Knee jerk response to faith alone

[Cat_Herder]

How to reconcile the two statements, I don’t know.

Free will. Salvation is a gift but it can be thrown away, sadly. Jesus died for everyone, but as you point out…

But we can look around and see that many people still exist today who refuse to accept His Sacrifice. And presumably, many of them will die in that state of animosity towards God.

We don’t have to accept that outcome. We can work to evangelize (as you do here at CAF.)

And we can pray: O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of Your Mercy.

 

[De_Maria]

Free will. Salvation is a gift but it can be thrown away, sadly. Jesus died for everyone, but as you point out…

We don’t have to accept that outcome. We can work to evangelize (as you do here at CAF.)

And we can pray: O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of Your Mercy.

Amen! I recognize that prayer. Yes indeed! If you want to save the world, pray the daily Rosary!

 

[Brian_Culliton]

It is commanded in the Scriptures by St. Paul:
Hebrews 10

23Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised
24And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
** 25Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves** together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
** 26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
**

***If we forsake the assembly, we sin wilfully.

---

27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

He compares forsaking the assembly to the person who despised the law of Moses and is stoned without mercy. A mortal sin.

29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, **who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? **
30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

***It is in the Mass that we receive the Body of Christ and the Blood of the Covenant in the Eucharist. Therefore if we forsake the Mass, we have trod under the Son of God and counted the Blood of Christ by which we are sanctified an unholy thing.

I think that constitutes a mortal sin.***

But please, tell me what you think.

Yes, I will tell you what I think. I think that is the biggest stretch on Scripture interpretation I have seen in a long time. Being absent from the assembly is not the same as forsaking assembling.

I don’t want to put words in your mouth so let me carefully analyze what you are saying here. You conveyed in your comments that if one is absent from mass on an obligated day he or she is guilty of forsaking the assembly. Furthermore you stated that forsaking the assembly is willfully sinning against God. And here you are saying that when a Catholic is absent from mass on an obligated day, they consider the blood of Christ an unholy thing.

Let me repeat that: according to you, De Maria, any Catholic that is absent from mass on an obligated day considers the blood of Christ an unholy thing and has despised the Spirit of grace. Is that right? And what is the future of one who does this?

“For if we sin willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.”

It is a shame that a church would intimidate its faithful by applying this warning to those who happen to miss mass for a reason considered not good enough by the authority. In reality, Paul’s warning does not describe the heart of a Catholic who misses the assembly on an obligated day or any other day. If that did describe their heart there would be no need for reconciliation since they would despise the blood of Christ; why then would they want to return?

 

[De_Maria]

Yes, I will tell you what I think. I think that is the biggest stretch on Scripture interpretation I have seen in a long time. Being absent from the assembly is not the same as forsaking assembling.

What’s the difference?

I don’t want to put words in your mouth so let me carefully analyze what you are saying here. You conveyed in your comments that if one is absent from mass on an obligated day he or she is guilty of forsaking the assembly. Furthermore you stated that forsaking the assembly is willfully sinning against God. And here you are saying that when a Catholic is absent from mass on an obligated day, they consider the blood of Christ an unholy thing.

Correct.

Let me repeat that: according to you, De Maria, any Catholic that is absent from mass on an obligated day considers the blood of Christ an unholy thing and has despised the Spirit of grace. Is that right? And what is the future of one who does this?

“For if we sin willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.”

It is a shame that a church would intimidate its faithful by applying this warning to those who happen to miss mass for a reason considered not good enough by the authority. In reality, Paul’s warning does not describe the heart of a Catholic who misses the assembly on an obligated day or any other day. If that did describe their heart there would be no need for reconciliation since they would despise the blood of Christ; why then would they want to return?

You tell me.

All I see is questions in there. I thought you were going to explain why this verse did not apply to the Catholic teaching. But you simply seem to object to either the teaching or the Scripture. Or both.

Do you have an explanation for your point of view?

 

[Cat_Herder]

It is a shame that a church would intimidate its faithful by applying this warning to those who happen to miss mass for a reason considered not good enough by the authority. *

Please answer this question:
1 Cor 10:16:

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?

Then consider whether the following statement is “shameful,” to use your language:
John 6.53:

So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

 

[JonNC]

=De Maria;7059913]But that verse speaks of the unregenerate.
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, **but the doers of the law shall be **justified.

If there were successful doers of the law, there would have been no need of a savior, would you not agree?

Doers SHALL be justified. In the future. Sounds to me as in preparation for Baptism.

I’m not sure of your point. Are you saying we work our way to justification, even before we are regenerate?

I agree. And the hearing of the word precedes Baptism:
Romans 10:17
**So then faith cometh by ****hearing, and ****hearing by the word of God.
**
No. Grace is first. But grace is first received much before Baptism.

Not arguing the point that Grace precedes Baptism, as Baptism is sanctifying Grace, but I assume you are speaking of adults, correct?

Jon

 

[Cat_Herder]

If there were successful doers of the law, there would have been no need of a savior, would you not agree?

Whoa there, pardner. Note that Christ took care of three evils:

1. Actual sin, i.e. failure to do the law
2. Original sin (Psalm 51-:5)
3. Satan (Gen. 3:15)

The Blessed Virgin is a perfect doer of the Law. But she still needed a Savior because of (2) and (3). Luke 1.47. In her case (2) was taken care of at the moment of her conception precisely because of her Son. For the rest of us there is baptism.

 

[Philthy]

Based upon your catechism selection below, I suppose you object to my saying that Jesus didn’t die for all men.

Maria I’m pretty sure this is heretical.

This is what Scripture says:
Hebrews 5:9
And being consummated, he became, to all that obey him, the cause of eternal salvation. So, the fact remains that Christ became the cause of salvation for those who obey Him. Not for those who don’t.

Notice the difference between your original claim:
**“Christ did not die for all men” **
and your conclusion based on Hebrews 5:9:
"Christ did not become the cause of salvation for those who disobey him"

They are very different claims my dear. Just remember, “For God so loved the world He sent his only son” not to the obedient, not to the future Christians, not to anyone or anything else - He loved *the world *- us in all our sin and disobedience…"that He sent his only Son so that whoever believes in Him might not perish. “For us men and for our salvation He came down from Heaven”…
If that is too confusing, then ask yourself this: “If everyone who Christ died for is already saved by his having died for them, then what is the point of the Gospel?”

Christ died for all mankind; but not all of mankind accepts Him and as a result not all of them are saved by his death for them.

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

It is a shame that a church would intimidate its faithful by applying this warning to those who happen to miss mass for a reason considered not good enough by the authority.

By the authority, do you mean God? The Church does not stand around judging people who don’t show up for Mass and they don’t attempt to intimidate anyone. All the Church is saying is to keep holy the Lords Day, and they are letting them know that ignoring the Lord on His Day **for no good reason **is a serious sin. As far as intimidation goes, it is probably more intimidating for you to hear that there is sin that you can commit which - if unrepented of - can cause you to lose your inheritance in Heaven. Scripture is clear on that fact, however, in 1Cor 6:9; Eph 5:5; Gal 5:20 and many other places.
You also need to remember how the Mass is different from, say, an Evangelical service, and to not intellectually substitute them. It is a big part of the Catholic faith that at the Mass we come together to confess our sinfulness to one another, to pray for one another, to hear the word together and - and this is a big and - to receive the very body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist for the forgiveness of sin and the empowering to live the Christian life in service to others. An Evangelical service, for example, has no such dimension to it as the Eucharist. There is nothing “salvific” about it and missing it, while frowned upon, has no salvific consequence. It is entirely optional. So I think it would be a mistake to project your thoughts about missing a service into missing Mass - they aren’t the same according to the respective faiths that practice them.

Blessings!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

That’s referring to proclaiming the Gospel.

So, is this just your opinion?

I certainly don’t see it that way, and didn’t see it that way from the first time I read it.

 

[Third_Day]

=Brian Culliton;7061476]Yes, I will tell you what I think. I think that is the biggest stretch on Scripture interpretation I have seen in a long time. Being absent from the assembly is not the same as forsaking assembling.

What do you think of this Protestant translation from the NIV?

“and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.”

Furthermore you stated that forsaking the assembly is willfully sinning against God

.It is obvious from scripture that the early Christians met on the first day of the week for prayers and the breaking of bread. (Eucharist) . If someone deliberately, with full consent, did not go wouldn’t that be a sin?

It is a shame that a church would intimidate its faithful by applying this warning to those who happen to miss mass for a reason considered not good enough by the authority.

There are many valid reasons for missing Mass. Laziness isn’t one of them. If you decide that you would rather stay home and sleep or go play golf on Sunday instead of going to your worship service, isn’t that a sin? Aren’t you putting yourself before God?

 

[Brian_Culliton]

By the authority, do you mean God? The Church does not stand around judging people who don’t show up for Mass and they don’t attempt to intimidate anyone.

Of course the church doesn’t stand around judging people who don’t show up for mass, that’s because they haven’t the capacity to do so. And that’s the whole point. A church cannot make a doctrine that attempts to define a person’s heart.

By the way, is Hebrews 10 the Scriptural support for your holy days of obligation doctrine?

All the Church is saying is to keep holy the Lords Day, and they are letting them know that ignoring the Lord on His Day for no good reason is a serious sin.

So if a faithful Christian goes camping one weekend and misses church, he is ignoring the Lord on His day? How so? Is it because you define what Christians need to do on Sundays? What if faithful followers of Christ were to meet on some other day of the week? According to your doctrine they consider the blood of Christ an unholy thing and have despised the Spirit of grace. Paul was clear regarding a person in that category; there is no more sacrifice for sin. So any Catholic who has ever missed mass on Sunday without a good reason should, according to your own doctrine, consider themselves condemned for eternity.

As far as intimidation goes, it is probably more intimidating for you to hear that there is sin that you can commit which - if unrepented of - can cause you to lose your inheritance in Heaven. Scripture is clear on that fact, however, in 1Cor 6:9; Eph 5:5; Gal 5:20 and many other places.

You are being presumptuous; I never said anything of the sort.

You also need to remember how the Mass is different from, say, an Evangelical service, and to not intellectually substitute them. It is a big part of the Catholic faith that at the Mass we come together to confess our sinfulness to one another, to pray for one another, to hear the word together and - and this is a big and - to receive the very body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist for the forgiveness of sin and the empowering to live the Christian life in service to others. An Evangelical service, for example, has no such dimension to it as the Eucharist. There is nothing “salvific” about it and missing it, while frowned upon, has no salvific consequence. It is entirely optional. So I think it would be a mistake to project your thoughts about missing a service into missing Mass - they aren’t the same according to the respective faiths that practice them.

When you go to mass you confess your sins to one another? Is that a new thing? Where in the mass is that done? And I disagree with your perception of the Eucharist.

 

[JonNC]

Whoa there, pardner. Note that Christ took care of three evils:

1. Actual sin, i.e. failure to do the law
2. Original sin (Psalm 51-:5)
3. Satan (Gen. 3:15)

The Blessed Virgin is a perfect doer of the Law. But she still needed a Savior because of (2) and (3). Luke 1.47. In her case (2) was taken care of at the moment of her conception precisely because of her Son. For the rest of us there is baptism.

Ok, Cat. Let’s leave the Holy Theotokos aside for the moment. “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” My point was only that all have sinned, in terms of your number one, failure to do the law. And yes, I agree on number 2, and Baptism.

Jon

 

[Brian_Culliton]

It is obvious from scripture that the early Christians met on the first day of the week for prayers and the breaking of bread. (Eucharist) . If someone deliberately, with full consent, did not go wouldn’t that be a sin?

No. Explain why you think it is. Where did Jesus or His apostles say that not gathering on the first day of the week is a sin? And I’ll bet Jewish believers gathered on the seventh day of the week during apostolic times.

 

[Philthy]

Hi Brian! :tiphat:

A church cannot make a doctrine that attempts to define a person’s heart.

Im not sure what you mean by this. The Church simply says that missing Mass on Sunday should not be taken lightly - to do so is a serious sin. Do you consider that admonition an attempt to define a person’s heart?

By the way, is Hebrews 10 the Scriptural support for your holy days of obligation doctrine?

No, not really. I don’t labor under the delusion that explicit Scriptural support is required for the Church to declare Sunday a day of obligation. The concept should not contradict Scripture, however.

So if a faithful Christian goes camping one weekend and misses church, he is ignoring the Lord on His day?

It depends on the situation. I go camping on Memorial Day every year and no matter where I am I find a Catholic Church within reasonable distance - less than half an hour drive. But I could imagine a longer commitment being unreasonable by todays standards.

How so? Is it because you define what Christians need to do on Sundays?

No, I certainly don’t…Christ does through his Church and they are fairly vague. Sunday is a day of rest from labor, to gather for celebrating the Lord’s day and for practicing Christian virtues. It leaves a significant amount of leeway, but intentionally not gathering with others and not celebrating the Lord’s Supper is a no no.

What if faithful followers of Christ were to meet on some other day of the week?

We meet every day. Refusing to meet on the day the Church establishes as the Lords day would be disobedient and contrary to the bible. Does your bible say that you are to determine your own rules of practicing the faith? I’d like to see that verse…

According to your doctrine they consider the blood of Christ an unholy thing and have despised the Spirit of grace. Paul was clear regarding a person in that category; there is no more sacrifice for sin. So any Catholic who has ever missed mass on Sunday without a good reason should, according to your own doctrine, consider themselves condemned for eternity.

Fortunately amateur attempts at defining what is and what is not Church doctrine don’t - unlike some faith communities without any authoritative hierarchy - amount to much in Catholicism. Your interpretation is wrong and, like I said, I dont consider Hebrews a proof text for anything.

You are being presumptuous; I never said anything of the sort.

I said “PERHAPS” you are more sensitive - not that you are definitively more sensitive.

When you go to mass you confess your sins to one another?

Yes - but more in the sense of acknowledging that we have sinned but not articulating the actual sin committed.

Is that a new thing?

Depends - do you consider something almost 2000 years old a “new thing”?

Where in the mass is that done?

Right after the greeting, in the beginning: “I confess to God and to you my brothers and sisters that I have sinned through my own fault: in my thoughts and in my words; in what I have done and in what I have failed to do…”

And I disagree with your perception of the Eucharist.

Which perception - my perception of the Catholic understanding of it or the Evangelical understanding of it? I mean, of course you disagree with the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist or you would be Catholic or Orthodox. But I brought it up to bring a context to the discussion of why missing Mass is more important to Catholics than missing an Evangelical service. Did that point escape you or do I not understand why you would comment that you don’t agree with “my” understanding of the Eucharist?

Blessings!

 

[De_Maria]

No. Explain why you think it is

He did. You missed it. Just read over what he said.

. Where did Jesus or His apostles say that not gathering on the first day of the week is a sin?

I quoted it to you in Heb 10.

And I’ll bet Jewish believers gathered on the seventh day of the week during apostolic times.

But the Jews denied Christ. Why would you follow the custom of those who deny Christ?

 

[De_Maria]

If there were successful doers of the law, there would have been no need of a savior, would you not agree?

I think you’re digging a rabbit hole. St. Paul didn’t say anything about being successful. He simply said one had to “do” the law to be justified. If we look through his writings, St. Paul was not averse to keeping the Commandments. He stressed it.

Romans 3:31
**Do we then make void the ****law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the ****law.

** 1 Corinthians 7:19
**Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the ****commandments of God.
**
Romans 13:10
**Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore ****love is the fulfilling of the **law.

I’m not sure of your point. Are you saying we work our way to justification, even before we are regenerate?

Yes.

**CHAPTER V
THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT PROCEEDS
**It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.
Hence, when it is said in the sacred writings:
Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,[19] we are reminded of our liberty; and when we reply:
Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted,[20] we confess that we need the grace of God.
CHAPTER VI
THE MANNER OF PREPARATION
Now, they [the adults] are disposed to that justice when, aroused and aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing,[21] they are moved freely toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised, especially that the sinner is justified by God by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;[22] and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are salutarily aroused, to consider the mercy of God, are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice, and on that account are moved against sin by a certain hatred and detestation, that is, by that repentance that must be performed before baptism;[23]

Not arguing the point that Grace precedes Baptism, as Baptism is sanctifying Grace, but I assume you are speaking of adults, correct?

Correct.

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Ok, Cat. Let’s leave the Holy Theotokos aside for the moment. “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” My point was only that all have sinned, in terms of your number one, failure to do the law. And yes, I agree on number 2, and Baptism.

Jon

But in that verse, St. Paul is making, keeping the Commandments a prerequisite for Baptism.

The clarion call has always been, “Repent and be Baptized”. What did you think it meant to “repent”?

 

[Cat_Herder]

"Third Day:

It is obvious from scripture that the early Christians met on the first day of the week for prayers and the breaking of bread. (Eucharist) . If someone deliberately, with full consent, did not go wouldn’t that be a sin?

No. Explain why you think it is. Where did Jesus or His apostles say that not gathering on the first day of the week is a sin? And I’ll bet Jewish believers gathered on the seventh day of the week during apostolic times.

Okay, here we go…

Exodus 12:14-18 On the first day you shall hold a solemn assembly, and on the seventh day a solemn assembly; no work shall be done on those days; only what everyone must eat, that alone may be prepared by you. You shall observe the festival of unleavened bread, for on this very day I brought your companies out of the land of Egypt: you shall observe this day throughout your generations as a perpetual ordinance.

Exodus 12:21-24 Then Moses called all the elders of Israel and said to them, ‘Go, select lambs for your families, and slaughter the passover lamb. Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and touch the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood in the basin. None of you shall go outside the door of your house until morning. For the Lord will pass through to strike down the Egyptians; when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over that door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you down. You shall observe this rite as a **perpetual ordinance for you and your children.

A perpetual ordinance, eh? When was the last time you held the Passover? When was the last time you ate the Passover lamb with unleavened bread? Oh, what is that you say? We don’t have to do this anymore? Why?

John 1.29 The next day he saw Jesus coming towards him and declared, ‘Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!’

Hebrews 10.10: And it is by God’s will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

“Once for all!,” you say. But from where do you get the idea that the perpetual ordinance has been disestablished? That’s not what the prophets said would happen when the Messiah came.

Malachi 1:10-11 O that someone among you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not kindle fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.

The only pure offering to the Father is His Son. But what about the rest of the Scripture?

1. The pure offering – Jesus
2. From the rising of the sun to its setting – all the time
3. Among all the nations / in every place
4. Offered with incense

So, how are we supposed to offer Jesus in every time and place if Calvary was an offering in one nation, in one place, and at one time?

This is how.

1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

The Mass is the Passover is Calvary is the Lord’s Supper. That’s why God requires us to go. Jews who did not observe the Passover were cut off from their people. If we don’t observe the Passover, the same thing happens to us.

And when and how often do we have to observe it?

Acts of the Apostles 20.7: On the first day of the week [Sunday], when we met to break bread, Paul was holding a discussion with them; since he intended to leave the next day, he continued speaking until midnight.**

 

[Third_Day]

No. Explain why you think it is. Where did Jesus or His apostles say that not gathering on the first day of the week is a sin? And I’ll bet Jewish believers gathered on the seventh day of the week during apostolic times.

See what Cat Herder posted. (Excellent)

Now can you answer my question?. If you do not keep holy the Lord’s Day (Sunday) isn’t that a sin? Can you keep it holy if you sleep in or if you play golf instead of worshiping God? Can you claim to be a Christian, love God with your whole heart soul, strength and mind and yet ignore Him on Sunday?