Non-Catholics on these boards...

[Heathen_Dawn]

Tom of Assisi:

The, uh, “witches” I have known here in Oregon (the people who claim to practice Wicca) really don’t practice any religion–they have an anything goes mentality in terms of personal behavior, and some of them seem to think they can place spells on people (perhaps not unlike Harry Potter), but they don’t seem to worship anyone or anything.

Witchcraft and Wicca aren’t synonyms. Witchcraft is a practice independent of religion—there are atheist witches and Christian witches. Wicca is a religion.

Some maintain that they engage in the highly spiritual practice of “earth worship,” but how do you worship the earth…the earth is a big ball of dirt…how do you worship a ball of dirt?

The earth is the mother of all life, a swarm of creativity. We worship nature and its creative power.

It really boils down to what Bertrand Russell (or perhaps it was another atheistic “philosopher”) said–“What we (atheists) find so objectionable about Christianity is its sexual mores.” Similarily, it seems, most pagans reject Christianity because it interferes with their, uh, life-style “choices,” rather than their honest discovery that faeries are real, or that dirt is sacred, or that the great god pan is dancing outside their window or speaking to them in a dream or some such thing.

A gross generalisation. Somewhere there is a Wiccan who embraced the religion for sexual licence; but it’s only one of many possible reasons. I had all the sexual licence I wanted as an atheist, so that wasn’t the reason I embraced Wicca.

I hope this post was not rude, I am just trying to learn if these pagans are really trying to be taken seriously or not.

I don’t take anything as intentionally rude rather than as an honest misconception.

Now for a caveat about Wicca, and paganism in general: it is not a unified front. Like Christians, pagans have a multitude of differing sects or denominations; the difference being that those divisions are accepted, not attributed to error and condemned as heresy. Within paganism there are many major paths: Wicca, Ásatrú (Norse paganism), Hellenismos (Greek paganism), Religio Romana, Kemeticism (Egyptian paganism), Celtic Reconstructionism, Romuva (Baltic paganism), and more. And within Wicca there are many traditions: Gardnerian, Alexandrian, Dianic, and more. Pagan religion is so individual that it differs from person to person. For example my brand of Wicca is thoroughly theistic, focussed on deity worship in a manner similar to Christianity; whereas, for many other Wiccans, the religion is a neo-gnostic or New Age spirituality, centred on pantheism and the realisation of one’s own divinity. Poles apart, but no-one calls the other a heretic.

 

[St_Gabriel]

Hi Ric
Welcome. I want to share some gospel with you. (taken from King James)

Matthew 16:18 - And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 18:17 - And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

God Bless

 

[Britta]

Shari:

if you knew anything about history, when the canons of the OT and NT were put together and decided on with final authority and guidance of the Holy Spirit. The OT was the septuigant with “extra books” as you call them. It wasn’t until 1517 when Martin Luther at the time of the revolt took the 7 books out, because they didn’t suit his position. He also wanted to remove others from the new testament such as Rev. and refured to the book of James as the epistle of straw. If you would care to read my posts in the threads in the general forum I go into great detail there that I won’t here, but maybe you can get your history straight. We didn’t add books Luther removed them. It doesn’t matter to me if you use them, just please get it straight Catholic bible with all the books was FIRST.

P.S.
The threads are bibles and is the NAB banned.

It is my understanding in 200 BC, or thereabouts, the Jews were divided into the Palestinian Jews and the Alexandrian Jews. The Pal Jews used the Hebrew OT which did not contain the 7 books, the Alex Jews used the Aramaic OT which did contain the 7 books. This OT was eventually translated into Greek and called the Septuagint. This is the OT canon that Jesus read from.

Eventually, the Pal Jews (using the Hebrew OT) kicked the Christians out of the Temple as they did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. It is not that the Protestants “took out” the books or that the Catholics “added” the books, there were in fact two canons.

Luther did all he could to separate himself from the CC completely, even by disputing the books of the bible. After all, this was the canon that the CC determined was truly inspired. He disputed anything recognized by the CC.

I find it interesting that anyone would hold to the Hebrew OT because 1) Jesus did not read from this canon; and 2) the Jews that did not recognize Jesus used the this canon.

But then again, “he who believes, no explanation is necessary; and he who does not, no explanation is sufficient.”

As to the threads you referenced, I am interested and could not find them??? Thanks.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Please Ric and Mango and anyone else who isn’t Catholic and thinks they know better or just isn’t interested: PLEASE look into even just (just?!?) The Eucharist from the Catholic point of view. If you take God with you, He won’t let you go or lead you into a lie, He won’t.

God bless you and be with you.

---

Elizabeth Mary
Hi Mary, I do take Jesus with me everyday. I am the temple of the living God and Jesus lives in me. You see I dont have to search for Him for He already lives in Me. I take the Eucharist very seriously. I thank God for what He did with His Son Jesus on the cross. Without the blood I could not be saved.

 

[MariaG]

Heathen Dawn,

Have you ever studied St. Francis of Assissi? I think you would be surprised and enlightened by what this great Christian Saint thought, felt and prayed. I have a 2 year old needing my attention but I will find a few later for you, or maybe someone else could help me out. You know the prayers of St. Fransis that deal with the animals and earth?

 

[Shari]

Britta:

It is my understanding in 200 BC, or thereabouts, the Jews were divided into the Palestinian Jews and the Alexandrian Jews. The Pal Jews used the Hebrew OT which did not contain the 7 books, the Alex Jews used the Aramaic OT which did contain the 7 books. This OT was eventually translated into Greek and called the Septuagint. This is the OT canon that Jesus read from.

Jesus did read from the septuagint,(the one that has the seven books with the rest.)In fact there in some places when Jesus speaks he is speaking from those books that are now removed in the protestant bible.

Britta:

Eventually, the Pal Jews (using the Hebrew OT) kicked the Christians out of the Temple as they did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. It is not that the Protestants “took out” the books or that the Catholics “added” the books, there were in fact two canons.

I realize that the protestants technically didn’t “take out” the books, but they rejected the OT Jesus read from. As far as there being two canons, since we want to go that route, there were actually more than just two. The Jews had different sects themselves. Some only used the first five books of our old testament. So the jews were not uniform in that instance. My point was that the catholic OT was the one Jesus read or studied if you will(obviously it wasn’t catholic at the time). So protestants reject what Jesus used.

Britta:

Luther did all he could to separate himself from the CC completely, even by disputing the books of the bible. After all, this was the canon that the CC determined was truly inspired. He disputed anything recognized by the CC.

If he wanted to separate himself from the CC then he should not have used the bible period. My whole point was that those 7 books didn’t suit Luthers points so out they went. I truly believe he would have done that with the NT too if he could have gotten away with it. If we want to say that he just went back to the hebrew OT, thats fine but the jews also rejected the NT(ok they never used it) so why didn’t he just go back to the Jewish religion.
So in my mind he did remove the books, because for the first 1500 yrs of christianity those books were recognized as inspired. So Martin Luther removed them from the Christian bible. Maybe I said it better this time.

Britta:

As to the threads you referenced, I am interested and could not find them??? Thanks.

As to the threads the are in the general forum, and they are about the 4th are 5th page in. Hope this helps.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

MariaG:

Have you ever studied St. Francis of Assissi?

No, I haven’t yet. Are they available on the web?

I think you would be surprised and enlightened by what this great Christian Saint thought, felt and prayed.

I have heard he was an initiate into the Mysteries of God.

 

[potterygirl]

Quote:by Potterygirl previously.
Druidism and it’s revamping came about as a joke as some college students tried to bring it back so to say so that they could get out of going to “chapel”.
Heathen Dawn Wrote:
That bit sets my sceptical bell ringing.

heehee…well maybe you should pick up the Idiot’s Guide to Paganism and read under the section of “The Druids”. It’s there in black and white print.

 

[Britta]

Shari:

Jesus did read from the septuagint,(the one that has the seven books with the rest.)In fact there in some places when Jesus speaks he is speaking from those books that are now removed in the protestant bible…

My point was that the catholic OT was the one Jesus read or studied if you will(obviously it wasn’t catholic at the time). So protestants reject what Jesus used.

I completely agree. That’s why I go with the Catholic bible. Again, why would anyone not want to recognize the bible Jesus recognized.

Even if you don’t believe they are inspired, (although I believe they are) they are very great books to read.

I truly believe he would have done that with the NT too if he could have gotten away with it.

He definitely tried. The thing is that Luther was a very devoted Catholic Christian. I believe he was trying very hard to do the right thing but just going about it the wrong way. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif

As to the threads the are in the general forum, and they are about the 4th are 5th page in. Hope this helps.

The main thing for me is that I know many Protestants who are very devoted to Jesus and passionate about his Word, something we Catholics could learn from. There has to be a reason he saw fit to go with the Hebrew OT and I am interested in seeing his side. Let’s face it, people have abused what the Church was given, all in the name of Jesus. That’s why this fascinates me.

I’m a convert and love the CC. Thanks for the info.

God Bless.
Britta

 

[Churchmouse]

…forgive my play on Shakespeare’s Hamlet, but I couldn’t resist .

Actually, I felt bad for Ric, Mango, Hesed and whomever else admitted to being non-Catholic, considering there are others here who have probably missed this thread. JasonTE and centuri0n come to mind and with that being said, let me add myself to the non-Catholic fold as well Actually, I’m an ex-Catholic, currently 47 years young, who converted at the ripe old age of 25.

No, I have no interest in rejoining the RCC and regarding the “coming home” theme, well, let’s just say I found home

Peace,
CM

 

[Shari]

Britta:

I completely agree. That’s why I go with the Catholic bible. Again, why would anyone not want to recognize the bible Jesus recognized.

Even if you don’t believe they are inspired, (although I believe they are) they are very great books to read.

Britta:

He definitely tried. The thing is that Luther was a very devoted Catholic Christian. I believe he was trying very hard to do the right thing but just going about it the wrong way. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif

Wow we agree on so much. Yes I think Martin Luther was going about things the wrong way, I don’t know if you’ve ever read any books on him, but he was a very disturbed person. He says he was trying to reform the church because it was in a bad time. I think this is partially true, but he also rejected some of the teachings such as purgatory

Britta:

The main thing for me is that I know many Protestants who are very devoted to Jesus and passionate about his Word, something we Catholics could learn from.

Definitely!! I came from a protestant background, and a lot of them are very devoted to Christ(they just don’t know the truth) and are doing the best they know how. I am sure you would agree that you wouldn’t trade your protestant roots for anything. I know I wouldn’t. That is where I learned my great love for Jesus. It’s also where I received most of my misconceptions about the CC. But they are very devoted.

Britta:

There has to be a reason he saw fit to go with the Hebrew OT and I am interested in seeing his side.

Yes there was, he rejected doctrines such as purgatory, and books like maccabees supported ideas of purgatory. Martin Luther aslo believed you only need faith and works were not neccessary. In his German translation of the bible, he add the word Alone. If you want to know more from his point of view I would suggest reading the “The Facts About Luther”. It is written with a lot of his own writings, and there are things written by his followers. All show what he was really out for so to speak.

Britta:

Let’s face it, people have abused what the Church was given, all in the name of Jesus. That’s why this fascinates me.

Sad but true. It’s unfortunate that Jesus has to work through sinners like us. And yes things have been abused and people have done wrong things in the name of Jesus. I just try to remember that good always comes from bad. The church is stronger now than ever, just my opinion, as proved by all the faithful on this site alone.

 

[MariaG]

Ric,

As you explore things, you need to be aware of a very important word usage. You might say I am going to do my morning devotionals. By this you would mean you are going read the Word, study and pray to God.

Catholics talk about being devoted to Mary. Some point to this and say Ahha. I knew they worshiped Mary. No. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Mary is deserving of devotion which differs intrinsicly from the ADORATION and WORSHIP which is reserved for God alone. We are devoted to Mary as we would be devoted to our children or our spouse, but never confuse it with worship and adoration of God.

This is the starting point of understanding Marion doctrine. There was an example I read somewhere. It said that some people could say Protestants worship the Bible. You even teach your kids to “stand alone on the Word of God”. You have raised the Bible into idolotry. This of course is completely wrong. The Bible is God’s word but you only worship God. You use the Bible to draw closer to Christ.

This is what Catholics do with Mary, we use her to draw closer to Christ. And here is another way to look at it. Christ is God but He was also a Jewish Man. He came not to destroy the Law but to uphold it. Correct? We are to imitate Christ in all things, Yes? Christ, as a Jewish Man, would have honored His mother. Can we do any less? As related to Mary Devotion=Honoring. I hope this helps.

And before you use this as an argument against Marian Devotion, yes, there are people who pass over from Devotion to Adoration. However, only God can judge each persons heart when it comes to this.
God Bless

 

[Britta]

Shari:

Wow we agree on so much. Yes I think Martin Luther was going about things the wrong way, I don’t know if you’ve ever read any books on him, but he was a very disturbed person…he rejected doctrines such as purgatory, and books like maccabees supported ideas of purgatory. Martin Luther aslo believed you only need faith and works were not neccessary. In his German translation of the bible, he add the word Alone.

He was distrubed. Actually, he went to confession several times a day, many times confessing the same things. He distressed a lot about not “truly” being forgiven. That was what drove him to the doctrine of Sola Fide (Faith Alone). That gave him comfort.

If you want to know more from his point of view I would suggest reading the “The Facts About Luther”. It is written with a lot of his own writings, and there are things written by his followers. All show what he was really out for so to speak.

I will definitely look into the book.

Though I hate to sound redundant, my question still remains…

How would a learned, devout man like Luther come to believe that the Hebrew OT is the true canon? To understand this would help to understand where our Protestant brothers and sisters are coming from.

It’s unfortunate that Jesus has to work through sinners like us. And yes things have been abused and people have done wrong things in the name of Jesus. I just try to remember that good always comes from bad. The church is stronger now than ever, just my opinion, as proved by all the faithful on this site alone.

Praise God for the renewal in the Church. He is definitely cleaning house!

God Bless
Britta

 

[Churchmouse]

Shari:

If you want to know more from his point of view I would suggest reading the “The Facts About Luther”. It is written with a lot of his own writings, and there are things written by his followers. All show what he was really out for so to speak.

Ooooo…awful book. Fr. O’hare didn’t do Luther any justice in the book and attempts to paint Luther as an idiotic, sinful, mass of degradation. Some examples of what I mean:

The “pretended Reformer,” with “depraved manners and utterances,” “perversity of principle coupled with falsity of teaching…” (310)

“That he was a deformer and not a reformer is the honest verdict of all who are not blind partisans and who know the man at close vision for what he was and for what he stood to sponsor.” (310)

Luther reasons “out of the depths of his depraved mind…” (311)

“Why, then call Luther a reformer- one who would not in our times be regarded fit to be entrusted with police duty in the worst slums of our cities, much less to be made the presiding officer of a vice purity committee?” (312)

“The serpent’s rattle made itself distinctly heard in his unholy utterances…” (312)

“As a matter of fact, he was openly blamed for his well-known and imprudent intimacy with Katherine Von Bora before his marriage…”(313)

[Directed at Luther]:“Out upon your morality and religion; out upon your obstinacy and blindness! How have you sunk from the pinnacle of perfection and true wisdom to the depths of depravity and abominable error, dragging down countless numbers with you!” (313)

“That he was consumed by the fires of fleshly lust he admits himself.” (314)

“Did the corruption of his mind, as is plainly evidenced in his speech, induce to laxity of behavior and lead him to exemplify his teachings in grave moral delinquencies? Corrupt teaching begets corrupt action, and hence it is difficult to believe that anyone holding such principles and ‘consumed by the fires of his unbridled flesh’ could wholly escape in his own case the exemplification of his unhallowed pronouncements.” (316)

[O’Hare insinuates that Luther suffered from syphilis and suggests]: “On this delicate matter anyone may, if further information be desired, read Grisar, Vol. II pp. 162-164, where all the details of the question are carefully and learnedly discussed.” (317)

“…[T]o deify indecency, decry celibacy and virginity and dishonor the married state, was Luther’s satanic desire and diabolical purpose.” (318)

“The way in which this ‘glorious evangelist’ explains his beastly theories in his course Latin and in his still coarser German is such that it cannot be given here, ‘so full is it,’ …’not only of indelicacy but of gross filthiness.’” (319)

“The thoughts that filled his depraved mind and reflected on the greater part of mankind led him on, after his excommunication, to strive with diabolical energy to eradicate from the people’s hearts the love for and belief in the possibility of chastity outside of wedlock.” (322)

“The evidences of his depravity are so overwhelming and convincing that they are forced to the conclusion that this shameless advocate of brazen prostitution could not be and was not a ‘messenger of the all Holy God.’” (327)

“If a Catholic, especially a Jesuit, had ever played fast and loose with the truth as Luther did, what an outcry, and justly so, would be raised!” (334)

“Katherine Von Bora was only his companion in sin, and the children brought into the world through the unholy alliance were illegitimate children.” (340)

“His wild pronouncements wrecked Germany, wrecked her intellectually, morally, and politically. The havoc wrought directly or indirectly by him is almost without example in history.” (7)

“…*t behooves every serious man to know this charlatan for what he was and to learn that he has absolutely no claim to any consideration as a heaven-commissioned agent, as even an ordinary ‘reformer’ or ‘spiritual leader,’ or as in any respect a man above and ahead of the frailties of his age.” (18)

After putting forth the myth that Luther’s father was a murderer, O’Hare insinuates [through a quotation] that “Martin was a veritable chip of the hard old block.” (27)

(from RC Understanding of Luther):

If you want an unbiased look at Luther, read “Luther: Man Between God and the Devil” by Heiko Obermann.

Peace,
CM*

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Churchmouse:

If you want an unbiased look at Luther, read “Luther: Man Between God and the Devil” by Heiko Obermann.

I would definitely second this (although I don’t think anyone would be completely objective, you should at least aim for someone who is at least fair). O’Hare’s book is propaganda.

If you are going to read something about Luther, at least read serious scholars such as Oberman, Georges Tavard or Joseph Lortz.

ken

 

[MariaG]

Heathen Dawn,

Yes, you can find a lot of stuff of St. Francis of Assisi on line.
Here is a prayer of St. Francis.

**Canticle of Brother Sun and Sister Moon of St. Francis of Assisi
**Most High, all-powerful, all-good Lord, All praise is Yours, all glory, all honour and all blessings.

To you alone, Most High, do they belong, and no mortal lips are worthy to pronounce Your Name.

Praised be You my Lord with all Your creatures,
especially Sir Brother Sun,
Who is the day through whom You give us light.
And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendour,
Of You Most High, he bears the likeness.

Praised be You, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars,
In the heavens you have made them bright, precious and fair.

Praised be You, my Lord, through Brothers Wind and Air,
And fair and stormy, all weather’s moods,
by which You cherish all that You have made.

Praised be You my Lord through Sister Water,
So useful, humble, precious and pure.

Praised be You my Lord through Brother Fire,
through whom You light the night and he is beautiful and playful and robust and strong.

Praised be You my Lord through our Sister,
Mother Earth
who sustains and governs us,
producing varied fruits with coloured flowers and herbs.
Praise be You my Lord through those who grant pardon for love of You and bear sickness and trial.

Blessed are those who endure in peace, By You Most High, they will be crowned.

Praised be You, my Lord through Sister Death,
from whom no-one living can escape. Woe to those who die in mortal sin! Blessed are they She finds doing Your Will.

No second death can do them harm. Praise and bless my Lord and give Him thanks,
And serve Him with great humility.

www.catholic.org is one site
another site that has good stuff (besides our current host!) is www.monksofadoration.org

God Bless

 

[Shari]

Britta:

Though I hate to sound redundant, my question still remains…

How would a learned, devout man like Luther come to believe that the Hebrew OT is the true canon? To understand this would help to understand where our Protestant brothers and sisters are coming from.

The only thing I can think of is because he was so disturbed and uncomfortable with sin and things, that to use the hebrew ot would help to prove his points. Plus it kind of gave him authority, or so his followers thought, because he had the power to change the currently used cannon. Again just a thought. I am reading that book now, so I am hoping it will shed some light. And Martin Luther died a very sad man. Actually after he had told his followers that they could interpret the bible themselves(thinking they would see things his way) he went away for a while, and when he came back he saw how far out of hand things had gotten with people now believing different things, and he told them this was not good. I really feel sorry for him in a way.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

regarding Heather Dawn’s comments from earlier today…He admits that wicca was invented in the 1940s and says that once Christianity was a “new” religion also, but Chrictianity was a revealed religion–revealed directly from God, by God, through God (in Jesus Christ). Christ is the new Adam…and Adam was the first human being, thus Christianity’s message of redemption, salvation, and mercy are as old as humanity.

If Wiccans and Pagans admit that God is really above all the other “gods” and “goddesses”, why would the Wiccans and Pagans not worship God directly the way he desires to be worshipped–through the Eucharist and the liturgy of the Church? Most Christians are Catholic (close to a billion I believe) and submit to the authority of God as manifested in His church, but Wiccans and Pagans, in addition to the fact that their religion is only a few decades old, have NO agreement as to what the teachings and worship practices of paganism should be. The impression I get from pagans I have known (granted this may not be the majority feeling among them) is that pagans have a “believe what you want and don’t believe what you don’t want” attitude.

Two questions

1. Shouldn’t a religion be somthing you accept and have faith in, and not somthing that you either create or pick and chose the aspects that suit your life best?
2. I am very curious how the earth is a woman and not a ball of dirt. Could this be explained to me specifically? If wiccans and pagans want a mother-figure to respect and venerate, then they have no further to look than Mary (who was actually a real person and a real mother–and not a planet)

thanks to all who have read my posting and to Heather Dawn for his good-natured and charitable responces to my questions and comments.

 

[potterygirl]

In a past issue of *This Rock *there is a statement that is so profound to me (as a newcomer who questioned the reformation), where Paul states in 1 Cor 1:10 about divisions of the church and to be leary of those who cause them (Romans 16:17)

Anyone like to shed some light on this! I loved this article by the way…it was truly incredible about a couple on their search (like me) to find the Truth. Page 36 may-june issue.

 

[Pax]

Churchmouse:

Ooooo…awful book. Fr. O’hare didn’t do Luther any justice in the book and attempts to paint Luther as an idiotic, sinful, mass of degradation. Some examples of what I mean:…

I will not make a judgment on this book and the quotes you made from it, in any direct way, because I haven’t read it. I have, however, read some of Luther’s own writings. Believe me, there is good reason to believe that Luther was an extremely troubled man. I will not quote Luther’s words, but I would suggest that you do your own research and be thorough. After you’ve done that you can then revisit Fr. O’hare’s book to determine just how much of an injustice, if any, it did to Luther.

I know evangelicals that have researched Luther thinking him a hero. After going to primary source material or as close to it as they could get, they discovered that he was indeed a very troubled man. Some have even given him labels that go beyond Fr. O’Hare’s remarks. Later some converted and they have done this as a result of reading everything they could about what the man said and did. It’s an eye opener!