What dear friend, do you find strange about Catholicism?

[CompSciGuy]

People could read Mathew 23 and decide for themselves.

Thanks, that’s exactly what I’ve done.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Was Jesus against heirarchicle religion or not?

CompSciGuy says:

If you think that Jesus was against hierarchical religion in general, then you are mistaken.

If I think Jesus was against hierarchical religion I’m mistaken.
That means Jesus was FOR hierarchical religion according to CompSciGuy.

I’M saying Jesus was against it.

Really?? I see the “religion” tag in your header says “Catholic.” I hate to break it to you, but Catholicism is about as hierarchical as you get. So… I gotta ask, why are you Catholic? What does that even mean to you?

 

[adrift]

Mathew 23 to post it in the entirety would be to long of a post.
Link to it

Jesus says to the crowd and to His disciples to practice and do as the Scribes and Pharisees tell them BUT not what they do because they have authority (“sit on Moses seat”) versus 1-4
Jesus expounds on why versus 4-8
Jesus explains further not to seek, like the Scribes and Pharisees, pridefully honorific titles some of what Jesus said is hyperbole. Versus 9-12
Jesus criticizes the Scribes ad Pharisees as well as giving them warnings in the seven woes . versus 13-36

Jesus laments over Jerusalem versus 37-39 .

The context is that Scribes and Pharisees have authority that should be followed but what they do should not be followed.

 

[rcwitness]

I agree, relics can seem very strange!

But if I imagine that a piece of bone, for example, was known to be from St Peter… wow! How amazing would that be? Something from the man who Jesus walked talked and ate with… miraculously allowed to walk on water… it’s very shadow healing people… given a special place among the twelve,… etc.

The perspective is that Jesus did great things through the person whom the relic belonged to. That He was “over” the very matter of the relic. And it inspires reverence and awe. If not, no problem. It doesn’t have to. But it happened in the bible. The handkerchief of Peter was passed to Christians away from him and it gave inspiration even to perform miracles!

 

[adrift]

Was Jesus against heirarchicle religion or not?

CompSciGuy says:

If you think that Jesus was against hierarchical religion in general, then you are mistaken.

If I think Jesus was against hierarchical religion I’m mistaken.
That means Jesus was FOR hierarchical religion according to CompSciGuy.

I’M saying Jesus was against it.

There is nothing in Scripture or anywhere else that supports what you are saying. Jesus established a hierarchical religion when He said “upon this Rock”…

Please read Mathew for yourself so you could read the …
which just saved me some typing.

Why did you come to the assumption that I have not read the Gospels. I have read them all and being a cradle Catholic I have heard them as well.

And you’ll find that the rest of the story does change what CompSciGuy said.

No I didn’t and what also I don’t see is an explanation from you as to how you believe it was changed.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Really?? I see the “religion” tag in your header says “Catholic.” I hate to break it to you, but Catholicism is about as hierarchical as you get. So… I gotta ask, why are you Catholic? What does that even mean to you?

Short answer.

It means we should not be legalists, keeping others from approaching God because we lay down so many rules and regulations instead of showing them God’s love for them and letting them serve God out of love and not out of fear of not following the rules.

The Pharisees doled out so many rules to the people that it made them feel like they were sinners and could not approach God. The pharisees wanted to maintain their throne. I’m not saying this is the church. It’s the opposite - it’s some in the church that feel they are doing everything correctly and others cannot “keep up”.

It’s my contention that we are saved by Jesus’ sacrifice on he cross not by whether or not we are able to keep all the rules. Which is an idea I’ve encountered here and also in life. It’s a concept that some are just not willing to understand or accept.

When I was a little girl I was told that all I needed to do was to go to confession and Mass and try to be “good” and I’d go to heaven.

When I got older I realized that this was a very unsatisfactory relationship with God. So I got to know Jesus. I was still in church - I never stopped going to church. But things changed.

So I’m just trying to explain the above. Then posters misunderstand and so accusations abound. Misunderstandings abound. I know the CCC, I know the bible, I’ve read many encyclicals because I’ve had to.

I read here that persons outside the Catholic church are not saved. EENS. From the 300’s. Do YOU believe this has not changed as some on this thread?

Could YOU please read CCC 1271 and then come back and tell me what it means to YOU? Seriously.

I’m replying to you also for others. Not for those who follow me around continually and don’t understand what I’ve stated above. I’m sorry it’s such a difficult concept to grasp - it doesn’t seem like it to me and I do believe the church would agree with my statements.

Fran
P.S. I just said it was a bad verse to use to show that heirarchical religion is good…

 

[frangiuliano115]

There is nothing in Scripture or anywhere else that supports what you are saying. Jesus established a hierarchical religion when He said “upon this Rock”…

**Why did you come to the assumption that I have not read the Gospels. I have read them all and being a cradle Catholic I have heard them as well. **

No I didn’t and what also I don’t see is an explanation from you as to how you believe it was changed.

See Adrift. This is why I’m not posting with you.

i NEVER SAID you didn’t read or know the bible.
You accused me of using… to say that I left out things I didn’t want to include.

I told you to read the bible because I did it for typing reasons, and I said so.

You take it to mean that I think you’ve not read the bible.

Fundamental misunderstanding which makes any further communications absolutely pointless.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Tell me how does the context change what CompSciGuy
He said

He actually was in context even if he didn’t quote it all and neither did you your … does not mean you quoted all.
That Jesus said that the Pharisees had the authority but failed to practice it. CompSciGuy’s point is accurate quoting the rest of what Jesus said didn’t change it. When something is taken out of context it means that the meaning is changed.

What did the pharisees fail to practice?

They followed all the rules to a “T”. So what it is that they did not practice???

Fran

 

[guanophore]

Does this not make sense??

Fran

It appears that your theological assumptions have some errors. You have stated that, as a child, ,you were taught that being a member of the Church meant you were saved, so perhaps you have not been able to get that error out of your head?

I think I should have said that there’s a lot more but I can’t post it all.

For instance, No. 1129 is good too:

The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.51 “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature52 by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

Is a murderer conformed to the Son of God?

Fran

What this is saying is that a Catholic in a state of grace is conformed to Christ through the sacraments.

It does not say that a baptized person who is not in a state of grace is “unbaptized” or no longer a member of the Body. A person cannot be “unborn” again.

When I was a little girl I was told that all I needed to do was to go to confession and Mass and try to be “good” and I’d go to heaven.

This primitive understanding was the most common message to children for many centuries.

I read here that persons outside the Catholic church are not saved. EENS. From the 300’s. Do YOU believe this has not changed as some on this thread?

This is an example of you classifying our separated brethren so they are “outside” the Church. The catechism clearly states that we have been joined to one Body through baptism. Your continual insistence that they are “outside” is a rejection of the Catechism.

 I do believe the church would agree with my statements.

Then you are in error. Fran. The Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church, and that all who are saved are saved through the Church.

The Church teaches that baptism joins us to His Body through a permanent seal that cannot be removed.

Fundamental misunderstanding which makes any further communications absolutely pointless.
Fran

You seem to want to avoid taking responsibility for the things you have posted, and how they are perceived by others.

 

[frangiuliano115]

It appears that your theological assumptions have some errors. You have stated that, as a child, ,you were taught that being a member of the Church meant you were saved, so perhaps you have not been able to get that error out of your head?

What this is saying is that a Catholic in a state of grace is conformed to Christ through the sacraments.

It does not say that a baptized person who is not in a state of grace is “unbaptized” or no longer a member of the Body. A person cannot be “unborn” again.

This primitive understanding was the most common message to children for many centuries.

**This is an example of you classifying our separated brethren so they are “outside” the Church. The catechism clearly states that we have been joined to one Body through baptism. Your continual insistence that they are “outside” is a rejection of the Catechism.
**
**Then you are in error. Fran. The Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church, and that all who are saved are saved through the Church.
**
The Church teaches that baptism joins us to His Body through a permanent seal that cannot be removed.

You seem to want to avoid taking responsibility for the things you have posted, and how they are perceived by others.

First you say this:

This is an example of you classifying our separated brethren so they are “outside” the Church. The catechism clearly states that we have been joined to one Body through baptism. Your continual insistence that they are “outside” is a rejection of the Catechism.

Then you say this:

Then you are in error. Fran. The Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church, and that all who are saved are saved through the Church.

Which is it guaophore???

First you say that they who are outside the church have been joined to one body through baptism.

Then you say there is no salvation outside the church.

Which is it???

Also, you incorrectly used all capital “C’s” for the word church. Since the word is being used differently in each case, the C cannot be capitalized in each case.

For the readers:

Of all people, certainly NOT I decide that those who are “outside” the church are not saved - since I most assuredly know they are who decide to follow the Lord.

Fran

 

[Memaw]

I find it strange that the Roman-Catholic Church forbade the laity to receive the Blood of Christ at the Eucharist, even though Jesus Christ said “Drink ALL OF YOU.” Looks like Jesus Christ saw the future what will happen in the Latin Church and that is why he said drink ALL of you.

I find it strange that other denominations do not believe that Jesus is truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Blessed Sacrament and Catholics receive HIM totally in every Consecrated Host!! By the way, the Catholic Church does NOT forbid the laity to receive Holy Communion under both Species. Looks like your seeing things in there that really aren’t. God Bless, Memaw

 

[frangiuliano115]

Ooops. I forgot that I was going to copy and paste the CCC from now on:

Regarding my post no. 311
in which I state that even non catholics, or those outside the church
are saved:

CCC no. 1271

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."80 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."81

Oh my gosh. It even says those who don’t know Christ can be saved!! Speak of strange things which you have difficulty accepting –

CCC no. 1260

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Yes. I like this copy and paste –

 

[guanophore]

Ooops. I forgot that I was going to copy and paste the CCC from now on:

Regarding my post no. 311
in which I state that even non catholics, or those outside the church
are saved:

CCC no. 1271

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."80 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."81

Oh my gosh. It even says those who don’t know Christ can be saved!! Speak of strange things which you have difficulty accepting –

CCC no. 1260

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Yes. I like this copy and paste –

Good for you Fran! Sources are always helpful. I will fervently pray that the Holy Spirit will deeply impress these truths upon your heart, and that you will be able to accept what they say. I look forward to the time when you will stop posting contradictions to the Teaching of the Catholic Church on CAF. It is my prayerful hope that you will soon fully and finally accept that these passages refer to people who are joined to the Body of Christ, and are not “outside”.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Good for you Fran! Sources are always helpful. I will fervently pray that the Holy Spirit will deeply impress these truths upon your heart, and that you will be able to accept what they say. I look forward to the time when you will stop posting contradictions to the Teaching of the Catholic Church on CAF. It is my prayerful hope that you will soon fully and finally accept that these passages refer to people who are joined to the Body of Christ, and are not “outside”.

It’s so nice of you to pray for me to get what I already have!

Sources will be forthcoming from now on since I have thankfully learned to copy and paste and will not have to type so much anymore or try to convince anyone with my pithy words.

Ah. Technology. What a wonderful concept!

 

[adrift]

See Adrift. This is why I’m not posting with you.

i NEVER SAID you didn’t read or know the bible.
You accused me of using… to say that I left out things I didn’t want to include.

Correction I never said you left it out because you didn’t want to include it. I thought it ironic that you didn’t include it after saying that another quote wasn’t in context.

I told you to read the bible because I did it for typing reasons, and I said so

You take it to mean that I think you’ve not read the bible
Fundamental misunderstanding which makes any further communications absolutely pointless.

Fran

.
If I told you to read the scripture, wouldn’t you take it that I thought you hadn’t? So you didn’t mean it that way then you don’t get all huffy and explain it. To say I am misunderstood so I am not going to talk to you again is self-defeating. If I misunderstand you, correct it as will correct you if you misunderstand me. That is how you communicate. Understanding cannot take place if you throw up your hands and say I am not posting to you.

I still don’t understand why you think that it was out of context

 

[frangiuliano115]

Correction I never said you left is out because you didn’t want to include it. I thought it ironic that you didn’t include it after saying that another quote wasn’t in context.

.
If I told you to read the scripture, wouldn’t you take it that I thought you hadn’t? So you didn’t mean it that way then you don’t get all huffy and explain it. To say I am misunderstood so I am not going to talk to you again is self-defeating. If I misunderstand you, correct it as will correct you if you misunderstand me. That is how you communicate. Understanding cannot take place if you throw up your hands and say I am not posting to you.

I still don’t understand why you think that it was out of context

I’m sorry Adrift. You remind me of another poster and I’m really tired of trying to explain myself and plus, I’ve noticed that it doesn’t do any good.

The dots are used so you type less. I referred you to read the text so you could have a complete picture. I know how to communicate pretty well - it just seems useless here sometimes and it’s not fun, at least for me, to debate back and forth, as some do. I’ve done it only for 2 concepts which I think are very important.

Now why was it out of context. It was out of context because that one sentence was used to show that Jesus was for heirarchical religion (hate typing that word). But then He goes on a rampage to show how the pharisees are not doing the will of God - so it’s the WRONG scripture to use to show Jesus liked heircl religion. He might have liked the hrchl religion but he admonished the pharisees.

The scripture clearly shows that Jesus wanted the people to follow what the Pharisees and the Rabbis taught because they were the authorities at that time, as the Catholic church is today.

So.

That Jesus said that the Pharisees had the authority but failed to practice it.

Jesus said they had the authority but failed to practice it. So what did they fail to practice? They were very good at passing all the laws to people, being oppressive in their representation of God, putting a heavy burden of the Law on them. Remember when Jesus said, Come To Me All Ye Who Labor And Are Heavy Laden,

Yes. Heavy laden with regulations that kept the people far from God. The pharisees should have been showing the Jews the love of God and how to get closer to Him - instead they kept the people far.

So if you’re trying to show that Jesus was FOR heirchl authority and/or church, this is not the scripture I’d use. That’s all I was saying.

Here are some I would use:

Colossians 1:17-20
1 Corinthians 12:12-14
1 Timothy 3:15
Ephesians 2:19-22
Mathew 28:18-20

And many more.

Know what’s ironic? At the beginning of this thread I said that what I thought strange about the catholic church is how we bicker…

Fran

 

[adrift]

I’m sorry Adrift. You remind me of another poster and I’m really tired of trying to explain myself and plus, I’ve noticed that it doesn’t do any good.

You never know what good you might be doing or harm for that matter. (no I am not referring to you doing harm just a general statement)

The dots are used so you type less

.
I was unaware that you did not know how to copy and past. It makes a lot of difference.

I referred you to read the text so you could have a complete picture. I know how to communicate pretty well - it just seems useless here sometimes and it’s not fun, at least for me, to debate back and forth, as some do. I’ve done it only for 2 concepts which I think are very important.

sorry

Now why was it out of context. It was out of context because that one sentence was used to show that Jesus was for heirarchical religion (hate typing that word). But then He goes on a rampage to show how the pharisees are not doing the will of God - so it’s the WRONG scripture to use to show Jesus liked heircl religion. He might have liked the hrchl religion but he admonished the pharisees.

The scripture clearly shows that Jesus wanted the people to follow what the Pharisees and the Rabbis taught because they were the authorities at that time, as the Catholic church is today.

So.

That Jesus said that the Pharisees had the authority but failed to practice it.

Jesus said they had the authority but failed to practice it. So what did they fail to practice? They were very good at passing all the laws to people, being oppressive in their representation of God, putting a heavy burden of the Law on them. Remember when Jesus said, Come To Me All Ye Who Labor And Are Heavy Laden,

Yes. Heavy laden with regulations that kept the people far from God. The pharisees should have been showing the Jews the love of God and how to get closer to Him - instead they kept the people far.

So if you’re trying to show that Jesus was FOR heirchl authority and/or church, this is not the scripture I’d use. That’s all I was saying.

Here are some I would use:

Colossians 1:17-20
1 Corinthians 12:12-14
1 Timothy 3:15
Ephesians 2:19-22
Mathew 28:18-20

And many more.

Know what’s ironic? At the beginning of this thread I said that what I thought strange about the catholic church is how we bicker…

Fran

I am probably thick headed but I don’t see it being out of context. What did the Scribes and Pharisees fail to practice? Good question. I believe that Jesus was talking about their false piety. Their teachings should be followed because they have the authority but not how they practice what they preach:shrug:

It just occurred to me that the problem might be the definition of hierarchy which we each hold???

 

[frangiuliano115]

You never know what good you might be doing or harm for that matter. (no I am not referring to you doing harm just a general statement)

I was unaware that you did not know how to copy and past. It makes a lot of difference.

sorry

I am probably thick headed but I don’t see it being out of context. What did the Scribes and Pharisees fail to practice? Good question. I believe that Jesus was talking about their false piety. Their teachings should be followed because they have the authority but not how they practice what they preach:shrug:

It just occurred to me that the problem might be the definition of hierarchy which we each hold???

No. Hierarchy only has one meaning.

You’re right, Jesus was talking about their false piety. Okay. So If they represented the hierarchy of the time, and He was so mad at them (in the next verses) then why use that particular verse to prove Jesus believed in Hierarchy? Jesus didn’t believe in THEIR hierarchy. A govt by priests, a body of officials of different ranks. He said they kept people from God instead of bringing them to God.

He definitely believed in a church, which is why He gave the keys to Peter.

That’s the best explanation I can give of my idea on the verse in Mathew 23:3. I just reread it and I still see it like this. In fact, the heading in my bible is: Pharisaism Exposed.

Thanks for your understanding up above.

Fran

 

[meltzerboy]

No. Hierarchy only has one meaning.

You’re right, Jesus was talking about their false piety. Okay. So If they represented the hierarchy of the time, and He was so mad at them (in the next verses) then why use that particular verse to prove Jesus believed in Hierarchy? Jesus didn’t believe in THEIR hierarchy. A govt by priests, a body of officials of different ranks. He said they kept people from God instead of bringing them to God.

He definitely believed in a church, which is why He gave the keys to Peter.

That’s the best explanation I can give of my idea on the verse in Mathew 23:3. I just reread it and I still see it like this. In fact, the heading in my bible is: Pharisaism Exposed.

Thanks for your understanding up above.

Fran

I recall reading that Jesus was not opposed to all or even most Pharisees, only the ones who did not understand the true meaning of piety as revealed in the Law, and instead were guilty of false piety.

 

[PJM]

PJM;13478262:

REPLY

Posted by Wannano

It is my take that He came to fulfill the Law and that He was the ultimate sacrifice. I tend to beleive that He did not come to start a new religion , rather to change men’s hearts and make His dwelling there./

Perhaps my friend this brief explanation will explain it, And please know that this is not meant personally; rather it is simply God’s own truth.

Clearly, logically and Bionically, Jesus Christ choose to as our One true God had done in the OT. Which is:

Only One true God

With One set of true Faith beliefs

and just One Chosen people which Christ called [not the Jews]; rather “MY CHURCH.”
Mt 16:18

Anyone holding to the views that

ALL Christianity are equally acceptable to God

We ARE ALL “one Body”

or some such understanding is missing a right understanding of God’s Nature & the bibles meaning of “One.”

This teaching By St Paul more than 1,000 years BEFORE the Protestant reformation summarizes God’s singular truth on this topic:

Eph. 4:1-7
I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. [4] One body and one Spirit[MEANS just one Church]; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, Means exactly that: Just One set of faith beliefs]one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. [7] But to every one of us is given grace, [Here this means for RIGHT understanding] according to the measure of the giving of Christ."

Consequently then all Christian faiths outside of the Catholic Church are to varying degrees actually and factually in competition with Jesus Christ, who accomplished exactly what He set out to do:

Create One New Church; that had His One True faith in its fullness [the exclusive Key to heavens One Gate]

Even God my FRIEND can only have a single set of Faith beliefs; can only have one right and full, and true understanding of what the Bible actually IS teaching. Which is in great part why “Just One” is Divine Providence. Jesus knowing man’s propensity to “Do MY own thing”; knew well that if He choose “Just One true God, faith and Church”; that man ought to be able to understand that action as BEING His Divine Will.

So please don’t take it personally.

I am simply exposing God’s necessarily singular truth.

God Bless you, Pray much!

Patrick