I'm not a Catholic because

[PRmerger]

You asked Michael if he decided. And I merely meant it was Jesus Whom might have decided He would not turn anyone away.

Oh, okay. I get it.

But since Jesus doesn’t speak to us directly (unless Michael is claiming to have had visions? or private revelation? given the nature of his posts, perhaps he is–I dunno) then when he is claiming the right to decide what Jesus says, and it always seems to coincide with his own morality/beliefs/theology, that does cause one to be suspect, no?

Do I? Well if he remained unrepentant and wanted the door open to continue to commit fornication, I’d might have to consider a divorce. But then that’s me and what I read in the English version of Matt 19:9.

And this husband would be permitted to divorce, according to your POV, right? He wants to divorce his wife, he has committed adultery, and how he’s been given permission, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

Would Jesus be cheating any of us by giving his body to a sinner?

Not at all. Was not his body given for the ransom of sin?

Are we not taught that the gift is something totally unearned, like that portion of the wages those who worked only one hour received.

Indeed, it is. The Eucharist is the One Flesh Union of Christ with His Beloved. And if we are unrepentant (to use your word), we are lying when we receive the Eucharist. We are claiming to be One with Him but are turning away from Him in our unrepentance.

What business of yours or mine is it what Jesus does with his body, with whom he gives it too?

What injures the Body of Christ is always of concern to me, Michael.

 

[CMatt25]

This lengthy post on the doxology of the Our Father is curious. Did you know that it was not part of the original Scriptures but was added later on?

Added to Scripture by who?

 

[PRmerger]

Added to Scripture by who?

I dunno. It was originally found in the Didache, which is not inspired Scripture (discerned for you and me, and Protestants, by the Catholic Church, BTW).

The doxology of the prayer is not contained in Luke’s version, nor is it present in the earliest manuscripts of Matthew, representative of the Alexandrian text, but is present in the manuscripts representative of the Byzantine text. It is thus absent in the oldest and best manuscripts of Matthew, and most scholars do not consider it part of the original text of Matthew. Modern translations generally omit it. source

 

[CMatt25]

Oh, okay. I get it.

But since Jesus doesn’t speak to us directly (unless Michael is claiming to have had visions? or private revelation? given the nature of his posts, perhaps he is–I dunno) then when he is claiming the right to decide what Jesus says, and it always seems to coincide with his own morality/beliefs/theology, that does cause one to be suspect, no?

And this husband would be permitted to divorce, according to your POV, right? He wants to divorce his wife, he has committed adultery, and how he’s been given permission, yes?

PR, I once had an Episcopalian priest tell me if I listened to God’s Spirit, He will tell me where He wants me to be. You don’t believe God speaks to us? I don’t think matters of faith and belief cause me to be quite as suspect as they do you though, PR.

Here’s “my POV” as you put it, as I read the English in Matt 19:9. If the husband cheated on his wife and a divorce occured, as a result of the husband’s fornication, she would not be committing adultery if she married another.

 

[PRmerger]

Here’s “my POV” as you put it, as I read the English in Matt 19:9. If the husband cheated on his wife and a divorce occured, as a result of the husband’s fornication, she would not be committing adultery if she married another.

And he would also be allowed to re-marry, correct?

So it’s giving him free rein: I want a divorce. I’m going to fornicate with my sweetheart. Now I can get divorced and Jesus gives me a

 

[PRmerger]

PR, I once had an Episcopalian priest tell me if I listened to God’s Spirit, He will tell me where He wants me to be. You don’t believe God speaks to us? I don’t think matters of faith and belief cause me to be quite as suspect as they do you though, PR.

Well, I am not blessed with that ability to hear God clearly in my head. I wish I could!

And more power to you if you can!

However, if this voice you’re hearing in your head of God giving you permission to do things which are contrary to the Church, I would be highly suspicious of this voice.

Not to mention, reason dictates that if this voice in your head never tells you things that you must conform yourself to–rather, it only affirms and confirms that which you like, then it’s probably not God speaking, but rather the voice of the Almighty Self, no?

 

[ufamtobie]

PR, I once had an Episcopalian priest tell me if I listened to God’s Spirit, He will tell me where He wants me to be. You don’t believe God speaks to us? I don’t think matters of faith and belief cause me to be quite as suspect as they do you though, PR.

Here’s “my POV” as you put it, as I read the English in Matt 19:9. If the husband cheated on his wife and a divorce occured, as a result of the husband’s fornication, she would not be committing adultery if she married another.

CMatt,

Yes, what the Episcopalian Priest told you was correct. CMatt, and you are listening to God’s Spirit, whether you now it or not, It is God’s Spirit telling you to be here at Catholic Answers, to learn the truth and become Catholic if you are not already.

Ufamtobie

 

[Michael19682]

Not at all. Was not his body given for the ransom of sin?

Indeed, it is. The Eucharist is the One Flesh Union of Christ with His Beloved. And if we are unrepentant (to use your word), we are lying when we receive the Eucharist. We are claiming to be One with Him but are turning away from Him in our unrepentance.

What injures the Body of Christ is always of concern to me, Michael.

You are word playing on the double entendre, the relation between the Body of Christ in Heaven and the Church, his body on earth. There is obviously a difference, because it is proven a heresy to call earth Heaven. If you have ever heard a priest consecrate the host, you surely must know that he says “let your spirit come upon these gifts and make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ” If you have ever heard a priest give you absolution you know that he says the holy spirit was sent among us for the forgiveness of sins. The holy spirit is not hurt by our sins, it forgives them all. If it were hurt by our sins it would be weakened, and that specific work of salvation is already done. Christ fell three times, weakened by the weight of sin. After his appearance to the apostles I know of no sign of weakness shown. Have you seen Jesus weak? Where? You refer to the possibility that I have had visions or private revelations, have you? Or do you mean to imply that men stopped sinning until Pentecost and that this is why the Lord showed no signs of weakness?

It is likely a heavy accusation and judgment to say a person “is lying” when he receives the Eucharist unrepentantly. There are many reasons why this should not be said. 1) The priest leads us in saying that we are unworthy to receive the lord, but that if He only says the word, we shall be healed. It seems there is a place for private revelation. Surely, as your posts explain, the Lord Himself is not mute? 2) The Priest, Deacon, or lay minister says “The Body of Christ” It is very terse. We all know about reconciliation and should faithfully make every effort to do just that. But your point about it being a lie, to make the assertion that a sinner cannot acknowledge and assent “Amen” to something so concise and clear as “the Body of Christ”. Scripture says that no one can confess Jesus is Lord except in the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor 12:3. Anyone who understands that basic fact - and it is repeated many times in mass - must be given the beneficial portion of doubt that they mean it when they say AMEN.

 

[ufamtobie]

(name removed by moderator),

Just via Baptism? If so, that is not enough.

Ufamtobie

 

[PJM]

=CMatt25;8746773]I hope not. Because isn’t that what Christians believe He did? Gave up His body on the cross for sinners to be saved?

Allow me to clarify the issues of “redeemption” and “salvation.” They are NOT synomous terms or actions.

"Redeemption" refers to and applies to ALL of humanity: past, present and future. In essence it makes reference to the opening of the gate to heaven which God choose to close because of the Original Sin. It also refers to the FACT that God obligates humself to Offer sufficient grace for everyone to Know him; whih is the firsr step towards Faith.

It has further application to those who accept this initial offer of grace and the continuing graces that God then makes available to them.

'Salvation" correctly understood is “future-tense”; relates to grace offered and accepted through the MERITS of Jesus Himself as Sacrifice. It then become the responsibility of humanity to cooperate with these graces and to Know, Love, Serve God FULLY and completely; meaning not only the commandments, but also ALL that is taught and required in the Bible; most notably; obedience to the “church” [SINGULAR] that he, Christ set up for this very purpose. That church being toda’s RCC.

Christ gave up His Body to make Salvation a POSSIBILITY, not a reality based on ANY one or two things. Salvation is always a PROCESS of many steps. It is foolish to think or worse, assume that Christ sufferd FOR us and does not expect anything in return except that we acknowlege that we “know Him.”

**1Pet.5: 1, 9 ** “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world.”

**1Pet.4: 13 **” But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

**Phil.1: 29 **“For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, “

2Thes.1: 5 “This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be made worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering “

**Heb. 2: 10 **For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[PRmerger]

You are word playing on the double entendre, the relation between the Body of Christ in Heaven and the Church, his body on earth. There is obviously a difference, because it is proven a heresy to call earth Heaven.

Where did I call earth “heaven”?

If you have ever heard a priest consecrate the host, you surely must know that he says “let your spirit come upon these gifts and make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ”

Is this when the consecration occurs? Could you please cite a source for this?

If you have ever heard a priest give you absolution you know that he says the holy spirit was sent among us for the forgiveness of sins. The holy spirit is not hurt by our sins, it forgives them all.

Even if we are unrepentant? Remember, in your hypothetical situation you are claiming that this sinner is unrepentant.

 

[PRmerger]

If it were hurt by our sins it would be weakened, and that specific work of salvation is already done. Christ fell three times, weakened by the weight of sin. After his appearance to the apostles I know of no sign of weakness shown. Have you seen Jesus weak? Where? You refer to the possibility that I have had visions or private revelations, have you? Or do you mean to imply that men stopped sinning until Pentecost and that this is why the Lord showed no signs of weakness?

This is, again, some odd stream-of-consciousness posting.

Are you still in RCIA, BTW?

It is likely a heavy accusation and judgment to say a person “is lying” when he receives the Eucharist unrepentantly.

Lying is indeed a heavy accusation. One ought not approach the Eucharist lightly. It is very, very serious to approach the Sacrament as an unrepentant sinner.

There are many reasons why this should not be said. 1) The priest leads us in saying that we are unworthy to receive the lord, but that if He only says the word, we shall be healed.

Indeed. We are all unworthy.

It seems there is a place for private revelation. Surely, as your posts explain, the Lord Himself is not mute? 2) The Priest, Deacon, or lay minister says “The Body of Christ” It is very terse. We all know about reconciliation and should faithfully make every effort to do just that. But your point about it being a lie, to make the assertion that a sinner cannot acknowledge and assent “Amen” to something so concise and clear as “the Body of Christ”. Scripture says that no one can confess Jesus is Lord except in the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor 12:3. Anyone who understands that basic fact - and it is repeated many times in mass - must be given the beneficial portion of doubt that they mean it when they say AMEN.

Stream-of-consciousness again.

 

[PJM]

=PRmerger;8746906]And he would also be allowed to re-marry, correct?

So it’s giving him free rein: I want a divorce. I’m going to fornicate with my sweetheart. Now I can get divorced and Jesus gives me a

The Bible DOES NOT say this NOR does the CC permit such.

READ John 20:19-22 and take NOTE that Jesus here gives to the CC [ALONE} the poer and authority to act not simply on behalf of Christ [as an attorney might]; but with God certitude, and warranty>

“What EVER YOU BIND on Earth” [that is: require or mandate] WILL BE HONORED by Me God. God cannot lie or deceive. If you think Chrsit did not mean this then consider the following powers GRANTED to the 12:

Matt.10: 1-8 "And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity. The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And preach as you go, saying, `The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’
***[8] Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying, give without pay. ***

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Michael19682]

This is, again, some odd stream-of-consciousness posting.

Are you still in RCIA, BTW?

Lying is indeed a heavy accusation. One ought not approach the Eucharist lightly. It is very, very serious to approach the Sacrament as an unrepentant sinner.

Indeed. We are all unworthy.

Stream-of-consciousness again.

Have you ever reclined on a couch and said whatever was on your mind? There is a distinction between stream-of-consciousness and free association. You appear an expert on the former. Perhaps you would instruct me on how to seek it, for it appears a gift without price? Is stream-of-consciosness part of your theology, or are you, in truth, saying my posts are undeserving of the dignity of a response?

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by PRmerger
Not at all. Was not his body given for the ransom of sin?

Indeed, it is. The Eucharist is the One Flesh Union of Christ with His Beloved. And if we are unrepentant (to use your word), we are lying when we receive the Eucharist. We are claiming to be One with Him but are turning away from Him in our unrepentance.

What injures the Body of Christ is always of concern to me, Michael"

PARTIALLY: for MANY not for ALL; conditioanl on our response and choices NOT God’s.

Matthew 26: 26-28
And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

MARK 14: 22-24
And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

***PLEASE HELP ME OUT HERE; I’m mising the point of you’re argument:***shrug:

God Bless,
Pat

 

[CMatt25]

(name removed by moderator),

Just via Baptism? If so, that is not enough.

Ufamtobie

I remember him being confirmed too. Not sure Jharek knew that. But something I’ve learned on “Catholic Answers”, is although someone might be identified as a member in the Church’s eyes, they perhaps are not necessarily so in someone else’s eyes. Which is actually sort of a turnoff to me in some respects.

 

[PJM]

=CMatt25;8747037]I remember him being confirmed too. Not sure Jharek knew that. But something I’ve learned on “Catholic Answers”, is although someone might be identified as a member in the Church’s eyes, they perhaps are not necessarily so in someone else’s eyes. Which is a turnoff to me.

Matt, I’m 67 and kinda dumb to begin with. Would you PLEASE clarify this for me?

THANKS,
Pat [FYI: I’m the OP]

 

[PJM]

=Michael19682;8747024]Have you ever reclined on a couch and said whatever was on your mind? There is a distinction between stream-of-consciousness and free association. You appear an expert on the former. Perhaps you would instruct me on how to seek it, for it appears a gift without price? Is stream-of-consciosness part of your theology, or are you, in truth, saying my posts are undeserving of the dignity of a response?

NICELY done Michael.

FOLKS, LETS keep Christian Charity in mind and becare about judging others. There have been a GREAT multitude of AWESOME post on this string so far.

THANKS,
Pat

 

[PRmerger]

Have you ever reclined on a couch and said whatever was on your mind? There is a distinction between stream-of-consciousness and free association. You appear an expert on the former. Perhaps you would instruct me on how to seek it, for it appears a gift without price? Is stream-of-consciosness part of your theology, or are you, in truth, saying my posts are undeserving of the dignity of a response?

Yes, I am in truth saying that some of your posts are undeserving of the dignity of a response.

Namely, those that are stream-of-consciousness.

If you are making a point, rather than just spouting Biblical verses or doctrines that are non-sequiturs, please do so.