Wishing to be Protestant again...

[Jerry_Parker]

Distracted,

You wrote: *I am wishing to be a virgin again—. *​

Ha! Surely you jest! Virginity is all about purity (at least, unless the virginity is unwanted, unaccepted, and/or involuntary, harbouring an hankering for impurity)! Going back to Protestantism (*i.e. *to revert to being Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed, Anglican, or Moravian) or to revert sectarianism (*i.e. *for the dog to return to his vomit, of being Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Campbellite, etc.) is not at all like becoming pure or (impossible, anyway!) virginal once more. But I suspect that you know that—.

Jerry Parker

 

[to_seek]

Hi, I chose that title to be somewhat provocative to hopefully garner people who could reply to this thread. I converted from Protestantism more than 10 years ago and I am happy to be Catholic. However, having said that I do miss much of the social aspects of a Protestant church. There were programs and bible studies for every age group; there were many ways of connecting to different people in your church–I had lots of friends in church and we would call each other up and do things together. There would be family picnics and other outings the church would sponsor.

In my 10 years of being Catholic my knowledge of truth has increased but at the cost of fellowship. I’ve been around 4 different Catholic churches in 10 years and all of them seem to be not much more than ‘Eucharist factories’ where you shuffle the people in, give them a boring homily, the Eucharist and shuffle them out until next week when you can do it again. The earliest youth group starts at high school.

I have brought some of my brothers and sisters in to the Church, but we all are beginning to pine for the days when going to church was enjoyable.

It does really appear to me that the Catholic Church, as an institution, does not foster fellowship anywhere near as much as the Protestant churches do. Am I wrong?

And before you say to me, “Well then, you get something started at your church!”, I’m trying to make the point that as an institution the Catholic church does not foster fellowship. I don’t want to be one person trying to roll a rock up hill, I want to be part of a Church that encourages fellowship.

As I mentioned before, I helped bring others to the Catholic Church, but now I’ve got a dilemma. My two kids, ages 12 and 13 are really complaining about going to our ‘boring church’ when their Protestant friends do all these really fun activities their churches sponsor. And I have an older son who may be considering becoming Catholic, but he has 4 children ages 1-6. I wince at the prospect of telling him he can’t put his children in Sunday School while he and his wife go to mass, but instead he has to keep four children under control for an hour while having to listen to a boring sermon. These are not show stoppers, but they really detract from giving incentives to joining the Church.

Any thought are welcome. But does anyone else see this lack of fellowship problem?

Hi, having jumped from Catholic to Protestant and back to the Catholic Church tentatively, I know what you are saying. I myself have problems with the rote style worship of the RC Church and can see why it is so difficult for people to connect, and for children to get lost in all the stuff. Unless you are lucky enough to find a RC Church which also fosters great kids programmes, not jammed full of litergical stuff, and one that fosters friendships, I think it is a very common problem. I think that perhaps you can do both. Bring yourself and your children to Mass, and then go to the Protestant service at another time. I think a lot of people do not realise that the Protestant Churches have a great deal to offer as well and it is my belief that there is nothing wrong with attending both types of services, but I might be the only one who sees it that way. Regards, to seek.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

To Seek,

**You wrote: ** I myself have problems with the rote style worship of the RC Church and can see why it is so difficult for people to connect, and for children to get lost in all the stuff. Unless you are lucky enough to find a RC Church which also fosters great kids programmes, not jammed full of liturgical stuff, and one that fosters friendships, I think it is a very common problem. I think that perhaps you can do both. Bring yourself and your children to Mass, and then go to the Protestant service at another time. I think a lot of people do not realise that the Protestant Churches have a great deal to offer as well and it is my belief that there.​

Hm-m-m-m, I know what you mean, lad (or lass)! I myself continue to receive weekly mailings of recorded sermons with liturgy from an Independent Lutheran congregation in Virginia, precisely because the preaching hereabouts is so feeble. In this entire diocese (of Rouyn-Noranda, QC.) there does not seem to be one single priest who is capable of and/or willing to give, a real sermon. All there is are sentimental, vague “homilies” (“sermonising light”) that are as devoid of content (of good, sturdy content) as they are minimal and inconsequential. Thankfully, however, the priests are fairly orthodox and they are free of scandal. They comport themselves as real priests, even if their liturgical and homiletical ministrations lack much to inspire (which, even in public worship at its best, should only be a secondary matter). Since so much of genuine Lutheranism is catholic, I get the “right stuff” 95% of the time in those recorded Lutheran sermons, even if there is ca. 5% that best is ignored. As an adult and well informed Catholic they hold no real danger for me, as they could for children or Catholics who have not been catechised well. With the preaching here in this diocese, the sermons at Catholic Mass are too brief and lacking in substance even to evaluate with such percentages.

The Novus Ordo liturgy of its very nature can encourage a certain laxity, which certainly does not have to be so, but the N.O. is so stripped down and condusive to a kind of “get it over with fast” attitude that rote easily sets in if the priest is insufficiently vigilent. However, all aspects of a priest’s life should be vigilent, as surely they and we know, if we think about that matter. That is seldom the case with the traditional Latin Mass (1962 Missale Romanum), which is lengthier (but not, by any means, from useless padding) and is so majestic that it stimulates priests (as it still does so many youthful ones trained to say it) to strive for higher goals. The presence in the 1962 liturgy of all those marvellous, Scripture-based and abundant Propers helps to lend specificity and variety to each liturgical celebration of the church calender.

Remember, too, that the Mass, even if delivered in a way that could bore, still is the Holy Eucharist and that the Catholic Mass still conveys Christ’s Presence and reality in a way that nothing else which we experience in our lives can do. Recalling that fact and keeping it firmly in mind, i.e. about just what the Mass really is, helps to stave off boredom or irritation.

Taking children to a Protestant or sectarian “worship service” is not a good idea, even if it in some way may do you yourself some good. Children should not regard Protestantism or sectarianism as a valid option to Catholicism. Try to find a parish where things are better (or at least less mediocre and humdrum), whether it uses the N.O. or the 1962 Missal; you need to rear your children in the Holy Catholic Faith, not in some kind of religious cafeteria where it’s “Catholic today, Campbellite [or whatever] tomorrow”. Be sure to nourish your children at home with the catechism (e.g., a short, youth version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church) and with family prayer; this is a father’s as well as a mother’s intimate (and your priest’s public) duty.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Major_Minor]

I’m not catholic nor do I consider myself protestant. I’m Christian.

I don’t live in any of the 50 states, was not born in one of them, never lived in any of them…but I consider myself an American.

Sorry, nice try, but it’s just not as clever as you think. Kind of like those “Non-Denominational churches”… They actually -are- they’re just a denomination of one.

 

[JPCalifornia]

I don’t live in any of the 50 states, was not born in one of them, never lived in any of them…but I consider myself an American.

Sorry, nice try, but it’s just not as clever as you think. Kind of like those “Non-Denominational churches”… They actually -are- they’re just a denomination of one.

Before the Disciples were called Christians in the city of Antioch…what were they called? Catholics, Protestants, non-denominational, those of the way, ?

 

[crazzeto]

Before the Disciples were called Christians in the city of Antioch…what were they called? Catholics, Protestants, non-denominational, those of the way, ?

“The Way”, because Jesus called him self The Way, the Truth and the Light.

Edit
Best scriptural reference for this is at the begeining of Acts 9

Act 9:1 And Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest
Act 9:2 And asked of him letters to Damascus, to the synagogues: that if he found any men and women of this way, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
Act 9:3 And as he went on his journey, it came to pass that he drew nigh to Damascus. And suddenly a light from heaven shined round about him.

1 Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest
2
and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, 2 he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains.
3
On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

J.P. California (gotta love that name!) and Crazzetto,

You two wrote: ***Originally Posted by JPCalifornia: ** Before the Disciples were called Christians in the city of Antioch…what were they called? Catholics, Protestants, non-denominational, those of the way, ?

Excellent response by Crazzetto: “The Way”, because Jesus called him self The Way, the Truth and the Light [cf. St. John 14:4-6, which reads “(W)hither I go, ye know, and *the way ye know. Thomas saith unto Him, Lord … how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”]

Best scriptural reference for this is at the beginning of Acts 9

Bible Quote:
Act 9:1 And Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest
Act 9:2 And asked of him letters to Damascus, to the synagogues: that if he found any men and women of this way, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
Act 9:3 And as he went on his journey, it came to pass that he drew nigh to Damascus. And suddenly a light from heaven shined round about him.

The same Bible Quote in another English translation:
1 Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest
2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, 2 he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains.​

Crazzetto, as cinema’s own Bill and Ted (in the mouths of Alex Winter and Keanu Reeves) would say, “Excellent, dude!” You are attentive to Holy Scripture! I did add a fuller quote, in square brackets, from St. John 4:4-6 above within your own message, by way of making the point even more strongly. The term for the earliest Christians, even before at Antioch later they would be called “Christians” is The Way. They were called The Way, not The Antioch Way, or The Jerusalem Way, or The Catholic Way, or The Protestant Way, which such distinctions would imply diversity rather than the unity and universality (catholicity) of The Way. They had not divided into non-communicant parties, such as Protestant or Holy Orthodox, or whatever the terms to use for such distinctions, but simply The Way.

Well, J.P. The Way = Christian = Catholic, as the early Church expounded, one synonymous term for the others in short order within the first two centuries A.D., long before divisions between true Christians arose. In the A.V. translation, clearly, this way was not meant to indicate this particular Christian way and not some other, in a manner different from the use in the A.V. Bible of “the way” in St. John 14:4-6, but rather to distinguish Christians from Jews. Here is one of those rare differences in translation where the later one is clearer and superior, at one point, to the Authorised (King James) Version! That does not happen often.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[JPCalifornia]

then is safe to say that after being known as followers of The Way they were known as Christians. Correct?

 

[Jerry_Parker]

J.P. California,

You wrote: Then is safe to say that after being known as followers of The Way they were known as Christians. Correct?​

Righto! First the believers were known as followers of “The Way”, but when the intended epithet “Christians” was applied to them they readily took it up as a positive name for believers. They are the same folk, not different groups; the believers in Christ were united. The term “Catholic” arose very shortly after the end of the New Testament’s writing. Christians would be called that and also Catholic for many centuries to come, before “Catholic” and “Orthodox” distinguished different catholic strains in the visible Church. (The Orthodox consider themselves Catholic, in a wider sense of the word.)

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Johnwesley]

Come on, I have only been to mass twice and all I got out of it was a bunch of Latin, and God loves you, and people did eucharist. That’s it! Not to mention the people didn’t really care to speak to me, I didn’t believe in that confession. In my life I was raised Methodist, changed Baptist, tried Catholic twice, went back to Methodist. Out of my Methodist/Baptist experiences I felt the true presence of God…The holy spirit. Great fellowship. In mass…not so much.

 

[distracted]

Distracted,

You wrote: *I am wishing to be a virgin again—. *​

Ha! Surely you jest! Virginity is all about purity (at least, unless the virginity is unwanted, unaccepted, and/or involuntary, harbouring an hankering for impurity)! Going back to Protestantism (*i.e. *to revert to being Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed, Anglican, or Moravian) or to revert sectarianism (*i.e. *for the dog to return to his vomit, of being Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Campbellite, etc.) is not at all like becoming pure or (impossible, anyway!) virginal once more. But I suspect that you know that—.

Jerry Parker

i never said it WAS like that… just said i would like to go back to being a virgin… Why do people put words in others’ mouths…? i lost my virginity thro rape, so obviously, i never wanted to lose it in the 1st place… (even for so called love, which… romantic love is not even love in my opinion… 95% of the time)

***but in any case… it is NOT impossible to get sexual purity back - as you put it. It may take a lot of prayers, a lot of Holy Masses…abstaining from gratifying the self… which i have done for may yrs… it may take a lot of whatever… but it is **possible. And besides, **lack of virginity is NOT sexual impurity!!! ***

 

[guanophore]

I'm not catholic nor do I consider myself protestant.  I'm Christian.

Regardless of whether you see it or not in yourself, your theology is Protestant, and you actively protest Catholicism, which defines you as a Protestant.

All “Christian” churches that have developed, especially those that have done so in the last 500 years, are defined by which parts of the Catholic faith they reject. .Many today think they are “non-denomiational”. What this means is that they reject centralized authority (especially that appointed by Christ) and that they generally are not aware or knowledgable about their denominational affiliations. All non-denoms reject essential aspects of the Catholic faith, and embrace various denominational doctrines. They just don’t know enough about it to realize which.

They believe they are"bible christians" and that their faith is the same faith that is written about in the scriptures.

In the Christian churches I’ve been part of over the last 30+ yrs, there’s been great fellowship.

I have had the same experience.

Overall, I would say my separated brethren do a MUCH better job of fostering community/fellowship, prayer meetings, sponteaneous worship sessions, and bible study than Catholics do.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Distracted,

**You wrote: ** * I never said it WAS like that. I just said that I would like to go back to being a virgin. Why do people put words in others’ mouths? I lost my virginity through rape, so obviously, I never wanted to lose it in the first place (even for so called love, which— romantic love is not even love in my opinion 95% of the time)

But in any case – it is NOT impossible to get sexual purity back, as you put it. It may take a lot of prayers, a lot of Holy Masses, abstaining from gratifying the self, which I have done for may years, t may take a lot of whatever, but it is possible. And besides, lack of virginity is NOT sexual impurity!!! *​

I appalls me that my words affected you this way! Please accept my apology, Distracted. So many people make jokes about returning to, regaining virginity, that I assume that you were joking, and joking rather well, hence the jocular tone of my own words. I had in mind the sort of expression that one heard so often when I was an university student during the turbulent Vietnam-hag-ridden years of the1960s, here worded with resort to square brackets more circumspectly, “Fighting for peace is like [copulat]ing for virginity.” There are lots of jokes, of even more dubious taste, of that kind about the matter.

However, when you are being earnest in this way, it is good to make so clearly but setting forth a context. I could not even tell, on C.A., whether you were male or female, much less so much more about you. In written words there is not the added support of facial expressions, tone of voice, tears, etc., to save words and to say much in few of them. I never would have said something injurious to you about such a terrible matter if I had known better. Please believe that.

Anyway, may God give you, be giving you, or have given you already, healing, mental, emotional, spiritual, for what you have endured!

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Guanophone,

You wrote: All “Christian” churches that have developed, especially those that have done so in the last 500 years, are defined by which parts of the Catholic faith they reject.​

Yup! You really “hit the nail on the head” admirably and succinctly in those words! (Of course, there are really out-of-bounds essentially non-Christian groups, like the L.D.S. Mormons, who believe things that are truly fantastical in nature, utterly outrageous, but even they are essentially negative in rejecting Catholic truths.)

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[jlhargus]

Hi, I chose that title to be somewhat provocative to hopefully garner people who could reply to this thread. I converted from Protestantism more than 10 years ago and I am happy to be Catholic. However, having said that I do miss much of the social aspects of a Protestant church. There were programs and bible studies for every age group; there were many ways of connecting to different people in your church–I had lots of friends in church and we would call each other up and do things together. There would be family picnics and other outings the church would sponsor.

In my 10 years of being Catholic my knowledge of truth has increased but at the cost of fellowship. I’ve been around 4 different Catholic churches in 10 years and all of them seem to be not much more than ‘Eucharist factories’ where you shuffle the people in, give them a boring homily, the Eucharist and shuffle them out until next week when you can do it again. The earliest youth group starts at high school.

I have brought some of my brothers and sisters in to the Church, but we all are beginning to pine for the days when going to church was enjoyable.

It does really appear to me that the Catholic Church, as an institution, does not foster fellowship anywhere near as much as the Protestant churches do. Am I wrong?

And before you say to me, “Well then, you get something started at your church!”, I’m trying to make the point that as an institution the Catholic church does not foster fellowship. I don’t want to be one person trying to roll a rock up hill, I want to be part of a Church that encourages fellowship.

As I mentioned before, I helped bring others to the Catholic Church, but now I’ve got a dilemma. My two kids, ages 12 and 13 are really complaining about going to our ‘boring church’ when their Protestant friends do all these really fun activities their churches sponsor. And I have an older son who may be considering becoming Catholic, but he has 4 children ages 1-6. I wince at the prospect of telling him he can’t put his children in Sunday School while he and his wife go to mass, but instead he has to keep four children under control for an hour while having to listen to a boring sermon. These are not show stoppers, but they really detract from giving incentives to joining the Church.

Any thought are welcome. But does anyone else see this lack of fellowship problem?

JL: I suggest to build friendships you get active and involved in the different groups in the parish. I have found that is how one builds friendships and fellowshiop as a Catholic. The mass is not where we focus on friendship but on worshiping God focusing on our Lord not on self. As far as boing sermons, well as a former fundamentalist Protestant I found MOST sermons boring, in one ear out the other, I still find that true as a Catholic. A sermon I find boing may be just what someone else needs to hear.

 

[jlhargus]

Before the Disciples were called Christians in the city of Antioch…what were they called? Catholics, Protestants, non-denominational, those of the way, ?

What the group gathered and SENT by Christ was called at any given time or place does not mater in the lest. What matters is continuity with that One SENT Fellowship. Scripture indicates, to be a valid minister one must be SENT, [Rm 10:14 …how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 how shall they preach EXCEPT THEY BE SENT?

Lk 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that HE went out into a mountain to pray, and CONTINUED ALL NIGHT IN PRAYER to God. 13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and OF THEM HE CHOSE TWELVE, whom also he NAMED APOSTLES;

JN 17:18 As thou hast SENT ME into the world, even so have I ALSO SENT THEM into the world. 19 And for their sakes I SANCTIFY MYSELF, THAT THEY ALSO MIGHT BE SANCTIFIED THROUGH THE TRUTH. 20 NEITHER PRAY I FOR THESE ALONE, but FOR THEM ALSO WHICH shall BELIEVE ON ME THROUGH THEIR WORD; 21 THAT THEY all may BE ONE; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE that THOU hast SENT ME.

Christ chose and prayed for one specific VISIBLE SENT group, the Apostles Fellowship, whom he sanctified through truth. Hearing their word and being ONE in fellowship, with THEM, **the world may believe the Father sent him. I don’t think Christ meant, he would only be with that fellowship and it would only be one, just while the apostles were alive, but to the end of the world.

Mt28:16 Then THE ELEVEN disciples WENT away into Galilee, INTO A MOUNTAIN where JESUS had APPOINTED them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And JESUS came and SPAKE UNTO THEM, saying, ALL POWER IS GIVEN UNTO ME IN HEAVEN AND IN EARTH. 19 GO ye therefore, and TEACH ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS whatsoever I HAVE COMMANDED YOU: and, lo, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, even UNTO THE END OF THE WORLD. Amen.

That’s the great commission to the Church, the apostles fellowship. Christ to whom all power in heaven and earth is given, sent with his authority the apostles to TEACH ALL to observe what he taught, they were to go to ALL nations (universal, catholic). Only the apostles were sent to teach all nations, with the authority of Christ. Christ promised to be with them TILL THE END of the world. Those individuals would not be around till the end and Christ knew that. But their SENT successors in the Apostolic Fellowship would, by passing on their authority to teach, sanctify and rule by laying on of hands from bishop to bishop, in an unbroken line, till the end.

DN 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall THE GOD OF HEAVEN SET UP A KINGODM which shall never be destroyed and THE KINGDOM shall not be left to other people but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms and IT SHALL STAND FOR EVER,

Lk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be CALLED THE SON OF THE HIGHEST and the Lord GOD SHALL GIVE unto HIM THE THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID 33 And HE SHALL REIGN OVER THE HOUSE OF JACOB FOR EVER and OF HIS KINGDOM THERE SHALL BE NO END.

[Lk22:29 And I APPOINT unto YOU A KINGDOM, AS MY FATHER hath APPOINTED unto ME; 30 THAT YE MAY EAT AND DRINK AT MY TABLE IN MY KINGDOM, and SIT ON THRONES JUDGING THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL. 31 And THE LORD SAID, Simon, SIMON, behold, SATAN HATH DESIRED TO HAVE YOU, THAT HE MAY SIFT YOU AS WHEAT: 32 But I HAVE PRAYED FOR **THEE, that THY FAITH FAIL NOT: and WHEN thou art CONVERTED, STRENGTHEN THY BRETHREN.

The apostles sit on thrones judging, they also eat and drink at Christ’s table in his kingdom. Catholics are gathered in union with our bishops around the table of the Lord where we eat and drink at every mass.

When Peter is converted his faith will never fail, he is to strengthen all the brethren as Universal Pastor. Christ said Satan wanted to sift all the apostles (you plural) as wheat, but Christ prayed that only (you singular) Peter’s faith fail not, this was said in the presents of the other apostles. Christ promised Peter’s faith alone would not fail, implying all must be in union and agree with the faith of Peter. Those not in union with Peter’s faith even though they have apostolic secession can teach error. My Bishop or any number of Bishops can teach error if not in union and agreement, with the successor of Peter.

JN 21:14-17 Jesus asked Peter three times, “do you love me more than these” [THESE, would be the other apostles. After being asked three times and replying three times, “yes”. Christ said to Peter, the first time, “feed MY lambs”, the second time, “feed MY sheep”, the third time, “feed MY sheep”. Peter is to feed ALL the sheep in Christ’s flock, not some, but ALL the sheep Christ has purchased with his blood.

[Acts2:41 Then THEY THAT gladly RECEIVED HIS WORD WERE BAPTIZED: AND the same day there were ADDED UNTO THEM about three thousand souls. 42 And THEY CONTINUED stedfastly IN THE **APOSTLES’ DOCTRINE and FELLOWSHIP, and in BREADKING OF BREAD, and in PRAYERS.] Breaking of Bread is another term for mass. CONTINUED:

 

[jlhargus]

[1Cor1:9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto THE FELLOWSHIP OF HIS SON JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD. 10 Now I BESEECH YOU, BRETHREN, BY the name of OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, that ye all SPEAK THE SAME THING, AND that there be NO DIVISIONS AMONG YOU; but that ye BE PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER in the SAME MIND and IN THE SAME JUDGMENT.] One fellowship, one faith, one baptism, one Lord and God of all no matter where it is located in the world. Lk24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things. 49 And, behold, I SEND THE PROMISE OF MY FATHER: but TARRY ye IN the city of JERUSALEM, UNTIL YE BE ENDUED WITH POWER FROM ON HIGH. Jn14:26 But the Comforter, which is THE HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR REMEMBRANCE, WHATSOEVER I HAVE SAID UNTO YOU. Jn16:13 Howbeit when he, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, IS COME, he WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Christ is speaking to the Apostolic Fellowship, who will be endued with power from on high, by whom the Church will be guided into all truth and teach all things whatsoever Christ said, through the sacrament of Holy Orders, an unbroken line of successors, by laying on of hands, till the end of the world.

Apostolic succession thru the sacrament of Holy Orders, ordination, by laying of hands gives the GIFT of the Holy Spirit to enable an ordained minister to fulfill his mission. [2Tim1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou STIR UP THE GIFT OF GOD, which is IN THEE BY the PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS. 7 For GOD HATH NOT GIVEN US THE SPIRIT OF FEAR; **BUT OF POWER, and of love, and of a sound mind.] [Tm4:2 PREACH THE WORD; be instant in season, out of season; REPROVE, REBUKE, EXHORT with all long suffering and doctrine.]

Titus1:5 FOR THIS CAUSE LEFT I THEE IN CRETE, that THOU SHOULDEST SET IN ORDER the THINGS that are WANTING, AND ORDAIN ELDERS IN EVERY CITY, AS I had APOINTED THEE.
Titus1:7 For A BISHOP must be blameless, as THE STEWARD OF GOD; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 HOLDING FAST THE FAITHFUL WORD AS HE HATH BEEN TAUGHT, THAT he may be able BY SOUND DOCTRINE both to EXHORT and TO CONVINCE the gainsayers.

Titus1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore REBUKE THEM SHARPLY, THAT THEY MAY BE SOUND IN THE FAITH;

Titus2:1 But SPEAK thou the THINGS WHICH BECOME SOUND DOCTRINE: 2 THAT the aged MEN BE sober, grave, temperate, SOUND IN FAITH, in charity, in patience.

Titus2:15 THESE things SPEAK, and EXHORT, and REBUKE WITH ALL AUTHORITY. Let no man despise thee.

Acts14:23 And WHEN THEY HAD ORDAINED them ELDERS IN EVERY CHURCH, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Acts20:28 TAKE HEED therefore unto yourselves, and TO ALL THE FLOCK, over the WHICH THE HOLY GHOST HATH MADE YOU OVERSEERS, TO FEED THE CHURCH OF GOD, which he hath PURCHASED WITH HIS OWN BLOOD.

1 TIM 5:17 Let the elders that RULE well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the WORD AND DOCTRINE.

[1Tim4:13 Till I come, GIVE ATTENDANCE TO READING, to EXHORTATION, TO DOCTRINE. 14 NEGLECT NOT THE GIFT that is IN THEE, which was GIVEN thee by prophecy, WITH THE LAYING ON OF THE HANDS of the presbytery. 15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. 16 TAKE HEED UNTO THYSELF, and **UNTO THE DOCTRINE; CONTINUE IN THEM: for in DOING THIS thou SHALT both SAVE THYSELF, AND THEM THAT HEAR THEE.]

I cannot find a VALID minister in the New Covenant who was not ordained and SENT directly by Christ including Paul, or SENT by laying on of hands in the unbroken apostolic line, either by an apostle or one they ordained. [Except false teachers, who may even have been ordained by laying on of hands, but not SENT by the FELLOWSHIP. They GO OUT on their own authority, I have no doubt they used and thought scripture supported their theology.

[Acts15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard that CERTAIN which WENT OUT FROM US have troubled you with words SUBVERTING YOUR SOULS saying Ye must be circumcised and keep the law: to whom WE GAVE NO SUCH COMMANDMENT] Jer23:21 I HAVE NOT SENT THESE PROPHETS, yet they ran: I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO THEM, yet they prophesied.] Those not sent are false teachers.] 1Jn4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God HEARTH US; he that is not of God heareth not US. HEREBY KNOW WE the spirit of TRUTH, AND the spirit of ERROR.]

US would be the Church. The Bishops of the world in union with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) make up the Magisterium (that teaching authority SENT by ChrisT. Mt28:16-20 GO TEACH ALL NATIONS I AM WITH YOU TILL THE END). Their duty is to teach, sanctify and govern. Teach the Word of God, faith and morals, what we must believe and moral standards. Sanctify by preaching the Word of God and administering the sacraments, govern the Church for good order,
[Jn17:21 THAT THEY ALL MAY BE **ONE; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE ONE IN US: THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE that thou hast sent me.]

 

[JPCalifornia]

By what authority did Paul rebuke Peter according to the book of Galatians. And who can publicly opposed an infallible man and get away with it?

 

[distracted]

Distracted,

**You wrote: ** * I never said it WAS like that. I just said that I would like to go back to being a virgin. Why do people put words in others’ mouths? I lost my virginity through rape, so obviously, I never wanted to lose it in the first place (even for so called love, which— romantic love is not even love in my opinion 95% of the time)

But in any case – it is NOT impossible to get sexual purity back, as you put it. It may take a lot of prayers, a lot of Holy Masses, abstaining from gratifying the self, which I have done for may years, t may take a lot of whatever, but it is possible. And besides, lack of virginity is NOT sexual impurity!!! *​

I appalls me that my words affected you this way! Please accept my apology, Distracted. So many people make jokes about returning to, regaining virginity, that I assume that you were joking, and joking rather well, hence the jocular tone of my own words. I had in mind the sort of expression that one heard so often when I was an university student during the turbulent Vietnam-hag-ridden years of the1960s, here worded with resort to square brackets more circumspectly, “Fighting for peace is like [copulat]ing for virginity.” There are lots of jokes, of even more dubious taste, of that kind about the matter.

However, when you are being earnest in this way, it is good to make so clearly but setting forth a context. I could not even tell, on C.A., whether you were male or female, much less so much more about you. In written words there is not the added support of facial expressions, tone of voice, tears, etc., to save words and to say much in few of them. I never would have said something injurious to you about such a terrible matter if I had known better. Please believe that.

Anyway, may God give you, be giving you, or have given you already, healing, mental, emotional, spiritual, for what you have endured!

Pax, Jerry Parker

You are only the (approximately) THIRD person out of zillions on CAF who has ever apologized to me…

thanks…

i had a hard time understanding some of your words, but i guess i got the gist of what you were saying…

actually i do feel somewhat “impure” compared to when i was a virgin, but it is amazing what Jesus has done with me… amazing and kinda strange… cuz my body seems to want “it” almost all the time… so tiresome… (sigh)… but anyhow… my MIND is a totally different thing… doesn’t want it at all… In fact, i am like a virgin again in the sense that the thought of sex makes me disgusted… Ok, i know sex is not disgusting, but i can’t help how i feel about it… andthat’s the same way i felt when i was a vrign…

i guess if you love someone and he loves you, it is not disgusting… but i have never known such a thing…

which is also like when i was young and a virgin…

 

[jlhargus]

By what authority did Paul rebuke Peter according to the book of Galatians. And who can publicly opposed an infallible man and get away with it?

JL: ]Gal 2:11 when Peter came to Antioch I withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed 14 when I saw they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all.] Yes Paul withstood Peter’s bad example, of respect of persons, and it is because of Peter’s leadership and influence in the Church that the others followed his example. Paul felt it necessary to speak out in public to Peter, before them all. Peter taught nothing doctrinally wrong. It was Peter himself who brought the Gentiles into the Church. Peter was not being a good example. Popes have been withstood since, sometimes rightly sometimes not. This has nothing to do with infallibility, Popes are only infallible when speaking for the whole Church as Universal Pastor, with the INTENTION of defining a doctrine on faith and morals.

Paul an apostle did the same or worse, but no one takes note of it, [Acts 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him and **he circumcised him because of the Jews.] Paul had Timothy circumcised, out of respect of persons, the Jews. Paul preached against circumcision. I bet you never took note of Paul’s actions, because it did not strike you as of any importance, why? Why do you find Peter’s actions more important than Paul’s?