Posted on 03/30/2019 8:12:59 AM PDT by Salvation
Try posting an article about sexual abuse in whatever faith you claim to have. I post about the sex abuse problem in the Catholic Church. I could care less about any other faith and their problems. Because they all have them. The only postings I have ever seen you make are critical of the Catholic Church. Try being concerned with your own faith for a change.
“For identifying as a Catholic.”
Anyone who woulld make such a mean-spirited remark has anger issues they need to deal with. Find out where that hatred comes from and get right with the Lord. Letting your anger control you is not good for your health.
The Old Law was not replaced by the New Covenant until He was crucified/died/was risen from the dead...also, don’t forget what He called the 2 great commandments...Love God with all you are and love your neighbor...for where there is love, there is no harm and that in and of itself fulfills the intent of the law.
YOUR COMMENT: “You can find NOTHING in the New Covenant of the Bible that says the sacrament of reconciliation can save you. You are steeped in false doctrine.”
Perhaps you make this false statement without fully understanding the Bible or are relying on false teachers?
All pardon for sins ultimately comes from Christ’s finished work on Calvary, but how is this pardon received by individuals? Did Christ leave us any means within the Church to take away sin? The Bible says he gave us two means.
Baptism was given to take away the sin inherited from Adam (original sin) and any sins we personally committed before baptism—sins we personally commit are called actual sins, because they come from our own acts. Thus on the day of Pentecost, Peter told the crowds, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38), and when Paul was baptized he was told, “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). And so Peter later wrote, “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21).
For sins committed after baptism, a different sacrament is needed. It has been called penance, confession, and reconciliation, each word emphasizing one of its.aspects. During his life, Christ forgave sins, as in the case of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11) and the woman who anointed his feet (Luke 7:48). He exercised this power in his human capacity as the Messiah or Son of man, telling us, “the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Matt. 9:6), which is why the Gospel writer himself explains that God “had given such authority to men” (Matt. 9:8).
Since he would not always be with the Church visibly, Christ gave this power to other men so the Church, which is the continuation of his presence throughout time (Matt. 28:20), would be able to offer forgiveness to future generations. He gave his power to the apostles, and it was a power that could be passed on to their successors and agents, since the apostles wouldn’t always be on earth either, but people would still be sinning.
God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, “‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (John 20:21–23). (This is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being in Genesis 2:7, when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.)
The Commission
Christ told the apostles to follow his example: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). Just as the apostles were to carry Christ’s message to the whole world, so they were to carry his forgiveness: “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).
This power was understood as coming from God: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, “So we are ambassadors for Christ” (2 Cor. 5:20).
Some say that any power given to the apostles died with them. Not so. Some powers must have, such as the ability to write Scripture. But the powers necessary to maintain the Church as a living, spiritual society had to be passed down from generation to generation. If they ceased, the Church would cease, except as a quaint abstraction. Christ ordered the apostles to, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.” It would take much time. And he promised them assistance: “Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Matt. 28:19–20).
If the disciples believed that Christ instituted the power to sacramentally forgive sins in his stead, we would expect the apostles’ successors—the bishops—and Christians of later years to act as though such power was legitimately and habitually exercised. If, on the other hand, the sacramental forgiveness of sins was what Fundamentalists term it, an “invention,” and if it was something foisted upon the young Church by ecclesiastical or political leaders, we’d expect to find records of protest. In fact, in early Christian writings we find no sign of protests concerning sacramental forgiveness of sins. Quite the contrary. We find confessing to a priest was accepted as part of the original deposit of faith handed down from the apostles.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-forgiveness-of-sins
Your comment:”The Word of God says that regardless of what your church says, if you’ve received the person of Jesus Christ as your Savior, you are saved. If not, you are lost.”
Please show where this salvation is guaranteed in the Bible?
You may wish to read the following article for a different explanation:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/assurance-of-salvation
Does one who receives Jesus but not accept all of His teachings completely receive Jesus still guaranteed salvation?
Matthew 19:12 Jesus says “ Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”
One has to enter into marriage with free will and a full understanding of what it entails.
Did you voice all of your anti Catholicism? The Our Father says we need forgive our trespassers. Please pray for our priests so that they conquer temptation and sin.I will continue to pray for your return God’s Church.
and it wasn’t what was implied!
“Some ritual your or some church made up can NEVER save you or anyone else. Adding anything to Christ for your salvation is heresy and false doctrine and twice cursed (Galatians 1:8-9).
+1
“All pardon for sins ultimately comes from Christ’s finished work on Calvary, but how is this pardon received by individuals?”
Only and always directly from Christ, in response to the sincere and repentant heart that turns to Him alone for salvation and forgiveness.
“Baptism was given to take away the sin inherited from Adam (original sin)
Not in Scripture.
“For sins committed after baptism, a different sacrament is needed.”
Not in Scripture.
“and it was a power that could be passed on to their successors and agents
Not in Scripture.
“Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).”
Greek: “has already been forgiven.”
“If the disciples believed that Christ instituted the power to sacramentally forgive sins in his stead,”
They did not.
May you truly find the Truth of God. Your statements are factually false. What will it take for you to truly understand and accept the Word of God?
Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).
Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), “We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”
And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]” (CCC 1257).
https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-necessity-of-baptism
Have the last word. From your comments it is apparent you always do. I will consider it my free hug for today. God Bless.
“May you truly find the Truth of God. Your statements are factually false.“
I thank God for His Indescribable Gift of Christ and forgiveness of all sin and eternal life.
His Word records all that a soul needs for salvation and maturity.
Unfortunately, not a single passage you referred to means what you claim. No doubt somewhere told you that. They misled you.
“Christians have always...”
No, but it would be entertaining to see someone try to prove that universal claim.
“Thus the early Church Fathers wrote...”
Who were not inspired, nor authoritative.
“And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states”
Not inspired, nor authoritative.
Any one can come to Jesus Christ, but becoming a member of the early church was a different ball game.
Does any one read about what the early members did to become members? does any one read that the members
became workmen for the church and gave their life to it?
Does any one even have a hint of what a church member was or do they even give a dam?
This phoney church member stuff today makes me sick.
:) ((((Hugs))))
I didn’t say what you posted at the beginning of your article, the article did. But, I know it is true because I worked at the Seattle Law Firm that handled the defense of the Catholic priests who were accused of doing this to the boys in Seattle. The evidence showed they were guilty as SIN!!! But, in the end, they settled the cases. The families got some money, but the boys were left to suffer the remainder of their lives. Most times mom and dad pocket the cash and rarely get the kids help. They are left to deal with it theirselves, told to suck it up and “be a man.” Then mom and dad buy that new car and tell him to enjoy riding around in it. I always believed the money should be placed in an account and given to the boys when they were of legal age. I saw WAY to many cases where mom and dad were pocketing the cash and the kids got nothing. Same with Hollyweird young children stars where mom and dad made a living off the kids money. The parents think the kid should support them instead of the other way around.
There is certainly something rotten in Denmark. Yet while the pederasty crisis caused hand-wringing and soul-searching, we felt "ok" that new management - Benedict - would clean the Augean stables.
Then the Pontificate of Francis commenced and this latest fiasco (which is less about children - though some of that madness remains sadly - and more about young adults) came along...yet this time we didn't get a confession but we got excuses. Worse yet, we got lies posing as truth, not just on earthly things ("I never knew he was a predator...") but dogma ("actually Jesus didn't mean what he said about divorce"). But you know people - indeed, Jefferson hinted as much in the Declaration in the "suffer injustices" section...you don't want to believe the horror, you want to trust the Church (though many just felt in their heart that we were being had).
Then the Viganò letters came out - evidence of the rot in Denmark! NOW this is getting YUGE attention among the layity. THAT is what is scaring the bureaucrats in DC and the Vatican. We "little people" KNOW what you're doing, and we will withhold money from you and call you out. Indeed, our good FRiend Mrs Don-O writes her Bishop (or did for a while) frequently on this matter.
My point in all this, is that Catholics do not worship the Pope, or generally follow their leadership like lemmings any more than any other Christian. In fact, I see lots of Christians who don't follow any church get into heated debates about Scripture - none of us can get along! Seriously, those who stay with the Church do so not out of blind obedience or in support of the bad guys, but because our salvation is tied to Truth which transcends the bad guys. Just like I didn't leave America when Obama was Presdent, I'll stay a Catholic through these tough times.
Meaning that Catholicism not only presumed that the actual act of baptism effected regeneration, even without the Scriptural requirement of repentant personal faith (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) - thus resulting in unregenerate members as children, but what it required for converts was not Biblical faith in the evangelical gospel of heart-purifying justifying regenerating faith. (Acts 10:36-47; 15:7-9) but indoctrination into Catholicism,
with her distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels, which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation);
In Scripture baptism and conversion always go together, though it is the conversionary faith that baptism requires and expresses that precedes baptism, (Acts 10:43-47) though that can be the occasion of effectual believing.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (Acts 10:43-44)
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (Acts 10:45-47)
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12)
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:4-5)
Meaning that you must believe "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." (Matthew 12:31)
For claiming that Jesus Christ is present within each and every Catholic Church and parishioner is indeed blasphemy. For besides the delusion that the actual act of baptism effects regeneration even without the Scripturally required repentant faith, and the fantasy of the metaphysical Catholic Eucharist . it is even contrary to the Catholic teaching that "the indwelling of the Holy Spirit can be lost when a person is not in friendship with God in a state of grace, " (John A. Hardon: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_031.htm; https://catholicexchange.com/gift-holy-spirit-divine-indwelling)
Yet would you agree that the Holy Spirit can be present within evangelical SS Prots and working in their churches?
You mean opposing what adherent believe necessarily equates to hating them, like as liberals charge of those who oppose the homosexual agenda?
You mean its about an elitist serf-proclaimed "one true church" church that historically damned all without her and presently asserts that Prot churches are not worthy of the proper name "church?"
And which church attracts challenges due to provocative posts by her promoters. Would you complain about gaining attention by holding up a golf club on the green during a t-storm?
Yes if you are baptized as a infant then you can be a Ted Kennedy (who got a nice letter from the pope while showing no repentance) Catholic and still be manifestly considered to be a member in life and in death.
Yet if such becomes an evangelical Prot then real concern is shown, and who is attacked if he disagrees with Rome based on Scripture.
Considering the multiple conditions*, many enabling subjective judgment, under which Rome can declare a marriage never existed, and in the light of what she has annulled, then it potentially means multitudes of Catholics are not validly married, even though Rome does not consider them so until she says they are.
*
marriage that excluded at the time of the wedding the right to children, or to a permanent marriage, or to an exclusive commitment.
In addition, there are youthful marriages;
marriages of very short duration;
marriages marked by serious emotional, physical, or substance abuse;
deviant sexual practices;
profound and consistent irresponsibility and lack of commitment;
conditional consent to a marriage;
fraud or deceit to elicit spousal consent;
serious mental illness; or a previous bond of marriage.
- www.arlingtondiocese.org/tribunal/faq.php#Grounds
Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;
2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;
3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature [all are judgment calls which can see varying verdicts].
List of diriment impediments to marriage
Age.[6] If the man is under 16 years of age, or the woman is under 14 years of age, then their marriage is invalid. This is an ecclesiastical impediment, and so does not apply to a marriage between two non-Catholics. However, note that in a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, the age limitation applies to the non-Catholic party as well.[7]
Physical capacity for consummation lacking [15]. Per Canon 1084 §3 "Without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage." Both parties, however, must be physically capable of completed vaginal intercourse, wherein the man ejaculates "true semen" into the woman's vagina. (See [1] for details.)
To invalidate a marriage, the impotence must be perpetual (i.e., incurable) and antecedent to the marriage. The impotence can either be absolute or relative. This impediment is generally considered to derive from divine natural law, and so cannot be dispensed.[16] The reason behind this impediment is explained in the Summa Theologica:[17]
“In marriage there is a contract whereby one is bound to pay the other the marital debt: wherefore just as in other contracts, the bond is unfitting if a person bind himself to what he cannot give or do, so the marriage contract is unfitting, if it be made by one who cannot pay the marital debt.”
Previous marriage [18]. Previous marriages, whether conducted in the Catholic Church, in another church, or by the State. All previous attempts at marriage by both parties wishing to marry must be declared null prior to a wedding in the Catholic Church, without regard to the religion of the party previously married. Divine, absolute, temporary.
Disparity of cult [19]. A marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized person is invalid, unless this impediment is dispensed by the local ordinary. Ecclesiastical, relative.
Sacred orders [20]. One of the parties has received sacred orders. Ecclesiastical, absolute, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).
Perpetual vow of chastity [21]. One of the parties has made a public perpetual vow of chastity. Ecclesiastical, absolute, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).
Abduction [22]. One of the parties, usually the woman, has been abducted with the view of contracting marriage.
Ecclesiastical,[citation needed] temporary.
Crimen [23]. One or both of the parties has brought about the death of a spouse with the view of entering marriage with each other. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).
Consanguinity [24]. The parties are closely related by blood.
Ecclesiastical or divine, depending on the degree of relationship. Relative, permanent.
Affinity [25]. The parties are related by marriage in a prohibited degree. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.
Public propriety [26]. The parties are "related" by notorious concubinage. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.
Adoption [27]. The parties are related by adoption. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.
Spiritual relationship [28]. One of the parties is the godparent of the other. This no longer applies in the Latin Rite, but still applies in the Eastern Catholic Churches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment#List_of_diriment_impediments_to_marriage
And then there is Petrine/Pauline Privilege referred to above , plus past RC teaching which required married priests to put away their wives, in stark contrast to Scripture in which the normative marital state of the apostles and pastors was that of being married. (1Co. 9:5; 1Tim. 3:1-7)
Rome also considers entering marriage with the intention of never having children to be a "grave wrong and more than likely grounds for an annulment."[McLachlan, P. "Sacrament of Holy Matrimony." http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu164.htm], while praying to a women who they claim went thru with a marriage intending to do just that.
Thus while on one Catholics (erroneously) claim that the historical teaching of their church has rejected any provision for the lawful dissolution of marriage, on the other hand she simply can say there was no marriage in the first place, based upon rules that are so subjective that it is reported that a bishop said, "There is not a marriage in America that we cannot annul."
A SSPV (which has their own problems) site concludes,
68% of annulments today [dated] are granted because of "defective consent," which involves at least one of the parties not having sufficient knowledge or maturity to know what was involved in marriage. The ingenuity of judges in confidently asserting that such knowledge or maturity was lacking is amazing. Vasoli says that it is done by substituting "junk psychology" for sound psychology and psychiatry. (www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/28_Annulments.pdf)
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.