G
GodIsGracious
Guest
Correct. For one thing, as Catholics we have obligations. Missing Mass would be one of them.
Besides, Catholics have the Eucharist. Protestants do not.
- Status
Besides, Catholics have the Eucharist. Protestants do not.
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
Hey Dyluck,
The wife is busy with the baby and her blog so I am going to jump in here a bit. To answer your questions I am going to respond in sections and this will most likely be a long response.
More in a bit.
~RSF
The wife is busy with the baby and her blog so I am going to jump in here a bit. To answer your questions I am going to respond in sections and this will most likely be a long response.
Ok let’s not confuse simony with indulgesces. Don’t know the difference Simony is defined as “Sim"o*ny, n. [F. simonie, LL. simonia, fr. Simon Magus, who wished to purchase the power of conferring the Holy Spirit. Acts viii.] The crime of buying or selling ecclesiastical preferment; the corrupt presentation of any one to an ecclesiastical benefice for money or reward. --Piers Plowman.” as found on the dictionary.com website. Meanwhile indulgences are “a remission of the total temporal punishment that is still due to sin after absolution.” found under the definition of plenary indulges at dictionary.com. Simony is wrong and condemed in the bible. Indulgences are biblically supported by the authority given to St. Peter and the Church is found in Mt 16:18-19. If you know of any Catholic authority commting simony please let me know and I will report them.I do believe that the bible was written by God inspired men and that it is 100% infallible. Cannon was written by men. How can I tell if it is inspired by God or not? The bible…
The bible says to test the spirit.
Firstly, there is cannon that is not referred or supported by the perfect word of God in which I believe God has sustained it through the age and infallible.
Let’s take one of Martin Luthar’s biggest indictments of the Catholic Cannon.
- Indulgences (which is now being re-adopted by the Catholic Church).
Find me 1 piece of scripture that God supports acts of indulgence forgiven for money? And then say this was inspired by God? If you want, I can find many others, but I think that is for another topic
The wife mentioned it right there in the quote you had placed. The tale of the good thief which is found in the Gospel of Luke.
Mt 7:21-23 makes it pretty clear that those who have a basic faith in God are nothing without further conversion to Christ. Even having Faith can be a choice Dyluck, and as St. Augustine says grace is participatory in the individual. You could turn your back on God if you wanted to, God forbid.
Here go to usccb.org/nab/bible/catletters.htm .
Pilate, Herod, Judas, the Romans and the Jews were all men. Therefore, Jesus paid and eternal price before an enternal God by the hands of finite men. Only God, is infinate and although he allowed the passion of Jesus, took no active participation in the persecution of Jesus. None. Nothing broke Christ. Satan tried and failed, as Matthew 4 shows. Christ and God were never in conflict and are one. They were never at odds, even symbollically. The death of Jesus is his greatest moment becuase he succeeds and aquiesed to the Father’s will. In the moment Jesus accepts the Father’s will to be done to him in the Garden by the Mount of Olives. God allows Jesus to choose and Jesus choices the will of the Father in a perfect act of obedience.
More in a bit.
~RSF
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
Christ in his humanity physically suffered at the hands men. That is a fact and to deny the humanity of Christ is to be a Nestorian. Furthermore, you proof-texts, while are precursors to Christ do not mean that God in any way persecuted Christ. Merely, they only point out that Jesus is the one whom the ancient prophesies were made.
More to follow~RSF
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
You are acting like the free will of man is against the will of God. That God has given man free will is according to the will of God. God then wishes us to follow his standards for living which is also called “God’s Will”. Although when we fail to do so we are not living up to his standards that does not mean that God has willed it. It only means that God has allowed it. This doesn’t mean that God is weakened in any way. It means that people aren’t doomed to hell. This means people have responsibility for their actions. This also means that humans although born into Original Sin have a tendency to sin, but not always the reality of sinning. They sin becuase they choose to. Not because they cannot help themselves as if they were merely animals that lacked intellect.
Pharaoh’s “heart hardening” is merely the OT way of explaining that God allowed his choice of free to be stubborn. God hates Esau? No. God loved Esau. He favored Jacob over Esau. I think Paul is just trying to make a point that Jacob was favored not that God literally hated Esau. Look at the OT, and how badly Esau was cheated by his brother. Yet in the end it is Esau who acts the most Christian out of anyone I can think of in the OT. He lives by Christ’s Golden Rule which is amazing given his life as recorded in the bible. As for being imputed with Original Sin that is just a fact of life. It is like our necessity to breath air. It is part of the human condition, in that it it exist there is nothing man can do about it.
I already answered this one a bit higher up. I reiterate that it is God’s will that man has free will. He might not approve of all or most of our actions, but he allows it to occur as he allows evil to occur so that a eventual greater good can sprout from our failures. IE there is more rejoicing over a sinner that repents than over a person that doesn’t need to repent. God brings something good out of the evil that man has wrought.
Did you not notice that the wife responded to him? Go back and read the response Jesus is praying Psalm 22. Not that God had literally forsaken him but that he was fulfilling prophesy again.
Well that is ridiculous. Jesus only died physically. Spiritually he was preaching in the hell of the dead. I think it is unreasonable for the Father not to be upset and mad that his Son was being tortured and killed physically. That is all they the executioners could do. Kill him physically. Spiritual death is beyond their abilities and never happened to any aspect of God. Once again God’s wrath wasn’t at Jesus but at the actions of the men.
More to follow.
~RSF
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
Ok you said earlier that Christ became sin. For this to occur it would have to take on a kind of hypostatic union within Christ for him literally to become sin. This of course never happened which is why the wife said that sin never permeated the flesh of Jesus.I honestly don’t understand what you mean about permeate the Flesh?
The second part about mud and outhouse… What suggestion am I brining to the Son of Glory? This is the work of God on the Cross… You want some Romanic Gospel? The Gospel of the bible is Scandalous and Amazing!
People who declare the true gospel sound like mad men to dead bones. It is only by the Holy Spirit opening the ears of a deaf and decayed heart in which an elect Child of God will respond to such a wonderful saving grace!
Read Psalms 22 Please… It’s like Christ was speaking right through the Psalmist about his purpose on the cross.
Absolutely 100% TrueThat is why he was the perfect sacrifice. Christ out-weighs everything in creation, utterly innocent and with out blemish. Instead of God pouring out his wrath upon us for what we deserve, pours his wrath on the one who doesn’t deserve it.
I’d like that
Sorry for the length, just wanted to address everything.
We are praying for you that you abandon your “romanic gospel” and come to the fullness of truth as given to the Church by Christ himself, and not follow the gospel of men for as long as you think “the spirit moves you to follow this particular man” till you think that the “spirit has called you elsewhere”. You as everyone is is among the elect called by God. Only if you answer the call.
Psalm 22? Go back and read the earlier posts. We already talked about that with another. We actually brought that psalm into the conversation.
Once again God never directed his wrath to the Son. They live, as always, in perfect harmony.
Peace of Christ to you!
~RSF
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
While that is not what we would like to see at least he would not be forced to do anything against his wishes. Fr. Serpa has a saying. “I am glad that you are the protestant that you are than the Catholic you never were.” I think that sums it up nicely.
~RSF
G
GodIsGracious
Guest
Is it uncharitable for me to rather wish them an abstaining Catholic than be a practicing Protestant? This is probably a completely different discussion for another thread, but IMO, to be Catholic and than have switched to being a protestant shows other protestants that it’s ok to continue protesting the Catholic church. It is not.
R
RedSoxWife
Guest
I don’t think that’s quite an accurate comparison. It would be more like a Methodist or Baptist converting to Catholicism (as a Baptist who converted to Catholicism let me say that in my home town it is something that is not spoken of, at least when I’m present). And the pressure would be the same because you didn’t address the way a Protestant parent would feel if there child went outside the Protestant groups of denominations. I think most faithful Protestant parents would be upset if their child became Buddhist or Taoist or Muslim. While this may be uncommon in the US, the fact remains that there is an expectation, both in Catholicism and Protestant Communities, to grow up and believe in Jesus.
It’s easy to say that a Methodist parent wouldn’t be upset if their child decided to be Baptist. I wouldn’t be upset if my daughter decided to become part of the Eastern Church, a Maronite perhaps. That’s a more similar comparison to the one that you made. So really, I still think the same expectation exists, Catholic or Protestant.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I 'took [your] statement out of context" and then you proceed to agree with me again? (grin) I think we may be speaking at cross purposes here.
4
4Squarebaby
Guest
Methodist is as equal to Baptist as Methodist is equal to Catholic. Leaving the Catholic Church for the United Methodist is a mortal sin. Leaving the Catholic Church to declare God’s messenger was Muhammed is a mortal sin or saying Hail Satan is a mortal sin. The difference is significant.
R
RedSoxWife
Guest
My question would be about the Methodist leaving the Methodist church to become Muslim. That’s the pressure that a Protestant Child would have. To believe in Jesus because their parents believe in Jesus.
Let’s see if I can make this a little clearer.
I wasn’t saying that leaving the Catholic Church wasn’t a mortal sin (if the person leaving the church had the intent to sin, you have to remember that intent is required when commiting a mortal sin. I personally believe that most people that leave the Church don’t really understand the Church, apostolic succession or the Eucharist).
The question at hand was that someone had said that a child who was baptized Catholic had a huge amount of pressure to remain Catholic. My point was that there would be pressure on a Protestant Child as well, to remain Protestant. You responded and said that a Methodist parent wouldn’t be upset if there child became Baptist. My response was that a Methodist child who becomes Baptist is still Protestant. They haven’t changed religions.
Are you saying that a Baptist parent would be totally cool with the idea of their child becoming Buddhist or Muslim? If that’s the case then you’re right, there’s no pressure on the child to become Protestant then. But we both know that with possible rare exceptions, this isn’t the case. A Protestant parent would be upset if there child decided Jesus wasn’t the Son of God. That’s pressure (or at least from the point of view of the person I was answering).
You’re right, I wouldn’t want my child leaving the Church that Jesus established on Earth. But the comparison you made was completely inaccurate. If my child was going to a Church that had Jesus in the Eucharist it would be much easier to accept. That is more comparable to a Protestant changing denominations.
R
RedSoxWife
Guest
I must have totally misunderstood you then
. It happens. More and more now that we’re going on eleven months of sleep deprivation (it’s worse with teething happening these days).
D
dianaiad
Guest
Ah, motherhood.I must have totally misunderstood you then
Lessee…I dunno where you are, but perhaps I’m safe when I tell you what my grandmother told me when I went to her in utter exhaustion one day (I had three children under four at the time). She said: “don’t worry, the first three are the hardest.”
She was right. My last two were almost vacations, comparatively.
S
Stouts989
Guest
Just wanted to say thanks to all those who responded to my questions earlier in the thread!
A
AlegreFe
Guest
Please be more specific with your question. I don’t see why you would be confused. My posts are usually extensive. If you truly want to know more, I’d be glad to clear things up. If you’re just playing with my faith, then that’s a different story. Loaded question? Perhaps.
As far as the bible or the Church? This is what the bible says;
1 Timothy 3:15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave
in the household of God, which is the church of the living God,
a pillar and buttress of the truth.
A
AlegreFe
Guest
This is what Scripture says about water baptism which is necessary for salvation;
1 Peter 3:18-21 (ESV)
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the
unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death
in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison,
20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience
waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared,
in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely
through water.
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as
a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a
good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Navarre Bible Commentary:
The waters of the flood are a fugure of those of Baptism: just as
Noah and his family were saved in the ark from the destruction
wrought by the flood, now people are saved through Baptism,
by which they become members of Christ’s Church.
John 3:5 (ESV)
5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born
of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Titus 3:5 (ESV)
5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness,
but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration
and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
I have a question for you. Do you believe we are stained by original sin? Do you believe in original sin? Whether you do or not, original sin exists, otherwise Jesus would not have to die for us. When we are born, we are born as sons & daughers of Adam. Baptism removes the stain of original sin, we are forgiven and therefore adopted by God. We do not become members of the Body of Christ unless we are baptized.
This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about Baptism;
1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway
to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access
to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn
as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the
Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of
regeneration through water in the word.”
Please read more here.
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: As a former non-denominational Protestant here is how I see it. To the Chruch truth is not relative, whereas some Protestants seem to see truth as relative. So If they like a preacher in one denomination they change to follow the preacher. Regardless of the teaching, they simply pick and choose the teaching they like and disregard what they don’t like. Even some Protestants will say so and so is not saved because they left this denomination for that denomination.
P
Paul3144
Guest
The problem with your interpretation of the passage is this:
What really saved Noah and his family? Faith. They got on the ark because they believed and trusted in God.
In the same way, baptism follows faith in Christ.
If you read the passage with the emphasis on the ark instead of the water it makes more sense. The ark is a type of Christ. People were saved in the ark just like we are now saved through Christ.
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
Well if it’s your kid you should let them know how you feel. I don’t think that would be uncharitable at all given that you are coming from a point of knowledge. Eventually though you can’t force them. THey have to make thier own choices. If they leave the Church they clearly don’t know what they are leaving behind.
I don’t even like thinking about it. If we do our part they will do thiers for the most part.
G
GodIsGracious
Guest
I agree. But what if it is not your child? Obviously we can only continue to try and educate if they’re open to listening.
I made my comment because even though I was a lapsed Catholic, I’d rather have been a lapsed Catholic than a practicing Protestant. Which is how I lived my life. I guess this is more of a reflection of me. I could never understand how a Catholic could leave the Eucharist for juice and crackers. Although, I left the Eucharist for, well, nothing but my own selfishness.
I’ll need to stop derailing this thread. Thank you for the comment.
- Status