A
adrift
Guest
I am wanting to know how you reconcile the two scriptures.
- Status
P
PJM
Guest
[QUOT]=Padres1969;13507585]You know I’ve been reading this thread’s title for a while and it finally occurred to me that there is one thing I’ve always found strange about Catholicism even when I was a Catholic… Confession. Specifically the aspect of the confessing of individual sins to have them forgiven (particularly Mortal Sins). It seems to me that many sins that are considered Mortal Sins, are unfortunately quite easy to do in a moment of weakness. And would meet the requirements to be Mortal. But between the time of being done and the time a congregant steps into a confessional also unfortunately quite easy to forget and/or not be subject to a perfect contrition either. I’ve always found that to be odd at best, possibly damning at worst for a Catholic.
Let’s first for those who may be unaware; define a few important points for our discussion. Because space is limited I will be far more brief that is truly needed here.
**1 Jn 5:16-17 **“If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
Here it is clearly taught that there are 2 categories of sin. Lesser & Greater/ Venial & **Mortal [meaning unto Spiritual Death; Hell] **Venial sins in an absolute sense need not be confessed to be forgiven. GRACE is given for doing so.
“Confession”
Many are unaware that priest were used in the OT times:
Lev.6:7 “and the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things which one may do and thereby become guilty."
In the OT, the sins were “covered over” and not THEN being under Grace; God was OK with that. But now under grace Romans 6:14-15; Christ instituted a better; a more Perfect way.
**Jn 20:21-23 **“He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins YOU shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins YOU shall retain, they are retained.
Jesus continues here to SHARE His Godly Power & Authority [Mt. 10:1-5] with the Apostles and through them; todays CC. “As My Father sent ME; I NOW send YOU”. **Mt. 16:19 **“And I will give to thee [ALL of] the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever YOU shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever YOU shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" END QUOTE
Because a Mortal sin is sufficiently grievous to actually break one’s Bond with Jesus; there are 3 mandated conditions that must [normally] exist for an action to be considered a Mortal sin.
Mortal sins
1 Serious matter: murder but not stealing a candy bar
2 Knowledge that the act being considered will BE a Mortal sin
3 Desiring to do it anyway. It is NOT necessary to actually do it; so long as a freewill desire to Do it exist.
That said: there is a category of sins termed “intrinsic evil”: Murder; abortion; adultery; slander; missing Mass on Sunday & Holidays intentionally/ no excuse, any sex outside of marriage, are a few examples. These sins, because everyone OUGHT to know how serious they are; need not meet the “3 Test’.
There are sin’s that would normally be Mortal sin; but MIGHT be slightly less serious due to bad-habit, addiction, or compulsion. These NEED to be confessed; and let the Priest advice you.
If one is so steeped in Mortal sin as to not be able to recall them ALL [a necessity in order to receive the Priest Absolution]; THAT too needs to absolutely discussed with the priest in Confession.
**Contrition **
Within the Sacrament of Confession/Penance/Reconcillation
“Perfect Contrition” is not an absolute mandate. A SINCERE sense of repentance; along with a sincere effort to AVOID the near occasion of those sins in the future is sufficient. A “Perfect Act of Contrition”; one based primarily on having Offended God [not the fear of hell or having to confess your sin] can remove a Moral sin CONDITIONALLY.
**Catechism: 1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.
**
As a FYI:
What is shared here applies to ALL; not simply Catholics. God does not, CANNOT have different standards for me and for you. The standards put forth by the CC ARE God’s; not some Catholic invention.
God Bless you,
Let’s first for those who may be unaware; define a few important points for our discussion. Because space is limited I will be far more brief that is truly needed here.
**1 Jn 5:16-17 **“If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
Here it is clearly taught that there are 2 categories of sin. Lesser & Greater/ Venial & **Mortal [meaning unto Spiritual Death; Hell] **Venial sins in an absolute sense need not be confessed to be forgiven. GRACE is given for doing so.
“Confession”
Many are unaware that priest were used in the OT times:
Lev.6:7 “and the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things which one may do and thereby become guilty."
In the OT, the sins were “covered over” and not THEN being under Grace; God was OK with that. But now under grace Romans 6:14-15; Christ instituted a better; a more Perfect way.
**Jn 20:21-23 **“He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins YOU shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins YOU shall retain, they are retained.
Jesus continues here to SHARE His Godly Power & Authority [Mt. 10:1-5] with the Apostles and through them; todays CC. “As My Father sent ME; I NOW send YOU”. **Mt. 16:19 **“And I will give to thee [ALL of] the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever YOU shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever YOU shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" END QUOTE
Because a Mortal sin is sufficiently grievous to actually break one’s Bond with Jesus; there are 3 mandated conditions that must [normally] exist for an action to be considered a Mortal sin.
Mortal sins
1 Serious matter: murder but not stealing a candy bar
2 Knowledge that the act being considered will BE a Mortal sin
3 Desiring to do it anyway. It is NOT necessary to actually do it; so long as a freewill desire to Do it exist.
That said: there is a category of sins termed “intrinsic evil”: Murder; abortion; adultery; slander; missing Mass on Sunday & Holidays intentionally/ no excuse, any sex outside of marriage, are a few examples. These sins, because everyone OUGHT to know how serious they are; need not meet the “3 Test’.
There are sin’s that would normally be Mortal sin; but MIGHT be slightly less serious due to bad-habit, addiction, or compulsion. These NEED to be confessed; and let the Priest advice you.
If one is so steeped in Mortal sin as to not be able to recall them ALL [a necessity in order to receive the Priest Absolution]; THAT too needs to absolutely discussed with the priest in Confession.
**Contrition **
Within the Sacrament of Confession/Penance/Reconcillation
“Perfect Contrition” is not an absolute mandate. A SINCERE sense of repentance; along with a sincere effort to AVOID the near occasion of those sins in the future is sufficient. A “Perfect Act of Contrition”; one based primarily on having Offended God [not the fear of hell or having to confess your sin] can remove a Moral sin CONDITIONALLY.
**Catechism: 1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.
**
As a FYI:
What is shared here applies to ALL; not simply Catholics. God does not, CANNOT have different standards for me and for you. The standards put forth by the CC ARE God’s; not some Catholic invention.
God Bless you,
B
blanchardman
Guest
I do not know the mind of God or how He achieves His miracles. I might suggest that He opened a window into the future showing the three as they will appear after the resurrection.
I have no need to “reconcile” them. They do not conflict in my belief.
So I ask again, is Ecclesiastes right or wrong?
A
adrift
Guest
I suspect that it is your understanding that is wrong.
The footnote of NAB
Matthew 22
B
blanchardman
Guest
It has nothing to do with winning. I posted something I find “strange” about the Catholic religion. I have now posted a bible text as to why I find it strange. I was asked to
Reconile it with another. I have. I guess what I should have asked is, how do you reconcile Ecclesiastes 9:5&6 with your practice of praying to “the dead”?
Reconile it with another. I have. I guess what I should have asked is, how do you reconcile Ecclesiastes 9:5&6 with your practice of praying to “the dead”?
A
adrift
Guest
I have answered this already but I will repeat
Your understanding is wrong.
Matthew 22
A
adrift
Guest
B
blanchardman
Guest
I saw that footnote while reviewing other translations. I reject it because it suggests there is error in the Word of God. I want to point out,I have not said the true believer does not go to heaven.
J
JustaServant
Guest
The Catholic Church does not, and has never taught ‘praying to the dead’. I have never met a Catholic in their right mind who prays to the dead.
You say you are a former Catholic. Not sure what church you belonged to, but it wasn’t Catholic.
Next question?
A
adrift
Guest
There is no error other than on the part of someone who will take one verse out of context and try to make a rule about it.
In reading the text it does not seem that he was trying to describe what death was but only the living can effect what they do. In other words, once you have gone on to the next world you no longer effect your salvation. You can no longer feed the poor, cloth the naked etc. You have to live now because once you are judged there is no further ability to effect what that judgment will be.
What I think is odd is the idea that Peter, James and John saw into the future that Jesus was no longer with them but in the future somewhere talking to Moses
Since this out of context quote of scripture, contradicts other scripture there is only two options
- The Scripture is wrong
- The interpretation is wrong
P
Peter_J
Guest
Even though the emoticon indicates kidding, that comment still seems a little inappropriate to me.The Catholic Church does not, and has never taught ‘praying to the dead’. I have never met a Catholic in their right mind who prays to the dead.
You say you are a former Catholic. Not sure what church you belonged to, but it wasn’t Catholic.
Next question?
Just my two cents.
B
benhur
Guest
Well of course the ritual of foot washing is to wash the feet. The ritual of thanksgiving for Christ (Eucharist) is to give thanks for Christ offering up Himself at Calvary, for us, in remembrance till He comes again.
Blessings
W
Wannano
Guest
There was no slave there to wash their feet as was the custom, but when Jesus washed their feet He was doing far more than cleaning feet. He was demonstrating servant hood and humility and instructed his followers to do likewise. Serving, giving and ministering to others is the true mark of a genuine Christian.
B
benhur
Guest
(in On Christian Doctrine bk 3) Augustine :
…If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.
“His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.”…Tractate 27
Still looking for His Peter comment.
G
guanophore
Guest
I could feel that coming! This verse is part of a polemic against those who are unable to sing the praises of God. Yet we have ample scriptural evidence that this is not the case. In fact, the appearance of Samuel to Saul predated this poem, and the other scriptural references of those who have gone ahead to meet their heavenly reward clearly show that those who have died in the Lord most certainly have reward, memory, emotion, and portion in what is done here under the sun.
It is a verse that is used, frequently, to deny the communion of the saints as it was taught to us by the Apostles.
G
guanophore
Guest
Of course not!
1For all this I considered in my heart even to declare all this, that the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God: no man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them.
2 All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath.
3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.
4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. (Eccl. 9).
He is describing a world view of the righteous,a nd contrasting it with those who are not. He is not defining a doctrine of the state of the soul after death, but contrasting how one experiences daily life differently when in this life, and the next.
17Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. Acts 8:19
Are you saying that the Book of Acts is “wrong” if we don’t give money to receive the power of the Holy Spirit?
All of scritpure is written for our instruction. All of it is for us, but not all of it is about us. The appearance of Moses and Elijah to visit Jesus proves that what is written in Eccl. describes something other than the doctrine of life after death would you not agree?
E
eazyduzit
Guest
Okay, then here is what the apostles say:If you look at the origin of the Eucharist (Passover) it will help put a context around “rememberance”. It is an anamnesis, just as Passover was. Passover was an enacted ritual during which a real sacrifice was consumed by the faithful. It’s purpose, more than bringing the Exodus to the people, was to bring the people to the Exodus. In the same way, Eucharist now brings us to the foot ofHis cross.
This is a good point. Catholics understand Scripture through the Teachings of the Aposltes.
Well, we know He was not speaking of His own flesh, was He? Otherwise, His body on the cross would be meaningless.
It is neccessary for moderns to deny the historical understanding of the passage passed to us from those who walked upon the earth with Him. It is the only way to maintain a rejection of what they believed and taught.
1Pt.1:23- “Being born again… by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.”
Jms1:18- “Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth…”
Phil.2:16- “Holding forth the word of life…”
Acts 11:14- “Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.”
Because of the teaching of the apostles, we understand that the life is in the living word of God.
Now, what about the flesh? Even the flesh of Jesus? What life was in His flesh? It was still human and mortal. If it was immortal than He would not have died. If we were at the very foot of the cross and actual drops of the blood fell on us, would that communicate life to us? No it would not. What then is the source of life? It is as St. Peter says in 2Pt.1:4- “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises God’s word] that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature…”
At the Last Supper, you are correct, the word used for remember is “anamnesis” which carries with it a personal connotation rather than memory of events which lines up with 1Cor.5:7 which says that our Passover is now a person and not an event.
This illustrates a basic difference in the way we respond to the Gospel. We just have to respect each side is looking at the same thing but seeing different levels. One sees it on a fleshly and literal level and the other sees a spiritual and metaphorical level.
I hope you you would admit that what I present also has some scriptural logic and legitimacy. We will never come together on this, but the best we can do is to try to understand each others reasoning for what we believe.
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
Could I just say regarding Ecclesiastes that we’re getting a bit carried away although it’s all very interesting.
What’s the first thing you learn in exegesis?
You don’t take one verse and make a doctrine out of it.
Which is what blanchardman did.
This is exactly what people who don’t trust the bible mean when they say that you could prove anything using the bible.
The verse has to line up with the rest of scripture.
But, dialogue is always good.
Fran
A doctrine, or for use as proof text.
What’s the first thing you learn in exegesis?
You don’t take one verse and make a doctrine out of it.
Which is what blanchardman did.
This is exactly what people who don’t trust the bible mean when they say that you could prove anything using the bible.
The verse has to line up with the rest of scripture.
But, dialogue is always good.
Fran
A doctrine, or for use as proof text.
- Status