second question for our non-catholic brethern

[Kliska]

The difference, Novocastrian, is that when Catholics dissent from the CC’s teachings, they are being bad Catholics. (Here, “bad” is to be understood with the nuance of the context of this discussion).

When Protestants dissent from their pastor, they are being good Protestants. They are following the paradigm set forth by Luther et al in saying, “I can decide for myself what Scripture says!”

To wit: there is a Protestant here who has read Matthew 6:6 and determined that this means that prayers of intention must ONLY be done in private. She never joins in the communal prayers of her pastor or church she is currently attending because she believes that it’s contrary to the will of God to do so.

That is a peculiar interpretation, to be sure.

But she is doing exactly what your SS paradigm professes. As such, you cannot tell her, “That’s not what Matt 6:6 means!”

You can only say, “Good for you!”

And while this is a rather benign example, think of all of those SS advocates who have some very hateful, vile and bizarre interpretations.

In your world you can only say, “This is your right to do!”

That nameless protestant is me. And, why would they not think that is my right to do? How does my practice of beseeching God in private violate scripture?

Further, you neglect to mention that this particular style of beseeching prayer is what should be done in secret. The other styles, such as blessings, thanksgiving, etc… are all perfectly “kosher” to be prayed in public. So, why would any fellow protestant denigrate me and act as though it is sinful to go into private to pray? In short, why would that ever cause an issue? Paul’s writing is full of examples of differences in style of content and worship amongst Christians, with the emphasis on preaching the gospel.

In short, if someone deems it ok for them to pray in public, if they can do so out of pure intent and heart, then let them. If I choose not to, why would they not let me pray in private? If I’m asked why I choose to do so, I share. Even the RCC teaches that different practices are ok as long as they are not contradicting a dogmatic teaching.

 

[PRmerger]

That nameless protestant is me.

:flowers:

And, why would they not think that is my right to do? How does my practice of beseeching God in private violate scripture?

I don’t have any problem with beseeching God in private.

It’s where you add the word ONLY to the paradigm.

That violates the Scripture which says that you ought not add to Scripture, yes?

[BIBLEDRB]Deuteronomy 4:2[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[PRmerger]

Further, you neglect to mention that this particular style of beseeching prayer is what should be done in secret.

Actually, it should be done in a closet, if you are consistent with your interpretative style.

For some reason you keep forgetting to put that part in about the closet.

The other styles, such as blessings, thanksgiving, etc… are all perfectly “kosher” to be prayed in public. So, why would any fellow protestant denigrate me and act as though it is sinful to go into private to pray?

Because the implication is that you believe that this Christian, when he is uttering a “beseeching” prayer in public worship is, indeed, sinning.

(Unless you believe that there are certain things that the Bible says are sinful for you only but not for others??? If so, what Bible verse says this?)

 

[Kliska]

I don’t have any problem with beseeching God in private.

Yet, you act as though you do.

It’s where you add the word ONLY to the paradigm.

And, I’ve never done that.

That violates the Scripture which says that you ought not add to Scripture, yes?

We are not to add to the commandments of God with man-made, tacked on rules… such as: no dancing allowed.

Actually, it should be done in a closet, if you are consistent with your interpretative style.

For some reason you keep forgetting to put that part in about the closet.

Umm… no I haven’t. Have you looked at the Greek and the meaning of that verse?

Because the implication is that you believe that this Christian, when he is uttering a “beseeching” prayer in public worship is, indeed, sinning.

If they are doing it in a way that is contrary to scripture and/or contrary to conscience, they are indeed sinning. It is an internal matter, just as it is internal matter whether or not the Rosary is vain repetition. We’ve covered this already.

(Unless you believe that there are certain things that the Bible says are sinful for you only but not for others??? If so, what Bible verse says this?)

If you are firmly convinced and convicted that dancing is a sin, then should you dance? No. If someone else isn’t convinced or convicted to not dance, then it’s not a sin for them to dance or not dance. We are to respect the consciences of our brothers and sisters because we love them.

1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything

Romans 14: 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

 

[PRmerger]

Yet, you act as though you do.

I do not have a problem with your beseeching God in private. I do have a problem where you say that you don’t do it in communal worship because the Scriptures say you’re not supposed to.

That’s 100% wrong. We MUST pray for each other communally. When our pastors invoke our prayers for one another, we ought not bow our heads and pretend that we’re praying when we really aren’t.

That’s a very big problem to me.

And, I’ve never done that.

Then, sister, you will have to rescind your comment about “imperatives” in Scripture meaning “ONLY”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11474678&postcount=130

And, to be consistent, if you are saying now that “imperatives” don’t mean “ONLY” then you’re going to have a problem with your original argument, which was: the imperative in Matthew 6 was to pray to God the Father, meaning ONLY God the Father, and not to anyone else in heaven.

So which is it, Kliska? Do imperatives mean “ONLY”, or not?

Consistency is the name of the game here.

We are not to add to the commandments of God with man-made, tacked on rules… such as: no dancing allowed.

You are correct.

And it’s certainly a man-made tacked on rule you’ve arbitrarily assigned that you cannot beseech God communally.

Umm… no I haven’t. Have you looked at the Greek and the meaning of that verse?

I am always bemused when someone appeals to the Greek when the English understanding is perfectly acceptable.

Now, to be sure, an appeal to the Greek is often necessary in apologetics.

But why is it necessary here? What is wrong with use of the word “closet”?

If they are doing it in a way that is contrary to scripture and/or contrary to conscience, they are indeed sinning. It is an internal matter, just as it is internal matter whether or not the Rosary is vain repetition. We’ve covered this already.

So if in one’s conscience he believes he’s really not committing adultery (let’s say his wife is unable to bear children, and he has reasoned that this means that he is free to fornicate and it’s not adultery. His conscience has told him so!), he is not sinning?

Yes, or no, Kliska?

 

[eddie_too]

it is important when speaking of sin to distinguish between the materiality of an act, is the act an evil action; and, culpability for peforming a sinful act, will the person committing the evil act be judged to have performed the act freely (or with at least some degree of freedom) and knowingly.

one example i was taught of this principle was of a person who during the act of sleep walking peforms an evil act such as assault or murder. the assault or murder is evil, but the person’s culpability for the act is zero because neither knowledge nor free will were involved.

acts can be judged evil using an objective standard.

culpability is much more difficult to judge, and in general, according to catholic teaching, culpability is determined by the person performing an act.

that is one reason non-catholics would be held to a lower standard than catholics when evaluating culpability. non-catholics, as a rule, have much less knowledge of morality than do catholics.

 

[Protestor]

Just like we do with any other person on the planet who is not an inspired author.

Thankyou for the youtube link. I love youtube. When you say inspired I do not think you mean the same thing as me. I guess I think of revelation

POCOHOMBRE I do not know how to do multiple quotes and I wanted you to see this. Never mention charm here it is like nails on a chalkboard to catholics. For catholic approved doctrines go to newadvent.com here is a link I found about the patristics newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm#A You can go to charm to get ideas on why catholics are wrong, but it is just a soso resource even for that. I cannot remember where I used to go but if you really want to know message me and I will try and find it. Those kind of websites are just guidelines not all the info is correct the arguments sound awesome but they are lackluster in performance. Always check peoples quotes and as a general rule if it sounds to good to be true it probably is. You will go on wide goose chases trying to find some resource that do not exist.

 

[PRmerger]

Thankyou for the youtube link.

I think you are confusing me with another poster. I don’t recall giving any youtube link.

When you say inspired I do not think you mean the same thing as me. I guess I think of revelation

That is exactly what I mean as well:–that is, * theonpeustos.*

 

[SteveVH]

Agreed .The apostles authority was somewhat transferred into their writings as much as any other type of succession. It is like Peter and Paul are alive today and speak to us. Your church living “according to those writings” is beautifully put and I will not belabor the point that to many that means a type of “authority” or something to be obeyed, adhered to, etc., etc., etc.

But we were living in accord with those writings before they were ever written and for centuries before they were canonized. No authority is transferred via the Bible. It is a reflection of a faith already well established, not the origin of that faith and not the whole faith.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

But we were living in accord with those writings before they were ever written and for centuries before they were canonized. No authority is transferred via the Bible. It is a reflection of a faith already well established, not the origin of that faith and not the whole faith.

[SIGN]AMEN[/SIGN]

This needs to be reposted on the Sola Scriptura threads.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thankyou for the youtube link. I love youtube. When you say inspired I do not think you mean the same thing as me. I guess I think of revelation

POCOHOMBRE I do not know how to do multiple quotes and I wanted you to see this. Never mention charm here it is like nails on a chalkboard to catholics. For catholic approved doctrines go to newadvent.com here is a link I found about the patristics newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm#A You can go to charm to get ideas on why catholics are wrong, but it is just a soso resource even for that. I cannot remember where I used to go but if you really want to know message me and I will try and find it. Those kind of websites are just guidelines not all the info is correct the arguments sound awesome but they are lackluster in performance. Always check peoples quotes and as a general rule if it sounds to good to be true it probably is. You will go on wide goose chases trying to find some resource that do not exist.

For the multiple quotes you can click on the quotation and plus signs (" +) next to the quote under the individual posts you wish to respond to.

To reply to different arguments of the same post you can copy and paste the header and the footer of the quote brackets:

Like this -

Header = ()quote=Protestor;11502790(])

The number after the poster’s name refers to the post the quote comes from. And by clicking on the math sign (>) the link will take you back to it.

Footer = ()

So if I want to separate an argument from your post above I just copy and paste the header and the footer before and after what I am quoting from you. Like this:

POCOHOMBRE I do not know how to do multiple quotes and I wanted you to see this.

Feel free to PM me if you’d like more help with forum features.

Peace,

 

[Protestor]

That is exactly what I mean as well:–that is, * theonpeustos.*

HHHHMMMMmmmmmm, theonnpuestos is exactly what I was hoping you do not believe about books or certain chapters of non canonical texts. I think you are mistaken. I would ask you to point to evidence of such inspiration, but I guess that would defeat the purpose of it being an oral tradition. I mean the way I understand what you believe is that there is only one part of ineffabilis dues that is inspired. This kind of inspiration cannot be said to be the same as a whole book of the bible.

Is this the only part of I.D. that is ineffable “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” or are there other parts. Please I cannot figure out what is and is not fallible; to me it is almost all fallible.

I do not mean to start a whole new subject about I.D. just thought it was an easy example

 

[FathersKnowBest]

But we were living in accord with those writings before they were ever written and for centuries before they were canonized. No authority is transferred via the Bible. It is a reflection of a faith already well established, not the origin of that faith and not the whole faith.

That says it all! Permission to plagiarize?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Umm… no I haven’t. Have you looked at the Greek and the meaning of that verse?

And have you looked at the Aramaic meaning? Jesus spoke Aramaic,not Greek.

 

[Kliska]

That’s 100% wrong. We MUST pray for each other communally.

Must we? We are to pray for one another this is true. Why must I do that in public?

When our pastors invoke our prayers for one another, we ought not bow our heads and pretend that we’re praying when we really aren’t.

That’s a very big problem to me.

And I have a big problem with the idea that you believe I am “pretending” that I’m praying. Where in the world do you get that from? Where I’m from we respect someone who is praying even when we aren’t. I don’t “pretend” to pray at all.

Then, sister, you will have to rescind your comment about “imperatives” in Scripture meaning “ONLY”.

And, to be consistent, if you are saying now that “imperatives” don’t mean “ONLY” then you’re going to have a problem with your original argument, which was: the imperative in Matthew 6 was to pray to God the Father, meaning ONLY God the Father, and not to anyone else in heaven.

So which is it, Kliska? Do imperatives mean “ONLY”, or not?

As I directly stated at the link you provide, “It is obvious we are not going to agree on what an imperative command means. If you’d like me to say that there is no only there; there isn’t. If I tell a student to “turn in their test in to me” when they are done. You better believe they better be turning it in to me; it is a direct imperative command with consequences if they do not turn it in to me; literally me.”

And it’s certainly a man-made tacked on rule you’ve arbitrarily assigned that you cannot beseech God communally.

That’s your opinion and you are welcome to it.

I am always bemused when someone appeals to the Greek when the English understanding is perfectly acceptable.

Now, to be sure, an appeal to the Greek is often necessary in apologetics.

But why is it necessary here? What is wrong with use of the word “closet”?

Because most of the English speaking world thinks of a room that has coats hanging in it, and shoes on the floor. That isn’t the meaning of the passage.

So if in one’s conscience he believes he’s really not committing adultery (let’s say his wife is unable to bear children, and he has reasoned that this means that he is free to fornicate and it’s not adultery. His conscience has told him so!), he is not sinning?

Yes, or no, Kliska?

Adultery is not an optional thing, is it? Murder? Of course that is sinning. Now that we are done with that silliness, you can answer my questions please. I said

If you are firmly convinced and convicted that dancing is a sin, then should you dance? No. If someone else isn’t convinced or convicted to not dance, then it’s not a sin for them to dance or not dance. We are to respect the consciences of our brothers and sisters** because we love them.
**
1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything

Romans 14: 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. **Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. **

If you had a friend who believed imbibing in alcohol was a sin, would you serve him a beer or wine? Would you try to get him to drink? If he was convinced and convicted that it was a sin but drank anyway, what would that mean to him? What would that say about you if you convinced him to go against his conscience?

You see, there ARE things up to a believer and God, and that person’s faith. Don’t you agree? In fact, that is also the view of the RCC, is it not?

 

[eddie_too]

the verse about praying in private is Jesus’ use of hperbole.

another example of His doing this is when He speaks about charitable giving and not letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing.

Jesus uses hyperbole to emphasize the point He is trying to teach His listeners.

in the first part of the verse about going to your room to pray Jesus tells us not to be like the guy who goes to the street corner to pray so that everyone can see how holy he is.

Jessu says do not be like that hypocrite but rather pray with the attitude that your prayers are motivated by your love of God and nothing else.

Jesus says where two or more are gathered in His name He is there. that is a great recommendation from Jesus for His followers to engage in communal prayer.

 

[SteveVH]

That says it all! Permission to plagiarize?

Permission granted. lol.

 

[SteveVH]

Must we? We are to pray for one another this is true. Why must I do that in public?

I’m not sure its a “must” sort of thing. Why would you not want to pray for one another in public? This is about a family, the Church, the people of God, not just “Jesus and me”. There are many different forms of prayer, one of which is private. Once again it isn’t an either/or situation, but rather a “both/and” situation.

 

[Kliska]

Eddie, thanks for your thoughts on this and the manner you present them. I too think about this in a very similar manner, but perhaps with a bit more emphasis on the fact that He was also teaching a truth that is good pay attention too, even if it is hyperbole. I firmly believe in following the spirit of what is taught in a non-legalistic manner.

In the original conversation I even made the point that I wish some protestant pastors would look to the rote prayers instead of extemporaneously preaching to the congregation when they pray.

the verse about praying in private is Jesus’ use of hperbole.

another example of His doing this is when He speaks about charitable giving and not letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing.

I agree, but the teaching is sound. We aren’t to give in front of others in a manner that invites comparisons. I’ve never understood the churches where it is required for givers/tithers to give by check and the church tracks their giving. I also don’t give in front of others to whatever extent I’m able preferring to always give anonymously when and where possible.

Jesus uses hyperbole to emphasize the point He is trying to teach His listeners.

in the first part of the verse about going to your room to pray Jesus tells us not to be like the guy who goes to the street corner to pray so that everyone can see how holy he is.

But notice an important point, it isn’t referring just to a street corner, but also the synagogue. If it weren’t possible for us to violate this in a religious setting He wouldn’t have included that. Congregants and preachers, pastors, priests, what have you, should pay close attention to what He is teaching.

Also Jesus models the majority of His prayer time to us as private time. The Greek here implies privacy, not necessarily a literal “closet” but rather a private or secret place. Jesus is recorded as seeking out a place of privacy to pray all but once, perhaps twice. Private prayer is held up to be a good and right thing, when praying in public then people need to doubly check their reasons.

Jessu says do not be like that hypocrite but rather pray with the attitude that your prayers are motivated by your love of God and nothing else.

And we also know God knows human attitudes and human hearts better than anyone. There are problems with us when we are observed; we change our behavior, words, and attitudes when other people are around, this is a psychological truth. Something observed changes. If someone truly feels they can pray in public without violating the spirit of this command, then I don’t have a problem with that, but I’m not doing it as I’m convicted not to.

Jesus says where two or more are gathered in His name He is there. that is a great recommendation from Jesus for His followers to engage in communal prayer.

That is a recommend for gathering together, but not a recommend for communal prayer, but I too appreciate the sentiment.

 

[Kliska]

I’m not sure its a “must” sort of thing. Why would you not want to pray for one another in public? This is about a family, the Church, the people of God, not just “Jesus and me”. There are many different forms of prayer, one of which is private. Once again it isn’t an either/or situation, but rather a “both/and” situation.

I pray for others in private daily… I don’t pray for others in public, give thanks, give blessings, sure, but to actually beseech God for someone or something, I don’t do it. As stated in my posting before this one, human nature itself causes us to change our words, attitudes, etc… when praying in front of others. Now, do I think some can not do that? Sure. I’ve seen it, IMO, rarely but it’s not for me, I’ve tried it.

In short, I prefer private prayer for scriptural and personal reasons; however, if people feel lead to pray with others, go for it. Maybe it’s a problem with myself and others that only I’ve ever experienced.