Vanishing Catholics

hprweb ^ | December 23, 2013 | FR. WILLIAM P. CLARK, OMI

[wmfights]

Your point about Evangelicals not defending their churches seems reasonable. They do not derive apostolic authority or tradition from them. They are not claiming to be the one true church and the doctrines held by that church are largely a result of either the personal leadership of the pastor and/or the popular demand of the members.

D1212, this response is a good example of what that RC poster meant. They will defend their church no matter what because for them it is their faith.

Vet, we don't need any of those earthly creations. Evangelical Christians are the Body of Christ. We are to be His bride. Our doctrines are not given to us by a group of men. Our doctrines have been given to us by God in His Word.

[daniel1212]

Do you know that people have survived on the Holy Eucharist for days upon days? No other food. Just the Eucharist.

Even if this could be proved, Scripture is the supreme judge, with miracles attesting to it. And Scripture nowhere teaching gaining spiritual life in oneself by physically eating, nor is that how Jesus lived by the Father, which is taught believes likewise live by Him. (Jn. 6:57; cf. Mt. 4:4; Jn. 4:34)

And your claim has competition you would rather not have.

http://trak.in/tags/business/2010/05/01/india-yogi-survives-70yrs-without-food-water/: An Indian Yogi named as Pralhad Jani  claims that he has not had food or water for 70 years. He is now 82 years old and quite healthy.

Although, the claim for not eating or drinking for 70 years is unsubstantiated, he has been kept in one of the Indian hospitals to study how he can do that. He has been in hospital for past 8 days and has not touched water or food and appears to be in great health.

Next, read "New Age Medicine " by two Christian doctors of cases in S. America and you will realize how the devil can do miracles, and even the 1st 3 miracles of Moses were duplicated by the magicians

[Mrs. Don-o]

I know you know--- then there ya go! Jesus Christ is the answer to your question, "Why bother?"

By the way... I always wondered about those bumper stickers that say "Jesus is the answer." Now I feel much better because you --- thank you --- supplied the applicable question! ;o)

[CTrent1564]

redleghunter:

You are reading into the post your own theological views. I think I clearly said that Kennedy, in order to have a Catholic Burial, died in communion with the Church meaning he had to have had the Sacrament of Confession towards the end of his life. I also listed out the 7 things that incur the informal excommunication, which include promoting heresy and schism. If it is Salvations contention that Kennedy, by his actions, was promoting heresy, and I think a case can be made that he was promoting heresy thus causing defacto schism, even though he did not ever leave the Catholic Church formally, and thus he was informally excommunicated.

Now with all that I said before, Catholic Doctrine teaches that God’s Grace is fully given thru the Sacraments and it is the fullest way and normative way God provides Grace to Sinners. Thus, if Kennedy made a Confession and Act of Contrition, then he died at Peace with God and the Church and could under all aspects of Church Law be given a Catholic burial. Now, how grand of a one if a matter of opinion.

In addition, and this is just my two cents on the issue, one would think Ole Teddy had some Purgatorial Fire to sort of go thru before he fully enjoyed the Beatific Vision with all the Angels and Saints in Heaven. This is of course is again, just my speculation, for as I said in an earlier, Only God new the state of Ole Teddy’s heart and soul when he passed.

In addition, the point of the thread is not to debate easy believism and turn this into a debate over soteriology. Nothing I posted contradicts the Catholic Doctrine of Justification and in the end, despite the differences in the process of Justification, all Christendom holds that it is God’s Grace that saves [Catholic, Orthodox and various Protestant and Evangelical Christians]. So nothing I said contradicts that basic principle.

[Salvation]

This appears to be a non-Catholic website, with no back up on their claims.

Move on, folks.

[Salvation]

Good grief, haven’t you ever been to a Catholic Mass? Half of the Mass is Scripture filled.

And then I would like to take you for a walk through the priest’s Roman missal, where there are so many biblical quotes.

Truly amazing.

[daniel1212]

So you have chosen the NON-Belief of JUDAS over what Jesus explicitly taught? Seems to be a major LOGIC FAIL.

You are begging the question, assuming what is not established.

What part of “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you” don’t you get?

So to be consistent with your interpretation, you must hold that those who do not believe in the "Real Presence" cannot have life within them, thus they are spiritually dead, and cannot have eternal life. Affirm or deny, and your source for the veracity of this interpretation.

Your problem is that physically eating anything is not what Scripture teaches is the means by which man obtains life in himself, but by believing God's word, which the Lord explicitly taught man was to live by, (Mt. 4:4) and thus doing His will was His "meat." Thus.

As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (John 6:57)

And thus souls were made alive within by believing the gospel, (Eph. 1:13; 2:1,5; Acts 15:7-9) and live by Christ by living according to His word.

And thus, since the Lord would "ascend up where he was before." and not be physically present again until His return, then He concluded,

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)

If you want to ignore the metaphors John uses in most every chapter, and the metaphorical use of eating and drinking, then you can arrive at whatever conclusion you want . Including that of

in 2Sam. 23:15-17, wherein we read, “And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD. And he said, Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men.” Here, David equates the water obtained at the peril of the men's life (blood representing life: Lv. 17:11), with that of their lives themselves. In like use of metaphor, the Lord Jesus in the Lord's supper accounts is holding up bread and wine as a “picture”” of Himself, illustrating that just as such life physical giving substances could be broken and poured out, so would His body be “broken,” and His precious sinless blood be “poured out “ in offering a ransom for many (Mk. 10:45).

Other examples in which your literalism could be compelled include,

When the fearful Israelites exclaimed that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof;” or when Joshua exhorted the Israelites, “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 13:32; 14:9), it is not to be supposed that the land or the Israelites would become cannibals. And when Jeremiah proclaims, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart" (Jer. 15:16), or Ezekiel is told, "eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel" (Ezek. 3:1), or (in a phrase most similar to the Lord's supper) John is commanded, "Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it" (Rev. 10:8-9 ), then it is not speaking of literal eating. And it is certain that cannibalism was not looked upon favorably in Israel, and is only portrayed negatively, even metaphorically, as David declared, "When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell." (Psa 27:2)

[BlatherNaut]

Funny, my experience isn't like that. Just the opposite. My parish is crammed full with women, women of all ages. Problem is, where are the men?

At the Tridentine Mass.

Lots of single men of all ages alongside young families with many children.

[Salvation]

Check it out, everyone, "A Biblical Walk through the Mass by Edward Sri.

[daniel1212]

I used to wonder why so many RC's twist themselves into knots defending their church. A RC cleared it up for me he said "defending our church is defending our faith".

for some it seems more like, "defending our church is defending our god," for to believe in God is to believe in Rome, as Cardinal Law told me, and it is their supreme manifest object of allegiance and devotion, source of security.

Our faith is in Jesus Christ. Our churches are assemblies in which we worship and fellowship with other believers.

Which is why we can easily fellowship with other evangelical churches, as we share a common Scripture-based conversion and relationship with Christ.

Watch how RC's twist all reporting of their new Pope so he doesn't seem to be so much of a lefty. One thing you won't see is them condemn him, or their church.

Or what the manifest sectarianism which the pope is actually supposed to be the solution for.

[Salvation]

You are still a Catholic and can come home at any time. Just sit down with a priest and get your questions answered.

[piusv]

Where are you getting that conclusion? It looks Catholic to me.

[CTrent1564]

ansel112:

If what you mean is Formally excommunicated, then no he was not formally excommunicated. As I said in an earlier post, that type of excommunication process involves a Catholic Canon Law hearing with Catholic Theologians and scholars having a hearing. This type of excommunication process is always used when a Bishop or Priest is promoting heresy or schism.

The canonical effects of excommunication have always been sacramental and governmental, so a Catholic excommunicated is not to participate in the sacraments. However, as the New Catholic Encyclopedia states (p. 404), the spiritual and eschatological effects, contrary to public perception were and are rather limited. Excommunication is a penal exclusion of the faithful from the Christian community but its goal is to sort of allegorically knock some sense back into the individual to confess ones sins to restore communion with the Church and God.

As I stated earlier, there are 2 forms of excommunication 1) ferendae sententiae [involves a formal canonical process] and 2) latae sententiae [automatic]. Canon 1364 states apostasy, heresy and schism incurs automatic excommunication. Now the theological question here is whether Kennedy’s views as a politician constitute promoting schism or heresy. If a Bishop was doing what he was doing, there is no doubt he would be excommunicated. As a layperson, there is difference of opinion. Salvations view is that Kennedy’s position and public name put him under Canon 1364 and Salvation may be correct. I really don’t have a definitive answer on this as I am only part of the Catholic Laity.

Still, if one takes the position that Kennedy had, by his public political positions, excommunicated himself, that would not prevent him from having a Catholic Funeral, assuming of course, he made a good Sacrament of Reconciliation/Confession and Act of Contrition towards the end of his life.

And despite my political differences with Ole Teddy, I hope for the sake of his Soul that he responded to God’s Mercy and Love and did in fact make a good Confession.

[trebb]

Prayers are always welcome - I don't believe I am disregarding the truth. It is by faith alone that we are saved - faith in God and Jesus, not in men.

I believe that the Catholic Church has done more to carry the message to more people than any other religious institution; I just don't believe that religion is necessary. Once we have heard and accepted the Word and reality of His Grace, it is our ob to carry the message - you do that and I love that you do. As long as you have the meat of the message in your own heart/life, your religion is fine for you. I believe the Blood and Word of Christ is enough without the need for organized religion - the Bible has all the info that is needed to find Salvation. If religion aids you in your spiritual journey, have at it.

God Bless and than you for the prayers. I am returning them and only asking that the Holy Spirit remains solidly in your heart and inspires you to continue with the message of eternal life through His Blood and our acknowledgement/desire/faith that He IS!

I often get into "discussions" with those of various faiths and while I may come across as antagonistic, my goal is to keep Him in our thoughts and to prompt others (those I "discuss" things with and those who may only "eavesdrop") to think on the message.

[trebb]

You are still a Catholic and can come home at any time. Just sit down with a priest and get your questions answered.

Thank you for the continuing kindness despite my sometimes (OK most of the time) antagonistic/brash manners. I believe that I have been saved by His Blood and my acknowledgement of His Grace and do not need religious/human intercession. I know my sinful nature and I believe His promise of life everlasting. He is enough for me and I do not tire of hearing/discussing His existence/love/sacrifice.

I appreciate you, NYC(?) and others who continue to post items of faith. God Bless

[BlatherNaut]

Your average Catholic Mass has all the joy of homeroom.

It's a given that in many places innovations and egos have sadly transformed the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass into a banal, superficially de-sacralized and sometimes even torturous experience. But how sad if revulsion over the modernist vandalism and exhibitionism that has occurred in God's house should ever dissuade us from continuing to visit Him there.

[BlatherNaut]

Excellent summation. This sad trajectory will continue until the confusion unleashed as a result of Vatican II is dealt with. Since it was a Pastoral rather than Dogmatic council, the documents need to be revisited, clarified and reconciled with Tradition in order to eliminate the errors that have resulted from the ambiguities they contain. Ralph Martin has written an interesting book on this subject (Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization) which is a study of “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus”.

[Salvation]

Sounds like a good book.

[Salvation]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3106141/posts?page=189#189

[AllAmericanGirl44]

Of all the responses on this thread, yours spoke to me and rang true. Thank you for putting into words that which I too have felt but was unable to clarify.