Mark 9:40 "whoever is not against us is for us."

[mesl4]

9:38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him because he was not following us.” 9:39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, because no one who does a miracle in my name will be able soon afterward to say anything bad about me. 9:40 For whoever is not against us is for us. 9:41 For I tell you the truth, 50 whoever gives you a cup of water because 51 you bear Christ’s 52 name will never lose his reward

Doesn’t this support a broader view of Christianity than the Catholic ( or any denomination for that matter) view?

It seems to say that anyone who is trying to please God, or do his work, or conquer evil, is on Jesus’ side, and will be rewarded eternally.

It seems to show that you don’t necessarily have to belong to the group of apostles/their successors to be “in the Jesus club” so to speak. Those are Jesus’ own words too!

I was really convinced to convert a while ago, but I’m getting less and less convinced it’s right. I’m in RCIA and our Rite of Blessing is coming up. I think I should not go through with it.

 

[Eucharisted]

If you wish to leave the Church, than you will no longer be for Jesus, and whoever is not for the Lord is against the Lord.

The Lord awaits you in the tabernacle. Would you be so cruel as to leave Him?

 

[mesl4]

If you wish to leave the Church, than you will no longer be for Jesus, and whoever is not for the Lord is against the Lord.

The Lord awaits you in the tabernacle. Would you be so cruel as to leave Him?

I wouldn’t be leaving the Catholic Church because I was never in it. I’ve been non-denominational Christian since I can remember. My point is that anyone who loves Jesus, loves God, and tries to do what they understand is his will, would be “with him.” Plus, leaving a church does not mean leaving Jesus/God. It would just be leaving an institution.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You need to consider the context. Remember, “Salvation is from the Jews”. That salvation was going to be opened up to Gentiles was not then known. Jesus was planting a seed in His Jewish followers that would help them to recognize that Salvation was going to be offered to the Gentiles. He wasn’t advocating a ‘broad’ interpretation of Christianity. Keep reading Scripture and remember its context. We all need to be wary of picking up a few passages of Scripture and trying to use them as justification for thinking a ‘man-made’ gospel.

 

[LilyM]

Aah, this is another one of the ‘hard sayings’ of Jesus - there are many passages to the contrary - take it together with Matthew 12:30 for example

“He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth”

So what are we to make of the two seemingly contradictory verses when taken together and in context with the rest of scripture?

Clearly being ‘with Me’ means much more than lipservice, and even more than action done under a Christian veneer.

There are passages about those who ‘call me Lord, Lord’ not being saved. More seriously, there are passages about those even who prophesy and do miracles in Jesus’ name, and YET ‘I know you not’, and these too are not saved.

So we are not just to blindly accept that everything claimed to be done in Jesus’ name is OK, nor that everyone who claims to follow Jesus in fact does so. We need to test their spirits and observe their fruits. And the fruit of Protestants, mostly, is division.

 

[Lancer]

*“It would just be leaving an institution.”

*I don’t think so. The Church is his bride…his body – he is the head and we are the body (he the Vine and we the branches). If I can’t help you in detail about the passage…maybe I can submit to you that the Church is an institution…but most seriously and most importantly…it is a Divine Mystical institution…made up of living stones…us (those here; those in purgatory. and those in heaven).

As far as the passage, the Catholic Church says that any baptized person (Christian) is in the Catholic Church…maybe in less than perfect and full communion…but they are in the Church…so any good they do is actually done in and through the Church for the Father in the name of Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit. There is only One Church…because there is only One Jesus…and He found His one Church (not churches) on Peter the Rock. If you can look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church (para.763-776)…its clear and quite beautiful.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm

Pax Christi

 

[Pete_Holter]

9:38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him because he was not following us.” 9:39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, because no one who does a miracle in my name will be able soon afterward to say anything bad about me. 9:40 For whoever is not against us is for us. 9:41 For I tell you the truth, 50 whoever gives you a cup of water because 51 you bear Christ’s 52 name will never lose his reward

Doesn’t this support a broader view of Christianity than the Catholic ( or any denomination for that matter) view?

It seems to say that anyone who is trying to please God, or do his work, or conquer evil, is on Jesus’ side, and will be rewarded eternally.

It seems to show that you don’t necessarily have to belong to the group of apostles/their successors to be “in the Jesus club” so to speak. Those are Jesus’ own words too!

I was really convinced to convert a while ago, but I’m getting less and less convinced it’s right. I’m in RCIA and our Rite of Blessing is coming up. I think I should not go through with it.

Hi mesl4!

I am sorry that you are getting discouraged on your journey. Perhaps you can let us in on your specific struggles so that we can minister to your needs. I myself was just reconciled to Christ’s Church last weekend.

I think Augustine does a really good job of tackling both this passage and its complement, and I hope that his comments come as an invigorating blessing to you:

“I therefore bring forward from the gospel clear proofs, by which I propose, with God’s help, to prove how rightly and truly in the sight of God it has been determined, that in the case of every schismatic and heretic, the wound which caused his separation should be cured by the medicine of the Church; but that what remained sound in him should rather be recognized with approbation, than wounded by condemnation. It is indeed true that the Lord says in the gospel, ‘He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathers not with me scatters abroad.’ Yet when the disciples had brought word to Him that they had seen one casting out devils in His name, and had forbidden him, because he followed not them, He said, ‘Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. For there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.’ If, indeed, there were nothing in this man requiring correction, then any one would be safe who, setting himself outside the communion of the Church, severing himself from all Christian brotherhood, should gather in Christ’s name; and so there would be no truth in this, ‘He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathers not with me scatters abroad.’ But if he required correction in the point where the disciples in their ignorance were anxious to check him, why did our Lord, by saying, ‘Forbid him not,’ prevent this check from being given? And how can that be true which He then says, ‘He that is not against you is for you?’ For in this point he was not against, but for them, when he was working miracles of healing in Christ’s name. That both, therefore, should be true, as both are true,— both the declaration, that ‘he that is not with me is against me, and he that gathers not with me scatters abroad;’ and also the injunction, ‘Forbid him not; for he that is not against you is for you,’— what must we understand, except that the man was to be confirmed in his veneration for that mighty Name, in respect of which he was not against the Church, but for it; and yet he was to be blamed for separating himself from the Church, whereby his gathering became a scattering; and if it should have so happened that he sought union with the Church, he should not have received what he already possessed, but be made to set right the points wherein he had gone astray?” (, Bk 1, Ch 7On Baptism, Against the Donatists)

 

[MarcoPolo]

Others are correct. You cannot fully love Jesus and reject His Church. If you do this in ignorance, then you may well merit heaven. However, if you reject His Church, ultimately, you deprive yourself of the One Body (Eph 4:4) which is at once Christ and the Church (Col 1:24), and only the Church can provide you the nourishment of sacraments (Eph 5:29). He is the Savior of that One Body (Eph 5:23).

It may interest you to read how St. Augustine was inspired to join the Church by Victorinus. Earlier in Victorinus’ life, he did not believe he had to be part of the visible Church. But he realized that just as Jesus was earthly and divine, so was the Church, with which you must unite to cross the bridge to heaven. He said he wanted to “go to the church to become a Christian.” Read Book 8, chapter II of Augustine’s Confessions here for the story. It’s only a few paragraphs.

 

[mesl4]

Hi mesl4!

I am sorry that you are getting discouraged on your journey. Perhaps you can let us in on your specific struggles so that we can minister to your needs.

This might get us off topic, but the whole reason I’m here is for clarity on all this, I’ll go ahead:

My struggles are pretty much most of what I had a problem with before I ever considered the Catholic church, it’s just that when I had what I thought was this eye-opening ,God inspired understanding to Church heirarchy/authority, I figured I better further investigate Catholic claims since they’re the ones saying they have his authority (and unlike mormons, can actually show historical evidence). Protestants don’t make this claim so it’s never been an issue if we fail in our interpretations, since we accept that we’re all flawed and can only do what we can.

The first few months everything seemed to be falling into place, making sense, and I really felt called to Catholicism. The last few mos. I’ve really struggled with the RCs teaching on needing confession to priests for forgiveness of mortal sins, on indulgences, on missing Sunday mass is a mortal sin, and just all the teachings that seem so far from Jesus’ message. It seems like what the Jews/Pharisees did w/the Mosaic Law adding 600+ man-made laws to go with God’s 10 commandments. The RCs have added a million laws to our already struggling souls that are supposed to give us salvation if we keep them. It just seems so wrong to me now.

The whole understanding of what “The Church” or “The Bride of Christ” is is very different between Catholics and Protestants/me. I don’t think of his Church as being a earthly church. All those that “confess Jesus as Lord and believe in their hearts” are his Church, no matter what church you go to or don’t go to. I’m reading “Evidence for the Papacy” which I thought would definitly convince anyone, but so far, all the evidence for Peter being the head, and receiving authority to set up the church, etc, really doesn’t lead me to believe that the RC church is The Church. I think God wanted it set up that way to get things started and have order maybe, but at this point, w/Christianity all over the world, I don’t know that he wants people to stay boxed into some “religion.” Like maybe the 1054 schism was just the first to break away from the restraints/legalism that His Church had done into. I’m sure His Church existed all along and still exists, I just don’t think it had/has the confines of the RC church. I think it extends beyond that.

My main fear in converting is, "What if it’s wrong? What if my beliefs/Protestantism has been right all along and by converting, I’m saying, “Jesus, your sacrifice wasn’t enough for my forgiveness/salvation, I need to go to a church that makes/lets me work for it by doing a bunch of rituals.” “What if our salvation really is based just on BELIEVING that Jesus HAS forgiven us. He wiped the slate clean when he died and give us new life because he rose, and simply by believing that and trusting him to do this, we are saved?” Well, then, I better stay where I am because by going RC, I’m not trusting him. I’m trusting a church, other people, and things to save me - and even then, sounds questionable since apparently I’d be doomed to hell if I missed church on Sunday, even if I’d gone M-Sat, and stayed at home Sunday fasting and praying all day. That’s where I draw the line. How can that be God’s will?

 

[Pete_Holter]

This might get us off topic, but the whole reason I’m here is for clarity on all this, I’ll go ahead:

…The last few mos. I’ve really struggled with the RCs teaching on needing confession to priests for forgiveness of mortal sins, on indulgences, on missing Sunday mass is a mortal sin, and just all the teachings that seem so far from Jesus’ message. It seems like what the Jews/Pharisees did w/the Mosaic Law adding 600+ man-made laws to go with God’s 10 commandments. The RCs have added a million laws to our already struggling souls that are supposed to give us salvation if we keep them. It just seems so wrong to me now.

Wow! You have a lot of legitimate concerns. I hope that I can say some things that are helpful.

Do you believe that the 600+ laws were also given by God, albeit on account of man’s sin (cf. Jer. 7:22-23)? Perhaps Catholics are more sinful than other Christians. I remember watching a Journey Home episode and the guest made a comment to the effect that, “The Catholic Church doesn’t have any more rules than other churches; they just happen to have them all written down.”

For confession, how do you understand John 20:21-23? And James 5:13-16?

As for indulgences, what do you think of 2 Kings 5:1-14 and 13:14-19? It is easy to think of indulgences as unbiblical because it seems almost superstitious. “If I go do this seemingly unrelated activity, then God will extend special mercy to me.” See how Naaman contemptuously doubted and observe the lukewarmness and spiritual sloth of Joash when confronted by the “indulgences” offered by the man of God.

If a person misses mass without a serious reason, then this person is rejecting the primary means by which God has ordained that our relationship with Him and fellowship with one another be nurtured. If there are mitigating circumstances, then there are mitigating circumstances.

All those that “confess Jesus as Lord and believe in their hearts” are his Church, no matter what church you go to or don’t go to.

Paul writes, “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved” (Rom 10:9-10). He concludes this thought with, “For everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved” (Rom. 10:13). Another place in Scripture where this prophecy from Joel is cited is Acts 2, where Peter tells his hearers to “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Keeping this in mind, and going back to Paul’s own conversion, we can ask the question: When do Christians first “call on the Name of the LORD?” And Scripture answers, “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His Name” (Acts 22:16). We understand from 1 Cor. 12:13 that baptism is the means by which we enter into union with the Mystical Body of Christ. So when we understand Romans 10:9-10 in light of what Scripture tells us about baptism, we see that there is more to these verses than just an internal consent and confession of Jesus as Lord; it is part of a liturgical celebration through which we enter into union with Christ via the ministrations of His Church.

My main fear in converting is, "What if it’s wrong? What if my beliefs/Protestantism has been right all along and by converting, I’m saying, “Jesus, your sacrifice wasn’t enough for my forgiveness/salvation, I need to go to a church that makes/lets me work for it by doing a bunch of rituals.” “What if our salvation really is based just on BELIEVING that Jesus HAS forgiven us. He wiped the slate clean when he died and give us new life because he rose, and simply by believing that and trusting him to do this, we are saved?” Well, then, I better stay where I am because by going RC, I’m not trusting him. I’m trusting a church, other people, and things to save me - and even then, sounds questionable since apparently I’d be doomed to hell if I missed church on Sunday, even if I’d gone M-Sat, and stayed at home Sunday fasting and praying all day. That’s where I draw the line. How can that be God’s will?

What if it’s wrong? This is a very serious concern. I have a very sensitive conscience so I can sympathize with you. Our salvation is most definitely based on believing in Jesus and His death on the cross. His work is all sufficient! The Catholic Church understands His work to be applied to us by “faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6). The faith and love of Catholics do not add to the work of Christ. They are the means by which we appropriate the work of Christ. It is always a question of appropriation; it is never a question of addition.

Your example: “What if I do all these good things? How can it be God’s will that I do this other thing instead.” I see how this can cause an internal struggle. It reminds me of Saul and makes me think that he must have shared your struggle. “‘But I did obey the LORD,’ Saul said. ‘I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king. The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the LORD your God at Gilgal’” (1 Sam 15:20-21). And yet, what was the man of God’s response to the king? “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams. For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king” (1 Sam 15:22-23).

I hope that this has been helpful. May God bless you!

 

[MarcoPolo]

I don’t think of his Church as being a earthly church.

Until the second coming, His Church will be earthly. I tried explaining this in my last post. The Incarnation. That is KEY in understanding why the Church must be BOTH earthly and divine. Jesus was earthly and divine, both man and God at once. You cannot sever the earthly part of the Church. The sacraments should be understood the same way. Also, any Protestant church that doesn’t have bishops, priests, and deacons is easily dismissed as an incomplete church because you know Scripture speaks of these numerous times.

 

[mesl4]

so why did Jesus say his kingdom is not of this world? Is their a difference between his kingdom and his church?

 

[MarcoPolo]

so why did Jesus say his kingdom is not of this world? Is their a difference between his kingdom and his church?

Well, that still begs the question, then why did He come Incarnate?

His kingdom isn’t of this world. But we are. And we cannot reach His kingdom without crossing the bridge that is Christ, who dwells in both the earthly and divine world at once, as does His Church, which as I have described, is Christ perpetuated on earth.

 

[mesl4]

Wow! You have a lot of legitimate concerns. I hope that I can say some things that are helpful.

Do you believe that the 600+ laws were also given by God, albeit on account of man’s sin (cf. Jer. 7:22-23)?

No. I know some were. But what about the purification ritual before eating? Jesus makes it sound like that was man-made.

For confession, how do you understand John 20:21-23?

Seems like he’s giving that power to the apostles . I don’t know that that means God doesn’t forgive without them though. Could be.Seems strange for God to limit a non- Catholic/Christian’s salvation if they’re pouring out their heart to him in confesion, and begging for forgiveness w/a contrite heart and humility, and repenting just because they didn’t think they needed to go to a priest.

And James 5:13-16?

seems like prayer of elders and annointing w/oil helps more than simply praying on your own for healing.

As for indulgences, what do you think of 2 Kings 5:1-14 and 13:14-19? It is easy to think of indulgences as unbiblical because it seems almost superstitious. “If I go do this seemingly unrelated activity, then God will extend special mercy to me.” See how Naaman contemptuously doubted and observe the lukewarmness and spiritual sloth of Joash when confronted by the “indulgences” offered by the man of God.

I don’t see how this verse applies to indulgences at all. THe indulgence thing does seem very OT/Jewish though. Do you have any NT examples?

If a person misses mass without a serious reason, then this person is rejecting the primary means by which God has ordained that our relationship with Him and fellowship with one another be nurtured. If there are mitigating circumstances, then there are mitigating circumstances.

But the apostles made it clear that one specific day did not have to be the sabbath. The whole point is to make our daily life a sabbath in some way, glorifying God and worshipping him daily, not just one particular day of the wk, and go ahead and forsake him the rest. Likewise, Jesus says the kingdom of God is WITHIN us not in a building. So why do I need to go to a building every wk? I see the benefit of it , fellowship w/other Christians, the Eucharist, and I’m not advocating never going to Mass, just why it seems to ONLY county on Sundays. That again, seems like legalism.

What if it’s wrong? This is a very serious concern. I have a very sensitive conscience so I can sympathize with you. Our salvation is most definitely based on believing in Jesus and His death on the cross. His work is all sufficient! The Catholic Church understands His work to be applied to us by “faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6). The faith and love of Catholics do not add to the work of Christ. They are the means by which we appropriate the work of Christ. It is always a question of appropriation; it is never a question of addition

.
That doesn’t sound like his work is all sufficient then.
.

And yet, what was the man of God’s response to the king? “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams. For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king” (1 Sam 15:22-23).

This can be used to defend my point too. Obeying the Lord in our daily life is more important than going to Mass and offering a sacrifice that he already did.

 

[Pete_Holter]

No. I know some were. But what about the purification ritual before eating? Jesus makes it sound like that was man-made.

Hi mesl4,

It was definitely man made. But I thought the count of 613 commandments was the estimated number of commandments given to the Jews in the Old Testament. Am I wrong?

Seems like he’s giving that power to the apostles . I don’t know that that means God doesn’t forgive without them though. Could be.Seems strange for God to limit a non- Catholic/Christian’s salvation if they’re pouring out their heart to him in confesion, and begging for forgiveness w/a contrite heart and humility, and repenting just because they didn’t think they needed to go to a priest.

This is why we need the church to spread! To bring the healing of confession to all of us sinners. The point that makes it limiting, and why we need to go, is because the apostles have the power to withhold forgiveness. This only makes sense in the context of requiring confession. Otherwise, a person could just avoid confessing through the established authority and assume that they’ve been forgiven whenever they ask God for it, when hypothetically, the priest would not have extended God’s forgiveness to that person. It would be to no effect if you had the power to withhold forgiveness, but no one ever came to you to be forgiven. In order for this to be true, confession to God must be mediated (normatively speaking). Otherwise a person might think themselves unfortunate because they went to a priest to confess, but were refused forgiveness. They might think, “If only I had just confessed directly to God, I would have been forgiven! Never again!”

seems like prayer of elders and annointing w/oil helps more than simply praying on your own for healing.

Yup! And here’s where confession is found in the text: “If he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.” It says to confess to “one another” and pray for “one another.” It might be thought that this means I should find a buddy and confess to him and then he should confess to me. I should pray for him and he should pray for me. This is a good Christian practice. However, I think the context shows that the primary meaning is that the elder should pray for the sinner and the elder should hear the confession of the sinner. This is because the understanding of the Greek word translated as “one another” is determined by context. And in the verses preceding this concluding text, we have James telling us to call the elders and it is the prayers of the elder that bring healing and forgiveness. It is one class of people on one side of the equation, and another class on the other side. We see the “one another” pronoun used this way in Ephesians 5 where it says that we are to be submitting “one to another out of reverence for God.” It then goes on to explain that wives are to submit to husbands, children to parents, slaves to masters – not every individual to every other individual, but classes to classes.

That is my understanding of it.

I don’t see how this verse applies to indulgences at all. The indulgence thing does seem very OT/Jewish though. Do you have any NT examples?

Ah. The reason I see indulgences in these two Old Testament passages is because of the Biblical understanding of war and disease. Disease was seen as a temporal punishment for sin, so much so that the apostles couldn’t think of any other options when Jesus asked them about the man born blind. God also commonly, if not unanimously, identifies war as a temporal scourge that He uses against sin. So that just as indulgences mitigate the temporal punishment due to sin, likewise the activities prescribed by Elisha were to win a similar victory.

New Testament… Hmmm… nothing is coming to mind… but keep in mind the phrase “tota Scriptura,” i.e., what does all of Scripture teach us.

 

[Pete_Holter]

But the apostles made it clear that one specific day did not have to be the sabbath. The whole point is to make our daily life a sabbath in some way, glorifying God and worshipping him daily, not just one particular day of the wk, and go ahead and forsake him the rest. Likewise, Jesus says the kingdom of God is WITHIN us not in a building. So why do I need to go to a building every wk? I see the benefit of it , fellowship w/other Christians, the Eucharist, and I’m not advocating never going to Mass, just why it seems to ONLY county on Sundays. That again, seems like legalism.

One thing that might help is to come to terms with the notion that everything that is commanded of us, with which we personally disagree, will be legalism in our eyes. At such times it will help to think of the son who told his father that he wouldn’t do it, but did it anyway. Buried in this teaching is the idea that God will sometimes ask us to do things that we will only want to do reluctantly and perhaps grudgingly… perhaps because it seems like “legalism” to us.

Yes! The purpose is to “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.” To make our life a daily Sabbath, as you say. And the best way to make our lives a daily Sabbath, is to set aside a day here or there as a means to focus on this. I am not putting it well. But Pope Benedict says something similar about prayer. We are commanded to pray always. But if we are going to pray always, we need to deliberately set aside at least some portion of time for prayer. A designated time of prayer. If we do not start with this, then we will never approach continuous prayer. So the Church has set aside Sunday as this designated time of enjoying our Sabbath rest in Christ. Other days of the week are helpful for building our vertical relationship with God just as much as Sunday. But only a small number of brothers and sisters will be able to attend a daily mass celebration, and so our horizontal relationships will suffer. In order to bring everyone together, it is a practical move to set up a day when this can take place, and the significance of the Lord’s Day seems to be the best fit.

That doesn’t sound like his work is all sufficient then.

Christ’s work is all sufficient. Without Christ, we can do nothing! It’s just not automatically applied to us or done so instantaneously.

This can be used to defend my point too. Obeying the Lord in our daily life is more important than going to Mass and offering a sacrifice that he already did.

Yeah, I see what you’re saying. Believe me! I’m not sure that I’m aware of any piece of evidence that doesn’t cut both ways. But receiving Christ at Mass is what will most help us to obey the Lord in our daily life. And receiving Him in this way is itself obedience. It’s win win!

The Lord be with you!

 

[mesl4]

Thank you, I really appreciate your kind way of explaining things thoroughly. Though I’m still not sold on the whole “Sunday Obligation - go on Sunday, or burn in Hell” doctrine, thanks for trying!

One thing that might help is to come to terms with the notion that everything that is commanded of us, with which we personally disagree, will be legalism in our eyes. At such times it will help to think of the son who told his father that he wouldn’t do it, but did it anyway. Buried in this teaching is the idea that God will sometimes ask us to do things that we will only want to do reluctantly and perhaps grudgingly… perhaps because it seems like “legalism” to us.

Yes! The purpose is to “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.” To make our life a daily Sabbath, as you say. And the best way to make our lives a daily Sabbath, is to set aside a day here or there as a means to focus on this. I am not putting it well. But Pope Benedict says something similar about prayer. We are commanded to pray always. But if we are going to pray always, we need to deliberately set aside at least some portion of time for prayer. A designated time of prayer. If we do not start with this, then we will never approach continuous prayer. So the Church has set aside Sunday as this designated time of enjoying our Sabbath rest in Christ. Other days of the week are helpful for building our vertical relationship with God just as much as Sunday. But only a small number of brothers and sisters will be able to attend a daily mass celebration, and so our horizontal relationships will suffer. In order to bring everyone together, it is a practical move to set up a day when this can take place, and the significance of the Lord’s Day seems to be the best fit.

Christ’s work is all sufficient. Without Christ, we can do nothing! It’s just not automatically applied to us or done so instantaneously.

Yeah, I see what you’re saying. Believe me! I’m not sure that I’m aware of any piece of evidence that doesn’t cut both ways. But receiving Christ at Mass is what will most help us to obey the Lord in our daily life. And receiving Him in this way is itself obedience. It’s win win!

The Lord be with you!

 

[Ruthie]

mes14,

Would it help you to know that the early Christians followed Catholic practices?

This is from Ch. 9 of the Didache, written around 70 AD. That makes it one of the oldest documents we have. It’s also called the Teachings of the Twelve apostles.

1 But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. 2 But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. 3 For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

You can read the Early Church Fathers, too - a long process, as there are about 10 volumes just from the ones before the Nicene Council!

The upshot of all this reading, though, is that basic Catholic dogma has not changed since the earliest days.

God bless you,

Ruthie

 

[mesl4]

I see the Didache says to do this, but it seems very harsh to think of it being a legalistic thing like if you don’t do it once in a while you’re damned. I’d think God would be looking at our heart more than our actions. Someone could go to Mass everyday and have no faith or care but is just doing to be thought of as holy, where as someone else might be extremely loving, dedicated to God, and to others,humble, self-sacrificing,etc, yet doesn’t always go to Mass (but still goes for the most part). I’d think God would accept the latter person more the the former. Sound like that’s not how the Church would teach it. Then it’s scary if God would actually withold his mercy because of what his authorities on Earth decide is right or wrong. Yikes. I hope he over rules some of the Church leaders’ decisions on that type of thing.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Thank you, I really appreciate your kind way of explaining things thoroughly. Though I’m still not sold on the whole “Sunday Obligation - go on Sunday, or burn in Hell” doctrine, thanks for trying!

You win this round!

Have you read Scott Hahn’s, The Lamb’s Supper? Or a similar book that seeks to interpret the book of Revelation as a vision of what’s going on in heaven when we go to Mass? If this was John’s intent, then we have a piece of evidence that God wants Mass celebrated on the Lord’s Day since this is when the vision took place (cf. 1:10).

Also, Luke 24 and the road to Emmaus episode encourage us in this direction. Verses 1 and 13 tell us that this happened on the first day of the week (obviously… it’s resurrection Sunday!) and it is a perfect summary of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Word followed by the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Acts 20:7 tells us they gathered to “break bread” on the first day of the week. And if we look at Luke’s gospel (since he wrote both books), we see that it is most likely the Eucharist that is referred to by these words:

“And taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and said a blessing over them. Then he broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples to set before the crowd” (Luke 9:16 - although Luke is not at pains to place this within the context of a Eucharistic understanding, because John does so, I feel comfortable using it this way).

“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them” (Luke 22:19).

“When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it” (Luke 24:30).

Jesus appeared to the apostles after His resurrection on “the first day of the week” (v 19), and again “eight days later” (v 26), i.e., the first day of the week again if you count Sunday both times. Again this places an emphasis on Sunday.

Also, Sunday is special because of the way that it brings fulfillment to the Jewish Sabbath. The Jewish Sabbath is celebrated on the last day of the week, in order to commemorate God’s rest from His work of creation. Christians celebrate a Sabbath on the first day of the week because God inaugurated the regeneration of creation on that day with the raising of Christ from the dead. The “rest” of the Jews comes at the end of the week, after working; but the Christian Sabbath initiates the week so that our work proceeds out of our resting. In other words, we receive the rest of salvation before we work: “created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph. 2).

So what is Paul criticizing in Romans and Colossians? If it is established that Sunday was indeed the day that the apostolic generation celebrated the mystery of faith, it would appear that he is criticizing heretical sects which were adding obligatory days of celebration to the days of obligation that the Church had decided upon.

The same dynamic is at work when we see Paul complaining about genealogies in 1 Tim 1:4 and Titus 3:9. Our first reaction should be, “Well, what about Matthew and Luke???” He must not be referring to all genealogies then…

After all of this is considered, it ultimately comes down to obedience to the Church that Christ established. In other words, we can show good reasons why we should gather on Sunday to celebrate our salvation in Christ, but the Church tells us that we have to do this because the Church has decided that this is most beneficial in the care of our souls. And Catholics believe that the Church has received the promise of Christ that “the one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16). That this is a matter of obedience to the Church is explained by the Catechism (The Precepts of the Church: 2041-2043). It also rests on the command to love the Lord with all our hearts! (The Third Commandment). So by obeying the Church, we express our love for God. Examples are given of “serious” reasons which excuse us from Sunday worship: illness and the care of infants.

Please let me know if there is a better way that I can approach this topic. Or if perhaps it would be more helpful for you if we demonstrated the authority that God has deigned to exercise through His Church.

May God bless you!