Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
Just want to say first hand, Cynical that this is not the first time you and I have had “discussions” on this forum and each time has been very respectful and interesting. I thank you for that.
You ask a good question as to “which is it” and the answer is very simple. We have been discussing how Catholic doctrine could be supported in Scripture though not specifically spoken of there.
Scripture specifically mentions meeting on Sunday to break bread. In Acts 20 they have met to break bread and Paul is speaking to them. The sermon is lengthy but Paul does not forget to break bread before he finishes. Breaking bread is used many time in Scripture and it refers to the Eucharistic meal. Though the new believers met daily to do this and Sunday is one of those days. Then Paul suggests that collections be taken every Sunday.
Jesus rose on Sunday, and first appeared to the Apostles on that Sunday and the subsequent one.
I did not say that Scripture called Sunday the Lord’s Day, I said that it came to be called that after John’s Revelations. The resurrection and the second coming are bound together and the breaking of the bread or the Mass as it is now called have evolved such that much of the Mass can be traced to Revelations and John’s vision of heavenly worship. Scott Hahn has a great book regarding that topic.
The point for this discussion however, was that Sunday worship is Scriptural. It was the tradition of the early Church that eventually led to Sunday being the day of Christian worship. It is not an establishment of man, but of His Church. It began when Jesus appeared to the Apostles on Sunday and evolved to what we have now. For the reasons I stated, Sunday became known as the Lord’s day and the breaking of the bread, the Eucharistic Mass became known as the Lord’s Supper.
Now as to paganism being the root of these things, in particular what you have said here, what follows is MY opinion regarding it. An opinion that has developed because of similar charges by nonChristians and atheists regarding the very story of Christ and Christianity which I have seen and read before.
As God has created all things, all things belong to Him to use for His will. All things work to the good of those who love Him as Scripture says and I accept that.
I see paganism, as well as other religious practices and other religions as proof that all of God’s creation desires to know Him and worship Him, because He is the one true God.
Throughout the history of man, in every age in every place the people have sought the same thing we seek. That is to know our Creator.
None of us does so perfectly and much of it is wrong, but the desire of our hearts is sincere in its longing.
God has written His law on our hearts and we cannot help but want to know Him, to praise Him and to please Him. As St. Augustine said so well in his Confessions, “You have created us for yourself Lord, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in You.”
God revealed Himself to the Jews and through them He has given us our Savior. We may know Him because of Jesus and for this, I am grateful.
My love and praise may be imperfect, as I am imperfect, but I am made perfect through Christ whom I believe works in me and in His Church and has made all things new.
As I said, just my own thoughts on it.
co-
— prefix
1. together; joint or jointly; mutual or mutually: coproduction
2. indicating partnership or equality: cofounder ; copilot
3. to the same or a similar degree: coextend
4. (in mathematics and astronomy) of the complement of an angle: cosecant ; codeclination
[from Latin, reduced form of com- ]
From this dictionary, I’d say you really don’t know, or you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes...
Co-redeemer in English does NOT mean with...It means joint or jointly, equality...
So now we really do know what you mean when you say co-redeemer...And Mary ain’t it...
INDEED . . . keeping in mind that they go by the weasel worded DAFFYNITIONARY and the flipfloppy meaning switches whenever convenient.
Greater than 90% of the people I serve, with my sister cooks and workers, are non-Catholic. And some of them come in drunk and preach it. I always fondly think of iscool. There are always little comic book tracts left laying around on the tables when I wipe them down. People get all they want to eat, as long as they stay and we still have food.
I wasn’t talking about the people you serve. I was talking about the people on this Religious Forum. They have the same qualities we spoke of in the last post. But they may not be Catholic. To dismiss them (those on this forum) on a regular basis as haters of Catholics or too mean to care about is about as wrong as a person can get. This is where the back and forth insults come about.
That's a new one to me...
1. I pleaded and begged you. But I didn’t demand.
According to YOU.
Now, you sound like a perfectly helpful person in your community.
But say, some people want two meals per day.
They can buy one, cook one themselves from the food we provide from the pantry, or they can go to the shelter.
And are you the one who tells them they are breaking the rules by asking for more than is allowed.
That's pretty ugly thing to say. I thought I already said they can eat as much as they want, take some home, and feed their entire family. If I didn't, there it is now.
Do you have any idea what I’m trying to get at here?
Sure, you're trying to make it seem like I'm a stingy food hoarder who wants to starve the poor because I don't like you. You're a poseur, I put my knuckles on the buster for the poor.Because we are definitely on different planes.
I admire your hard work, dedication, and tenacity.
Hmmm, then why don't I have that "admired" feeling?
But others have the same qualities. And they may not be Catholic.
Didn't I say all the churches in town do this on separate days?
To dismiss them on a regular basis as haters of Catholics or too mean to care about is about as wrong as a person can get.
I genuinely think that there are people who hate the Catholic Church so much that if they helped us prepare meals for the poor, they'd ruin them just to give us a bad name. And with that comes the back and forth insults. Have a nice day. smvoice
Would you mind sharing the list with the rest of us?
You deduced from that post that I was accusing you of being a stingy food hoarder that wants to starve people because "I don't like you"...?....?
really....{sigh}
Would you care to discuss the great number of documented, authenticated miracles within the Church and the paucity of them within non-Catholic circles?
I don’t play by y’all’s DAFFYNITIONARY.
They are called the BEATITUDES, NOT the ATTITUDES.
LOL.
INDEED.
Another thorough-going
100% inaccuracy.
Because he is keeping files on each of us and must ensure that the cross references are maintained and current for immediate retrieval should an opportunity to bash a Catholic or the Church arise.
And not true either.
However, when we do bring up miracles, they are dissed as unreliable or unsubstantiated because the RCC didn’t validate them, even if there are tests and scans that prove otherwise.
Why not just ask to be put on?
I’d like some company.
You are too kind...Christian love just flows out of you...
Those are all words I use in the archaic sense. "Prevent" too!
(Yeah, sometimes people look at me funny....)
You just nailed one of my habits, I'm afraid. I don't even know the modern sense of "villa". "Farmhouse"?
You may have noticed that I slip into the Coverdale Psalter and the KJV -- though I'm beginning to shake that.
My wife says it's because I when I was learning to speak I was learning two languages at once, AND my mother spoke English Enlgish while my father spoke Amurrican.
Anyway, when I hear or use an obviously Latinate word, my mind usually goes to the Latin meaning. So when I hear "co-" even in an English word, I think of "with", not "equal with". Of course, I guess my first encounter with the prefix was "co-pilot" whom i always thought to be subordinate to the pilot. They're not BOTH co-pilots, after all.
I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying I'm me.
BUT ....
I just got done saying that my Church does that too. Too darn much IMHO.
Having a jargon in usage within a group is common enough but it cannot be expected that others accept the usages peculiar to that group without explanation.
I think that's right. We do owe an explanation. I do find myself in RCIA (inquirer's classes) reminding the other teachers that a lot of poeple don't talk Catholic, and, when I am talking, referring often to 'Catholic lingo.'
But after I have "testified" to its meaning in the jargon, THEN I think it's the burden of the other side to show I mean something else. How about that?
It IS our fault that we're misunderstood before the explanation, but when people insist, AFTER the explanation that we mean Mary is equal to Jesus when we obviously don't mean anything of the kind, that's not reasonable.
Come to think of it, what would your side say about "co-pilot"?
LOL! I think it would be faster if she named the people who WEREN’T on it! I’m not sure if I’m on or not now. Maybe I’m just leaning toward getting there. Heck, I didn’t even know there WAS a list. Where do we sign up?
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.