I've officially left the Church

[ralphinal]

JMCRAE, BURK AND CHURCH MILITANT

 A couple of points in response;

 1. The parade yesterday was at a local Italian festival, not connected to August 15 as you seem to imply - and as you appear to raise doubts about the basis of my report. I am quite aware of the Feast of the Assumption, accentuated in my mind because that also is my mother's birthday.

  2. Mormons, of course, are not Protestants. They are about as Christian as Muslims are. They have additional scriptures, a very different perception of Christ, and also believe they are the one true faith - among other things. As people, Mormons are to be commended generally. They tend to live a healthy lifestyle and have a high ethical code (with the exception, perhaps, of polygamy, which they abandonned in 1890, and their extreme and official racism which they finally dropped sometime in the 1970s?).But they have to believe a whole lot of things totally unverified by history etc - and often contradicted by known facts.

  3. Some of us are quickly dismissed as rebels, egotists, anti-Catholics or protestant because we earnestly want to see Catholicism become more of an 'open tent' that permits a freer expression of opinion, allows wider debate of major issues, becomes an instrument for increased ecumenism, and displays more tolerance for other faiths, whether Christian or non-Christian.  If Catholicism is God's chosen vehicle of spiritual truth, why are some so fearful of this? Surely God will protect the Church.

I would like to say that this is a well worded and thought out post. I see where you are coming from. The only issue that I have is with the open-tent idea. I want more discussion. I encourage it. What I do not want to see, and all too often it happens, is this to lead to either a watering down of morality (acceptance of abortion) or a watering down of the faith (Episco-Islamic priestesses). I think that we should show others how we are the same and why we are different. We should not be expected to cease being Catholic.

 

[Tietjen]

In all fairness…the RCC clearly mis-interprets 2 Cor 5:17-20, in fact, it is so mis-interpreted…I couldn’t believe my eyes.

The RCC actually teaches that 2 Cor 5:17-20, is justification for their ministry of reconciliation.

A barely literate person can clearly see that the scripture is only talking about spreading the gospel and not about confessions.

I have addressed this issue in an earlier post. Please read it.

 

[buckr02]

Remember sir, the Bible was put together by the Catholic Church. It’s a Catholic document. There won’t be anything in there that contradicts the Church. The only editing performed on the Bible since it first came into existance was done by the protestant movement (over 1500+ years after with ONLY Catholic Bibles… can you imagine ).

I basically look at like this:

Imagine some author has a story in their head that they must tell the world. They know all the details of the story; they know all the characters and events and places, etc. So they begin writing the story so that they can share it with the rest of the world. At the same time, they tell all their friends and family the story and what a certain event means, and what a certain character is like, etc.

Then along comes some wise-alec who says, “you know what? I don’t need to know what the author is saying about the story. He went off his rocker a few years ago and is distorting the story. Who is he to say what the books he wrote mean? All I need is his books and from there, I can make my own conclusions.”

So this guy takes the books and hides from the author and begins to tell everyone what HE thinks the stories mean, even though the author is trying to tell everyone he is wrong and that there is more than just the stories that were written.

I’ll just stop there, because I think that paints the picture clearly enough…

 

[Tietjen]

Well, I figured out about the indulgence from a catholic friend of mine. I think thats crazy, even if its in scripture. Pay the way to heaven lol

If that’s your understanding, you have “figured out” nothing.

 

[Tietjen]

If its 101 stuff, how then cant you follow the term once for all? You,. AS USUAL, either misunderstand or just want to be difficult. And this stalking thing is really starting to creep me out. What, you look me up by name and run down the list of my posts? Now, I wonder what purpose that would have…hmmmm

Don’t over-inflate yourself. I have neither the time nor desire to “look you up.” If I have in fact stumbled upon certain truths concerning who you are… it is only because I know many protestants like you and thus, you are simply common and nothing special. God bless.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I feel great, like the chains of bondage have been removed.

Satan does have his techniques. You think he’s going to continue to fool and tempt you now? Maybe, to some extent, but now that you are “officially” out of his Enemy’s house, most of the work is already done. God have mercy on you. Oh, btw, you are not “simply Christian”, you more accurately, a protestant Christian.

 

[ralphinal]

I basically look at like this:

Imagine some author has a story in their head that they must tell the world. They know all the details of the story; they know all the characters and events and places, etc. So they begin writing the story so that they can share it with the rest of the world. At the same time, they tell all their friends and family the story and what a certain event means, and what a certain character is like, etc.

Then along comes some wise-alec who says, “you know what? I don’t need to know what the author is saying about the story. He went off his rocker a few years ago and is distorting the story. Who is he to say what the books he wrote mean? All I need is his books and from there, I can make my own conclusions.”

So this guy takes the books and hides from the author and begins to tell everyone what HE thinks the stories mean, even though the author is trying to tell everyone he is wrong and that there is more than just the stories that were written.

I’ll just stop there, because I think that paints the picture clearly enough…

Interesting take. I never thought about Luther, et al, in that light.

 

[Tietjen]

So, is it required to confess to a priest, or can you not just confess to God/Jesus, through prayer?

Of course you may confess to God and Jesus Christ. However, that doesn’t mean that you are to stop going to confession. Remember, Christ is the one who instituted confession. So it probably isn’t a good idea to ignore it. When you go to Confession, it is God through the Priest that is forgiving your sins. The Priest is an instrument.

 

[ChristianKnight]

Of course you may confess to God and Jesus Christ. However, that doesn’t mean that you are to stop going to confession. Remember, Christ is the one who instituted confession. So it probably isn’t a good idea to ignore it. When you go to Confession, it is God through the Priest that is forgiving your sins. The Priest is an instrument.

The scripture used to back confession, or the one I saw anyways, said he gave the ability to his disciples, not to their descendants.

 

[KephasAugustine]

I sometimes use this analogy to explain Confession…

A child drops his dinner on the kitchen floor. His parents forgive him, but still want him to clean up the mess.

We sin. God forgives us, but still wants us to go to Confession.

In Confession, the mess we’ve made of our soul is cleaned up.

 

[anthony022071]

[onetimeposter]

The Church was holding me back, for years, this is an exciting time. I no longer have the distraction of the all the Catholic requirements that are necessary for any hope of my salvation. Those distractions also prevented me from forming any relationship with God.

How did the Church hold you back? And from what?
What distractions? Going to church to receive the body and blood of Christ? Having to give alms to the poor and needy? Having to repent for sins? Those requirements are found in the Bible and in the early history of the Church.

 

[Tietjen]

Oh no…I AGREE with Tietjen…the world must be coming to an end!

LOL . And if, you and I ever were able to have a civil conversation, and you came to the table without the anti-Catholic vernacular, I’m sure that we would agree on many more things.

 

[KephasAugustine]

The scripture used to back confession, or the one I saw anyways, said he gave the ability to his disciples, not to their descendants.

From scripturecatholic.com:

John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, “as the Father sent me, so I send you.” As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.

John 20:22 - the Lord “breathes” on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord “breathes” divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.

John 20:23 - Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.

Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to “men.” Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles’ successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?

Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the “Son of man” has authority to forgive sins on earth.

Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus’ authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors.

Matt. 18:18 - the apostles are given authority to bind and loose. The authority to bind and loose includes administering and removing the temporal penalties due to sin. The Jews understood this since the birth of the Church.

John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 - the power to remit/retain sin is also the power to remit/retain punishment due to sin. If Christ’s ministers can forgive the eternal penalty of sin, they can certainly remit the temporal penalty of sin (which is called an “indulgence”).

2 Cor. 2:10 - Paul forgives in the presence of Christ (some translations refer to the presences of Christ as “in persona Christi”). Some say that this may also be a reference to sins.

2 Cor. 5:18 - the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ambassadors of the Church. This ministry of reconciliation refers to the sacrament of reconciliation, also called the sacrament of confession or penance.

James 5:15-16 - in verse 15 we see that sins are forgiven by the priests in the sacrament of the sick. This is another example of man’s authority to forgive sins on earth. Then in verse 16, James says “Therefore, confess our sins to one another,” in reference to the men referred to in verse 15, the priests of the Church.

1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness.

Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.

James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 – these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.

Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today.

Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist).

1 Tim. 6:12 - this verse also refers to the historical practice of confessing both faith and sins in the presence of many witnesses.

1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But we must confess our sins to one another.

Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution.

2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin. David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin).

Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other.

Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse.

Baruch 1:14 - again, this shows that the people made confession in the house of the Lord, before the assembly.

1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. This has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, but, today, most Protestants no longer agree that there is such a distinction. Mortal sins lead to death and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do not have to be confessed to a priest, but the pious Catholic practice is to do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness.

Matt. 5:19 - Jesus teaches that breaking the least of commandments is venial sin (the person is still saved but is least in the kingdom), versus mortal sin (the person is not saved).

 

[anthony022071]

[onetimeposter]

I actually want a relationship with Christ…

You’re not going to have much of a relationship with Christ by being out of communion with theBody of Christ,the Church that Christ founded. You’re not going to have much of a relationship with Christ by avoiding the sacraments he instituted and avoiding his commandment to help those who are poor and needy.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Don’t over-inflate yourself. I have neither the time nor desire to “look you up.” If I have in fact stumbled upon certain truths concerning who you are… it is only because I know many protestants like you and thus, you are simply common and nothing special. God bless.

It might help enlighten thecoach and others to respond to his posts (if he is still reading), but he will not be responding in return because he has been banned from CAF.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The scripture used to back confession, or the one I saw anyways, said he gave the ability to his disciples, not to their descendants.

Why would a charism end with the Apostles’ deaths? The need for a successor or descendant is outline in Acts1:24-26

"***So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
24
Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
25
to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.”
26
8 Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

---

 

[Tietjen]

I hope that is a joke.

Yes, it was. I use sarcasm probably a bit too much. I am however, a nice person when ya get to know me.

I do not care if it gives an impression, its true.

What’s true? That Catholics aren’t Christian? LOL Perhaps I was correct about it being an adult thing. You are simply too ridiculously young to be having this conversation. 20 years from now, you may look back on what you are saying and will probably become rather red-faced at what spewed forth from you mouth… errr… fingers. The fact that you don’t care if you are insulting others proves two things. One that you are in fact rude and two that you are what?.. doing God’s work? WWJD? Insult others? I think not. LOL. Peace misguided bro.

 

[Verisimilitude]

What’s true? That Catholics aren’t Christian?

Many Christians support positions such as abortion, offensive war, and political philosophies that appear non Christ-like. The picture painted of a Christian to the non-Christian world by the non-Catholic Christian is not a view I care to be associated with in many respects. I think the distinction is fine.

 

[Tietjen]

I am ignorant?

I see in that he gives the mthe power to forgive sin, but it doesn’t say their successors.

Okay, follow here for a second. First, you are not ignorant. Misguided? maybe. But that is not your fault. Now, does it even begin to make the slightest amount of sense that if Christ gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins that this authority wouldn’t be passed down. What?! did people stop sinning after the Apostles died? No they did not, so I would suggest that God, knowing that man would continue to sin, put in place a line of succession inwhich His Church could maintain it’s authority and leadership in leading people to Christ. Okay, now look at James 5:13-16. We see that Presbyters (AKA - Priests) were called to conduct the anointing of the sick (this is a sacrament were sins are forgiven as well). Notice if you will that the average Christian wasn’t able to do this, it had to be a Presbyter (Priest) because only a Priest has the authority to forgive sins via the grace of God. Now, if ONLY the Apostles were given this authority, it would have said that an Apostle(s) was called. It doesn’t. It says Presbyters (Priests). If Jesus Christ only gave this authority to the Apostles, how did the Presbyters gain it? This means only one of two possibilities. Either the Bible is wrong; or the Apostles could pass this authority on to others. My bet is on the later. Do you subscribe to the former?

 

[ChristianKnight]

John 20:21: 21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”

He is sending them, he didn’t say their successors…

John 20:22: 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

This means the disciples can, but this doesn’t say their successors.

John 20:23: 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

This confirms the same as 22

Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10- 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…" Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”

Mark 2:10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic

So, Jesus can forgive sins, this isn’t new my friend.

Matthew Chapter 9, verse 8: When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men

So, they were suprised, I would be too.

Luke 5:24: 24But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…" He said to the paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.”
**
Same as the others, Jesus can forgive sins, nothing is said about the apostles successor’s.**

Matthew 18:18- 18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be[d]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.

That says nothing about apostles successors.
John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18-

This shows he gave it to his apostles, not successors…

Honestly, in none of them does it say the disciple’s successors will be able to do this. Sorry, but I am just telling you what I am seeing.