Posted on 03/09/2015 11:50:27 AM PDT by Gamecock
AMEN !
Aren’t you done yet? I’m so sick of the constant barrage. I’ve quit posting to your threads because of the sickening and unchristian vitriol toward the Church. Don’t bother replying to me... my abstention from your obnoxious threads will continue after this post.
Good day and may God bless you.
I don’t understand you ... that is a Christ centered essay
No.
I’m so sick of the constant barrage.
Are you sick of Roman Catholic posting inflammatory threads aimed at Protestants?
I’ve quit posting to your threads because of the sickening and unchristian vitriol toward the Church.
And yet here you are!
Don’t bother replying to me...
Once you stop posting to me I will reciprocate.
my abstention from your obnoxious threads will continue after this post.
Have yet to see any abstention on your part.
That is enough to throw many into a hissy fit.
Heap coals of kindness
I am a Catholic and I practice my faith and attend Mass every week. You are quite correct in some of your observations. For example, no where is it written that you must confess your sins to a priest. They should be confessed through prayer directly to God. I’ve noticed over the years that more and more Catholics seem to agree and fewer and fewer go to confession on a regular basis anymore. While some people may be comfortable confessing their sins to a priest-—and that’s fine with me, in actual practice, fewer and fewer people actually do these days.
There are number of Catholic practices that have little or no basis in the Bible or the Gospels. A classic example is the practice of compulsory clerical celibacy. Many would be surprised to learn that this practice was institutionalized much later in Church history than is commonly believed. For the first ten centuries of Church history most priests and bishops and good number of the early popes were in fact married men. Compulsory clerical celibacy was established in the Middle Ages primarily to confront corruption within the clergy, specifically simony and nepotism. The current Pope has correctly observed that the policy of compulsory clerical celibacy was introduced many centuries after the founding of the Church, and he is also stated (correctly) that the policy is a discipline, not a doctrine or a dogma of the Church and that the policy is subject to change.
Other Catholic ideas and doctrines came about much later. Take the idea that Mary herself was born of an immaculate conception, an idea which has no scriptural basis. This theory was institutionalized in the late 19th Century by Pope Pius IX, the same Pontiff, who btw instituted another questionable doctrine, the idea of papal infallibility, an idea which is perfectly authoritarian and absurd.
I love my Church and practice my faith. But I have long ago accepted the fact that the Church is far from perfect and is sometimes subject to error, certainly not free of sin and horrible misjudgment over the centuries. Then again this can be said of just about any human created institution. The Catholic Church remains an inviting target perhaps because it is the world’s oldest Christian institution and has therefore had more time to make more mistakes. And of course the Church was very powerful for many centuries and was the glue that held Europe together for many centuries.
As for me, although I will be accused of sola scriptura by some of my fellow Catholics, I believe the basis, the way, and the Truth, rests primarily with the word of God as it is presented in the Bible and the Gospels. I try to stay as close to that as possible without being diverted in a thousand different directions and getting bogged down in the minutia of rituals, rules, and regulations.
That's correct - at the Mass we are present at THE sacrifice of the Lamb. Not a repeat. Not an echo.
These 'journey pieces' are all of a kind. They weave a tale that artfully touches on every conceivable Protestant hangup and misconception in an effort at polemic.
But this is true about Christ's sacrifice: it is once and for all.
Let's expound on this, and try to rescue something from this formulaic attack-post.
At the Mass we are at Calvary. We are at the Last Supper. We are in the Garden of the Resurrection. We are not present at a recreation, but at the actual event: once and for all.
God is not bound by Time and Space, and neither are His sacraments. At the Mass we are really and truly at the Last Supper. We are present at His Passion - not an echo, not a repeat performance, but at The Passion.
He bids us eat His Body and drink His Blood. His life, His death and resurrection - the most important events that every were or ever could be - are waiting for us at Mass. Indeed, He is waiting for us, truly present in His Body in every Catholic Church!
This week, step into a Church and pray before the Blessed Sacrament. He is waiting for you - for us! - with such love, such unfathomable mercy.
I think in any local protestant, orthodox, or catholic body of Christian worship, you’ll have some who ‘get it” and are saved and some who never were!
Same here. Later, they thought I was different, and I was.
Just to remind the thread about the institution of the Eucharist, and to show its provenance in the early Church.
From Luke:
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
If any corroborating evidence were needed, St Paul speaks about the Eucharist in Corinthians.
And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
Which I quote at length because it shows that the Eucharist was celebrated in the extremely early Church.
Christ commanded us to eat His Body and drink His Blood: He also commanded us to re-enact the Eucharist.
It is fun to dress up and play pretend, isn't it?
Now this is just shameful. You've likened Christ's Sacrifice on the cross - the sacrifice of the Lamb reenacted faithfully by His Church - to a pretence; to a game of dress-up.
But even as you pour scorn upon Christ's words at the Last Supper you are echoing part of His Passion. The soldiers literally played dress-up with Christ: they crowned Him with thorns and clothed Him in garments of derison.
For example, no where is it written that you must confess your sins to a priest.
The sacrament of Penance is the way which God has chosen to administer forgiveness. Jesus exercised the power to forgive sins "that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Mt 8:6). And Jesus to the Apostles in Jn 20:21-23 reads: "... As the Father has sent Me, so I send you. And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them: 'Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." Note that this power bestowed upon the Apostles is different than the power previously given St Peter of binding and loosing, which is the broad power in matters of faith and morals; this power is specific to sin. Knowing that the Apostles, mere men, were incapable of handling such a responsibility on their own power, Jesus Christ gave them a special communication with the Holy Spirit for this special work. In all of the Bible, there are only two instances where God breathed on man, the other was when He gave man a living soul in Gen 2:7 - thus emphasizing the importance of the sacrament of Penance. And as this power was bestowed upon the Apostles, it was to be inherited by their successors, continuing His presence throughout time (Mt 28:19-20). Yes, Jesus is the one Mediator, but that does not deny Him from choosing others to assist Him in his work.
St Paul, in the name of Jesus, exercised the power of binding and loosing from sin and the effects of sin in the case of the incestuous Corinthian. In 1 Cor 3, St Paul says: "I have already judged him that hath done so"; and in 2 Cor 2:10, St Paul justifies his forgiveness of the repentant man by saying "If I have pardoned anything, I have done it in the person of Christ". Further, in 2 Cor 5:18, St Paul writes: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation". And in 2 Cor 5:20, St Paul confirms "So we are ambassadors for Christ."
By sin, it was God that was offended; and God set down the conditions for forgiveness. You cannot insist of God that He forgive your sins on your own conditions. And Jesus Christ did not bestow the power and responsibility to forgive sins to the Apostles and their successors knowing that all one needed to do was to seek forgiveness through prayer. The Church does not deny that sins will be forgiven via prayer directly to God, given of course that there's true repentance coupled with firm resolution to avoid this sin in the future. However, the only way we can be sure of proper disposition of the forgiveness of sin with absolute certainty is via the means established by Christ - the sacrament of Penance.
Take the idea that Mary herself was born of an immaculate conception, an idea which has no scriptural basis.
There are four people in Scripture who were born immaculately (not under Original Sin)... Adam, Eve, Mary and Jesus. Adam and Eve should be obvious as they had not yet committed sin before they were formed. Christ should be obvious as He was the unblemished Lamb of God. He was also the new Adam (1 Cor 15:45). Mary was the new Eve. Here is a link to a good discussion what it all means and why it is necessary: http://www.stpeterslist.com/682/6-biblical-reasons-mary-is-the-new-eve/.
This theory was institutionalized in the late 19th Century by Pope Pius IX...
Wrong. This idea was known from the beginnings of the Church. Pope Pius IX simply formalized it as doctrine. St Irenaeus wrote of the parallels between Eve and Mary and used general terms for Mary such as "holy", "most pure", "intact", "immaculate" as early as the latter part of the Second Century. Naming the doctrine (before it was doctrine) is shown by St Augustine of Hippo around 400 AD. It was a doctrine known by the Church but not specifically codified until Pope Pius IX.
... the same Pontiff, who btw instituted another questionable doctrine, the idea of papal infallibility, an idea which is perfectly authoritarian and absurd.
What is absurd is that this doctrine should appear overnight by Pope Pius IX. You do understand that the authority of the Pope was one of the main points of contention in the Great Schism of 1054, right? The doctrine was defined dogmatically at the First Vatican Council of 1870. As above, it was a doctrine known by the Church but only then codified directly. Papal infallibilty is a very limited function that applies to a very specific method of declaring doctrines or dogmas of the Catholic Church. The concept has nothing at all to do with the personal opinions or activities of any pope.
Throughout the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church, there have been fewer than 7 infallible statements (beginning in 449 AD). The Pope occupies the "chair" of St Peter, who Christ granted the authority to bind and loose both on Earth and in Heaven ... regardless of the faults or failings of the man who happens to occupy that chair, at any given time.
I believe the basis, the way, and the Truth, rests primarily with the word of God as it is presented in the Bible and the Gospels.
Yet it is Scripture Which proclaims the authority of the Church. There is the authority of the Prime Minister invested in St Peter (Isaiah 22; Matt 16:18). There is the authority given to baptize and teach (Matt 28:19). There is the authority to forgive sins (John 20:21:23). There is the authority to decide conflicts and excommunicate members (Matt 18:17). When Scripture points to the "pillar and bullwark of the truth", It points to the Church (1 Tim 3:15). There is so much that the Church has been commissioned to do that a book can't do on its own. The Church is the Body of Christ and is necessary in its own right in the economy of God. Her proclamations and practices may not contradict Scripture but She does have the authority to teach what She is taught through the Spirit which illuminates more than what was written (John 21:25; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Thess 3:6; 1 Cor 11:2)
Jesus is the Word of God. We worship Him in Word, in Spirit, and in Flesh in the realization of the Eucharist. We do not limit Him to a canon composed nearly 2000 years ago. Christ promised to send the Paraclete Who would teach us all things. It stands to reason, then, (and God does appeal to our reason) that this Church which is guided by the Spirit would be guided in an unfolding revelation that has not ceased. If the Church was given authority in Heaven and Earth to bind and loose then the Church was given authority to develop and define doctrine for the faithful which is true in all places, in all times. As we pray in the Nicene Creed: "We believe in One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church." There is only one Church which can credibly lay claim to all four.
I pray that I have not made any errors in my explanations here. I simply pray that you may understand the fullness of the Truth of the Church and not see Her simply as one option among many. May God bless you.
Welcome back!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.