Posted on 07/22/2012 2:20:02 PM PDT by stpio
As usual, none of my five siblings or their families go to Holy Mass on Sunday. A Commandment is a Commandment, in the New Covenant assembling to worship God on Sunday is divine law. Does anyone else have family who skip Church on Sunday? Our nation is going further and further away from God. Are we seeing the beginning of God's just judgment?
~ ~ ~
* Hidden in Scripture, message from Mary: the dire effect of violating Sabbath *
July 20, 2012
We all know the requirement to attend Mass every weekend. Few realize, however, how seriously Heaven takes this.
That seriousness is witnessed in the Old Testament.
Look at Exodus 32, the Lord saying to Moses:
"You must also tell the Israelites: Take care to keep my Sabbaths, for that is to be the token between you and Me through the generations, to show that it is I, the Lord, Who make you holy. Therefore, you must keep the Sabbath as something sacred. Whoever desecrates it shall be put to death."
Tough stuff.
And granted, Christ came with a new covenant (one that in many ways was gentler).
There were not the harsh judgments we find in many parts of the Old.
But the Bible is the Bible and that the Sabbath is important seemed in ample evidence also when the Virgin Mary appeared in 1846 at LaSalette, France, and specifically warned that there was a chastisement coming because people were violating the law of weekly worship.
"I gave you six days to work, I kept the seventh for myself, and no one wishes to grant it to me," said Mary in September of 1846 to two visionaries.
"This is what weighs down the arm of my Son.
"If the harvest is spoiled, it is only because of the rest of you. I made you see this last year with the potatoes; you took little account of this. It was quite the opposite when you found bad potatoes; you swore oaths, and you included the Name of my Son. They will continue to go bad; at Christmas there will be none left. A great famine will come. Before the famine comes, children under the age of seven will begin to tremble and will die in the arms of those who hold them."
A bit like Exodus?
The Blessed Mother warned that the potatoes would rot and there would be a famine and she said they had been given a warning the previous years when they found some bad potatoes.
Now, they would all be bad, or far more.
And, incredibly: it was the onset of what became known in Ireland and this part of France as well as elsewhere as the Great Potato Famine.
Where a third of potatoes were "bad" the year before in Ireland (afflicted with blight), by the end of 1846 -- the year of the apparition -- three-quarters were thusly ruined.
And while few died in 1846, huge numbers were to succumb during the winter of 1847-1848, when more than a million died in Ireland alone, their bodies weakened and susceptible to diseases like cholera, which, true to Mary's words (which were approved by the Church) caused the young to tremble.
There is a pattern. We are warned. This comes through small "disasters." We heed the warning or are warned again -- this time with more serious events. And so forth.
What is the warning now? Should we note the droughts in Australia and North America? When we look at how weather events have been intensifying we see the same principle -- including with droughts that, as happened with blight, threaten widespread crop shortages. Says 2 Chronicles 36: "Until the land has retrieved its lost Sabbaths, during all the time it lies waste it shall have rest while seventy years are fulfilled."
Right now, corn farmers in the Midwest are praying (as we should also) for rain.
Serious, indeed, especially when we look at our own time and the way the Sabbath is treated now. In the U.S., weekly Mass attendance is at about 22 percent, according to one study.
Is it as bad as back in 1846, in rural France, or worse -- even far worse -- when it comes to disrespect for the Lord?
Keep the Word coming, Daniel. Your posts are a joy!
God was not tired on the 7th day..He did not need a rest.. It was in a sense a 'type" ... We can rest from our works because of Jesus
"This is exactly what happened with these Old Testament shadows, including the Sabbath. When the Lord came, and his work was ended, making possible the true fulfillment of God's intention in the Sabbath, the picture was no longer needed. The weekly sabbath ended at the cross. Paul specifically says this. In the letter to the Colossians he confirms it to us"
. (Hebrews 4:9-10 So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God [it is available to us now]; for whoever enters God's rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his.
Good explanation is found in this article
)
Yesterday found me at my church.. I am not saying that the meeting together for worship is no significance.. but it is not a sin to miss church ...BTW Going to church does not save anyone, or make one a Christian.. .just like sleeping in your garage does not make you a car.. Going to church is a heart matter
“Yesterday found me at my church.. I am not saying that the meeting together for worship is no significance.. but it is not a sin to miss church ...BTW Going to church does not save anyone, or make one a Christian.. .just like sleeping in your garage does not make you a car.. Going to church is a heart matter”
~ ~ ~
Thank you for your reply but I must ask...
Why then are there all these Catholic and Protestant churches which dot the landscape worldwide and why do people mainly go there on a particular day, Sunday? Answer: It’s an act of love and a Commandment.
Yes, it is a sin to miss Church...on Sunday. The Lord’s Day replaces the Sabbath in the New Testament. You must still honor and worship God but now on Sunday in the New Covenant, the “first day of the week” as Scripture says. Church means assembly. Jesus gathered in assembly to worship the Father at the Temple, it was His “custom.” The first Christians assembled to worship God and to “break bread.” This was the first reference to the Eucharist.
Speaking of “types”, the manna in the desert was a “type”, “Manna” prefigured the Eucharist. God fed His people with physical food from Heaven in the Manna. Remember, Jesus said “I am the bread of life”, the “true bread.” Jesus is literally in the New Covenant, our food.
Seee....how much greater in the New Covenant. We receive
God Himself in us receiving the Eucharist.
Exactly! Like a lawyer rests his case, no more to say, he said all that was necessary, he's completed his task, he's done.
Like an artist who puts down his brush, another stroke is not necessary - it's completed, he's done.
We can rest from our works because of Jesus
AMEN! It IS FINISHED. We can't add anything to the finished work of JESUS!
'It's ALL about JESUS' Jesus is THE WORD.
Not in any bible I've ever read...the 7th day (not the first) was created holy: Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
Gen 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
He never changed this and never did this for the 1st day of the week...
>What you seem to fail to understand is that this is not a debate or even a campaign for the hearts and minds of the innocent and ignorant. No preponderance of "evidence" that flies in the face of fundamental truths developed and affirmed over 2,000 years is going to sway anyone away from that truth.
Rather, what you seem to fail to understand is while no amount of evidence may convince one who believes Rome cannot be wrong, the weight of Scriptural warrant, which is not the basis for assurance of the veracity of Rome's doctrines, does convince seekers of truth, and while exposing the presumption of Rome, and false and audacious assertions of some her apologists. Which exposes their desperation.
To God be the glory.
“The more you hold Protestant doctrine up to the light of truth the more the HOLES and FLAWS will become apparent to even the staunchest Protestant apologists.”
~ ~ ~
Here are a few Gospel verses to put “holes” in the heresy of Martin Luther, his “Faith Alone.” Protestants cling to “Faith Alone”, they ignore and will not touch these verses.
1 Peter 1:17
And if you invoke as Father him who, without respect of persons, judgeth according to every one’s work: converse in fear during the time of your sojourning here.
Romans 2:13
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
James 2:24
Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
Colossians 1:10
That you may walk worthy of God, in all things pleasing; being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God:
1 Corinthians 3:13
Every man’s work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is.
Romans 14:5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
~ ~ ~
metmom and PIOS, a heresy strikes again. Romans Chapter 14
speaks of judging not God’s Commandment of keeping the Lord’s Day Holy, gathering in assembly to worship Him on Sunday. One day is not too much to ask.
Easy Protestantism, no requirements. You get to decide.
Romans 14:4-5
Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own lord he standeth or falleth. And he shall stand: for God is able to make him stand. [5] For one judgeth between day and day: and another judgeth every day: let every man abound in his own sense.
[5] Between day: Still observing the sabbaths and festivals of the law.
Protestant's don't have doctrine - they have the WORD OF GOD ALONE - which is THE ONLY TRUTH!
And we know what catholicism thinks of that - their man made doctrine has more authority than God's WORD. Talk about defiance and refusing to HEAR and OBEY! They don't belong to HIM!
Luke 8:21 He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who HEAR GOD'S WORD and OBEY It."
God's WORD ALONE IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY! And The Teacher of God's WORD is His Spirit - THE HOLY SPIRIT.
“Not in any bible I’ve ever read...the 7th day (not the first) was created holy: Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
Gen 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
He never changed this and never did this for the 1st day of the week”...
~ ~ ~
Douglas, I recall two places in the Gospel, it is written the first Christians assembled to worship on the first day of the week.
Christians no longer worship on Saturday But on Sunday since our Lord rose from the dead on a Sunday (John 20:1, Luke 24:1on the First day of the week), thus from then onwards Sunday became the day of Public worship for the apostles as we read in 1Corinthians 16:2 “ On the First day of the week (Sunday) (in Hebrew yom rishon) every one of you must put aside what he can afford, so that collections need not be made after I have come.”
The law to worship God in public one day a week has in no way been violated but rather affirmed and brought to its fullness. This is because all the covenants of the Old Law were given to God’s chosen people to prepare them for the coming of their redeemer who would reign for ever (John 1:45). St. Paul makes this clear saying “ These (former things of the Old Law i.e., New Moons or Sabbaths) were only pale reflections of what was coming; the reality is Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17). As baptism was the fullfilment of the Jewish circumcision (Col 2:11-12) for Christians, so to was Sunday the fullfillment of the Sabbath (Saturday). Christians must never make lightly of the price Christ paid for our redemption as for this reason does St. Paul say “ I wish to know nothing but Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2). The early Church for this reason, adopted Sunday as the day of the Lord (Acts 20:7 “On the first day of the week”) for our faith is not in sum superficial messiah but in Christ the Son of the eternal Father who died for us and rose again on the third day. Christ resurrection is an integral part of our faith as St. Paul puts it “if Christ be not risen, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14). Thus in deed was Saturday substituted for Sunday (with divine approval) since Christ came to “fulfil the law and not abolish it” (Matt 5:17).
Do not flatter yourself by over estimating the power of your rhetoric. You will not succeed where the fathers of the reformation have failed. Their legacy is a chaotic soup of ever divergent doctrines and heresies because they, like you appear to, falsely believed that they could create a truth contrary to God.
Truth and faith do not proceed from premise, nor do they shrink from reason. Logic and argument can lead to the truth, but they cannot create a truth out of whole cloth as the reformation attempted to do. The reformation relied on distortions, fabrications and exclusion of any Scripture or writing it found problematic. Reciting the tired canards of the Reformation in a new forum will not lead to a different result. To realize the Truth you must accept that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.
Peace be with you
It's the POWER of GOD'S WORD. Daniel gives all the praise and honor to God as Christians do when someone recognizes that power!
Of course truth cannot be created out of whole cloth, but, far from your assertion that the "Reformers" attempted to do so, it was, instead, the hierarchy within the Roman Catholic Church which which had left orthodoxy centuries earlier and was guilty of fabrication. All anyone needs to do is look at the schism within Catholicism in the eleventh century which separated the Eastern from the Western catholic faith. Did the Eastern Orthodoxy "fabricate" the doctrine of Papal Infallibility? Did the Eastern Orthodoxy fabricate the doctrine of Roman Papal Primacy? How about Purgatory? Or the Immaculate Conception? Nope, the Roman Catholic Church fabricated those out of whole, or holey, cloth and, rather than admit these doctrines were NOT "always and everywhere held" by the Christian faithful, they fabricated another doctrine that tried to explain the changes as justified because they were part of the "development" of doctrinal understanding within the Church. An "acorn" of sorts that grew into the great oak that is the Roman Catholic Church that determines what IT chooses to BE truth. Far from being that pillar and upholder of truth, the Roman church decided IT was the sole foundation and only what SHE deemed was to be held as truth regardless of what the word of God said. That kettle of fish simmered for another five hundred years and just got smellier and smellier.
Like the EO, the reformers sought to reform or restore the Church BACK to orthodox teachings and purge from it the degradation and abuse that had been seeping into it over centuries and which was shortly to overwhelm it. Many people seem to forget that for the first several centuries, the Christian church was catholic (universal) and believers held to the doctrines of the faith as taught by the Apostles and found in Holy Scripture. The Scriptures were the authority by which to measure what was and was not to be held as truth and there were many Early Church Fathers who held to this as well and wrote such. From the link http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/, we learn:
Every covenant is contained in a canon (like a constitution). The biblical canon is the norm for the history of God’s saving purposes in Christ under the old and new covenants. The Old Testament canon closed with the end of the prophetic era, so that Jesus could mark a sharp division between Scripture and the traditions of the rabbis (Mk 7:8). The New Testament canon was closed at the end of the apostolic era, so that even during that era the Apostle Paul could warn the Corinthians against the “super-apostles” by urging, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Co 4:6). While the apostles were living, the churches were to “maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you” (1 Co 11:2), “…either by our spoken word or by our letter” (2 Th 2:15). There were indeed written and unwritten traditions in the apostolic church, but only those that eventually found their way by the Spirit’s guidance into the New Testament are now for us the apostolic canon. The apostles (extraordinary ministers) laid the foundation and after them workers (ordinary ministers) build on that foundation (1 Co 3:10). The apostles could appeal to their own eye-witness, direct, and immediate vocation given to them by Christ, while they instructed ordinary pastors (like Timothy) to deliver to others what they had received from the apostles. As Calvin noted, Rome and the Anabaptists were ironically similar in that they affirmed a continuing apostolic office. In this way, both in effect made God’s Word subordinate to the supposedly inspired prophets and teachers of today.
Just as the extraordinary office of prophets and apostles is qualitatively distinct from that of ordinary ministers, the constitution (Scripture) is qualitatively distinct from the Spirit-illumined but non-inspired courts (tradition) that interpret it. Thus, Scripture is magisterial in its authority, while the church’s tradition of interpretation is ministerial.
To accept these theses is to embrace sola scriptura, as the Reformation understood it.
This is precisely the view that we find in the church fathers. First, it is clear enough from their descriptions (e.g., the account in Eusebius) that the fathers did not create the canon but received and acknowledged it. (Even Peter acknowledged Paul’s writings as “Scripture” in 2 Peter 3:16, even though Paul clearly says in Galatians that he did not receive his gospel from or seek first the approval of any of the apostles, since he received it directly from Christ.) The criteria they followed indicates this: To be recognized as “Scripture,” a purported book had to be well-attested as coming from the apostolic circle. Those texts that already had the widest and earliest acceptance in public worship were easily recognized by the time Athanasius drew up the first list of all 27 NT books in 367. Before this even, many of these books were being quoted as normative scripture by Clement of Rome, Origin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others. Of his list, Athanasius said that “holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” (NPNF2, 4:23). Also in the 4th century Basil of Caesarea instructed, “Believe those things which are written; the things which are not written, seek not…It is a manifest defection from the faith, a proof of arrogance, either to reject anything of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not” (“On the Holy Spirit,” NPNF2, 8:41). Second, although the fathers also acknowledge tradition as a ministerially authoritative interpreter, they consistently yield ultimate obedience to Scripture. For example, Augustine explains that the Nicene Creed is binding because it summarizes the clear teaching of Scripture (On the Nicene Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens, 1).
Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that the early Christian community in Rome was not unified under a single head. (Paul, for example, reminded Timothy of the gift he was given when the presbytery laid its hands on him in his ordination: 1 Tim 4:14). In fact, in the Roman Catholic-Anglican dialogue the Vatican acknowledged that “the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy” and that they contain “no explicit record of a transmission of Peter’s leadership” (“Authority in the Church” II, ARCIC, para 2, 6). So one has to accept papal authority exclusively on the basis of subsequent (post-apostolic) claims of the Roman bishop, without scriptural warrant. There is no historical succession from Peter to the bishops of Rome. First, as Jerome observed in the 4th-century, “Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders,” and Jerome goes so far as to suggest that the introduction of bishops as a separate order above the presbyters was “more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord” (cited in the Second Helvetic Confession, Ch 18). Interestingly, even the current pope acknowledges that presbyter and episcipos were used interchangeably in the New Testament and in the earliest churches (Called to Communion, 122-123).
Ancient Christian leaders of the East gave special honor to the bishop of Rome, but considered any claim of one bishop’s supremacy to be an act of schism. Even in the West such a privilege was rejected by Gregory the Great in the sixth century. He expressed offense at being addressed by a bishop as “universal pope”: “a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal']….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest” (Gregory I, Letters; tr. NPNF 2 ser.XII. i. 75-76; ii. 170, 171, 179, 166, 169, 222, 225).
Nevertheless, building on the claims of Roman bishops Leo I and Galsius in the 5th century, later bishops of Rome did claim precisely this “proud address.” Declaring themselves Christ’s replacement on earth, they claimed sovereignty (“plenitude of power”) over the world “to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms.” At the Council of Reims (1049) the Latin Church claimed for the pope the title “pontifex universalis“—precisely the title identified by Gregory as identifying one who “in his self-exaltation [is] Antichrist’s precursor….” Is Pope Gregory the Great correct, or are his successors?
Papal pretensions contributed to the Great Schism in 1054, when the churches of the East formally excommunicated the Church of Rome, and the pope reacted in kind.
The Avignon Papacy (1309-76) relocated the throne to France and was followed by the Western Schism (1378-1417), with three rival popes excommunicating each other and their sees. No less than the current Pope wrote, before his enthronement, “For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form–the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution” (Principles of Catholic Theology, 196).
Medieval debates erupted over whether Scripture, popes or councils had the final say. Great theologians like Duns Scotus and Pierre D’Ailly favored sola scriptura. Papalists argued that councils had often erred and contradicted themselves, so you have to have a single voice to arbitrate the infallible truth. Conciliarists had no trouble pointing out historical examples of popes contradicting each other, leading various schisms, and not even troubling to keep their unbelief and reckless immorality private. Only at the Council of Trent was the papalist party officially affirmed in this dispute.
Papal claims were only strengthened in reaction to the Reformation, all the way to the promulgation of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870. At that Council, Pope Pius IX could even respond to modern challenges to his authority by declaring, “I am tradition.” 13.Though inspired by God, Scripture cannot be sufficient. It is a dark, obscure, and mysterious book (rendered more so by Rome’s allegorizing exegesis). An infallible canon needs an infallible interpreter. This has been Rome’s argument. The insufficiency of Scripture rests on its lack of clarity. True it is that the Bible is a collection of texts spread across many centuries, brimming with a variety of histories, poetry, doctrines, apocalyptic, and laws. However, wherever it has been translated in the vernacular and disseminated widely, barely literate people have been able to understand its central message. Contrast this with the libraries full of decreetals and encyclicals, councilor decisions and counter-decisions, bulls and promulgations. Any student of church history recognizes that in this case the teacher is often far more obscure than the text. It’s no wonder that Rome defines faith as fides implicita: taking the church’s word for it. For Rome, faith is not trust in Jesus Christ according to the gospel, but yielding assent and obedience unreservedly simply to everything the church teaches as necessary to salvation. There are many hazards associated with embracing an infallible text without an infallible interpreter. However, the alternative is not greater certainty and clarity about the subject matter, but a sacrifice of the intellect and an abandonment of one’s personal responsibility for one’s commitments to the decisions and acts of others.
Those of us who remain Reformed must examine the Scriptures and the relevant arguments before concluding that Rome’s claims are not justified and its teaching is at variance with crucial biblical doctrines. A Protestant friend in the midst of being swayed by Rome’s arguments exclaims, “That’s exactly why I can’t be a Protestant anymore. Without an infallible magisterium everyone believes whatever he chooses.” At this point, it’s important to distinguish between a radical individualism (believing whatever one chooses) and a personal commitment in view of one’s ultimate authority. My friend may be under the illusion that his or her decision is different from that, but it’s not. In the very act of making the decision to transfer ultimate authority from Scripture to the magisterium, he or she is weighing various biblical passages and theological arguments. The goal (shifting the burden of responsibility from oneself to the church) is contradicted by the method. At this point, one cannot simply surrender to a Reformed church or a Roman church; they must make a decision after careful personal study. We’re both in the same shoes.
Most crucially, Rome’s ambitious claims are tested by its faithfulness to the gospel. If an apostle could pronounce his anathema on anyone—including himself or an angel from heaven—who taught a gospel different from the one he brought to them (Gal 1:8-9), then surely any minister or church body after the apostles is under that threat. First, Paul was not assuming that the true church is beyond the possibility of error. Second, he placed himself under the authority of that Word. Just read the condemnations from the Council of Trent below. Do they square with the clear and obvious teaching of Scripture? If they do not, then the choice to be made is between the infallible writings of the apostles and those after the apostles and since who claim to be the church’s infallible teachers.
The Reformers did NOT set out to destroy the Catholic Church nor did they set out to "create truth contrary to God". This hyper anti-Protestant canard should be seen for what it is. Accusing others of what one is guilty of doing is called hypocrisy. It is also a very GOOD sign of desperation. Genuine seekers of truth will EVEN venture outside of their comfort zones, if necessary, and those who find it - as a pearl of great price - must be willing to let go of false pride and all else that prevents the possessing this precious, priceless gem.
I pray for peace upon you and yours.
Why don’t you leave it in God’s hands to judge?
“Rather, what you seem to fail to understand is while no amount of evidence may convince one who believes Rome cannot be wrong, the weight of Scriptural warrant, which is not the basis for assurance of the veracity of Rome’s doctrines, does convince seekers of truth, and while exposing the presumption of Rome, and false and audacious assertions of some her apologists. Which exposes their desperation.”
~ ~ ~
How silly to say, especially when spending your FR time posting quotes from the Church, Catholic Saints, the Apostolic Fathers to try and prove the Church wrong.
It is a real disconnect, there are no Protestants to quote until 1517~~``!! The big guy is overused, the one you try to slip in there to look legitimate, Constantine. Didn’t his beloved mother St. Helena find the true Cross? Yes.
I challenge you to watch the Youtube I posted. I posted it for you. Please tell me your thoughts once you watch it Daniel.
PPllleeeeaaaasse.
blessings,
Brent Stubbs, former Pentecostal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CypJuCjn5FE
Each and every one of us knows exactly what our relationship with God and our salvation is... truly we do... it is a very up close and personal relationship.... some seek to run from their ultimate judgment and get others to "accept" their sinful ways (GLBT..comes to mind).
The final word comes from God and that is that... all that needs to be said. No parsing.
There were no denominations - that's a man made thing.
They were TRUE BELIEVERS just like they are today. And we quote GOD!!
“Why don’t you leave it in God’s hands to judge?”
~ ~ ~
Hi, it’s not about judgment. Jesus tells you to shout it from the rooftop, you can’t remain silent especially in a time when there is so little faith in the world.
Prayer and worship is a way God comes to us too. There is
a benefit to the faithful gathering together to worship Him and making one day special for God.
It’s Scriptural Jesus went to the Temple, (He wasn’t alone there) to worship the Father with fellow believers and we follow His example. Now, that includes worshiping Our Lord, Our Savior. Important, and do not forget, God the Holy Spirit.
It is a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday. God doesn’t hold
non-Catholic Christians to keeping the Lord’s Day holy?
People do not want to go to Church and make every excuse.
Easy Protestantism. And to be fair, sometime Catholics too.
there are no Protestants to quote until 1517
“There were no denominations - that’s a man made thing.
They were TRUE BELIEVERS just like they are today. And we quote GOD!!”
~ ~ ~
Well, “denomination” is Protestant term for your thousands
of splits, it’s not a Catholic word. There are so many
splits and inconsistent beliefs, you all came up with a new
word for more splits...”non-denomination~!”
It’s not very mature, you gotta name your source. Good friend Daniel doesn’t quote any Protestants, give their names and their validation of Protestant heresies before 1517. Why? The Church, singular, is Roman Catholic. He quotes constantly, names them, Catholic saints from the beginning, since 33 A.D. Seee...you’re so sweet...’TRUE BELIEVERS’...doesn’t cut it.
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.