Why do some non-Catholic Christians avoid Christian devotions and practices? Is it simply because these practices are observed or performed by Catholi

[panoikei]

JR,
The bible doesn’t authorize the sacrifice of animals. Jesus fullfiled the old testament and now we are under the new law of the New Testament. If one is a slave then they must live according to their state, but slavery was different during those times. It was more of an indentured servant. If one is a wife, they are to be subject to their husbands. They are to submit to his will. As long as a husband doesn’t try to make is wife do something sinful she is obligated to obey him.

If the bible doesn’t say to do or not to do it is an opinion and has nor merit for teaching. You are then required to do as your conscience tells you to do.

The bible tells women to be silent in the worship as scripture tells us. We also celebrate what you refer to as Easter every Sunday, and to support some pagan ritual is just not authorized.

You are not reading my posts. It’s rather obvious that you are unaware of what I’ve written. I am now a Catholic and no longer hold onto solo scriptura. But its fun to see you try to confront me on these things. I posted a web site of an online DVD. I am working on thinking like them so that I can write an effective rebuttle to the message he is sending me. Notice the funeral procession, baptism, etc. It’s all a scare tactic to manipulate folks like you and me in my youth to hear, believe, repent, confess, be baptized [5 acts of salvation].

google the 5 acts of worship…

I’m preparing to address my former preachers friends and family once they discover our conversion. But first I need to see the reactions form others. Sorry, but our peace depends on me doing a good job of this. I married into this faith, grew up with one similar and struggled my entire life with this stuff.

 

[Jeanette_L]

So the sign of the cross was not part of first century Christiandom.

The course of development seems to have been the following. The cross was originally traced by Christians with the thumb or finger on their own foreheads. This practice is attested by numberless allusions in Patristic literature, and it was clearly associated in idea with certain references in Scripture, notably Ezech., ix, 4 (of the mark of the letter Tau); Ex., xvii, 9-14; and especially Apoc., vii 3; ix, 4; xiv, 1.

Hardly less early in date is the custom of marking a cross on objects – already Tertullian (160 AD) speaks of the Christian woman “signing” her bed (cum lectulum tuum signas, “Ad uxor.”, ii, 5) before retiring to rest-and we soon hear also of the sign of the cross being traced on the lips (Jerome, “Epitaph. Paulæ”) and on the heart (Prudentius, “Cathem.”, vi, 129).

Tertullian’s reference is important as he speaks of something that is already in practice by the time that he comes into the Christian scene. He’s looking backward toward the first century.

BTW, where in scripture does it tell us we are only allowed to do what is specifically stated in scripture?

Never the less, I hope this helps. Although I have a strange feeling I’ve wasted my time.

 

[mozart-250]

As for other denominations, I don’t know why they don’t do it. I highly doubt that many individual Christians would make a point of not making the sign of the cross because Catholics do it. More likely it’s just that they never learned it because their denomination doesn’t do it.

Hear ye Hear ye. A voice of sanity.

Just because I may not do certain practices that Catholics do, it does not follow that my motive is anti-Catholicism.

Paranoia does not seem to be limited to fundamentalists.

(Hmm…just did it myself in front of my computer…certainly not evil…not sure I totally get the point but whatever…anyway carry on)

 

[pismopal]

JimmyB

I think I prefer that non Catholics not make the sign of the Cross because that is a Sacramental and I don’t want just anyone using it. Call me selfish but it’s an identity thing.
Does KMA 367 mean anything to you? Just yes or no will do, then I’ll know.

 

[panoikei]

I give sacramentals to non-Catholics all the time. If they use it it’s even better. Who knows what will happen next. So next time you’re in a public place and you feel a little drop of watter from nowhere, it could be me slinging holy water to bless you.

 

[1234]

Stop it! Just stop this anti NonCatholic vitriol.
Why are you so full of hate?

You’ll notice that all of JimmyB’s threads on this sub-forum are deliberatively provocative.

They follow the format;

“Why don’t Non-Catholics (you fill in the blank)?”

He’s not trying to ‘convert’ anyone–he’s trying to antagonize them by ‘defending’ his faith.

Actually, he’s not defending it at all–he’s just creating more antagonism.

 

[peary]

The bible does not authorize it. Therefore we will not do it.

The bible doesn’t authorize artificial contraception either. Do you use it?

 

[Jimmy_B]

JimmyB

I think I prefer that non Catholics not make the sign of the Cross because that is a Sacramental and I don’t want just anyone using it. Call me selfish but it’s an identity thing.
Does KMA 367 mean anything to you? Just yes or no will do, then I’ll know.

Yes

 

[1234]

The bible doesn’t authorize artificial contraception either. Do you use it?

The Bible doesn’t mention people using the sign of the cross, a sacramental, and a minor expression of faith.

Contraception didn’t exist then.

 

[reteeks21]

Yes

If it is an identity thing, are we stealing something? Or is that we are not the type of Christians you believe we should be, therefore we can’t do what the other ones do?

 

[cascherman]

The Bible doesn’t mention people using the sign of the cross, a sacramental, and a minor expression of faith.

Contraception didn’t exist then.

You should hope that the Catholic Church doesn’t get rid of sacramentals because the Bible doesn’t explicitly tell us about them.

Catholic exorcists effectively use sacramentals to drive demons out of Protestants and Catholics alike. Where do you think the majority of the possessed go to be exorcised?

 

[LutheranDK]

Hello panoikei,

What do I think? Unfortunately I went to your link because you list as your “religion” (in your profile here at CAF) “Catholic”, so I think, as a Roman Catholic that I wasted about five minutes of my life that I will never get back. :banghead:

Yep… I was right… it is “Protestant” all right. Why do you list “Catholic” for your religion in your profile? Are you some sort of “secret agent” because your link is not a Catholic? Isn’t honesty a tenant of your religion?

I got my eye on you. :knight1:

Take care.

The point panoikei makes (that it is not done, because it does not say so in the Bible) is a valid one - if you are a Calvinist. Even if you are not, it still makes sense. And saying that you “don’t believe” that it is not in the Bible (and must therefore claim that it IS), I would like you to tell me where.

Having said that, I think you are right - that for SOME, the only reason those “signs” are not performed is because those of the Roman church do them.

I do the sign of the Cross at High Mass; after having taken Holy Communion, and after the Aronite blessing at the conclusion of the service. I sometimes use the “In the name of the Father…”, but I do not attribute any special “holiness” to these acts. I am no more, or less, holy after having done or said that, than I were before.

A reason I can definately see to avoid those “private rituals” are their inherant “phariseeic” value: Now, I have done this and that, and said this and that prayer…so now I’m out of the woods.
Emphasis on those kind of things remove focus from Christ.

And your last rhetorical question in the original post is just laughable - and cannot be taken seriously.

Finally:
“Catholic” is not a term that the Roman church can monopolize, even though it claims that it can. “Catholic” is derived from “Katholikos”, which translates as “universal”. So all who are Christians are members of the Catholic Church (which is the term for ALL believers, and not any one denomination), but not all who are in the Catholic Church belong to the Roman church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The bible does not authorize it. Therefore we will not do it.

The Bible doesn’t forbid it either.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You should hope that the Catholic Church doesn’t get rid of sacramentals because the Bible doesn’t explicitly tell us about them.

Catholic exorcists effectively use sacramentals to drive demons out of Protestants and Catholics alike. Where do you think the majority of the possessed go to be exorcised?

I heard a Protestant Minister said about Catholic exorcists. “They are Marines of getting rid of demons.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Bible doesn’t mention people using the sign of the cross, a sacramental, and a minor expression of faith.

Contraception didn’t exist then.

The Bible doesn’t have the word Trinity on it either.

 

[JReducation]

I think I prefer that non Catholics not make the sign of the Cross because that is a Sacramental and I don’t want just anyone using it. Call me selfish but it’s an identity thing.

1. This is a personal preference of the poster, but it is contrary to the Ecumenical Directory. The Ecumenical Directory of the Catholic Church demands and orders Catholics to speak about people of other faiths, especially other Christians with respect and avoid all words that are offensive. I believe “I don’t want just anyone using it” sounds pretty offensive.
2. It is not an “identity thing”. Anglicans use it, high church Lutherans use it, Orthodox Christians use it, Ethiopian Catholics use it. None of them are Roman Catholic. They have always used the sign of the cross. It’s part of their tradition as much as it is part of the Roman Catholic tradition. In fact, historically, the sign of the cross was first used by the Eastern Churches.
3. The only rule that the Roman Catholic Church has regarding non Catholics is that they do not receive the Eucharist, Confirmation and Reconciliation, because they are not in communion with the Catholic Church. They may marry a Catholic in the Catholic Church and they may be given the Sacrament of the Sick in case of an emergency, even absolution. Pope Benedict has made exceptions on the reception of the Eucharist in cases where charity requires it, such as Tony Blair before he became Catholic. There is no rule that non Catholics cannot use sacramentals.

Even attending mass is allowed to non Catholics, as Catholics may attend mass in an Orthodox Church.

Let’s keep in mind that this is the poster’s personal preference, not an official position of the Roman Catholic Church.

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

The Bible doesn’t mention people using the sign of the cross, a sacramental, and a minor expression of faith.

Contraception didn’t exist then.

So, if any particular act is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, whether the use of sacramentals *or *contraception, what is the criteria or discerning rule as to which ones we should consider licit and which ones we shouldn’t?

You would be in favor of conracepting - which actually specifically is an act going against God’s directive to be fruitful and multipy - but not the things that are morally superior and that point to and remind us of the holiest things of life? Where is your sense of reason in this?

 

[RodneyJ]

It probably has a lot to do with every “protestant” but no “Catholic.”

Protestant isn’t a word that needs " " around it.

 

[Syele]

1. This is a personal preference of the poster, but it is contrary to the Ecumenical Directory. The Ecumenical Directory of the Catholic Church demands and orders Catholics to speak about people of other faiths, especially other Christians with respect and avoid all words that are offensive. I believe “I don’t want just anyone using it” sounds pretty offensive.
2. It is not an “identity thing”. Anglicans use it, high church Lutherans use it, Orthodox Christians use it, Ethiopian Catholics use it. None of them are Roman Catholic. They have always used the sign of the cross. It’s part of their tradition as much as it is part of the Roman Catholic tradition. In fact, historically, the sign of the cross was first used by the Eastern Churches.
3. The only rule that the Roman Catholic Church has regarding non Catholics is that they do not receive the Eucharist, Confirmation and Reconciliation, because they are not in communion with the Catholic Church. They may marry a Catholic in the Catholic Church and they may be given the Sacrament of the Sick in case of an emergency, even absolution. Pope Benedict has made exceptions on the reception of the Eucharist in cases where charity requires it, such as Tony Blair before he became Catholic. There is no rule that non Catholics cannot use sacramentals.

Even attending mass is allowed to non Catholics, as Catholics may attend mass in an Orthodox Church.

Let’s keep in mind that this is the poster’s personal preference, not an official position of the Roman Catholic Church.

JR

Thank you for this post, I was going to post something in answer to it myself but sounded too hostile so I deleted it. You said it much better than I would have.

 

[Jimmy_B]

So the sign of the cross was not part of first century Christiandom.

Hello, Hisalone,

And you how do you know this how? Using your analogy here; The Bible as we know it today was not “part of First Century Christendom” either, does this mean that we should not have or read the Bible today?

Maybe, we should only have oral tradition today, where we hear what Jesus said, taught and did… and not have or read the Bible ourselves; because this is the way, it was done in the first century. This includes St. Paul’s letters, which were sent to those Bishops and priests within the Church, for the purpose of instruction and clarification.

Moreover, maybe we should require all Christians to sell their property, give all of the prophet to the Church, and let the Church redistribute the monies based on the needs of the Christian Community, as this was also done in the First Century of Christendom. Read Acts 5:1-11 (below).

Acts 5:1-11
1 A man named Ananias, however, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property.
2 He retained for himself, with his wife’s knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles.
3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land?
4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God.”
5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it.
6 The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him.
7 After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, unaware of what had happened.
8 Peter said to her, “Tell me, did you sell the land for this amount?” She answered, “Yes, for that amount.”
9 Then Peter said to her, “Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen, the footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.”
10 At once, she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men entered they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
11 And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.

Is this what you believe? Thank you for your post.

Take Care.