What dear friend, do you find strange about Catholicism?

[adrift]

Originally Posted by frangiuliano115 View Post
Ooops. I forgot that I was going to copy and paste the CCC from now on:

[/QUOTE]

 

[Peter_J]

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 don’t know if this will assuage your concern, but communion-in-one-species began at a time when there were very significant concerns about spreading disease.

Nowadays, I’ve heard many Catholics claim that it’s impossible to spread germs in that way … I would call that “irony” but I’m afraid of the word-usage-police.

 

[Peter_J]

Now the question is how much of the Context have we distorted by mans own deficient understanding

What I find Starange about Catholicism is I wonder how many find this Pope as wonderful as a Baha’i would regard Him. I think there would be a few Catholics finding this Pope A CHALLENGE

Many are finding this Pope a challenge.

Huh … I never heard of a Pope challenging anyone before.

D)

 

[frangiuliano115]

Let me answer you this way

Jesus is upholding their authority correct?
Jesus upholds it even in the face of criticizing them. It seems to me a very strong support of the hierarchy.

Perhaps if I explain it this way you might get what I am saying
Pope Alexander VI was not a very moral pope. I can say that what he taught on faith and morals should be followed but do not follow what he did. I would not be saying I don’t believe in the hierarchy of the Church. The same with Jesus, He was not condemning the hierarchy but the person. The priesthood of the Jews was established by God. I can’t see Jesus disapproving that which His Father instituted.

Did you read my post no. 318?
We’re basically saying the same thing.

ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

 

[PJM]

adrift:
You are misreading her. What she posted does not equate to osas.

Wow! Has it occurred to you that you may be misunderstanding.

REALLY:shrug:
Then do you agree with ths quote of her’s?

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.

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[benhur]

OK, BUT

God made the Papacy; the CC only added the name.Mt. 10:1-2;; Mt. 16: 15-19; Mt. 28:18-20

But I do agree that the “palace” is a bit much.

God expects us to give HIM the best that we can: TRAD if you haven’t recently the Book of Exodus chapters 22-26: GOD Himself expects no less.

God Bless you,
Patrick

Hi Patrick,

Some would say a whole lot more was added than just the name (eg-cardinals , voting methods, political/state involvement, and some of his helper offices )

As far as the palace that can be good and bad (maybe bad for clerics to take but good for lay folk to give in good faith) . We have a few P preachers claiming they need the best also.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

No it absolutely is not! Because he explicitly states that the pharisees have authority. He says do as they say (hence teaching authority) but not as they do. This is a perfect example of how to respond to people who talk about bad popes, bad bishops, etc. The teaching of the church comes from the Holy Spirit but that doesn’t mean that every bishop and every pope is going to be perfect. To say that this verse is against hierarchy is taking it out of context. Jesus doesn’t say to throw out the hierarchy, he simply calls them out for their bad witness. Just as we should not throw out the hierarchy, just be aware when there is a bad witness.

Hi C’

I think Jesus said obey your elders/teachers when they speak scripturally and are correct. It is not just that they were bad examples or hypocrites. Jesus also said they were in error doctrinally speaking. They had some bad doctrine. We are to obey in so far as they have have correct doctrine. There is also the responsibility of some subjectivity, of being responsible (to the Spirit of truth) to know the difference. After all, Christ asked His followers to discern their teaching and actions, motives. He was not teaching infallibility of Moses seat. At best the infallibility is conditional (upon what the seat is saying). Just like we are to obey church and government officials, as long as they are in line with God, as the apostles show , for they disobeyed church and government officials by continuing to preach.

Blessings

 

[guanophore]

Becasue GOD did exactly what GOD desired:

One True God

Just One True set of Faith beliefs [which my friend you seem to be having diffulcty comprehending:shrug:

And In and Through Just one true Church who ALONE can share the fullness of God’s single Faith beliefs.

God Bless you,

I think we all need to consider that difficulty comprehending can come from various sources. Sometimes people that have had head injuries suffer traumatic brain injury that affects their memory and ability to process information. Sometimes people have had brain damage from years of drinking/drugging, sometimes people are just born with difficulties processing, receiving, and expressing ideas with language. As people age, they may also encounter early alzheimers or other dementias. None of these conditions can be considered a willful or obstinant problem.
[/quote]

 

[guanophore]

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?

Because it is so clear that He supported obedience to them because of their position. The people were to listen to them and obey them because they occupied the Seat of Moses. If ever there was a time for Jesus to tell everyone to just ignore them, this would be it! But he supported their position.

Jesus didn’t believe in THEIR hierarchy.

If this were true, He would not have told everyone to listen to them and obey.

A govt by priests, a body of officials of different ranks.  He said they kept people from God instead of bringing them to God.

It was not the structure that was the problem, but their lack of spirituality. Their attitude was the blockage.

In fact, Jesus set up the same type of hierarchy, an authority of priests and officials of different ranks. Their job is to bring people to God.

So the ones outside the catholic church have the right to be called CHRISTian but not Catholic. We are not equal.

No, Fran, this is not what the CCC says. It says

1. All who are validly bapized are sacramentally united to the One Church founded by Christ (they are NOT OUTSIDE!)
2. They are in imperfect union because they do not have the fullness of faith
3. Everyone is equal in the eyes of God. Not everyone has the fullness of God’s revelation , but that has nothing to do with their human dignity.

Every time you characterize them as “outside” you are denying the Teaching of the Church.

I guess when we get to the pearly gates all the catholics will go to the left and all the “christians” will go to the right.

We cannot even assume that we will all get to the pearly gates, and if we do, by the grace of God, it is up to him what happens. It is not for us to judge this.

. But christians are not catholics. I see. It’s statements such as these that make “christians” believe catholics are not christian.

I think misrepresenting the faith by contradicting the Teachings of the Church does not help with unity, Fran.

There are many Christians who are fervent in their faith (like Apollos) who do not have the fullness of the faith.

 

[adrift]

REALLY:shrug:
Then do you agree with ths quote of her’s?

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

I believe that we are saved by Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. I am sure you do to. I am not sure that Fran expressed herself well. I would have to have her clarify more. I am not sure I know enough about what she states to know if I agree. She doesn’t believe in OSAS as the above comment would indicate.

 

[adrift]

Hi C’

I think Jesus said obey your elders/teachers when they speak scripturally and are correct. It is not just that they were bad examples or hypocrites. Jesus also said they were in error doctrinally speaking. They had some bad doctrine. We are to obey in so far as they have have correct doctrine. There is also the responsibility of some subjectivity, of being responsible (to the Spirit of truth) to know the difference. After all, Christ asked His followers to discern their teaching and actions, motives. He was not teaching infallibility of Moses seat. At best the infallibility is conditional (upon what the seat is saying). Just like we are to obey church and government officials, as long as they are in line with God, as the apostles show , for they disobeyed church and government officials by continuing to preach.

Blessings

Would you give me the verse that says obey your teachers when they are correct? I see where Jesus condemns their practices but not their teachings.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Huh … I never heard of a Pope challenging anyone before.

D)

Hey Peter J

I’d like you to meet a couple of my church friends. When I say “church friends” it means woman that teach catechism and belong to different groups and are very involved in the church. One has a catholic book store (runs it, I should say). This particular one is threatening to leave the church!

You know how the Pope keeps saying things that need to be fixed? Well, many wonder - was he saying what he meant the first time, or the second and corrected time?

What about his call to the woman in Brazil whom he allowed to receive communion after being remarried?

How about the Lutheran woman in an area of Rome to whom he gave permission to receive communion with her catholic husband when they go to Mass together? Well, he left it up to her conscience, but you don’t have to be a theologian to understand his meaning.

IOW, he’s challenging our ideas.

To ME, he’s not a challenge, but to many he is - in that sense.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

I believe that we are saved by Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. I am sure you do to. I am not sure that Fran expressed herself well. I would have to have her clarify more. I am not sure I know enough about what she states to know if I agree. She doesn’t believe in OSAS as the above comment would indicate.

Here Adrift, I’ll state it plainly.

People such as PJM are depending on their own good works to get them to heaven. I call this being legalistic. He referred someone on a post to read Exodus to show how God wants us to obey. This proves that he is living under the Law.

Now, I know this is not an easy concept to understand. Our monsignor said that he’s going to get us from Moses to Jesus even if some are scandalized. It would be nice if everyone just considered what this means instead of putting words into my mouth that I never said. So I thank you for stopping and at least wondering what I mean.

You’re right of course. How could a catholic ever believe that once you are saved you can never lose your salvation? Heck. Protestants don’t believe this except for a select few.

But the question becomes: What is it that offers us our salvation?

It would seem like SOME catholics here have never read the book of James. Let me do the copy and paste thingy…

James 2:14
Faith and Deeds

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

So deeds, or works, are a result of faith. You need faith in God for salvation, both in this life and the next - but that’s a different story.

So, first you attain salvation. You come to know God. You wish to serve Him and honor Him. Okay. Next come works. As a result of your desire to serve God.

But it’s my faith that has brought me to salvation.

Some believe it’s the other way around. If they follow all the rules, if they go to confession enough, if they never miss a Mass, if they never steal, if they do EVERYTHING just right, they’ll attain salvation. But Paul said if we break one commandment we break them all, so how could we possibly be saved by our works???

This DOES NOT mean that we go around breaking rules, not adhering to the commandments, missing Mass. It just means that we do these things because we want to because we serve God.

What is not clear about this??

In catechism classes you teach a child how to love Jesus and WANT to follow Him. Hopefully the either will, or one day they will. If you just throw out all the rules they are to folllow, you’ve lost them before you even start. All we were told is that catechism is NOT a religion class. Which I fully agree with. In religion you learn ABOUT God, in catechism you learn to KNOW God in a more personal way.

I mean, for someone to take that quote that’s being put about and take it to mean that I believe in OSAS makes it obvious that not only does the reader not read correctly but has a total misunderstanding of both what I’m saying and what the catholic church teaches. I think James is in the catholic bible, no?

This is in the catholic bible too (not that it’s different - for our non-catholic readers)(well, it has 7 additional books, just in case PJM is reading along so he doesn’t have an attack):

Ephesians 2:8

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

It seems so clear and easy to me - I really fail to see why some have a problem with this or how it goes against church teaching.

I’m always happy to explain it. We’re living under GRACE, not LAW. People following might want to study the New Covenant.

Fran

 

[rcwitness]

I think Jesus said obey your elders/teachers when they speak scripturally and are correct.

Hey ben, we’ve touched this topic in the past. It a valid concern that causes MANY, I think, to reject full Communion with the Catholic Church. Jesus does expect us to obey the leaders of the Church, and that leaders should not be separate in mind and judgment.

It is not just that they were bad examples or hypocrites. Jesus also said they were in error doctrinally speaking. They had some bad doctrine.

He definitely told the faithful to obey “whatever” they tell them. He also calls them hypocrates. We are to be a people subject to authorities yet not hypocrates.

We are to obey in so far as they have have correct doctrine.

We are to be completely subject to the new authority whom Jesus appointed first on Peter, then the twelve, and they in their turn. This does not mean each individual Bishop or Priest will be infallible in their teachings. It means, we have infallible Teaching given to us through Peter and the Apostles, and each generation has this successive hierarchy. No generation can contradict what has been laid down within the terms of “official” doctrine. The first generation delivered the highest rule of all, Sacred Tradition, of which Scripture is the principal record.

There is also the responsibility of some subjectivity, of being responsible (to the Spirit of truth) to know the difference.

Yes. Here is the important factor… We are responsible to allow the Spirit to guide us, true! Even many Saints have induced injustice from hierarchy, when the Saints knew it was in contradiction to what the Church has already Taught. The Saints did not forsake communion with the Church, but suffered what some individuals were doing in contradiction to Christ.

After all, Christ asked His followers to discern their teaching and actions, motives. He was not teaching infallibility of Moses seat. At best the infallibility is conditional (upon what the seat is saying).

The analogy is not perfect. Moses’ seat did not have the same gifts, but very similar.

Just like we are to obey church and government officials, as long as they are in line with God, as the apostles show , for they disobeyed church and government officials by continuing to preach.

We are to obey Church Teaching which has been officially Confirmed, through the Magisterium. Obeying every individual has conditions, yes. Jesus is our Lord and we are to suffer with him. If there is, in anyone’s mind and conscience, injustice before them, they should seek out a resolution by proper Church authorities. To remove oneself from Communion with the Universal Church is to avoid suffering with Jesus.

 

[Wannano]

I am comforted that you say these things. You are very Catholic at heart. And if a practicing Catholic argues with this faith of yours, then they have issues.

The only thing worth debating is the definition of the term “religion”. If you don’t believe Christianity is a religion, then I understand your point. I think it’s sad that Christianity has been divided into separate religions. Personally, I don’t think they are different religions if they are valid Christian.

In retrospect I want to thank you for your affirmation of my faith. Being a brother to all indicates an attitude of love which results in beautiful music not just a clanging symbol.
I am open to more from you if have more wisdom for me.

 

[Wannano]

Cool. I frequently worry that Protestant posters base their view of Catholicism mainly on “traditionalist” Catholics; but that’s probably not the case with you if you know lots of Catholic IRL.

I think I know what you mean. Do you have the time to give more clarification on what is “traditionalism” and how to recognize it the responses of people?

 

[Peter_J]

I think I know what you mean.

Thank you!! I’ve been trying forever to get Protestant (and Orthodox) posters to pay just a little bit less attention to the “traditionalist” (or “fundamentalist” as some would say) Catholic posters, and just a little bit more to the rest of us, but I’ve seldom gotten any indication that I’m getting through to anyone.

Do you have the time to give more clarification on what is “traditionalism” and how to recognize it the responses of people?

Oh … that’s a pretty tall order, but the contrast that comes to my mind is, on the one hand the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, and on the other the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).

 

[Vanny]

Actually, not much. I come from a liturgical background myself, and have read some Church History, so I have no problem with many things that are stumbling blocks for many Protestants.

the only thing is, in some Catholic churches I’ve visited, they like to leave right after the Eucharist, or after Mass, where I’m used to staying and visiting and fellowship, coffee, ect.
That’s the main thing that seems different to me.
But then again, I’m good friends with many in my parish.

 

[Peter_J]

To ME, he’s not a challenge, but to many he is - in that sense.

Fran

I hear you.

And (forgive me if this is stating the obvious, but for the record) my remark was tongue in cheek, b/c I *have *heard of Popes before Francis challenging people’s thinking.

 

[Wannano]

Thank you!! I’ve been trying forever to get Protestant (and Orthodox) posters to pay just a little bit less attention to the “traditionalist” (or “fundamentalist” as some would say) Catholic posters, and just a little bit more to the rest of us, but I’ve seldom gotten any indication that I’m getting through to anyone.

Oh … that’s a pretty tall order, but the contrast that comes to my mind is, on the one hand the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, and on the other the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).

OK I am not familiar with either one but am I hearing that I would research both of them on the premise that they are different from each other?