Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ] |
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: Catie................... -- Joan, 12:29:01 03/04/08 Tue [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
Catie, you talk to your Catholic friend about religion, but I think you don't listen. :)
Catholics don't believe that the priest is the one who forgives sins. Only God forgives sins. I'm sure that your friend has told you that. :)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Joan you are exactly right. Peg says -- Catie, 14:33:30 03/04/08 Tue [1] (h23.55.90.75.ip.alltel.net/75.90.55.23)
It is not the priests that do the forgiving. They intercede. Her famous words to me always are "Confession is good for the soul" She makes it hard to argue that point. Still, I am a firm protestant against going to a man and telling him (or her) my thoughts and deeds. I mean a bad thing I did this week was want to murder someone who dangerously and purposely cut us off in traffic. Maybe not murder, but boy I'd like to of had my say with him. I became super angry. BUT murder IS against God's law. So I had to repent. I'm being honest. :)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Joan you are exactly right. Peg says -- Joan, 05:50:20 03/05/08 Wed [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
Yeah, it's good for the soul, but I hate those confessionals. I much prefer face-to-face confession. I guess some people think it's easier to confess if they can't see the priest. IMO, those little booths are scary. That's a minority opinion, though. They'll never get rid of the confessionals.
Joan
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: Is a Catholic allowed to skip confession to a priest and just kneel & pray -- Joan, 05:46:02 03/05/08 Wed [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
Simon's name was changed to Peter (rock), and it was on that rock (Peter) that he built the church.
"Simon Peter was not a priest, or at least not like priest today, for we know he was married and had a family. In the same scripture, practically the same sentence, where Christ mentions Peter being a rock, he also rebukes him for his lack of knowledge and allowing Satan a place in his very words. Peter was just a regular man"
Priests are regular people. :) They sin, too. So it's not surprising that Peter was imperfect, is it?
Jesus built his Church on "this rock", Peter. Peter didn't build the Church. The Catholic Church was formed by Christ. Peter doesn't need to have perfect knowledge to be a priest.
Peter was the first Pope.
"Peter was just a regular man"
Christ picked an apostle who wasn't always so great. Christ did a lot of things that people wouldn't do. Peter probably isn't the one we would pick, but then we're not God. :)
Priests in earlier days were allowed to marry. Today they aren't. It's a discipline not a doctrine. It can be changed back if the church decides that it should be for whatever reason. I don't think I'll see it change in my lifetime, but you never know.
""I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.""
"The way the Protestant teach that is, Christ was not speaking to Peter only. He was speaking to all Christians. Otherwise we would not be able to "come as we are as sinners, boldly to the throne of God and ask for forgiveness of sins" for ourselves. "
I'm confused. It sounds like you're saying that Christ gave each of us the power to forgive our own sins.
I Catholicism, the priest absolves of us of our sins. I keep calling the sacrament Confession, because that's what I called it when I was 7-yrs-old. They call in Reconcilliation now, to emphasize that through sacramental confession, we're reconciled to God.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Is a Catholic allowed to skip confession to a priest and just kneel & pray -- Catie, 14:44:26 03/05/08 Wed [1] (h23.55.90.75.ip.alltel.net/75.90.55.23)
"Jesus built his Church on "this rock", Peter. Peter didn't build the Church. The Catholic Church was formed by Christ. Peter doesn't need to have perfect knowledge to be a priest. "
I know the scripture you speak of, but what Christ was saying, -when you get a chance to read it,- Know the first time he mentions "rock" the greek word is pebble. The next context he uses it means a Large Rock as in a Foundation. Flesh and blood didn't reveal who Christ was to Peter, that Christ was the son of God, but his spirit, and upon that, the prophesy, the testimony of Christ would a Firm Foundation be built. Christ said he will build his church. Not of man, but of a heavenly foundation.
"The way the Protestant teach that is, Christ was not speaking to Peter only. He was speaking to all Christians. Otherwise we would not be able to "come as we are as sinners, boldly to the throne of God and ask for forgiveness of sins" for ourselves. "
"I'm confused. It sounds like you're saying that Christ gave each of us the power to forgive our own sins. "
How can we be forgiving our own sins if we go before God's throne "ASKING" him to forgive?? The power is not in ourselves to forgive, but in the power to believe we are children of God who can come boldly to the throne of grace and ask for what we need, without the aid of a priest.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Is a Catholic allowed to skip confession to a priest and just kneel & pray -- Joan, 05:28:06 03/06/08 Thu [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
"How can we be forgiving our own sins if we go before God's throne "ASKING" him to forgive?? The power is not in ourselves to forgive, but in the power to believe we are children of God who can come boldly to the throne of grace and ask for what we need, without the aid of a priest."
LOL I guess I didn't read you very carefully the first time through. :)
"I know the scripture you speak of, but what Christ was saying, -when you get a chance to read it,- Know the first time he mentions "rock" the greek word is pebble. The next context he uses it means a Large Rock as in a Foundation. Flesh and blood didn't reveal who Christ was to Peter, that Christ was the son of God, but his spirit, and upon that, the prophesy, the testimony of Christ would a Firm Foundation be built. Christ said he will build his church. Not of man, but of a heavenly foundation. "
That sounds good, except that Christ renamed Peter. If he wasn't saying that Peter would be the first Pope, then why change his name? Why not just say, "Hey, Simon. The spirit showed this to you, and that's what I'm going to build my church on."
To Catholics, Peter is the first Pope, leader of Christ's Church. We don't believe that he was superhuman or flawless. We don't think he needed to be. This is Christ's Church on Earth. It's made up of imperfect people. The Pope is no different. There have been good popes and bad. Some were horrible people. Just as in any religion, you get good and bad. You do your best to weed out the bad ones, but sometimes you get a clunker. It's the Holy Spirit that preserves the Church, not the Pope or any other person.
Joan
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Joan -- Catie, 14:44:13 03/06/08 Thu [1] (h23.55.90.75.ip.alltel.net/75.90.55.23)
"Christ" "God" renamed people throughout the entire bible. That was nothing new, although noteworthy. Name changing was a sign of God making a covenant, one on one, to showing a person belonged to him, also especially so in the new testament, "Behold I make ALL things new". :)
I am not clear about your belief on the Pope. You say pope's are humans, subject to err. But then I have seen it (I think it was in a Catholic document) that the pope does not err, that he is infallable. Either a person is wholly perfect or they or not. To err is human. Is not the Pope flesh and blood? If so then he errs. Why then do people follow what he says as gospel and what right does he have to bless people, change God's word, etc??
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Joan -- Joan, 05:05:34 03/07/08 Fri [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
"(I think it was in a Catholic document) that the pope does not err, that he is infallable."
It couldn't have been a Catholic document, because it's *so* far from the truth. :) There's infallable, and then there's impeccable. :)
The pope is human, just like the rest of us. His statements on faith and morals, when spoken from the chair, are infallible, because the Holy Spirit preserves Christ's Church from error. Actually, those statements are almost always a group effort.
"what right does he have change God's word,"
He doesn't have the right to change God's word. No one does. That's not a Catholic belief. I think it's a belief of non-Catholics about what the Pope does or had done. But like the claim that Catholics believe the Pope never makes a mistake, it's wrong.
Joan
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Joan -- Catie, 17:53:00 03/07/08 Fri [1] (h122.131.141.67.ip.alltel.net/67.141.131.122)
"He doesn't have the right to change God's word. No one does. That's not a Catholic belief. I think it's a belief of non-Catholics about what the Pope does or had done"
Do me a favor? Go to your priest and ask him the complete history of Sunday worship. If he is honest, and I assume he will be, he will then fully explain when, by whom and how the Sabbath day was changed. :)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The Sabbath -- Joan, 03:55:27 03/08/08 Sat [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
I know the history or the Sabbath. Why are you constantly acting like I don't know my own religion--like you're going to "expose" Catholicism for what it "really is"? You think that I don't know my own religion, and if you show me what it is, my eyes will be opened. I know a lot more about Catholicism than you do, even if you think that isn't true. I know that you think the "facts" that you've been taught by anti-Catholic writers and maybe some of your own ministers is the real truth. It's not, however.
How many times do your Catholic friends have to tell you that we don't worship Mary and that priests don't forgive sins, before you believe?
I think you have to ask why you need to believe that we don't know our own religion, and why you think you know better.
Your earlier comment about reading Matt 17. Would I have mentioned it in the first place if I hadn't already read it? :)
I haven't trashed your religion. I haven't said that you beleive this or that, when you don't. I don't claim that you don't know the history or Christianity, though I certainly could! I expect the same respect and honesty toward Catholicism and me in return.
Catie, I think you're almost a recent convert-type. You've found a new, stronger interest in your religion. That's great. But you used to post "Happy Sabbath" on Sunday mornings. Talk about changes! lol
Joan
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The Sabbath -- Catie, 06:01:25 03/08/08 Sat [1] (h122.131.141.67.ip.alltel.net/67.141.131.122)
"Catie, I think you're almost a recent convert-type. You've found a new, stronger interest in your religion. That's great. But you used to post "Happy Sabbath" on Sunday mornings. Talk about changes! lol "
Why do you think I am a recent convert-tye? Where does that come from? I'm 53, when I was 17 I became a Christian, at 18 attended a bible University. I have been hungry to learn about God's word ever since. My "Church" is where I go to enjoy worshiping, but it has nothing to do with my coming here to visit a Catholic forum, as if I've been sent on a mission. Everything I've been taught I have not agreed with. I sought out a lot of things on my own. I've never not been enthusiastic about being a Christian.
If I did in fact post "Happy Sabbath" on a Sunday it was a mistake and would have been only sometime in the past 6 months. I've done several unusual and even incorrrect things since Terry died, because my brain is numb from the loss. I have even forgotten where I'm going when driving down the road more than once. So the post was certainly an error on my part. My frame of mind lately is really not a funny thing to me though.
Obviously when you ask me a question you don't want me to answer it, because when I do you say I am bashing Catholics. Obviously I am not Catholic for a reason. I don't believe the teachings of the church. You knew that I was a protestant when you invited me. I felt it was for the purpose of exchanging ideas. That doesn't mean we have to agree with one another. Which we obviously don't. I never expected we would. Like it or not, History bears out what I say about the Sabbath being changed by the Catholic church: Not a religion, not an opinion, not CNN. It's a fact and if you don't accept that then I can care less. I simply stated the fact. That doesn't make me a Catholic basher when I state facts about any religion.
From your last post obviously I misunderstood your reasoning and have no idea why you did invite me. We both clearly are firm in our stands on religion and I came here knowing that, respecting that, and not expecting to convert anyone, but bouncing back answers to your questions, sharing my thoughts. But from your last post
it's obvious it's a mistake for me to be here. I won't allow myself to be pegged as a "Catholic basher" because I merely speak what I have read throughout the years, and offer up answers to your questions.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The Sabbath -- Joan, 10:26:42 03/08/08 Sat [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
Then let me ask you, When and by whom was the Sabbath changed?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
On the claim that celebrating the Lord's Day -- Joan, 04:42:18 03/08/08 Sat [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
is a sign of the beast.
"On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread,...(Acts 20:7)
Recently we received an 80-page booklet entitled "What's Behind The New World Order?" It admits to be a collection of excerpts from the book, Will America Survive?, which was originally published 100 years ago under the title, The Great Controversy. This book was written by E.G. White, foundress of the Seventh Day Adventists. It claims that the Catholic Church is behind the New World Order. The booklet claims that this is true, since the Church is the beast of Revelation (Rev 17). It accuses the Church of many evil things and attempts to prove that the Church is the beast by exposing the "marks of the beast." Due to limited space only one charge will be considered here.
According to the booklet, one "mark of the beast" is not observing the Sabbath on Saturday. It is alleged that in the fourth century the Church and Emperor Constantine replaced the Sabbath with the pagan "DAY OF THE SUN", i.e. Sunday. Now it is true that the Old Testament says the "seventh day" but assigning that to Saturday is Hebrew tradition. As Christians, we must consider this in the light of the New Testament and the teachings of Christ. If this is a "mark of the beast", almost all Christian churches today bear the mark too.
It is ironic that Jesus and His disciples were harassed by the Pharisees over the Sabbath (John 5:18). Jesus spoke out against the Pharisee's merciless observance of the Sabbath (Matt 12:1-8; Luke 13:10-16). Jesus also defended Himself and His disciples on this issue by saying:
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; so the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath." [Mark 2:27-28; RSV].
and claiming authority over it.
It is true that the Catholic Church through the authority of Christ replaced the Hebrew Sabbath (Saturday) with the Lord's Day (Sunday); however, this occurred very early - well before the time of Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. For Christians two important events happened on Sunday. First, the Resurrection of Christ occurred on Easter Sunday (John 20:1ff). Secondly, the Holy Spirit descended upon the Church on Pentecost Sunday (Acts 2:1ff). Also after His Resurrection, Jesus appeared to the Apostles twice, each on Sunday (John 20:19 & 26). As a result, Sunday became known as the Lord's Day for Christians.
The booklet claims that there is no evidence in the Bible for the shift to Sunday. However in the fourth century, St. John Chrysostom cited Acts 20:7 as testimony. According to this verse in the Bible, at least some of the disciples assembled together on Sunday, the first day of the week, to celebrate the Lord’s Supper:
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them... [Acts 20:7]
It is interesting to note that St. Paul had spent a week with the community in Troas (Acts 20:6), and this is the only reported time that he celebrated the "breaking of bread" with them. Also no remarks are made later in this passage that St. Paul disapproved of their worship on Sunday. One would expect St. Paul to object to this practice, if it were rooted in paganism.
Already in the Old Testament, God expresses disappointment over the Hebrew Sabbath (Isa. 1:13ff) In the New Testament, St. Paul writes:
Therefore let no one pass judgement on you in questions of food or drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. [Col. 2:16-17]
According to these verses, the Hebrew diet, festivals and Sabbaths are no longer obligations for Christians. These were only a foreshadowing of things to come in Christ. The focus now is Christ (2 Cor. 3:7-17). Elsewhere St. Paul told the Corinthians to contribute money to the Church each Sunday (1 Cor 16:1-2). This would be a strange request, if Christians assembled on Saturdays. Hebrews 4:8 speaks of "another day" because the former Sabbath was not obeyed. If Saturday were truly "craved in stone", then it would be strange to speak of another day. According to Rev. 1:10, St. John "was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." This is the only place in the Bible where the phrase "the Lord’s day" occurs. If his vision occurred on Saturday, St. John would have written "the Sabbath" instead of using a new phrase. Even though the disciples may have attended the synagogues on the Sabbath to evangelize (Acts 18:4), there is already a definite transition from the Sabbath to the Lord's Day in the New Testament.
The early Christian writers also bear witness to the observance of the Lord's Day (Sunday) over the Hebrew Sabbath (Saturday). The booklet attempts to discredit the historical writings of Eusebius in the fourth century by claiming collusion with Emperor Constantine; however, we have no need to rely on Eusebius. We can directly cite the writings of Christians who lived in the first century - centuries before Eusebius or Constantine. Even though these writings do not have the same authority as the Bible, they are still reliable historical sources - preserving the thoughts, beliefs and lifestyle of Christians during the first century. These writings include the Didache (a church manual written by the Apostles during the 1st century), the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100 A.D.) and the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch who was martyred in Rome before 110 A.D. Translations of these classic Christian writings can be found at the local public or university library. The following quotes were cited from Early Christian Writings (Penguin Classics, 1987). According to the Didache, the Apostles wrote:
Assemble on the Lord's Day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. [The Didache 14:1]
This passage is very similar to Acts 20:7. Also note the connection between the breaking of bread and the Eucharist (cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:23ff). St. Barnabas in his epistle devotes a whole chapter on the issue of the Sabbath. He concluded by writing:
And we too rejoice in celebrating the eighth day; because that was when Jesus rose from the dead... [Epistle of Barnabas 15]
St. Barnabas in using the phrase "the eighth day" was referring to Sunday. Perhaps the most powerful statement was made by St. Ignatius of Antioch. Before 110 A.D., St. Ignatius wrote to the Magnesians:
We have seen how former adherents of the ancient customs have since attained to a new hope; so that they have given up keeping the Sabbath, and now order their lives by the Lord's Day instead - the Day when life first dawned for us, thanks to Him (Jesus) and His death. [Epistle to the Magnesians 9]
This passage indicates that early Christian converts from Judaism began to observe the Lord's Day in honor of Christ's Resurrection. From their writings it is clear that Christians already during the first century were observing the Lord's Day on Sunday.
The booklet states that the observance of Sunday was mandated by Emperor Constantine in 321 A.D. (referring indirectly to the Edict of Laodicea). It claims that this mandate was forced upon the people; however, that statement is not exactly true. Perhaps this edict was imposed upon pagan business men who thought everyday should be a working day and perhaps those who thought Christians must observe the entire Law of Moses, including circumcision (Gal. 5:6-12; 6:12-16; 1 Cor. 7:18-19). This Edict only made Sunday a civil holiday. By doing so it secularized a practice that was already observed for centuries by Christians. As shown above, this ancient practice is witnessed by the Bible and in the writings of the Apostles, St. Barnabas (c. 100 A.D.), St. Ignatius (107 A.D.), also St. Justin Martyr (c.150 A.D.) and St. Irenaeus (155-202 A.D.).
God in His wisdom knows that we need to set one day a week special to Him. Otherwise we would become so busy with our daily work that we may forget about Him and lose our Faith. Now the essential point of the Third Commandment is that we set one day a week holy to the Lord. But specifically observing Saturday as this day is only ceremonial. As baptism replaced circumcision (Col 2:11-12) for Christians, so does Sunday replace Saturday. Observance of the Lord's Day is not a "mark of the beast" but the mark of being Christian."
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: On the claim that celebrating the Lord's Day -- Catie, 06:22:20 03/08/08 Sat [1] (h122.131.141.67.ip.alltel.net/67.141.131.122)
"It is ironic that Jesus and His disciples were harassed by the Pharisees over the Sabbath (John 5:18). Jesus spoke out against the Pharisee's merciless observance of the Sabbath (Matt 12:1-8; Luke 13:10-16). Jesus also defended Himself and His disciples on this issue by saying:"
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; so the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath." [Mark 2:27-28; RSV]. and claiming authority over it. ..."
It is true that the Catholic Church through the authority of Christ replaced the Hebrew Sabbath (Saturday) with the Lord's Day (Sunday);..."
I don't find it ironic at all. Jesus was not a conformist. He came and hung out with the kind of folks the Jewish leaders did not expect a "King" to hang out with. He surprised many folks by what he did. He did in fact do whatever was necessary. But one thing he did do was to keep the Sabbath. Many scriptures bear out the fact he did keep the Sabbath. He said, "I didn't come to change the law, but to Fulfill it." He kept the Sabbath, the commandment GOD wrote with his own finger which said, REMEMBER the sabbath day to keep it holy. The law that was done away with was the law of Moses. That was a law God allowed because of a lack of knowledge on man's part and he was a loving God.
PAUL kept the sabbath. Nothing changed in the diet either, because the portion of Hewbrews where he said do not call unclean the things I call clean was referring to allowing Gentiles to become part of the Gospel and being accepted as Adopted jews.
Why do you assume I have not already read or heard all the information you just posted here? I am fully aware.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: On the claim that celebrating the Lord's Day -- Joan, 10:54:12 03/08/08 Sat [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
I had typed out a long, angry rebuttal. Luckily my brain kick-started itself and forced me to hit delete. :)
Will you stick around?
""It is ironic that Jesus and His disciples were harassed by the Pharisees over the Sabbath"
I think the author meant that it was Ironic that Christians who celebrate the Lord's Day are being harrassed over the Sabbath, when Jesus was, too.
Joan
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thank you for the invite. -- Catie, 10:23:39 03/09/08 Sun [1] (h122.131.141.67.ip.alltel.net/67.141.131.122)
For now at least, for the sake of friendship and civility, (I tempted you to become irate) it is best I refrain from posting here. It is your forum and I respect that. Perhaps my desire to converse in serious conversations, crossed a line I didn't realize and wasn't intending on doing. Sincere Apologies.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Thank you for the invite. -- Joan, 11:55:21 03/09/08 Sun [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
No apologies needed, unless they go both ways. :)
I hope you will reconsider and post here. There is no danger of losing friendship over this (or any) topic--not on my part, and I doubt on your part either.
Joan
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Just want to comment on this one statement. -- Joan, 06:03:10 03/09/08 Sun [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
"Obviously I am not Catholic for a reason. I don't believe the teachings of the church."
I didn't say that you had to believe what Catholics teach. But you are mistating what Catholics believe. What you're actually posting is what you beleive Catholics believe, and many of the things you've posted aren't right.
In this case, you beleive that Catholics beleive that the popes are perfect people. Not true.
Joan
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]