better job defending the faith. I have been on a few Mary threads and quite a few of the lay Catholics on the board are just incredibly brilliant with the way they defended the Immaculate Conception.

We expect more from our priests because they are supposed to have studied theology. They are the ones who stand out there day in and day out proclaiming the gospel. They have to proclaim the truth, they have to be in line with the Magisterium of the Church.

When the priests teach error then that could lead a lot of people to follow the lie rather than the truth.

A friend of mine told me the story of this Anglican priest who because he was the victim of a bomb blast conluded that Christ was unable to forgive his persecutors that is why He asked His Father to forgive them instead because He himself can’t!!! What absolute load of rubbish. The people who were around at that time were nodding in agreement!!! And this priest will probably be preaching the same at his Sunday service!!

Christ had a stern warning for those who teach others error but I can’t find the exact verse at the moment.

As I posted, why would a person want to convert if this is how priests are treated?

This is how anyone who teach error are treated. They have to be made accountable for the lie that they teach. Their words are out there in the public forum. Someone could use his post and say 'See even a Catholic priest says what I am saying". If they don’t want to be censured for erroneous teaching, then they should weigh and examine what they say.

I don’t expect every priest to be a super illuminated theologian. But the teaching of the church is easily defended. The internet abounds with incredibly brilliant apologetics. There is no excuse for the kind of posts that he made.

The written word does not always come off as clear as we want it to, that is why I had several proof readers for my published book that could correct me as I knew what I wanted to write but it did not always come by clearly.

If it was one time and he retracted what he said it would have been okay. That it went on over several posts with error being added upon error, that was inexcusable.

What should have happened the first time was to say " Sorry you are right. What I wrote was wrong and not in line with what the church teaches." instead of justifying his mistake.

I think we both need to step back and say, “OK we both are not getting what the other is saying.” “Hello my name is Padrej, nice to meet you.”

Okay Padrej, you will think me belligerent here but I do get what you say.

But yes. Hi, I’m Cory, nice to meet you. :hug3:

And to give an explanation of my CAF name, it is because I love Zechariah’s canticle which is simply titled Benedictus in the Catholic Church. And yes, I do feel “Benedictus” indeed. Thanks to our Most Tender and Lovig God.

 

[benedictus2]

The Gospel writer Luke (who also wrote the book of Acts) said in Luke 24:49 "But tarry (wait) in Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high."

The imperative conveyed in the original Greek is that they were to wait and then go after the event of receiving the Holy Spirit. This is why I say it was God’s timetable NOT mine. I am trying to take the Acts and the Gospels in their entire context so that there is a complete time line.

But where does it say in that text that it must be immediately?

As I keep pointing out, the Holy Spirit was guiding them. Don’t you think that if they needed to move earlier than they did, that the Holy Spirit would have seen to that?

Just think about that simple fact.

They were told to stay in Jerusalem so that they will be together when the Holy Spirit arrives. And interestingly enough, the Holy Spirit descends just at exactly the time when there are all kinds of people in Jerusalem such that they were able to proclaim the good news to these men straight away.

And if you keep reading on, they had to settle a few doctrinal disputes along the way.

The apostles went when they did and where the did in GOD’S OWN TIME.

You have a time line set up by the Lord Jesus that they wait in Jerusalem and then when they receive the Holy Spirit they are to GO.

Even juxtaposed together, Luke and Acts do not give a time line. All it does is show the sequence of events that are to take place – the proclamation of the Gospel is to follow the sending of the Holy Spirit.

I think (my own view personally) the instruction to stay in Jerusalem until the sending of the Holy Spirit, could be that Jesus was sensing a certain impetuosity because they had already seen the risen Christ. So He is saying wait, you can just go charging off to the ends of the earth talking about me. You need the Holy Spirit"

I think this is a more plausible interpretation in the wording “But wait”. The use of “but” indicates a qualifier of when to preach the gospel.

They needed the guidance of the Holy Spirit before they could properly evangelize because it will be the Holy Spirit that will ensure that they preach a united theology.

This according to my commentaries it states that this verse is referring to the restoration of the kingdom of Israel. It is also cross referenced to Luke 19:11-27 the Parable of the Minas. So it is saying it is not for them to know WHEN the final coming is. Peter in 1 Peter 1:11 points this out also where the OT prophets did not know the timing between the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. When tied to the following verse, "8 “But you shall receive power,” it is not for Godly living but to be witnesses. Unless you want to argue with the first Pope now and say it is not his time that is fine with me.

That is true. But think about this. Isn’t the proclamation of the Gospel a working towards the restoration of the kingdom of “Israel”, only in this instance the Church is the new Israel.

Okay, that’s my last post for the day. I have to head of to Mass.

The Peace and Joy of the Risen Lord to you and your family.

 

[Padrej]

But where does it say in that text that it must be immediately

I pray your mass was uplifting and that you have God’s peace as well.

 

[benedictus2]

I understand the frustration you are having with me on this, I also read Biblical Greek. Let me make my statement clearer. In Greek there are words that indicate imperatives be it in the past, present or future indicative. The passage in question of Luke's Gospel that tells the disciples to "tarry" or "wait" is in such a tense that it indicates after this event you are to go.

Yes, but there is no indication as to when. As I mentioned earlier, that Christ says “BUT wait” must have meant that he could see that the disciples, even at that stage were raring to go and proclaim the Gospel.

But when the Holy Spirit came, they didn’t just jump on the first boat and went “Gentile world here we come!”. Why, because under the guidance of the Holy Spirit enlightenment came. They must have realized they can’t just shoot off across the globe like that.

The fire in the belly is there (after all Pentecost has just happened) but it is tempered by the wisdom, by discernment, that the Holy Spirit gave them.

Discernment is one of the gifts that Spirit brings so that everything works in harmony.

I do think that they needed to move earlier because the Spirit had prompted them to do so.

But you don’t know that. Only the apostles knew what the Spirit was prompting them to do. They were discerning this as a community under the leadership of Peter. Your basis for saying this is flimsy at best and you are making this observation 2000 years removed for the event.

How many times do we as Christians today feel the pull of the Spirit to act and we do not? Lets say we are going down the road and see a person with a flat, we feel the tug on our heart sting to pull over and help, BUT we get thinking “What if this is a ploy to rob me” or “They should have a cel phone and can call AAA so I wont stop.”

Yes that is true for you and me perhaps, but for the Apostles? Are you quite serious? These are men who had first hand encounters with Christ, who he picked, who had a most amazing experience with the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is not going to FORCE you to do anything.

No He doesn’t but if God wants it done it will get done. Don’t you see that?
Jonah did not want to go Niniveh!

There is an old saying in ministry that you must be doing something right if Satan is using others to attack you; this is why I say the persecution of the Hellenists but NOT the apostles was because they were not acting as they should.

Here again is a ridiculous conclusion. There are other reasons that they may not have been attacked and I have given one or two of them and yet you persist in this line of thinking. You would rather think that they were more indirectly in collusion with Satan rather than the more plausible reason that they were considered to be just followers and thus not a threat because if the authorities get rid of Peter then surely they will be scattered – you know strike the shepherd sort of thing.

Peter and John were out and getting thrown in prison and being beaten and the like, why? Could it be that it is because they WERE doing what the Spirit told them? If you are no threat to Satan he is not going to bother you.

Well how about what I mentioned above, that they were being persecuted because they were the leaders, and the authorities were hoping that if you persecute the leader the followers will cower away?

The closer you get to god the more Satan will try to pull you away and stop you.

That is true. But basing your conclusion on that dictum is mind boggling to say the least. You can’t apply this willy nilly. You have arrived at this purely from an argument from silence, all because nothing more was mentioned about the other apostles. Can you see how untenable that is? I can’t understand why, after being presented with a more plausible explanations as to why, you would insist on reading it this way based on miniscule scriptural support.

 

[benedictus2]

This is why I say that when it said the apostles WERE NOT being persecuted that they were not doing as God had commanded.

You have added 2 and 2 and came up with 10.

In your example above of whether to help or not, isn’t it possible that the person does intend to rob you and it could well be the Holy Spirit who led you into that line of thinking to save your from being robbed?

Are there possible reasons for not being persecuted other than somehow working towards the devils ends?

Isn’t it possible that God wanted it this way so that they will not shaken. Couldn’t it be that God were protecting them?

When something good is going your way, do you attribute that to the devil being pleased with you rather than God’s generosity?

If this was the case how did they evangelize when Jesus sent them out? When Jesus sent the seventy out they all were already preaching a united theology.

Well yes and no. They were sent to heal the sick and cast out devils but they were NOT preaching the risen Christ. If you read everything else that happened after Pentecost, the Apostles needed to be in Jerusalem together to sort out the circumcision issue, the fraternizing with the gentiles, obeying the all the prescription of the mosaic laws, etc, etc. That had to be worked out before they can move. When they move and where they moved to is not for us to question. The Holy Spirit was in charge and that was all there is to it.

 

[KathleenGee]

Padrej…

About another poster…I did not intend him any wrong…I have been in a Dominican parish for 8 years. Before that in another state, the custom in town was to go to the Dominican church atleast once or twice a month. They are known for their fidelity to orthodoxy.

The Dominicans are the highest ranking congregation in the church, according to my Marist priest. They are the theologians, scholars, who bring the Word of God into clarity of thought for us to understand in our times.

The subject matter was so common and basic a belief. I must admit I have to work on my reading skills now because of my aging eyes. I try not to jump on people. He said, I thought, talking around issues Protestants hold against Mary. Somehow when I read it, it seemed otherwise. Then people took his comments to other priests and they saw the opaqueness that it came to a different message.

Because the message was not clear and came out to be different – according to priests who read his posts, and considering the scholarly training the seminarians go through, as well as this perception that he is still searching for the basics of his faith, I doubted the validity of his vocation.

I communicate with two pastors online. But when a person comes across erroneous and searching, then … you doubt.

The motto of the Dominicans was on the steps into their church:

VERITAS