C
Church_Militant
Guest
Um…oy vey?
- Status
L
Lek
Guest
D
Duane1966
Guest
LOL
:tiphat:
:tiphat:
D
Duane1966
Guest
LOL
:tiphat:
:tiphat:
D
Duane1966
Guest
B
Bannan
Guest
Hey Lek,
As a Catholic, we believe that when the church decrees doctrine on moral issues, that she is incapable of error, because God guarantees this. This principle of logic is more commonly called “papal infallibility” in our days.
I’m curious to know why you would interpret things differently, because this basic principle is actually in the bible. More-so it is also in writings from every age from our Church fathers that they assented this was the case throughout all history. I would be happy to provide my evidence for believing this if you wish.
When I say it was in the bible, it stems from Jesus talk with Peter and his imparting of the keys to the kingdom of heaven. There is a lot more than just that in the bible though to give context around the nature of what was being said. I believe that we are in agreement that the “kingdom of heaven” on earth is regarded as the Church. I think what we might not agree on is the nature of the keys, or even perhaps the nature of this gift. I know you’re asking about why the Church regards skipping mass as a mortal issue, but the heart of your question to me says, “Who gave the Church the authority to condemn those who skip mass on Sundays out of their own free will?”
Am I reading you correct here? Can you clarify for me? I think we would have to address the authority question before we could really identify where we differ when it comes to skipping mass on Sundays.
As a Catholic, we believe that when the church decrees doctrine on moral issues, that she is incapable of error, because God guarantees this. This principle of logic is more commonly called “papal infallibility” in our days.
I’m curious to know why you would interpret things differently, because this basic principle is actually in the bible. More-so it is also in writings from every age from our Church fathers that they assented this was the case throughout all history. I would be happy to provide my evidence for believing this if you wish.
When I say it was in the bible, it stems from Jesus talk with Peter and his imparting of the keys to the kingdom of heaven. There is a lot more than just that in the bible though to give context around the nature of what was being said. I believe that we are in agreement that the “kingdom of heaven” on earth is regarded as the Church. I think what we might not agree on is the nature of the keys, or even perhaps the nature of this gift. I know you’re asking about why the Church regards skipping mass as a mortal issue, but the heart of your question to me says, “Who gave the Church the authority to condemn those who skip mass on Sundays out of their own free will?”
Am I reading you correct here? Can you clarify for me? I think we would have to address the authority question before we could really identify where we differ when it comes to skipping mass on Sundays.
B
Bannan
Guest
Hey Lek,
You know what, I think I should just put this stuff up ahead of time since I predict I shall be busy during the week and might not be able to keep tabs on this thread. If I don’t get the chance, thank you for your awesome question, and for your pursuit of truth, and for your generosity in helping others find the same!!!
God Bless!
catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope
catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy
catholic.com/tracts/peters-successors
catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i
catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii
catholic.com/tracts/whats-your-authority
catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
catholic.com/tracts/sabbath-or-sunday
You know what, I think I should just put this stuff up ahead of time since I predict I shall be busy during the week and might not be able to keep tabs on this thread. If I don’t get the chance, thank you for your awesome question, and for your pursuit of truth, and for your generosity in helping others find the same!!!
God Bless!
catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope
catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy
catholic.com/tracts/peters-successors
catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i
catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii
catholic.com/tracts/whats-your-authority
catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
catholic.com/tracts/sabbath-or-sunday
L
Lek
Guest
I’m pretty much aware of the bible verses that catholics use to support papal infallibility, apostolic succession, and the inability of the church to err on doctrinal matters. I’ve discussed these issues a good bit on this forum and have listened to discussions between catholic and protestant apologists. We tend to interpret most of those verses differently. It is true that I don’t believe the catholic church has the authority to to implement a law that is morally binding. That’s not the direction that I was coming from in this thread though. I believe that the principle behind making one day more sacred than another and requiring a christian to attend a particular service goes against Paul’s teachings, and I quoted some verses in my previous posts and provided my reasons for my belief. Still no one has directly addressed my question as to why a person who would be travelling on a particular Sunday could not attend mass on another day to make up for it. That person is going to the same mass and receiving the same Eucharist. This type of arbitrary rule seems to me to be in the same category as the requirements the old testament law, which we have supposedly been freed from, and also the traditions of the elders, which Jesus condemned.
G
GaudentAngeli
Guest
No, they are not the same Mass. Though it is the same sacrifice, about half of the Sunday Mass is usually omitted for weekday Masses, sometimes more. As for no one addressing your question, it seems Clarkest did that when he proved the verse you were quoting doesn’t actually have anything to do with what you’re saying it does. Unless you have other verses to back up your claim. If so, please quote them and I’m sure someone will be willing to chime in.
I’m curious, if you believe so strongly in the Bible and you recognize that Jesus and St Paul say over and over how we are to do the commandments, what do you believe the commandments are? If there is no new law in some shape or form, then there are no commandments. Because commandments are what makes up a law. So what then was Jesus talking about?
Catholicism is not a legalistic, oppressive religion. It is very much based on love, mercy and freedom. When you love someone it is very easy to do what is right to them. If you have children, yes there might be laws in your country that say you’re not allowed to hit them or neglect them or curse them, but you don’t really need the law to tell you not to do those things, do you? You love your children and so it is very natural to you not to do those things. It is the same in Catholicism. Sure we have lots of rules saying don’t do this or you have to do that, but really when you truly love our Eucharistic Lord and have the time, going to Mass every Sunday is not often enough. There is often an intense desire to go everyday schedule permitting and when a person can’t go because of family commitments or whatever else, it can be very painful to not be able to go.
Here are some quotes on the matter of your question:
“But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead” (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]). - Justin Martyr
“The Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord’s day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honor the Lord’s day as being the memorial of the new creation” (On Sabbath and Circumcision 3 [A.D. 345]). - St Athanasius
“Christians should not Judaize and should not be idle on the Sabbath, but should work on that day; they should, however, particularly reverence the Lord’s day and, if possible, not work on it, because they were Christians” (Canon 29 [A.D. 360]). - Council of Laodicea
D
Duane1966
Guest
Actually St. PAUL DOES address this issue. When he says “hold fast to your traditions” this would be one of those traditions. We know from early writings that the church was worshipping as a “community” on Sunday because it was the day that Jesus was resurrected. In all likelihood they were worshipping on Sundays before Paul was converted.
You must realize that most of Paul’s letters are addressing some of the issues that arose in the early church. The fact that he doesn’t mention Sunday worship means that it was not an issue.
The church in her infinite wisdom does have mass every day, which allows us to partake of our Lord often. But the weekday masses are not required to be attended (unless Iit is a holy day of obligation). But we are required to worship on Sundays and Holy Days as a community. That is the key. Communal worship.
Hopefully enough people will question the validity of having Sunday worship and the church will call a council and define it infallibly.
D
Duane1966
Guest
My favorite quote on here: “The protestant churches could get together and do the same thing.” 
Please don’t do that, you’ve already lost seven books, you may lose them all if you got together some more.
Please don’t do that, you’ve already lost seven books, you may lose them all if you got together some more.
D
Duane1966
Guest
All humor aside, if the travel is necessary and you cannot genuinely fulfill the Sunday or Holy day obligation, then to miss mass would NOT be a mortal sin. Please read the link I have provided.
ewtn.com/expert/answers/sunday_mass.htm
When I say genuinely, in this case I mean have made every possible effort to attend mass.
ewtn.com/expert/answers/sunday_mass.htm
When I say genuinely, in this case I mean have made every possible effort to attend mass.
B
Bannan
Guest
Most of what I posted were the early church fathers writings, not bible verses.
Those articles show how up to the year 600AD, you have to look pretty hard to find someone who felt differently than to acknowledge Peter’s primacy, nor had any doubt as to the nature of what that meant. My point is your not just ignoring the “most likely” conclusion from reading the scriptures, which themselves point to Peter’s primacy, your also ignoring roughly 2,000 years of nearly all Christians believing in the primacy of Peter.
For scripture quotes, see:
catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/the-papacy-in-scripture-no-rocks-required
I challenge you to read the above link, and the ones I posted before, with an open mind.
The span of history shows that the Catholic Church is the very same Church that Jesus came to earth to start. No christian denomination besides the Catholic can trace it’s origin to say, “Jesus” started my Church. It was Peter’s inclusion of the gentiles into the Church that even allowed Paul to have a ministry at all, since he was the apostle to the gentiles.
If Peter, or Paul for that matter, had the authority to forgive sins, then where was that authority lost? When they died? Is God going to go through such great lengths so that only Peter and the immediate 12 apostles could forgive sins? If you payed close attention, then you’d see that when Paul became a member of the Church leadership, the apostles laid hands on him and prayed over him. If they didn’t think this was giving him the authority, then why do that? This is not the most likely conclusion. Where in the early Church can you find someone that said, “I can forgive sins, apart from Peter”? If you lived during those days and some dude came up to you and said “I can forgive sins!”, would you confess to that guy or would you go with a safer bet and go to Peter or Paul directly?
It’s clear to me that Jesus was doing more than imparting 12 men with divine knowledge and authority, he was starting an eternal Church and he said as much. This Church has a leader, Christ clearly made Peter the head of the Church. But even if you can’t believe it was Peter, or maybe didn’t have a leader at all, you still can’t get around the 12 apostles having authority (as leaders) and then imparting that authority on to the next generation of Catholic Church leaders (by the laying of hands).
If you believe Paul, then believe him now. Irenaus shows us:
After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.
I would also add, you can’t find anyone that would have mentioned anything else. There is no text that says anyone else was the successor. You can’t find a text that says that Peter’s successor didn’t have the same authority that Peter had. Clearly, he had the authority to appoint a successor. This is the most obvious conclusion.
History tells us those apostles carried the torch of faith in it’s entirety and passed it on throughout history, and God protected them in their efforts. Yes, God made the Bible. But lets remember that he used fallible human beings to create infallible texts. It was only in 350AD that the Catholic Church got together and decided what was God breathed and what was not. If you believe the Bible is the infallible word of God, I would challenge you to define on who’s authority you believe this, in addition to reading those links I posted.
L
Lek
Guest
There is way too much in the preceding posts for me to answer all points individually, so I’ll try to summarize my thoughts. I believe that the original apostles were given authority to speak infallibility on matters of christian doctrine and were instructed to set up Christ’s church on earth. There is nothing in scripture to say that they were able to pass on that infallibility to successors, but their teachings were preserved in the new testament scriptures, which were passed along by the church and eventually were put together into the canon. We have these scriptures to go to as an inerrant source of christian doctrine. The fact that they appointed successors means just that–that they appointed successors to carry on the duties of overseeing the various church bodies.
As far as the powers to bind and loose and to forgive sins; Jesus was referring to their authority to declare what has been bound, loosed or forgiven. Do you really believe that a man has the power to decide whether or not you go to hell for eternity, by deciding not to forgive you for a mortal sin or to create a law, by which you can go to hell if you break it? Jesus did not say to the apostles “you have the power to forgive sins against the Father”, but rather whoever’s sins you forgive they are forgiven. In other words they are announcing that God’s forgiveness has been given because they have met the requirements of forgiveness.
Anyway, as far as my question about Sunday mass attendance and mortal sin–it’s been stated that Sunday is the new sabbath because Jesus rose from the dead on that day and the early church began the tradition of coming together for worship and communion on that day. I agree that the spiritual requirements of the ten commandments still apply, but if the other requirements of the old law no longer apply concerning that day, then we are are to follow that commandment according to dictates of our consciences, as Paul instructed the Jewish converts eating and observing holy days. I see nothing in scripture to call for specific regulations concerning procedures for observing the sabbath as God gave to the Israelites in the old testament. In fact I don’t see anything in scripture to give them the authority to create morally binding regulations for people to follow. Going back to the church fathers may show how that tradition developed, but it doesn’t show that Christ set it up that way.
We obviously see things differently, and I think I may be beating a dead horse here, but I’m taking into consideration what you’ve all said, and I do want to explore early church history more intently. But, whatever, I do enjoy the discussion here in the forum with you all–which is always done in a respectful and loving manner.
As far as the powers to bind and loose and to forgive sins; Jesus was referring to their authority to declare what has been bound, loosed or forgiven. Do you really believe that a man has the power to decide whether or not you go to hell for eternity, by deciding not to forgive you for a mortal sin or to create a law, by which you can go to hell if you break it? Jesus did not say to the apostles “you have the power to forgive sins against the Father”, but rather whoever’s sins you forgive they are forgiven. In other words they are announcing that God’s forgiveness has been given because they have met the requirements of forgiveness.
Anyway, as far as my question about Sunday mass attendance and mortal sin–it’s been stated that Sunday is the new sabbath because Jesus rose from the dead on that day and the early church began the tradition of coming together for worship and communion on that day. I agree that the spiritual requirements of the ten commandments still apply, but if the other requirements of the old law no longer apply concerning that day, then we are are to follow that commandment according to dictates of our consciences, as Paul instructed the Jewish converts eating and observing holy days. I see nothing in scripture to call for specific regulations concerning procedures for observing the sabbath as God gave to the Israelites in the old testament. In fact I don’t see anything in scripture to give them the authority to create morally binding regulations for people to follow. Going back to the church fathers may show how that tradition developed, but it doesn’t show that Christ set it up that way.
We obviously see things differently, and I think I may be beating a dead horse here, but I’m taking into consideration what you’ve all said, and I do want to explore early church history more intently. But, whatever, I do enjoy the discussion here in the forum with you all–which is always done in a respectful and loving manner.
B
Bannan
Guest
Your a better man than I Lek, I feel as though I lost some of that charitable attitude in my last post. I’m sorry about that, I was too passionate and at your expense.
To continue the conversation in a more charitable tone…
Why would the apostles be able to pass on the ability to forgive sins, but not the ability to interpret doctrine? When I see all the questions that have come up throughout history, all the heresies, all the problems of each age, this capacity to interpret doctrine becomes necessary doesn’t it? How is the Church going to maintain unity without a single authoritative arbitrator of the daily issues that arise? We can’t look to the apostolic group for this unity, because history has showed fractures in belief among this group. The unity they still maintained is commendable, but we don’t see a single authoritative truth here, we only see it in Peter’s office. Catholics see the “Chair of Peter” as this arbitrator because the keys were specifically given to him under the context of an eternal kingdom. Judas, even within the confines of the bible, is represented as having an office when he was replaced.
You made mention of some of the writings of Paul in Romans 14 in your very first question. I think the verse as quoted is not fully in context. This whole chapter starts with “As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions…” The Church in no way disagrees with Paul in this. For a sin to actually be mortal for an individual, there are three criterea that would have to have been met first.
The Church doctrine does say skipping mass on Sundays is a mortal sin, but it also says that you’d have to know that to even be capable of committing the mortal sin, and you’d have to also believe that the Church had that ability to declare such things at that. The Church by declaring doctrine isn’t even violating Paul’s laws on judgement because Paul lays down doctrine almost constantly.
Paul makes many mentions to the body of Christ being the Church with its many members. Those members he mentioned had distinct roles, one of those roles being the apostles. He says that no member can exist without the body, and the body cannot live without its members. To say that the apostles function no longer existed today would to me indicate that Christs living body no longer required the function of those apostles. I know of no body that can exist without a brain, or a heart, or an immune system.
To continue the conversation in a more charitable tone…
Why would the apostles be able to pass on the ability to forgive sins, but not the ability to interpret doctrine? When I see all the questions that have come up throughout history, all the heresies, all the problems of each age, this capacity to interpret doctrine becomes necessary doesn’t it? How is the Church going to maintain unity without a single authoritative arbitrator of the daily issues that arise? We can’t look to the apostolic group for this unity, because history has showed fractures in belief among this group. The unity they still maintained is commendable, but we don’t see a single authoritative truth here, we only see it in Peter’s office. Catholics see the “Chair of Peter” as this arbitrator because the keys were specifically given to him under the context of an eternal kingdom. Judas, even within the confines of the bible, is represented as having an office when he was replaced.
You made mention of some of the writings of Paul in Romans 14 in your very first question. I think the verse as quoted is not fully in context. This whole chapter starts with “As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions…” The Church in no way disagrees with Paul in this. For a sin to actually be mortal for an individual, there are three criterea that would have to have been met first.
- Grave matter - skipping mass on Sundays is a grave matter, so says the Church.
- Full knowledge - members of the Catholic faith are expected to know skipping mass on Sundays is a grave matter.
- Full consent to commit the crime - said member wasn’t held at gunpoint and told not to go to mass or he’d be shot.
The Church doctrine does say skipping mass on Sundays is a mortal sin, but it also says that you’d have to know that to even be capable of committing the mortal sin, and you’d have to also believe that the Church had that ability to declare such things at that. The Church by declaring doctrine isn’t even violating Paul’s laws on judgement because Paul lays down doctrine almost constantly.
Paul makes many mentions to the body of Christ being the Church with its many members. Those members he mentioned had distinct roles, one of those roles being the apostles. He says that no member can exist without the body, and the body cannot live without its members. To say that the apostles function no longer existed today would to me indicate that Christs living body no longer required the function of those apostles. I know of no body that can exist without a brain, or a heart, or an immune system.
L
Lek
Guest
B
Bannan
Guest
You still haven’t said how you discerned the Bible was the Holy word of God. 
How have you come to this same conclusion the Catholic Curch did in 350AD?
How have you come to this same conclusion the Catholic Curch did in 350AD?
- Status