I hope you don’t mind if I chime in. I was raised a Christian (Lutheran) and as a kid, when someone brought up the ‘one true religion’ theory, I intuitively though ‘how impossible’.
I believe God is so much bigger than religion. I believe God is too big to be exclusive to one single religion or even a group of religions. I thought, and still do, that groups in 3rd world contried really do not need christian missionaries to ‘save’ their souls. Give me a break! They are as muc God’s children and you and I, and He/She/It will have It’s way with them that is perfect. If they convert and enjoy it…fine. If they don’t and enjoy it…great. God is love, peace, joy, compassion, beauty, power, light, creation.
I thought I would be a christian forever and still consider myself mostly christian…but the christian church (mostly RCC) has a fairly hideous background that certainly does not make me proud.
…tradition of the Mother Queen, St. Mary the Holy Virgin…
I say that the tradition of our Beloved Virgin Mary comes from the Jewish tradition of Kingship and that of one’s mother. I hold this position because…
As we have seen, the concept of the Messiah derives from the Jewish hope that G-d will be faithful to his covenant with David, the archetype for the Messiah. The primary Jewish criticism against Jesus’ status as the Messiah derives from His apparent failure to institute the Messianic Kingdom on earth. Before delving into this controversy, let us first examine examine the nature of the kingdom of Israel and the Jewish paradigm for Messianic kingship in the person of Kin David.
The promise of the Davidic kingdom to the ‘anointed’ Messianic kings derives from the covenant that G-d made with David in 2 Samuel 7:9-16. This covenant involved three promises to David:
David shall build a house for God’s name, i.e. a Temple (7:13).
God will establish the throne of his kingdom forever (7:13, 16).
God will be his father, and he shall be His son (7:14).
The Davidic Covenant involved an exchange between David and God. This turns out to be the Temple that David’s son Solomon built for God. In exchange, God promises to establish the ‘house’ or dynasty of David as an eternal monarchy. This promise is based on God’s relationship to David as his Father: ‘I will be his father, and he shall be my son’ (7:14). This divine covenant with David foresees that the ultimate Davidic Messiah will truly be the eternally begotten Son of God. Jesus can call God ‘Father’ because Jesus of Nazareth is not only fully human and fully Davidic, but also fully divine.
[center]Mary as the Queen Mother of Jerusalem[/center]
When most non-Catholic Christians look at the Catholic Church, they often question the authoritative role of the pope and what appears to them as ‘Mary worship.’ Many Christians misunderstand the significance of the Pope and the Blessed Virgin Mary precisely because these Christians are not familiar with the way in which the Davidic Covenant structure the Messianic kingdom. In other words, non-Catholics are not aware of the profound Jewish significance of the papacy and the Virgin Mary.
The royal and messianic Kingdom of David held its capital in Jerusalem, beginning with King David ca. 1004 B.C. and was eclipsed in 586 B.C. with the capture of King Zedekiah and the forced exile of those Jews who were still alive. Prior to the tragic Babylonian exile, the truth King of Judah and heir of David sat enthroned in Jerusalem. Moreover, there were two other important political figures alongside the Davidic king in the messianic court of Jerusalem. Next to the king, the second most important person in the Kingdom of Judah was the Gebirah. This Hebrew title translates literally ‘Mighty Woman’ and refers to the mother of the Jewish king. Most translators render Gebirah as ‘Queen Mother.’
The Jewish Gebirah possessed a powerful influence over the kingdom. This power and authority flowered from her status as the mother of the Davidic king, not from her own personal importance. Rightly understood, the Queen Mother held a political office and signified the legitimate genealogy of the king. Kin Solomon the Wise instituted the formal place of the Queen Mother when ascended to the throne of his father King David. One of the first things King Solomon did after his enthronement was to place a throne at his right hand and enthrone his mother as the Gebirah:
So Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was finally established …So [his mother] Bathsheba went to to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the kin rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right (1 Kings 2:12-19).
King Solomon rose to greet his mother and bowed down before her - not because he worshiped her as a goddess, but rather because he as Kin understood the honor due to Queen Mother. Her presence in the court signified that Solomon was the legitimate heir of King David because she literally served as the flesh and blood link between father and son. Given the importance of genealogical dynasties, the office and role of the Queen Mother existed in many other cultures, as well. A similar office of a Gebirah was also honored in the northern kingdom of Israel. "We are going down to visit the princes and the family of the queen mother (2 Kings 10:13).
Jeremiah highlighted the place of preeminence held by the Queen Mother by the end of the Davidic Kingdom when he wrote: 'Say to the king and to the queen mother: Come down from your throne" (Jer 13:18). The end of the Davidic reign from Jerusalem is signaled by the dethronement of the Davidic king and his mother. The Queen Mother was so important that the end of the kingdom meant that she must also be deposed.
We see here that it is quite natural for Catholic Christians to honor the Blessed Virgin Mary. Her son is the true Davidic Kin and she is rightly enthroned at his right hand as the Gebirah and Queen Mother of the Kingdom of God. The position of Solomon’s mother at his right hand is the reason why Mary is nearly always depicted in religious artwork as seated in heaven at the right hand of Christ. The exalted place of the Virgin Mary in Catholicism did not arise from medieval superstition but from a Jewish understanding of kingship. Just as Bathsheba served as the flesh and blood link between her son Solomon and King David, so also the Blessed Virgin Mary is the flesh and blood link uniting Jesus to the messianic privileges of the Davidic Kingdom. Christians honor and revere the Blessed Virgin Mary because her lineage confirms that Jesus is the rightful heir of God’s promises. Mary is the final link in a thousand-year-old chain of Messianic prophecy.
The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
I hope you don’t mind if I chime in. I was raised a Christian (Lutheran) and as a kid, when someone brought up the ‘one true religion’ theory, I intuitively though ‘how impossible’.
[/quote]
So you admit that there are things that are impossible for God to do?
Obviously you do not know enough about Catholicism (I am speaking from the religion, not for others here), because you wouldn’t make this statement, because it is unfounded.
[quote]
I thought I would be a christian forever and still consider myself mostly christian…but the christian church (mostly RCC) has a fairly hideous background that certainly does not make me proud. [/quote]
“Mostly” Christian, either you are or you aren’t. God spits out those that are lukewarm. Most of humanity has a hideous background, why don’t you look what we have done that is good instead of focusing on that which is bad.
Why would you be proud of anything but God and his works through you?
I thought I would be a christian forever and still consider myself mostly christian…but the christian church (mostly RCC) has a fairly hideous background that certainly does not make me proud.
[/quote]
Really, which part? Those who help the poor and downtrodden? Those who risk life and limb to provide amnesty for victims of political tyranny, the centers setup for domestic abuse victims, the divorce recovery groups, the part that promotes religious tolerance and freedom, etc. Which one of those makes you ashamed?
I am not ashamed. God is my focus and Catholicism is my means to communicate with him. I will not let the actions of a few, or the media’s hatred of us. Jesus said we’ed have to endure ridicule…It pisses me off, but it is what it is…It does not lessen the faith.
Another good quote: â??The enemy is like a woman, weak in face of opposition, but correspondingly strong when not opposed. In a quarrel with a man, it is natural for a woman to lose heart and run away when he faces up to her; on the other hand, if the man begins to be afraid and to give ground, her rage, vindictiveness and fury overflow and know no limit.â??[/quote]
So now you’re gonna try to goad me into a debate by questioning my manhood with this^ bullshit?
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Another good quote: �¢??The enemy is like a woman, weak in face of opposition, but correspondingly strong when not opposed. In a quarrel with a man, it is natural for a woman to lose heart and run away when he faces up to her; on the other hand, if the man begins to be afraid and to give ground, her rage, vindictiveness and fury overflow and know no limit.�¢??[/quote]
So now you’re gonna try to goad me into a debate by questioning my manhood with this^ bullshit?
To quote an earlier poster: “You’re an asshole.”
[/quote]
You do not read between the lines!
The quote was not from or for you. You are not even the subject of the quote, neither are men. The Quote is about evil, and it was because I found the quote and thought it humorous I posted it.
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
<<< So now you’re gonna try to goad me into a debate by questioning my manhood with this^ bullshit?
To quote an earlier poster: “You’re an asshole.”
[/quote]I must chime in here. Brother Chris and I disagree on lots and lots (and lots) of stuff, but it’s not his style to do something like attack your manhood… on purpose anyway. At least not that I’ve seen which in his case is quite a bit. Nobody’s been tougher on his church than I have and the worst I got was “heretic” which actually is very serious LOL, but it’s not the same as attacking somebody’s manhood.
Can you say that, assuming the story of job was real, it was just?[/quote]
Job is a book that I have a really hard time with. However, I while ago I read something that shed some light into the situation. Not everything mind you, but it opened up some new thoughts and possible perspective on it. I’ll have to run into it at some point and give a short summary when I have the book (or online print) in front of me as it’s been a while.
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Another good quote: �?�¢??The enemy is like a woman, weak in face of opposition, but correspondingly strong when not opposed. In a quarrel with a man, it is natural for a woman to lose heart and run away when he faces up to her; on the other hand, if the man begins to be afraid and to give ground, her rage, vindictiveness and fury overflow and know no limit.�?�¢??[/quote]
So now you’re gonna try to goad me into a debate by questioning my manhood with this^ bullshit?
To quote an earlier poster: “You’re an asshole.”
[/quote]
You do not read between the lines!
The quote was not from or for you. You are not even the subject of the quote, neither are men. The Quote is about evil, and it was because I found the quote and thought it humorous I posted it.[/quote]
I looked over your quote again. This time I read between the lines and it occurred to me that the enemy referred to bears a striking resemblance to Peter’s description of Satan. In that light, I suppose your point was that debate is a good tool to sharpen your understanding and conviction as a defense against The Enemy. Am I correct?
In any event, I do apologize for being presumptuous (and calling you an asshole, lol).
[quote]Tirib wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
<<< So you are saying Jesus didn’t really tell the truth when he said evil will not prevail against his Church? Interesting.
Jesus, as always, told the absolute truth. We don’t see biblical evidence that He meant the same thing by “church” that Rome does. [/quote]
I agree fully that the interpretation of the Church as only that of the Roman Catholic Tradition is incorrect. I believe there is ample substantiation for Jesus’ meaning the Church as the body of believers in Christ. If nothing else, one should see throughout the New Testament Jesus’ blatant disregard for what people in the Establishment of the day (both physical and religious) thought he should mean and what he did in fact mean. If there’s one thing Jesus delighted in, it was turning people’s established worlds upside down and showing them how God could work in ways they’d not even thought of, or dreamed possible, or thought acceptable via their current society.
The list is long–eating with tax collectors, talking with Samaritans (and a woman at that)…and granting of all things salvation to her for her faith, letting a woman wash his feet with her hair–in public, with perfume–which is an almost obscenely lewd and sensual action when you think about it in terms of the society of the day. Rejecting the established religious notion that the Messiah would be a conqueror…which even his own disciples were guilty of as their repeated misunderstandings of him make abundantly clear.
The list goes on. I see no reason whatsoever that Jesus would close off the glory and grace of God to people only of the RCC tradition…which didn’t even exist at the time. Espeically after he had illustrated his willingness specifically to extend that grace to people that were either a) not jewish and representative of everything that the Jews hated because of oppression (read: the Roman centurion among others) or b) were outcasts and considered unclean (ie: Samaritans).
It is inconsistent with His deliberate expansion of grace and salvation (and the expansion of the gift of the Holy Spirit to those not Jewish in the early Acts) to limit this idea of the “Church” to only a specific group.
There was no RCC in the 1st century AD. Yet that did not stop the apostles from referring to the Church. There were varying customs, and beliefs according to the city (Ephesus, Corinth, those in Asia, etc). Some were rebuked in Revelations (and in the epistles), some were complimented. But the compliments did not center around an agreement to proto-RCC dogma.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I was not raised in the Church, I came to it last spring. I have been in a Cathedral all of three times.[/quote]
And this explains a lot to me, and to others I think have been longer in the faith, concerning your somewhat wooden and rigid views and interpretations. As a “new” believer you are a spiritual “baby” in the sense that you have not been in the faith long… Your zeal is commendable and shared by almost everyone who is a new believer…but I believe it should be tempered, and that will only come with continued growth and maturation in your faith.
I submit the following quote for your consideration, and everyone else’s for that matter. This was–and remains–an extremely deep and thought provoking quote for me to think about. From a commentary/handbook I once read…
[quote]"Of course we want to believe all the doctrines correctly, and to our utmost obey all the commandments. But, if, in our thinking, we put too much stress on what we believe or what we do, are we not perilously near to resting our salvation on ourselves? Christ, not a doctrine, not a commandment, is our Saviour. He, not ourselves, is the basis of our hope.
We must not minimize the necessity of believing right doctrines. But after all, [u]being a Christian is, essentially, loving Christ, a Person, rather than believing this or that doctrine, or obeying this or that commandment. [/u] (emphasis mine)
We believe doctrines or obey commandments as unto Christ. We must not love them more than we love Him. If we love a doctrine overmuch we are apt to grow cross and hard and sour toward those who do not agree with our doctrine. If we love a Person, Christ a Person, we grow like Him…
But even if our beliefs are Scripturally sound, there is such a thing as exalting some truth about Christ above Christ Himself… It is possible to be a legalist over a doctrine of grace."[/quote]
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
<<< So now you’re gonna try to goad me into a debate by questioning my manhood with this^ bullshit?
To quote an earlier poster: “You’re an asshole.”
[/quote]I must chime in here. Brother Chris and I disagree on lots and lots (and lots) of stuff, but it’s not his style to do something like attack your manhood… on purpose anyway. At least not that I’ve seen which in his case is quite a bit. Nobody’s been tougher on his church than I have and the worst I got was “heretic” which actually is very serious LOL, but it’s the same as attacking somebody’s manhood. [/quote]
Which I do in jest, as I would never bring accusations against you to the Church of being a heretic. I can’t consider you a heretic, since of course you fall outside of which the Church defines as a heretic, maybe a schism, though.
I should calm down my jests as my humourous nature is not always conveyed properly. And thank you for the apologetic’s.
[quote]Tirib wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
<<< So you are saying Jesus didn’t really tell the truth when he said evil will not prevail against his Church? Interesting.
Jesus, as always, told the absolute truth. We don’t see biblical evidence that He meant the same thing by “church” that Rome does. [/quote]
I agree fully that the interpretation of the Church as only that of the Roman Catholic Tradition is incorrect. I believe there is ample substantiation for Jesus’ meaning the Church as the body of believers in Christ. If nothing else, one should see throughout the New Testament Jesus’ blatant disregard for what people in the Establishment of the day (both physical and religious) thought he should mean and what he did in fact mean. If there’s one thing Jesus delighted in, it was turning people’s established worlds upside down and showing them how God could work in ways they’d not even thought of, or dreamed possible, or thought acceptable via their current society.
[/quote]
I do not understand your first sentence. On your second sentence, I think Jesus already claimed those that are believers as the Body of Christ. What? Jesus had utmost regard for the establishment both physical and religious. What He did have disregard for were those who did not love Our Father, and did works in their own names.
[quote]
The list is long–eating with tax collectors, talking with Samaritans (and a woman at that)…and granting of all things salvation to her for her faith, letting a woman wash his feet with her hair–in public, with perfume–which is an almost obscenely lewd and sensual action when you think about it in terms of the society of the day. Rejecting the established religious notion that the Messiah would be a conqueror…which even his own disciples were guilty of as their repeated misunderstandings of him make abundantly clear.[/quote]
I think you are missing the fact that those things which the Pharisees said were to be done by all people were in fact mostly for those that were Leviticus and those that entered the temple and their persecution of those that did not follow those laws were in fact not out of love (the sure were not just) but our of pride. That is not what the Catholic Church is doing by any means, if you do, I can give you some literature to understand our teachings.
About the rejecting of Jesus as the Messiah, I think that is a lack of knowledge of the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible. There are 350,000 Messianic Jews in the United States, after all. And, talking to some they point to the prophecies surrounding King David. And I believe that the Lord, His Queen Mother at His right hand at the thrown of Heaven, the Office of Peter, and Holy Catholic Church were all prophesied in the Hebrew Bible. I think they have a direct link to that of King David.
It is prudent to understand those prophesies and Jewish Traditions, in order to know the Truth of Our Lord.
[quote]
The list goes on. I see no reason whatsoever that Jesus would close off the glory and grace of God to people only of the RCC tradition…which didn’t even exist at the time.[/quote]
I will hold off comment on what I say here until you go learn what the Holy Catholic Church teaches on this subject and understand why what we believe and how Matthew 16:18 correlates. Otherwise you will continue to make straw man arguments, and I would not want you to do that.
This is a non sequitur, how does something the Holy Catholic Church teaches discredit the Holy Catholic Church?
It doesn’t you do not know what you talk about. Since you have repeatedly said this same statement I will print it for you.
[edit: Because of length I put it at the bottom]
There was a Holy Catholic Church in the 1st Century AD. If you look at the Early Fathers it is clear their Catholic faith. Of course as there are varying customs in cities and towns where the Catholic Church is. However, I do not believe Jesus wants his Kingdom divided, for the reason that there is Universal Doctrine in the Holy Catholic Church. I think you need to take a Catechesis class, you are obviously not well instructed in what we believe.
Well now, I never once said I was a new believer.
I’ll give you my time line:
November 1989 - Born
December 1989 - Baptized in the Holy Catholic Church
12 Years later - Sat down at desk and chair and started studying my Bible
2 Years later - Started going to Non-denominational churches
6 Months later - Studied commentaries, turned into studying early fathers and commentaries on that. Led to believe the Holy Catholic Church was his church
1.5 Years later - Decided to join the Holy Catholic Church
0-4 Years later - Continue to study doctrines of the Holy Catholic Church
4 Years Later - Take First Eucharist and come into full communion with the Holy Catholic Church
I am new to the Church, however, my faith is not of a baby. I was described to have a faith of an old man by a priest once when asked in a confrontational manner by another student, “Why do you do these things [works]?”
I replied, “I do what is good because it is right to do them.”
Talking about Revelations or Apocalypse…But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. 3:16
[quote]
I submit the following quote for your consideration, and everyone else’s for that matter. This was–and remains–an extremely deep and thought provoking quote for me to think about. From a commentary/handbook I once read…
[quote]"Of course we want to believe all the doctrines correctly, and to our utmost obey all the commandments. But, if, in our thinking, we put too much stress on what we believe or what we do, are we not perilously near to resting our salvation on ourselves? Christ, not a doctrine, not a commandment, is our Saviour. He, not ourselves, is the basis of our hope.
We must not minimize the necessity of believing right doctrines. But after all, [u]being a Christian is, essentially, loving Christ, a Person, rather than believing this or that doctrine, or obeying this or that commandment. [/u] (emphasis mine)
We believe doctrines or obey commandments as unto Christ. We must not love them more than we love Him. If we love a doctrine overmuch we are apt to grow cross and hard and sour toward those who do not agree with our doctrine. If we love a Person, Christ a Person, we grow like Him…
But even if our beliefs are Scripturally sound, there is such a thing as exalting some truth about Christ above Christ Himself… It is possible to be a legalist over a doctrine of grace."[/quote][/quote]
…Iron sharpeneth iron.*
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you mistake my time put into debate as that which is neglected from good works. My time for debate is during my free time.
*[16] He that retaineth her, is as he that would hold the wind, and shall call in the oil of his right hand. [17] Iron sharpeneth iron, so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend. [18] He that keepeth the fig tree, shall eat the fruit thereof: and he that is the keeper of his master, shall be glorified.
**121 Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to
be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.
Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will
not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts
whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must
settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he
continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true
Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.
In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he
professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the
truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.
Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that
the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has
never–even in the past–had the slightest doubt of that fact–what will
become of him?
If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be
saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was
doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the
dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his
salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed
remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin
be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does
not go to confession; and if he does, his minister–not being a true
priest–has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without
confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal
sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is
often only imperfect contrition–that is, sorrow for our sins because we
fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a
Catholic–with all the instruction he has received about how to make an
act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such
acts–might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after
having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant
have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about
this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of
perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not
know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would
be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus
the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of
God.
If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after
Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his
religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a
member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of
God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would
attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to
be the only true Church.
I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the
case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All
infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no
matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who
are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny
its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful
pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.
I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a
person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his
religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a
mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say
for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church,
believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by
its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely
difficult matter.
I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His
holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good
Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Another good quote: �??�?�¢??The enemy is like a woman, weak in face of opposition, but correspondingly strong when not opposed. In a quarrel with a man, it is natural for a woman to lose heart and run away when he faces up to her; on the other hand, if the man begins to be afraid and to give ground, her rage, vindictiveness and fury overflow and know no limit.�??�?�¢??[/quote]
So now you’re gonna try to goad me into a debate by questioning my manhood with this^ bullshit?
To quote an earlier poster: “You’re an asshole.”
[/quote]
You do not read between the lines!
The quote was not from or for you. You are not even the subject of the quote, neither are men. The Quote is about evil, and it was because I found the quote and thought it humorous I posted it.[/quote]
I looked over your quote again. This time I read between the lines and it occurred to me that the enemy referred to bears a striking resemblance to Peter’s description of Satan. In that light, I suppose your point was that debate is a good tool to sharpen your understanding and conviction as a defense against The Enemy. Am I correct?
[/quote]
Yes, you may take it in that intention.
[quote]
In any event, I do apologize for being presumptuous (and calling you an asshole, lol).[/quote]
No worries, I have been doing pro-life stuff for awhile, names do not bother me. And, I will admit that I am not the nicest person in the world.
“for the Protestant does
not go to confession; and if he does, his minister–not being a true
priest–has no power to forgive sins.”
[/quote]
Would you mind elaborating on this piece you posted? Am I to understand that unless sins are confessed to a Catholic priest, and forgiven by him, they cannot (or will not) be forgiven by God?
Going off this statement, it sounds as if Catholics believe God has placed the matters of forgiveness and mercy in the hands of men. I was under the impression that forgiveness and mercy were to come from God.
“No one comes to the Father except through me” or
“No one comes to the Father except through me (and their priest)”
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< I should calm down my jests as my humorous nature is not always conveyed properly. And thank you for the apologetics.[/quote] I wouldn’t’ worry too much. I’ve gotten to know you. Others will too. Nobody’s nature is conveyed with as much clarity on an Internet forum as it is face to face. And no trouble. You may be a screwball =] , but I’ve never seen you be overtly malicious to anybody.
What I WOULD worry about is this huge post of yours on ecclesiology. I dunno man. I don’t even know where to start and quite frankly at this point doubt if starting, at least for me is a good idea. What I see is the clearest possible testimony to exactly why God constrains His children to His written word. There is so much wrong with that view of “the church” it would take me the rest of the day to compose a proper response.
What I WOULD worry about is this huge post of yours on ecclesiology. I dunno man. I don’t even know where to start and quite frankly at this point doubt if starting, at least for me is a good idea. What I see is the clearest possible testimony to exactly why God constrains His children to His written word. There is so much wrong with that view of “the church” it would take me the rest of the day to compose a proper response.
[/quote]
This one is going to be a doosy. Mark 2:1-12 shows it perfectly in my mind.
What I WOULD worry about is this huge post of yours on ecclesiology. I dunno man. I don’t even know where to start and quite frankly at this point doubt if starting, at least for me is a good idea. What I see is the clearest possible testimony to exactly why God constrains His children to His written word. There is so much wrong with that view of “the church” it would take me the rest of the day to compose a proper response.
[/quote]
This really strikes a chord with me. It seems to me that the elaborate theology of the RCC is such a contrast from the simplicity conveyed in this passage:
Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
Mat 11:26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
Mat 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Long-winded explanations may be necessary when witnessing to people who may not understand repentance and what it means to be truly contrite but, at the end of the day, it really is pretty simple. Simple yet extremely difficult. I think the responsibility of the Church is for encouragement and support in our daily struggle against sin, not as a mediator between God and man.
“for the Protestant does
not go to confession; and if he does, his minister–not being a true
priest–has no power to forgive sins.”
[/quote]
Would you mind elaborating on this piece you posted? Am I to understand that unless sins are confessed to a Catholic priest, and forgiven by him, they cannot (or will not) be forgiven by God?[/quote]
If you read further down:
So, no there are other ways to be forgiven of your sins then confessing to a priest, however they are very difficult to do.
You are correct on both parts.
John 20:22-3 says…
When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
“Whose sins”… See here the commission, stamped by the broad seal of heaven, by virtue of which the pastors of Christ’s church absolve repenting sinners upon their confession.
… and James 5:14-15 …
Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.
“Let him bring in”… See here a plain warrant of scripture for the sacrament of extreme unction, that any controversy against its institution would be against the express words of the sacred text in the plainest terms.
… James 5:16 …
Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.
“Confess therefore your sins one to another”… That is, to the priests of the church, whom (ver. 14) he had ordered to be called for, and brought in to the sick; moreover, to confess to persons who had no power to forgive sins, would be useless. Hence the precept here means, that we must confess to men whom God hath appointed, and who, by their ordination and jurisdiction, have received the power of remitting sins in his name.
So, yes Jesus has placed the matter of forgiving sins in the hands of priests through the Holy Ghost, just like all works are done through the Holy Ghost.
Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.
I do not think this goes into which matter of how we are supposed to come to the Lord, as even with a priest, as I showed above, you can still go to the Lord without a priest. But I think it has more to do with which kingdom you choose. Either you love God or you love mammon. If you love the kingdom of mammon Our Father will give you mammon, however if you love the Kingdom of God, God will give you the Kingdom of God. As no man can be a patriot of two kings.
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
I think the responsibility of the Church[/quote]
This strikes a cord with me, because I am sure what you think is not what matters, but what God says and what the truth is.
If you have ever gone to confession and understand how confession is taught in the Holy Catholic Church, you would understand my statement that Jesus is in confession with you. As well, the Bible clearly states we are to confess our sins to one another.
About the length of my post, I do not evangelize the same way I debate.
And where do you get the idea of restricting His Children to the Holy Bible, it is not in the Bible (and no one here has shown me that it is anyway) that one is to only use the Holy Bible, so you would have to come with some tradition outside the bible to be able to read the bible and conclude that only the Bible is what we should have.
So, no there are other ways to be forgiven of your sins then confessing to a priest, however they are very difficult to do.
[/quote]
So all those times I’ve confessed my sins directly to God, it fell on deaf ears? Those were not valid confessions? God only accepts confessions if they are given to a (Catholic) priest?
