[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:<<< I will try and read through the New Testament in the coming weeks. >>>[/quote]Please do. Ask God to guide you. I am absolutely serious. Speaking of open minds. Open yours to Him and go to His word. He is flawlessly faithful and cannot lie. He promises to answer the heart that seeks Him. Boy I can hear this already. No guys that is not works and it ain’t up to me if he ends up a Catholic. That’s God’s business. Mine is to simply testify.
[/quote]
“And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore. And he was returning, sitting in his chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.” - Acts of the Apostles 8:27-31
“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” - 2 Letter of Peter 3:16
“Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.” - 2 Letter of Peter 1:20
Reading the Bible is fine, but if you wish to study it. It’s good to have a guide instead of trying to come up with something on your own. Here is two resources:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:<<< As just an observant by-stander here, Trib, I agree with what you said with the obvious qualifier that we should be ever diligent over ourselves. But, what you are proposing would negate the ‘necessity’ of the catholic church, who thrives on the fear (of hell, etc) they constantly present to their flock in order to keep said flock dependent. Yes, it is quite sad.[/quote]You’re not bad man I’ll give ya some credit. You have some skills at throwin around the Jesus language so as to perplex the untutored among us into possibly thinking that you actually believe the gospel =] I know gnostic mysticism when I see it.
That said I DO NOT fear hell even one little bit because I actually believe the Lord when He says that all the Father has given Him will come and He will lose none, but raise them up on the last day. I hate my sin, seek His beautiful face and serve Him with all that I am and all that I have because He loved me and gave Himself for me and I love Him with my whole heart. Hell is not an issue for me. Pleasing my Father is. They that must be frightened by damnation into surrendering all to Him have not yet tasted of His mercy and grace. I adore Him with every particle of my being because while I was dead in trespasses and sins, by nature a child of wrath and an enemy of God he reached down into my rotting grave and gave me His very resurrection life having me bought out of bondage by His blood.
No novena or act of contrition or God forbid, some pitiful offering of penance will ever do justice to His loving kindness already showered upon me and reaffirmed by His sweet presence in my life…
Yes, and I don’t wish that it would. Presumption of mercy is the Second sin against the Holy Ghost. And, I’ll remind you There but for the grace of G-d.
I am free, I have the truth, therefore I am free. Well, I’ll keep my Christ established rituals, because that is what has set me free because through the Sacraments I receive the par excellence of his Presence, which is the Bread of Life, the Holy Eucharist.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I do not have a guarantee that I will get to Heaven. >>>[/quote]I DO. And so can you and so can he. That guarantee is the finished work of the Son of God who cannot fail. As long as you keep believing that anything you do commends or condemns you before God you will go on day in and day out wondering how it will all end up. How tragic Chris. You traded one bondage for another. You can be free and free indeed. That freedom will drive you into His arms and away from sin in ways you will never know while enslaved to all that ritual.
[/quote]
As just an observant by-stander here, Trib, I agree with what you said with the obvious qualifier that we should be ever diligent over ourselves. But, what you are proposing would negate the ‘necessity’ of the catholic church, who thrives on the fear (of hell, etc) they constantly present to their flock in order to keep said flock dependent. Yes, it is quite sad.[/quote]
Yes, pure love for the Father is par excellence, but fear of Hell isn’t a bad alternative if you haven’t yet been able to muster the first. After all, John 3:16 doesn’t say because we loved the Father, the Father sent his only begotten son. It’s the Father that pursues us, it is our job to turn to the Lord through his grace.
Yes, I have a guarantee on HOW to get to Heaven. Die in the body of Christ which means no mortal sin on your soul. That requires Eucharist and Confession.
I do not have a guarantee that I will get to Heaven. Salvation and justification is a process in which day in and day out we pick up our crosses and suffer and persevere to the end working out our salvation with fear and trembling, all by the Grace of G-d.[/quote]
Sorry, I know that eucharist and confession can be made without conviction or belief. Mortal sins are following the ten comanadments correct? I am many years removed at this point forgive me. [/quote]
Concerning mortal sins, in Orthodoxy there is only 1, the sin against the Holy Spirit which is rejection of forgiveness. Confession and Eucharist as well as other sacraments and prayer such as the Jesus prayer, and fasting help us never to forget in our hearts God’s forgiveness. We say the prayers of absolution at the funeral. We do not know exactly how God will deal with those outside the Church. We would say that they would be saved through the church. The reason for formal sacramental confession is not because God does not forgive without formal confession, but because formal confession heals us so that we can better combat temptation in the future.
Sacraments done without conviction do not do you any good, though they can harm you.[/quote]
The Catholic Church claims that sacred tradition is equal (not greater, just to let you know I understand) to Scriptures.
Obviously my arguments are that a lot of the Catholic traditions are not taught in the Bible, or that verses are seriously twisted out of context to fit the man made doctrine.
None the less, thats not what I want to discuss. You bring up a good point, BC, that the Bible was not even canonized until 400 years after Christ, and that people had to rely on oral teachings (aka “unwritten” scriptures) to learn about God’s will. This is true. However, once the scriptures were completed, why would oral tradition still be relied upon if everything we need to know is already written?
Likewise, why would God not have included such important and vital teachings such as the papacy, hyper dulia of Mary, the Rosary (which only came, as you said, in about 1100 AD) in his written words?
The Catholic Church claims that sacred tradition is equal (not greater, just to let you know I understand) to Scriptures.
Obviously my arguments are that a lot of the Catholic traditions are not taught in the Bible, or that verses are seriously twisted out of context to fit the man made doctrine.
None the less, thats not what I want to discuss. You bring up a good point, BC, that the Bible was not even canonized until 400 years after Christ, and that people had to rely on oral teachings (aka “unwritten” scriptures) to learn about God’s will. This is true. However, once the scriptures were completed, why would oral tradition still be relied upon if everything we need to know is already written?
[/quote]
My answer to this would be because Christians canonized the scripture so that it could be used in the Liturgical service as a source of readings. It’s intention was to serve as readings just as the Torah had been read in the past-but not the “commentary” on the Torah. In other words, the NT was not written and collected to be the complete source of truth, but to be the source of appropriate scriptures to be read in church.
The Catholic Church claims that sacred tradition is equal (not greater, just to let you know I understand) to Scriptures.
Obviously my arguments are that a lot of the Catholic traditions are not taught in the Bible, or that verses are seriously twisted out of context to fit the man made doctrine.
None the less, thats not what I want to discuss. You bring up a good point, BC, that the Bible was not even canonized until 400 years after Christ, and that people had to rely on oral teachings (aka “unwritten” scriptures) to learn about God’s will. This is true. However, once the scriptures were completed, why would oral tradition still be relied upon if everything we need to know is already written?[/quote]
The most basic answer? Because the printing press wasn’t invented until a millennium later by a Catholic man named Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg came along and invented the printing press. But, I suppose that’s not sufficient since we now can carry the entire Bible in the watch pocket of our vests.
The real answer, not everything was written in the Bible.
Many reasons, too many to list, but I’ll give some of the more basic reasons:
the Doctrine of the Trinity
to give authority to translations of the Bible and the Bible itself (more on this at the end)
to combat heresy
When he hold feast days like Triduum (that is Holy Thursday to Easter) and Christmastide on the Calender
What do we do with embryonic stem cell research
First strike nuclear attacks
How do we fight wars justly
How to interpret the Scriptures
What music is supposed to be sung in mass
What is a valid sacrament
Who has authority to teach
How we are supposed to identify further revelation (Apparitions)
A million other things
[quote]
Likewise, why would God not have included such important and vital teachings such as the papacy, hyper dulia of Mary, the Rosary (which only came, as you said, in about 1100 AD) in his written words?[/quote]
Because he continually reveals things to his people. People have this tendency to claim that the Church teaches oral tradition, it is mostly the people that have done that. Parents are the prime teachers of the Church (they don’t have authority, but the laity have been more rigid in their faith than say Bishops), and I suppose that is part of the problem with the Church now is the liberalism that infected part laity in which they do not throw their arms up in protest when heresy is attempted to be passed off as orthodoxy. So, now everyone has to be retaught because they fell for hook line and sinker.
However, if you look at when these doctrines were established, and you look at the historians there is an interesting thing. It usually goes like this:
Crazy Bishop/Priest tries to teach heretical ideas, and
laity revolt against Bishop/priest
doctrine investigated
Council is formed to debate and hash out the arguments
Council announces doctrine…
no revolt from laity.
Laity is the litmus test for doctrine. Think about it for a second, unless your Pastor’s last name is Jones and he has a big piece of property in a third world country and a big cooler full of red juice, that if your pastor came in Sunday and said Catholicism is the truth and I’m going to be faithful to Catholic teachings…what would the congregation do? Probably be pretty upset because it is not their tradition. And, you have to remember justice came from the people and they were serious about G-d and their faith (Anglicans and Catholics killed people for being heretics and Anglicans came about before Calvin and Luther). If you tried to mess with their faith, you might have a mob outside your estate with pitch forks and torches ready to convert you if you didn’t let the Holy Ghost convert you.
*Translation of the Bible: Interesting thing enough is that many heretical and horrible translations have come about through history. Now, almost all translations are pretty much wrong on one part or another, that is the reason why there needs to be some kind of tradition behind that verse into which we call the Analogy of the faith. The interpretation of the Scripture has to match the faith of Catholics are it is considered heresy. Give you an example, it is called the Child Killers Bible:
1795 â?? â??Child killerâ?? Bible. Mark 7:27 reads in the King James Version â??Let the children first be killedâ?? instead of â??be filled.â??
There was worse than this, but this is a pretty blunt example of mistranslation. As well, the oral tradition has been good for the Protestants as well, it convinced Luther to put back James and Revelation even though he called James an Epistle of straw.
Acts also says that after the Ressurection he stayed with them for 40 days and taught them about the Kingdom of Heaven. Also Gospel says that the world could not contain the books… and that the Holy Spirit was sent to lead us into all truth.
Also, the canonization of the bible occurred within a set of canons that described dozens of other traditions of the church such as who could be a priest, the date of Easter, and other canon law and Dogmatic statements like the Creed.
By that time there were other books of practice that were used as guides but were not “dogmatic”. Philocalia, Apostolic Constitution, Didiscalia and others
but as I wrote before, the Bible was compiled to be read at the liturgy. The entire NT was read in the course of the services of the year at least over a 2 year period except for the apocalypse, which you may know was almost not included.
Ok, so what is it you believe in, or don’t?[/quote]
If the church had done their job better I would still be Catholic today. The urgency that should exist in ensuring the congregations salvation is non-existent. The lack of dedication and leadership as well as the blatant lack of concern shown by the church for matters dealing with molestation, and the annulment of marriage is a major slap in the face to those who would like to have faith in the church and the ability of those they place in leadership to in fact lead. Not all accused are guilty, but they for damn sure are not all innocent. I think that to be a martyr for the faith would be something these priests would be lining up for.
Sorry but showing up on Sunday listening to a story from the bible, taking communion, singing, and occasionally confessing my sins is not the type of life one should be striving for as a Christian.
Participation at the level that the majority of congregations act is insulting to what the practice of religion is to stand for, and the fact that the leadership are almost always equally uninspired and uninvolved is proclamation that the church as it exists is a sham and I would go so far as to say blasphemous in its teaching and practice.
For f-sakes if a guy without a job that has dedicated his life to the church and g-d can’t be more spiritual convincing then why the heck would I go to him for spiritual guidance? He obviously knows nothing more than I do. You can make the argument that there are good priests, but they are the exception and the vast majority better meet my description. You can say well they are just men after all and we are all subject to sin and apathy, and I would agree. So why the need for them at all? 2 things I know for sure I believe is that priest should be allowed to marry, and they should be required to have a trade/job in addition to their priestly duties.
You can stand behind the doctrines and play judge as much as you want but at the end of the day these actions do nothing to ensure your own salvation or those you find to be in violation. I would go so far as to say I believe they impede ones chance of achieving a higher level of spirituality and living a truly Christ-like life. On that note let me say that every Christian I know is a hypocrite, as is every non-Christian, and deserves no second consideration of their opinion or beliefs as the majority has not done a single thing with them anyway. Feel free to ignore me as well, g-d knows I will ignore your doctrine and beliefs unless I reason them to be of value on my own.
The problem with religion is there is no reasoning allowed for the flock. I am glad that your limited experience has allowed you to remain in compliance with the doctrine, and that you feel you would reason on the same side as the church, however it is irrelevant is it not?
Would you compromise your beliefs if you caught your daughter or son being molested? would you kill the person? If you were in a war would you kill your enemy that sought to kill you? Is self defense part of your doctrine? Is protection of your family part of your doctrine? Is murder ever allowed? Or do you count on a non specified clause that will grant your soul forgiveness in these situations?
Thank the Holy Church for saying that the state of a priests souls has no effect on his ability to perform his duties. No doubt as Christ would have had it. Tell me you believe that is both necessary or reasonable… This only further proves the whole thing is a sham, completely unnecessary and even most likely incapable of leading any soul to salvation.
[/quote]
Sounds to me like to problem is you, not the church. Far to often I hear, ‘Well if the church was like this, or like that I would like it better.’ Sorry but that’s bullshit. The fact of the matter is you painted a whole lot of people with a broad brush and most of is is simply untrue.
The whole “no reasoning is allowed for the flock” is patently untrue. Go look such matters up in the catechism is you don’t believe me. There are too many falsehoods to address in your post. You have a CNN/ Fox news/ CNBC view of the church which is indicative of the fact that you did not even investigate your faith at all. You jsut heard some shit you don’t like, turned you back and walked away. What has the Church, or God done for you lately? Well, what have you done for anybody but yourself lately? It’s rhetorical, don’t answer.
Loss of faith is always blamed on somebody else, it’s not, it’s your fault…You decided you did not want a relationship with God unless it’s on your terms…I have never know God to cave to the demands of man, ever.
[quote]forbes wrote:
I am Catholic in the sense that yes, I believe I am part of the “universal” Church. But no, I am not “catholic catholic”, as in Roman Catholicism (I know you guys don’t like that term, and I do apologize, its just to differentiate).[/quote]
Actually it is not. Catholicism is universal. We are the only Church that extends the entire world and all of time. No other Church does that and is one and apostolic.
More tomorrow. But Peter is not the first pope. The rock being referred to was his confession of Jesus being the Son of God, not on Peter.
Peter also rebuked a man from bowing down to him, yet many people today bow down to the pope and kiss him. Honor is one thing. But that simply goes beyond honor.
Also:
Peter never mentioned successors.
Peter never had a palace, fancy attire, or a centralized location.
Peter was never regarded as “holy father”
Peter was rebuked by Paul (ya, anyone that tries to rebuke the pope today the way Paul did really wouldn’t make it too far).
1 Corinthians
3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Matthew
21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
[/quote]
Have you ever referred to your dad as your ‘father’?
Second, Mattew 16:18 reads like this:
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19]Â I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
I have heard that argument before many times but it simply does not make any sense. Jesus never once referred to himself as lowercase ‘r’ rock. His words he referred to as rock, but not himself, ever. He referred to himself on once as mineral as the ‘Corner Stone’ which was not used in the context of his ‘church’ specifically. Protestants put a lot of pressure on the positioning of the comma. De-validating the 1500 years history is a lot of pressure to put on one little comma. The facts are, that Peter means rock, Jesus changed his name from Simon to ‘This Rock’ and then not only made him the rock of the church, but gave him power to loose and bind on heaven and earth. If the first part isn’t problematic, the second most definitely is. Who is he giving the power to loose and bind? Himself? Being God, he already had that power and referring to himself in the second person makes no sense what so ever.
Papal succession and ordinations are not necessarily scriptural things so they wouldn’t necessarily be in scripture. What is in scripture is that Jesus gave the apostles the power of the church.
The church came before the scriptures of the New Testament. Church rules and traditions were recorded, but just not in scripture. Having suffered through Exodus and Leviticus, I am thankful for that. It makes for some boring reading if nothing else. The documents exist, but were not included in scripture as divinely revealed.
Just because you do not have the blue print of the house, doesn’t make it any less of a house.
The Catholic Church claims that sacred tradition is equal (not greater, just to let you know I understand) to Scriptures.
Obviously my arguments are that a lot of the Catholic traditions are not taught in the Bible, or that verses are seriously twisted out of context to fit the man made doctrine.
None the less, thats not what I want to discuss. You bring up a good point, BC, that the Bible was not even canonized until 400 years after Christ, and that people had to rely on oral teachings (aka “unwritten” scriptures) to learn about God’s will. This is true. However, once the scriptures were completed, why would oral tradition still be relied upon if everything we need to know is already written?
Likewise, why would God not have included such important and vital teachings such as the papacy, hyper dulia of Mary, the Rosary (which only came, as you said, in about 1100 AD) in his written words?[/quote]
Tradition is not equal to scripture. That is false. Traditions exists to exemplify and live scripture. They were formalized in to ritual so that all around the world the message and point would be the same. This is why you have 36,000 protestant denominations…Everybody was more or less left to fend for themselves… “Here’s a bible, figure it out”. The ritualistic nature of the church’s practices are there to keep everything the same. It is, if you go to a mass in Uganda, it will be the same as the mass in Atlanta as it is in Rome.
There was no internet or twitter, info took months to convey, how else do you keep people on the same page?
The various counsels and Synods over history were designed to correct course, to make sure the church is acting more scripturally. Even in 2012, the liturgical part of the mass, the community prayers and invocations are being changed to be more scripturally based.
The problem is that God put man in charge of the church, but if God wasn’t the center it would have never made it.
From the very beginning to present day, forces in and outside the church have been trying to destroy it. After 2000 years, you’d have thought that they would have succeeded. But the church is 1.2 billion strong and growing, yes growing not shrinking, contrary to popular belief.
In my little neck of the woods the fastest growing demographic is black people joining the church…It’s pretty awesome to see.
The Catholic Church claims that sacred tradition is equal (not greater, just to let you know I understand) to Scriptures.
Obviously my arguments are that a lot of the Catholic traditions are not taught in the Bible, or that verses are seriously twisted out of context to fit the man made doctrine.
None the less, thats not what I want to discuss. You bring up a good point, BC, that the Bible was not even canonized until 400 years after Christ, and that people had to rely on oral teachings (aka “unwritten” scriptures) to learn about God’s will. This is true. However, once the scriptures were completed, why would oral tradition still be relied upon if everything we need to know is already written?
Likewise, why would God not have included such important and vital teachings such as the papacy, hyper dulia of Mary, the Rosary (which only came, as you said, in about 1100 AD) in his written words?[/quote]
The Rosary and such are just tools. We honor Mary because Jesus honored her. Far be it from me to not honor or disparage she whom Jesus honored.
I have heard some protestants come dangerously close to disparaging Mary…That’s Jesus’s Mama, you never, never mess with a man’s Mama. Sons get really, really pissed when you mess with their Mama.
Would you let anybody talk nasty about your Mama?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I do not have a guarantee that I will get to Heaven. >>>[/quote]I DO. And so can you and so can he. That guarantee is the finished work of the Son of God who cannot fail. As long as you keep believing that anything you do commends or condemns you before God you will go on day in and day out wondering how it will all end up. How tragic Chris. You traded one bondage for another. You can be free and free indeed. That freedom will drive you into His arms and away from sin in ways you will never know while enslaved to all that ritual.
[/quote]
No you do not. You said yourself you do not know if your one of the elect…I swear living lies is not life at all.
[quote]pat wrote:
[Loss of faith is always blamed on somebody else, it’s not, it’s your fault…You decided you did not want a relationship with God unless it’s on your terms…I have never know God to cave to the demands of man, ever.
[/quote]
Well Pat I hope you feel good about yourself after that. I lost faith in the church and more specifically the congregation of which I was a part not g-d.
[quote]pat wrote:
I have never know God to cave to the demands of man, ever.
[/quote]
This statement is beyond stupid, I can tell you think you made some huge point with it but it is just your imagination. God actually caves to the demands of man in the establishment of the very institution of the church. You may know the verse as you make it on earth so shale it be made in heaven, or some such thing. I am sure someone can quote it for you.
Just to clarify for you where I am coming from, I went through a period of seeking a new congregation and was unable to find one that was up to what I would consider very low expectations. This pushed me to finding answers from other areas. I then gave up and started to question what I considered more important issues, once doubt entered my mind it spread and I began to again question and resolve issues in ways that were logistically sound and helped eliminate other areas that I found to be in conflict with the beliefs I was given by the church.
This is where I think the confusion comes in for you and I. I now believe that every person that attends a church in actuality does not believe everything the same. In fact, many that attend do not believe anything, and others are what we call cafeteria catholics which only believe the parts they like and ignore what they don’t. This is a problem for me when it goes un-addressed by the clergy who I believe have a higher duty to the congregation than just preforming ceremony.
I am beginning to believe this is my fault as you stated, but I was not prepared to have these doubts at that age. There is an age of accountability I mentioned it in an earlier post. This is an important concept, I think that I was reaching a higher level of accountably when I began to have my doubts. The severity of the implications of the leadership not addressing things like the blasphemy that is committed when members sleep during mass opens the door for validity to every criticism made against the faith. If it is the true religion, and the one path to heaven once shown to a person, then I chose to accept that rejecting the whole thing as a falsity is better than being a hypocrite and blasphemer.( I know it said “you”, I did’nt intend to argue you have to accept anything based on my logic)
I will say this, the good thing about the church is that it provides logically sound arguments for the stances it takes, which is why you and Broth Chris are so well armed and why I think you believe it is a religion of logic and thought. However there are logically sound arguments made by every religion. I went to Catholic school and debated many matters that I had free thought on and was constantly directed to the Catechism as having the final say on matters. You can easily accept the teaching and you can follow the reasoning, but if you find yourself in conflict with one you do not have the right to go against the church. Being completely apathetic to your faith goes un-questioned by the leadership but being out spoken against the beliefs of the church is not tolerated in my personal experience.(So as to avoid further blanketing statements against your faith). I know that my observation are completely untrue of the church you attend based on your hostility and am happy that you have no doubts as I would not wish them upon anyone with all sincerity.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I do not have a guarantee that I will get to Heaven. >>>[/quote]I DO. And so can you and so can he. That guarantee is the finished work of the Son of God who cannot fail. As long as you keep believing that anything you do commends or condemns you before God you will go on day in and day out wondering how it will all end up. How tragic Chris. You traded one bondage for another. You can be free and free indeed. That freedom will drive you into His arms and away from sin in ways you will never know while enslaved to all that ritual.
[/quote]No you do not. You said yourself you do not know if your one of the elect…I swear living lies is not life at all.[/quote]Chris my good buddy, I want you to know that if the tables were turned and one of my protestant brethren were continually misrepresenting you like Pat does me I would come to your defense in that regard. Please Chris. It doesn’t mean you’re siding with me, but in the name of plain honesty will you please tell this man that you have personally read me numerous times saying that I can be absolutely certain of nobody’s election EXCEPT MY OWN. Have I not said this? That I can rest assured in my own election and be confident in others, but not know for them for sure? That only they can know that? Haven’t I? Anybody else heard me say that? Like 20 times?
Pat, for the record. I do not believe you are doing this on purpose.
[quote]pat wrote:
[Loss of faith is always blamed on somebody else, it’s not, it’s your fault…You decided you did not want a relationship with God unless it’s on your terms…I have never know God to cave to the demands of man, ever.
[/quote]
Well Pat I hope you feel good about yourself after that. I lost faith in the church and more specifically the congregation of which I was a part not g-d.
[quote]pat wrote:
I have never know God to cave to the demands of man, ever.
[/quote]
This statement is beyond stupid, I can tell you think you made some huge point with it but it is just your imagination. God actually caves to the demands of man in the establishment of the very institution of the church. You may know the verse as you make it on earth so shale it be made in heaven, or some such thing. I am sure someone can quote it for you.
Just to clarify for you where I am coming from, I went through a period of seeking a new congregation and was unable to find one that was up to what I would consider very low expectations. This pushed me to finding answers from other areas. I then gave up and started to question what I considered more important issues, once doubt entered my mind it spread and I began to again question and resolve issues in ways that were logistically sound and helped eliminate other areas that I found to be in conflict with the beliefs I was given by the church.
This is where I think the confusion comes in for you and I. I now believe that every person that attends a church in actuality does not believe everything the same. In fact, many that attend do not believe anything, and others are what we call cafeteria catholics which only believe the parts they like and ignore what they don’t. This is a problem for me when it goes un-addressed by the clergy who I believe have a higher duty to the congregation than just preforming ceremony.
I am beginning to believe this is my fault as you stated, but I was not prepared to have these doubts at that age. There is an age of accountability I mentioned it in an earlier post. This is an important concept, I think that I was reaching a higher level of accountably when I began to have my doubts. The severity of the implications of the leadership not addressing things like the blasphemy that is committed when members sleep during mass opens the door for validity to every criticism made against the faith. If it is the true religion, and the one path to heaven once shown to a person, then I chose to accept that rejecting the whole thing as a falsity is better than being a hypocrite and blasphemer.( I know it said “you”, I did’nt intend to argue you have to accept anything based on my logic)
I will say this, the good thing about the church is that it provides logically sound arguments for the stances it takes, which is why you and Broth Chris are so well armed and why I think you believe it is a religion of logic and thought. However there are logically sound arguments made by every religion. I went to Catholic school and debated many matters that I had free thought on and was constantly directed to the Catechism as having the final say on matters. You can easily accept the teaching and you can follow the reasoning, but if you find yourself in conflict with one you do not have the right to go against the church. Being completely apathetic to your faith goes un-questioned by the leadership but being out spoken against the beliefs of the church is not tolerated in my personal experience.(So as to avoid further blanketing statements against your faith). I know that my observation are completely untrue of the church you attend based on your hostility and am happy that you have no doubts as I would not wish them upon anyone with all sincerity.
[/quote]
I based my answer on what you said, so if I was wrong, I apologize. But I cannot see how you spent a great deal of time working out the conflicts when you actually do not understand the stance of the Church. The stances of the church should be questioned in a civil and reasonable way. I mean not with a chip on the shoulder, but well reasoned questioning. If you find something wrong, you say you think it’s wrong.
The only things you have to accept to be a participating Roman Catholic are the dogmas, of which there really aren’t that many.
The faith should stand up to scrutiny, if it does not then there may be something wrong. And quite frankly all that is currently held may not be so forever, not the dogmas, mind you just other things…
I always look to St. Thomas and is daring to question the resurrection. He may have questioned it, but I also note, he is an apostle and a saint. Jesus didn’t condemn him, he showed him. If you really want to know, He always shows you…
There is not a Catholic alive who does not have a problem with one thing or another. The bad part isn’t having the problem, it’s to stop looking for the answers.
It’s ok to fall, it’s not ok to give up…
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I do not have a guarantee that I will get to Heaven. >>>[/quote]I DO. And so can you and so can he. That guarantee is the finished work of the Son of God who cannot fail. As long as you keep believing that anything you do commends or condemns you before God you will go on day in and day out wondering how it will all end up. How tragic Chris. You traded one bondage for another. You can be free and free indeed. That freedom will drive you into His arms and away from sin in ways you will never know while enslaved to all that ritual.
[/quote]No you do not. You said yourself you do not know if your one of the elect…I swear living lies is not life at all.[/quote]Chris my good buddy, I want you to know that if the tables were turned and one of my protestant brethren were continually misrepresenting you like Pat does me I would come to your defense in that regard. Please Chris. It doesn’t mean you’re siding with me, but in the name of plain honesty will you please tell this man that you have personally read me numerous times saying that I can be absolutely certain of nobody’s election EXCEPT MY OWN. Have I not said this? That I can rest assured in my own election and be confident in others, but not know for them for sure? That only they can know that? Haven’t I? Anybody else heard me say that? Like 20 times?
Pat, for the record. I do not believe you are doing this on purpose.
[/quote]
You cannot know your own election. First, it does not exist, at least in the predetermined way. The elect are those who chose to listen to God’s calling, not those that God cherry pick in lieu of others.
Second, you cannot know that you will live a faith full life until the last second of your dying breath. Faith is fragile and must be tended to daily. It is not the utters of a few words on a good day when you feel the Spirit. It is those days in the trenches where you feel abandoned and forsaken by God and you persevere anyway is when you know your faith. Anybody can lose their faith anytime, only a fool would say that it could not happen to them. Merely claiming your ‘saved’ will not save you. You must live and be saved every stinkin’ day of your life…
I based my answer on what you said, so if I was wrong, I apologize. But I cannot see how you spent a great deal of time working out the conflicts when you actually do not understand the stance of the Church. The stances of the church should be questioned in a civil and reasonable way. I mean not with a chip on the shoulder, but well reasoned questioning. If you find something wrong, you say you think it’s wrong.
The only things you have to accept to be a participating Roman Catholic are the dogmas, of which there really aren’t that many.
The faith should stand up to scrutiny, if it does not then there may be something wrong. And quite frankly all that is currently held may not be so forever, not the dogmas, mind you just other things…
I always look to St. Thomas and is daring to question the resurrection. He may have questioned it, but I also note, he is an apostle and a saint. Jesus didn’t condemn him, he showed him. If you really want to know, He always shows you…
There is not a Catholic alive who does not have a problem with one thing or another. The bad part isn’t having the problem, it’s to stop looking for the answers.
It’s ok to fall, it’s not ok to give up…[/quote]
My issue is not so easily changed as dogma as it is in the actual practice that I have to witness and participate in, and after all it is what really matters. My reaction to the grievance I have with the practice is 100% backed by what I was taught by the church. The conclusions I have drawn as a result of the perpetuation by individuals is certainly not backed, and thanks to talking about it here is being drawn into question in myself.
Beliefs and actions are completely meaningless without understanding and conviction would you not agree? Saying you believe something simply because you were taught it is not the same as having conviction in that belief. It is like algebra you can know formulas and solve for x but without practical application or moving on to calculus it is nothing more than an act of mental masturbation. The institution of religion, I would think, is to provide us with a teacher that will help us move on to the next level of understand and grow our relationship with G-d. I have never had this experience through the RCC. I have grown spiritually through personal experience and suffering.
This again comes down to an age of accountability which I now believe may actually come in stages. Maybe you can recognize right and wrong as it is taught and you can then be accountable based on your actions, but there is a second level of accountability, which will provide one with the desire to actually live a life of conviction based on your belief set. Perhaps many never reach this level, or the stray with complacency, which I believe would match the definition of a mortal sin. I would almost argue that mortal sin cannot be committed if this second level is never reached. I think that acceptance and understanding from myself that not all will take this step, and the serenity prayer would be a way to reconcile this conflict, but I need to reflect on the implications made and how they affect other areas I now have reconciled based on my current beliefs. My mind does not see individual actions/ideas as separate and contained if you can’t tell.
One concern would remain for sure and that is the clergies and the churches failure to address these issues on an individual and regular bases and to actively provide instruction and an expectation that all get to and remain in this state. I can say I would fear their reason for not doing so could be classifies as a mortal sin. I know that it has already been said that the state of the priests souls is not relevant to his being able to perform his priestly duties, but I am struggling with how that is an idea that is good for the church to hold when it relieves them of the need to scrutinize the clergy. My mind recognizes a major fallacy in this that makes me think it must be corrected or it renders this whole thing meaningless.
