Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Radio Replies First Volume - Fasting
Celledoor.com ^ | 1938 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

Posted on 11/09/2009 9:03:16 PM PST by GonzoII

Fasting



1184. You claim to legislate in purely spiritual things, yet order fast and abstinence on certain days. There is nothing spiritual in forbidding people to eat meat.

I have never said that the Church legislates only in spiritual matters. Men are not purely spiritual beings, and in our composite nature, spiritual legislation must in some way affect our material being. The laws of the Church cover material things in so far as they affect our spiritual welfare. There is nothing spiritual about meat in itself. But spiritual virtue is exercised when we abstain from meat from a motive of self-denial, gratitude, and obedience to God.

1185. Is there any Scripture warrant for fasting?

Yes. When the Pharisees complained to Christ that His disciples did not fast, He replied that they did not while He was with them, but that they would when He had gone from them. Mk 2:18. Now the Catholic Church, ordered by Christ to teach all nations whatsoever Christ had said to her, tells us that at certain times we must fast in expiation of our sins. St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "Let us exhibit ourselves as servants of God, in patience, in fastings." A Christian spirit of reparation says, "I indulged my senses at the expense of God's law; I will therefore now mortify them at the expense of my own comfort." However it is part of Christian law, and those who say that the Catholic Church obliges fasting while other Churches do not, complain as usual that the Catholic Church is fulfilling the Christian law while others are not. And the Catholic Church appoints special days, for if it were left to individuals they would fast very irregularly, or not at all. It is much better to make it definite.

1186. Why forbid meat on Fridays? Christ said that nothing from without defiles a man, but that it is disposition of soul that counts. Mk 7:15.

It follows that meat is not evil in itself, and that the Church does not forbid meat on Fridays because she thinks that meat will defile men. That should be evident from the fact that the Church permits meat on other days, as she could not do if she believed meat to be evil. Therefore it must be a question of the day, and not of the meat. Why then does the Church forbid meat on Fridays? Because on that day Christ gave His life for us in misery and suffering. If a Catholic eats meat on that day, the meat does not defile him, but his interior disposition of ingratitude and disobedience certainly does. If a man is not prepared to give up a little meat on the day Christ gave up His life, he is not worthy to be ranked as a Christian. The Friday abstinence has kept Our Lord's sacrifice and death before the minds of millions of Catholics for centuries. To the vast majority of the Protestant Churches which abolished this beautiful practice merely because the Catholic Church had the grace to fulfill it, Friday is just like Tuesday, or Wednesday, or Thursday, and their members do not think week by week of the greatest event that ever occurred in history for love of us. I have never yet received a convert into the Church who has not seen the beauty of this devotedness to Christ, and of the loyalty with which the Church recalls Friday as the day of the greatest event in our redemption. That non-Catholics should be silent about this Catholic custom I could understand. But that they should still profess to be Christians and then blame the Catholic Church for such a generous and loving act in honor of Christ merely because they do not do it themselves is astonishing.

1187. The Bible says that Anti-Christ will bid men abstain from meats. 1 Tim 4:3.

The reference is to men who teach that meat is evil in itself and who declare that it is wicked to eat it under any circumstances. But Catholics do not believe or teach this. Almost any butcher will tell you that he supplies many Catholic customers regularly with meat.

1188. When did the practice of Friday abstinence from meat begin?

In the very earliest ages of the Church. The practice is mentioned in the Didache or Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, a booklet written by one of the immediate followers of the Apostles in the year 90.

1189. Who said that every man will go to hell if he eats meat on Friday?

No one. The Catholic Church says that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to eat meat on Friday knowingly and wilfully, without a sufficiently grave and excusing reason. Then that Church says that if a man dies in unrepented mortal sin, he will go to hell.

1190. I don't blame Catholics for voluntarily abstaining from meat on Fridays, but to do so because ordered to do so is making a virtue of necessity.

That is not true. No Catholic is physically compelled to abstain from meat on Fridays. It is a moral obligation, adding the virtue of obedience to that of Christian mortification. On your method of reasoning you should say that a man should voluntarily abstain from stealing, and that it is wrong to do so because God has said, "Thou shalt not steal." And do the laws of the land destroy the virtue of citizens because there is a moral obligation to observe them?

1191. Ought not Catholics to abstain from intoxicating drink on Fridays?

There is no law obliging them to do so. Of course there is always the law of conscience forbidding drinking to excess on any day. Yet, although there is no law forbidding drink in moderation on Fridays, it would be a very good and meritorious action if a man did abstain voluntarily from alcoholic drink on that day in a spirit of mortification and self-denial. But that would not dispense him from the obligation to abstain from meat. Let a man fulfill the law, and then do more if he wishes. Obedience is better than sacrifices prompted by one's own opinions.

1192. Would it not be better for the Church to forbid intoxicants rather than harmless meat?

It would not. The Church wishes to forbid a thing wich most of her people will miss. Practically all eat meat; not all by any means drink intoxicants. All are united in a common act of mortification. There is a tendency in men to think that all laws should conform to their own pet ideas. A man likes his meat and dislikes drink. So he suggests that the Church should rather forbid drink than meat. But drink does not affect all men; meat affects practically all.

Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Moral Issues; Prayer; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; radiorepliesvolone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last
 Who is like unto God?........ Lk:10:18:
 And he said to them: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven.

Historical Context of "Radio Replies"


By markomalley

If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.

It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.

While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.

And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.

A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.

Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.

The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.

 

 

 

 

Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C.

"I was brought up as a Protestant, probably with more inherited prejudices than most non-Catholics of these days.  My parents were Anglican and taught me the Angelican faith. My 'broad-minded' protestant teachers taught me to dislike the Catholic Church intensely. I later tried Protestantism in various other forms, and it is some thirty years since, in God's providence, I became a Catholic. As for the 'open, free, sincere worship' of a Protestant Church, I tasted it, but for me it proved in the end to be not only open, but empty; it was altogether too free from God's prescriptions."

Eventually, Leslie became a priest of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.

In 1928, Fr. Rumble began a one-hour 'Question Box' program on 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. radio on Sunday evenings that was heard all over Australia and New Zealand. For five years he answered questions on every subject imaginable that had been written to him from all over that part of the globe. His first show began with a classic introduction:

"Good evening, listeners all. For some time I have been promising to give a session dealing with questions of religion and morality, in which the listeners themselves should decide what is of interest to them. Such a session will commence next Sunday evening, and I invite you to send in any questions you wish on these subjects . . . So now I invite you, non-Catholics above all, to send in any questions you wish on religion, or morality, or the Catholic Church, and I shall explain exactly the Catholic position, and give the reasons for it. In fact I almost demand those questions. Many hard things have been said, and are still being said, about the Catholic Church, though no criminal, has been so abused, that she has a right to be heard. I do not ask that you give your name and address. A nom de plume will do. Call yourself Voltaire, Confucius, X.Y.Z., what you like, so long as you give indication enough to recognize your answer."

"By the summer of 1937, the first edition of Radio Replies was already in print in Australia, financed by Rt. Rev. Monsignor James Meany, P.P. - the director of Station 2SM of whom I am greatly indebted."

"I have often been mistaken, as most men at times. And it is precisely to make sure that I will not be mistaken in the supremely important matter of religion that I cling to a Church which cannot be mistaken, but must be right where I might be wrong. God knew that so many sincere men would make mistakes that He deliberately established an infallible Church to preserve them from error where it was most important that they should not go wrong."

Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty

I broadcast my radio program, the Catholic Radio Hour,  from St. Paul, Minnesota.

I was also carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on the Catholic Faith, Radio Replies proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. As many of us street preachers have learned, it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners, but what you get into their hands to read. The questions Fr. Rumble had to answer on the other side of the planet are same the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign."

I realized that this priest in Australia was doing exactly the same work I was doing here in St. Paul. Because of the success of his book, plus the delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe, I got in contact with him to publish a cheap American edition.  

It doesn't take long for the imagination to start thinking about how much we could actually do. We began the Radio Replies Press Society Publishing Company, finished the American edition of what was to be the first volume of Radio Replies, recieved the necessary imprimatur, and Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen agreed to write a preface. About a year after the publication of the first edition in Australia, we had the American edition out and in people's hands.

The book turned into a phenomena. Letters began pouring into my office from every corner of the United States; Protestant Publishing Houses are requesting copies for distribution to Protestant Seminaries; a few Catholic Seminaries have adopted it as an official textbook - and I had still never met Dr. Rumble in person.

To keep a long story short, we finally got a chance to meet, published volumes two and three of Radio Replies, printed a set of ten booklets on subjects people most often asked about, and a few other pamphlets on subjects of interest to us.

Fr. Carty died on May 22, 1964 in Connecticut.

"Firstly, since God is the Author of all truth, nothing that is definitely true can every really contradict anything else that is definitely true. Secondly, the Catholic Church is definitely true. It therefore follows that no objection or difficulty, whether drawn from history, Scripture, science, or philosophy, can provide a valid argument against the truth of the Catholic religion."



Biographies compiled from the introductions to Radio Replies, volumes 1, 2 and 3.

Source: www.catholicauthors.com

1 posted on 11/09/2009 9:03:16 PM PST by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fidelis; Atomic Vomit; MI; Sir_Humphrey; dsc; annalex; Citizen Soldier; bdeaner; CatQuilt; ...

Radio Replies Ping

FReep-mail me to get on or off

“The Radio Replies Ping-List”

ON / OFF


2 posted on 11/09/2009 9:03:58 PM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The Radio Replies Series: Volume One

Chapter One: God

Radio Replies Volume One: God’s Existence Known by Reason
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of God
Radio Replies Volume One: Providence of God and Problem of Evil

Chapter Two: Man

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of Man & Existence and Nature of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume One: Immortality of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume One: Destiny of the Soul & Freewill of Man

Chapter Three: Religion

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of Religion & Necessity of Religion

Chapter Four: The Religion of the Bible

Radio Replies Volume One: Natural Religion & Revealed Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Mysteries of Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Miracles
Radio Replies Volume One: Value of the Gospels
Radio Replies Volume One: Inspiration of the Gospels

Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 1]
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 2]
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 3]
Radio Replies Volume One: New Testament Difficulties

Chapter Five: The Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume One: The Religion of the Jews
Radio Replies Volume One: Truth of Christianity
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature and Necessity of Faith

Chapter Six: A Definite Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume One: Conflicting Churches
Radio Replies Volume One: Are All One Church?
Radio Replies Volume One: Is One Religion As Good As Another?
Radio Replies Volume One: The Fallacy of Indifference

Chapter Seven: The Failure of Protestantism

Radio Replies Volume One: Protestantism Erroneous
Radio Replies Volume One: Luther
Radio Replies Volume One: Anglicanism
Radio Replies Volume One: Greek Orthodox Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Wesley

Radio Replies Volume One: Baptists
Radio Replies Volume One: Adventists
Radio Replies Volume One: Salvation Army
Radio Replies Volume One: Witnesses of Jehovah
Radio Replies Volume One: Christian Science

Radio Replies Volume One: Theosophy
Radio Replies Volume One: Spiritualism
Radio Replies Volume One: Catholic Intolerance

Chapter Eight: The Truth of Catholicism

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of the Church
Radio Replies Volume One: The true Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Hierarchy of the Church
Radio Replies Volume One: The Pope
Radio Replies Volume One: Temporal Power

Radio Replies Volume One: Infallibility
Radio Replies Volume One: Unity
Radio Replies Volume One: Holiness
Radio Replies Volume One: Catholicity
Radio Replies Volume One: Apostolicity

Radio Replies Volume One: Indefectibility
Radio Replies Volume One: "Outside the Church no salvation"

Chapter Nine: The Catholic Church and the Bible

Radio Replies Volume One: Not opposed to the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: The reading of the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: Protestants and the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: "Bible Only" a false principle
Radio Replies Volume One: The necessity of Tradition
Radio Replies Volume One: The authority of the Catholic Church

Chapter Ten: The Church and Her Dogmas

Radio Replies Volume One: Dogmatic Truth
Radio Replies Volume One: Development of Dogma
Radio Replies Volume One: Dogma and Reason
Radio Replies Volume One: Rationalism
Radio Replies Volume One: The Holy Trinity

Radio Replies Volume One: Creation
Radio Replies Volume One: Angels
Radio Replies Volume One: Devils
Radio Replies Volume One: Man
Radio Replies Volume One: Sin

Radio Replies Volume One: Christ
Radio Replies Volume One: Mary
Radio Replies Volume One: Grace and salvation
Radio Replies Volume One: The Sacraments
Radio Replies Volume One: Baptism

Radio Replies Volume One: Confirmation
Radio Replies Volume One: Confession
Radio Replies Volume One: Holy Eucharist
Radio Replies Volume One: The Sacrifice of the Mass
Radio Replies Volume One: Holy Communion

Radio Replies Volume One: Priesthood
Radio Replies Volume One: Matrimony
Radio Replies Volume One: Divorce
Radio Replies Volume One: Extreme Unction
Radio Replies Volume One: Judgment

Radio Replies Volume One: The Millenium
Radio Replies Volume One: Hell
Radio Replies Volume One: Purgatory
Radio Replies Volume One: Prayer for the Dead
Radio Replies Volume One: Indulgences

Radio Replies Volume One: Heaven
Radio Replies Volume One: The Resurrection of the Body
Radio Replies Volume One: The General Judgment/The End of the World

Chapter Eleven: The Church in Her Moral Teachings

Radio Replies Volume One: Veracity/Mental Restriction
Radio Replies Volume One: Charity
Radio Replies Volume One: Ecclesiastical Censures/Liberty
Radio Replies Volume One: Index of Prohibited Books
Radio Replies Volume One: Persecution

Radio Replies Volume One: The Inquisition
Radio Replies Volume One: Jesuits/Catholic Intolerance
Radio Replies Volume One: Protestant services
Radio Replies Volume One: Freemasonry
Radio Replies Volume One: Cremation

Radio Replies Volume One: Gambling
Radio Replies Volume One: Prohibition of Drink
Radio Replies Volume One: Sunday Observance
Radio Replies Volume One: Fasting

3 posted on 11/09/2009 9:05:34 PM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
The Catholic Church says that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to eat meat on Friday knowingly and wilfully, without a sufficiently grave and excusing reason. Then that Church says that if a man dies in unrepented mortal sin, he will go to hell.

Is this still true?

4 posted on 11/10/2009 2:49:19 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four

Nope. That has changed.


5 posted on 11/10/2009 2:58:24 PM PST by Pyro7480 ("If you know how not to pray, take Joseph as your master, and you will not go astray." - St. Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480; T Minus Four

The requirement now is to either abstain from meat on Friday, or do an act of charitable giving; to disobey that without a good reason is still a mortal sin.

I wish the Church returned to the plain and simple discipline of before Vatican II, but not that much has changed.


6 posted on 11/10/2009 5:23:07 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: annalex

So people can go to hell for this?


7 posted on 11/10/2009 5:31:45 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four

Any unconfessed mortal sin is by definition damning to hell. However, given the confused state of the Church after Vatican II it is possible that Catholics who disobey the Friday discipline do it out of ignorance, rather than out of wilful disobedience. If that is the case, there is no mortal sin.


8 posted on 11/10/2009 5:37:50 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: annalex

if I were trying to prove this was so to a Catholic, what would I reference?

Or maybe I’d better not - if they are violating this out of ignorance, and then I tell them, and then they scoff and don’t obey, well......


9 posted on 11/10/2009 5:53:10 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four
It varies by country -- or, rather, by the Episcopal conference. In the US, the obligation is to do an act of penance, but the faithful are free to choose the nature of the act. The decree is a bit vague, but leaves no doubt that the obligation is still there throughout the year:

Pastoral Statement on Penance and Abstinence

It is all unpacked very effectively in this article:

Are Catholics Supposed to Abstain from Meat Every Friday?.

The article, by the way, convinced me in the wisdom of going away from the blanket insistence on abstinence from meat. In a country like ours, it is no great sacrifice to give up meat, readily available the other 6 days of the week.

10 posted on 11/10/2009 7:05:58 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: annalex

So theoretically, one can avoid mortal sin (and the possibility of hell) by driving through McDonald’s and picking up fish sandwiches for dinner, or going out and indulging in sushi.

Why does it have to be so complicated?


11 posted on 11/10/2009 7:10:16 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four
"Is this still true?"

No, but some type of penance is still required:

Is Friday Penance Required?

12 posted on 11/10/2009 9:18:01 PM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Actually, in that article Jimmy Akin shows that in fact, the US bishops (who, as the national conference, were given the task of legislating on this matter) actually did not require an act of penance on non-Lenten Fridays. They strongly encouraged it, but did not require it.

I think the older way made more sense, frankly, so I abstain from meat every Friday.


13 posted on 11/10/2009 9:28:38 PM PST by B Knotts (Calvin Coolidge Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four

If you casually pick up a fish sandwich, you do nothing for your greater conforming to the image of Christ, Who chose to give up his life for you. However, you do not defy the Church that asks for some token self-denial. You do not do anything heroic even is the slightest degree, but you do not commit a mortal sin either.

Where is the complication?


14 posted on 11/10/2009 11:27:38 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: annalex

There are just so many rules. Who can keep them all straight?


15 posted on 11/11/2009 8:51:53 AM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four

There is just one rule: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind ( Matthew 22:37).

If you do, to follow His commandments becomes easy: My yoke is sweet and my burden light (Matthew 11:30).


16 posted on 11/11/2009 11:10:28 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: annalex

And carry around the entire text of the catechism too.


17 posted on 11/11/2009 2:32:51 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
I abstain from meat every Friday.

I do too...

18 posted on 11/11/2009 3:57:26 PM PST by CatQuilt (Lover of cats =^..^= and quilts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: annalex
In a country like ours, it is no great sacrifice to give up meat, readily available the other 6 days of the week.

That's true but it seems like it's Friday when a good steak is most tempting... Or you go out to dinner with friends to a nice steakhouse or you and some friends decide to get a pizza and everyone else wants pepperoni...

So...you mortify yourself by looking different in front of your friends.

19 posted on 11/11/2009 4:06:11 PM PST by CatQuilt (Lover of cats =^..^= and quilts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four

That is the burden that is light.


20 posted on 11/11/2009 5:29:04 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CatQuilt

Yes. That is the spiritual value of it, at public meals. Same with blessing oneself in a restaurant.


21 posted on 11/11/2009 5:30:48 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: annalex

I don’t think God is imposing that burden on me.


22 posted on 11/11/2009 5:49:46 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four
The requirement to mortify flesh on Friday, as we've already seen, varies with the bishops' conference and does not apply to non-Catholics.

The requirement to know and understand the Catholic faith is not binding on non-Catholics, but, of course, lack of interest in the Catechism is, on some level, a lack of interest in Christianity.

The relevant document regarding the fasting legalities is not the Catechism, by the way. The easiest thing is to ask your priest what to do, or if you suspect that his advice is inaccurate, research some more.

I fast on Friday because I want to express my love of Christ in that simple and direct way. If you had not asked, I would not have a reason to research it further.

I do recommend people of any religion to read the Catechism. Here it is: CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. If that is too voluminous, here is a Reader's Digest version: Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

23 posted on 11/11/2009 6:04:38 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: annalex

I don’t think so. It’s full of doctrines of man. I’ll stick with what God requires of me.


24 posted on 11/11/2009 6:36:24 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four

The authority of the Church is not from men. Sticking to your own doctrine, however, is.


25 posted on 11/12/2009 6:49:29 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: annalex

It IS from men. Jesus never told me that I would go to hell if I refused to abstain from meat on Friday and then didn’t participate in a manmade ritual of absolution.


26 posted on 11/12/2009 6:58:26 AM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four
Jesus never told me that I would go to hell if I refused to abstain from meat on Friday

That is true. But He gave the authority to legislate in such matters to the Church (Mt 18:17-18), and the Church legislated in a certain way. If you mean that you personally do not have the duty to obey the Church, you may be right if you are not Catholic, but if you are Catholic and do not obey the Church then you are "as the heathen and publican", not likely to be saved.

manmade ritual of absolution

The confessionary is man made, and the priest is a man, and you can perhaps say that the ritualistic part of the sacrament of confession is man-made. However, the sacrament itself is divinely decreed: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained" (John 20:22f). Absolution, -- forgiveness of sin -- is one possible outcome of the sacrament of confession.

27 posted on 11/12/2009 8:33:28 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CatQuilt
Or you go out to dinner with friends to a nice steakhouse and order the grilled salmon.

Perhaps not a big sacrifice ... except that the idiots in the kitchen don't know fish anywhere near as well as they know beef. And it provides a small opportunity for a small witness to Christ. Never pass up an opportunity ... even the small ones.

28 posted on 11/12/2009 8:38:38 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Well, I'm sure you must have meant the Catholic standby, Matthew 16:19, about the keys, etc

But if you keep reading, just a few lines later Jesus calls Peter "Satan" and tells him "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men" (Matt 16:23)

Pretty harsh words for the new pope.

Keep reading Matthew. In the 28th chapter, when Jesus has been resurrected from the dead, he has some very important things to say to Peter and company:

"And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:18-20

Jesus never relinquished His authority here on Earth! Why would He need to? He knows all men are sinners. He is with us always! He said so, and I know it's true.

And notice he instructed the desciples to teach what HE commanded them, not what they chose to command us.

I'll depend on His Word - it's never let anyone down.

29 posted on 11/12/2009 12:42:04 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four

No, I meant the passage that I indicated, Mt 18:17-18, where Jesus explains that the Church — not you and not your pastor — is the final rule of faith.

It is true that all popes are flawed human beings starting with St. Peter himself. The issue on hand, however, — rules of fasting — are within episcopal authority, not papal authority. If you have questions about the papacy, I’d be happy to answer, but it is somewhat unrelated to the topic.

It is also true that Jesus has the ultimate authority in all matters. The role of the Church is indeed to teach us all the He commands, and he commanded us to fast, just as He fasted Himself (see the main article).


30 posted on 11/12/2009 1:23:19 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: annalex
What in the sam hill...who told you that's what it meant? Read it, but start with verse 15 for some context:

A Brother Who Sins Against You

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses'. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Matthew 18:15-17

This is about resolving disputes between believers. You talk to the one who wronged you, but if that doesn't resolve it, you take it before a couple other believers. If that doesn't bring resolution, you bring it before the entire body of believers, who then can ostrasize him, if that's what it takes.

I can't understand what this has to do with fish on Friday rules and Jesus abdicating His authority..

31 posted on 11/12/2009 2:03:10 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four

Matthew 18:15f has to do with any contention between Christians, including whether or not to fast in particular manner on a particular day. The Church is given as a final arbiter.


32 posted on 11/12/2009 2:09:39 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: annalex

And please how me where God commanded us to fast.


33 posted on 11/12/2009 2:11:36 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: annalex

It says “if your brother sins against you” It doesn’t say, “if your brother demands that you fast and you don’t think you should have to”


34 posted on 11/12/2009 2:12:34 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four
where God commanded us to fast

Jesus said that we shall fast (Mk 2:20. Mt 9:15) and fasted himself (Mt 4:2). St. Paul directed us to "exhibit ourselves as the ministers of God" by a variety of mortifications, including fasting (1 Cor. 6:4f). So, Catholic Christians fast.

It doesn’t say, “if your brother demands that you fast and you don’t think you should have to”

Well, what are you doing on this thread then? Your fellow Christians fast and urge others to fast and you apparently take offense. We have a dispute. We should ask the Church, which shall "bind and loose" in all matters (Mt 18:18). I have.

35 posted on 11/12/2009 2:30:51 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: annalex

I am not the least bit offended. I just have questions, and I can’t get a clear answer.

You know that the two passages you cited in Mark and Matthew are the retelling of a parable Jesus told. It was about having and not having Jesus here on earth. Having Him here is the feasting, not having Him is the “fasting”. I know you’ve been told otherwise, but can’t you see it for yourself?

Not one place in scripture are we commanded to fast, although it can be a very good and useful practice. But it must be willingly undertaken or it is empty.


36 posted on 11/12/2009 2:47:08 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: annalex

1 Cor 6 is another passage about resolving disputes among believers. It says we are supposed to resolve them within the community, not take it to a secular court of law.

Nothing there about “mortification” or fasting.


37 posted on 11/12/2009 2:55:35 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four

What is your remaining question(s)?

Your interpretation of Mk 2 and Mt 9 is, I guess, possible, but it is not the natural interpretation that arises from the text alone. The disciples of John were not referring to a metaphorical fast, but rather to an actual fast, because such was the fast of St. John the Baptist. There is no warrant to say that Jesus all of a sudden began to talk in metaphors. In fact, I am pretty sure He did not because otherwise he would have implicitly rebuked St. John for physical fasting.

I showed you the verse, 1 Cor. 6:4f, where St. Paul commanded us to fast. It is also mentioned in the article itself.

Regarding “willingly undertaken”, the US Bishops seem to agree with you, this is why they gave to option to do some other form of mortification instead. Still, the Church is here for no other purpose but to lead us to salvation in Christ; it is therefore the Church’s duty to set up necessary obligations and not allow us to solely depend on our own whim.


38 posted on 11/12/2009 3:04:39 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four
Nothing there about “mortification” or fasting.

Indeed. I meant 2 Cor 6:4f, sorry.

4 But in all things let us exhibit ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in tribulation, in necessities, in distresses, 5 In stripes, in prisons, in seditions, in labours, in watchings, in fastings, 6 In chastity, in knowledge, in longsuffering, in sweetness, in the Holy Ghost, in charity unfeigned, 7 In the word of truth, in the power of God; by the armour of justice on the right hand and on the left; 8 By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report; as deceivers, and yet true; as unknown, and yet known; 9 As dying, and behold we live; as chastised, and not killed; 10 As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as needy, yet enriching many; as having nothing, and possessing all things.

39 posted on 11/12/2009 3:13:44 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Mentioning fasting, as in 2 Cor 6:4 is not a commandment. Fasting, as I said, can be a good thing. But you still haven’t shown me anything that even hints of a commandment. Much less risking your eternal soul by not doing so.

My translation actually says “hunger” instead of fasting, but the meaning of the passage is the same I think.


40 posted on 11/12/2009 6:36:29 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Still, the Church is here for no other purpose but to lead us to salvation in Christ; it is therefore the Church’s duty to set up necessary obligations and not allow us to solely depend on our own whim.

I think actually that is the job of the Holy Spirit, not by obligations imposed by men.

41 posted on 11/12/2009 6:39:17 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four
Now you simply insist on ignoring St. Paul's words. "Let us" is not enough of a commandment for you?

It is often the case that the Protestant translations seek to obfuscate the original. So yours says "hunger"? Ha.

εν πληγαις εν φυλακαις εν ακαταστασιαις εν κοποις εν αγρυπνιαις εν νηστειαις (2 Cor. 6:5)

και νηστευσας ημερας τεσσαρακοντα και νυκτας τεσσαρακοντα υστερον επεινασεν (Mt 4:2)

οταν δε νηστευητε μη γινεσθε ωσπερ οι υποκριται [...]
συ δε νηστευων αλειψαι σου την κεφαλην και το προσωπον σου νιψαι οπως μη φανης τοις ανθρωποις νηστευων αλλα τω πατρι σου τω εν τω κρυπτω και ο πατηρ σου ο βλεπων εν τω κρυπτω αποδωσει σοι(Mt 6:16-18)

δια τι ημεις και οι φαρισαιοι νηστευομεν πολλα οι δε μαθηται σου ου νηστευουσιν [...] και τοτε νηστευσουσιν (Mt 9:14-15)

τουτο δε το γενος ουκ εκπορευεται ει μη εν προσευχη και νηστεια (Mt 17:21)

And so on, -- I only quoted Matthew. Throughout, the same word as in 2 Cor 6, νηστεια, "fast", is used in different inflections.

that is the job of the Holy Spirit, not by obligations imposed by men

The former does not exclude the latter. The Holy Spirit is Who guides the Church.

42 posted on 11/12/2009 7:13:47 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: annalex
No, of course not, "let us", is not a commandment.

Here, I'll give you the argument that it is literally "fast", which causes hunger. Don't you see that the pasage is saying, LET US conduct ourselves for God's glory no matter what the circumstance are, in the good and in the bad?

It doesn't say Thou shalt fast. Let's review verses 4 thru 6 from the translation you have:

4 But in all things let us exhibit ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in tribulation, in necessities, in distresses, 5 In stripes, in prisons, in seditions, in labours, in watchings, in fastings, 6 In chastity, in knowledge, in longsuffering, in sweetness, in the Holy Ghost, in charity unfeigned

Are we also "commanded" to be whipped and go to prison?

By the way, I am delighted to see that you go back to the original Greek of the New Testament.

43 posted on 11/13/2009 7:43:09 AM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: annalex
I like to refer to lots of different translations when a passage is being quetioned. I own about a dozen different bibles and love to use www.biblegateway.com. It's a great site, check it out. 2 Corinthians 6:5

In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings;(King James Version),

in stripes, in prisons, in riots, in labours, in watchings, in fastings (Darby Translation)

We have been beaten, been put in prison, faced angry mobs, worked to exhaustion, endured sleepless nights, and gone without food. (New living Translation)

in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in watchings, in fastings (American Standard Version)

in stripes, in imprisonments, in insurrections, in labours, in watchings, in fastings (Youngs Literal Translation)

We have been beaten, jailed, and mobbed; we have been overworked and have gone without sleep or food (Good News Bible)

In stripes, in prisons, in seditions, in labours, in watchings, in fastings,(Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

in hard times, tough times, bad times; when we're beaten up, jailed, and mobbed; working hard, working late, working without eating;(The Message)

44 posted on 11/13/2009 8:04:22 AM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The Holy Spirit is Who guides the Church.

See, this is where I am reminded that we speak different languages. To me "the church" is the group of people who are true believers and have surrendered themelves to Jesus.

To you, "the church" is the authority of the Catholic institution.

I'd like to respectfully point out that the Holy Spirit indwells individual people, not institutions. The very same Holy Spirit who came to the believers on Passover, live in me now. I'm telling you, it almost makes me fall to my knees in awe! Heh, sometimew it does.

I fall down and I sin, but my eyes have been opened and my ears can now hear. I wish you could know how beautiful it is to realize that we have been set free! It is irrelevant if we are circumsized or uncircumsized.

45 posted on 11/13/2009 8:20:10 AM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four
Are we also "commanded" to be whipped and go to prison?

We are commanded to continue in God's ministry as we are whipped or jailed, yes. St. Paul indeed mixes things that are done to us, such as persecutions, and things that we do voluntarily, as vigils (watchings), fasting, chastity, and knowledge. He commands both kinds.

refer to lots of different translations when a passage is being quetioned

The reason Protestant translations exist in the first place is to lie about the Gospel. Read Douay, and check with the Greek original. You can safely ignore the rest.

To me "the church" is the group of people who are true believers and have surrendered themelves to Jesus.

To you, "the church" is the authority of the Catholic institution.

The Catholic Church is both a group of people, here and in the afterlife, and an institution founded by God and lead by Him. The passage about the Church in Matthew 18, cited before on this thread, is meaningless if it were to refer to the Protestant communities of faith, which cannot agree on much between themselves and don't even pretend to be final arbiters of anything. The proper definition of Church is given by St. Paul as the body of Christ, hierarchical and undivided (1 Cor 12, Col 1, John 17)

46 posted on 11/13/2009 8:44:36 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Oh for Pete’s sake, you’re digging here. Explain how then are we supposed to know which things we are commanded to do, and which we endure if they happen if Paul “mixes” them? Should we choose to be whipped instead of eating a McDonald’s McFish sandwich with large fries and a Coke? (not such a bad tradeoff, actually) And wait, what do you mean “things we do voluntarily” such as fasting? Earlier you said it was a commandment, and a mortal sin if we didn’t. That sounds obligatory, not voluntary.

That’s a pretty harsh judgement you have there annalex. “Protestant” translations were created for the purpose of lying? Well then. You’ve been indoctrinated well, I see. I am very sorry and sad for you.

I guess we are done here then. The Word of God does not lie, although I agree that there are groups who twist it to control people and suit their own purposes. My only agenda is Jesus and the salvation he offers. For free.


47 posted on 11/13/2009 11:13:51 AM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four
We are commanded to do all of this:

4 But in all things let us exhibit ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in tribulation, in necessities, in distresses, 5 In stripes, in prisons, in seditions, in labours, in watchings, in fastings, 6 In chastity, in knowledge, in longsuffering, in sweetness, in the Holy Ghost, in charity unfeigned

Point by point:

  1. we should be ministers of God
  2. we should have muich patience in tribulations, need, and distress
  3. When we underfgo punishment, are jailed or in political struggle (all that is something done to us)
  4. We are also to be patient when we work (what follows is the list of things we do ourselves)
  5. patient when we celebrate vigils (in other word, spend long time praying)
  6. patient when we fast (you see how that "hunger" translation doesn't fit the context, beside being linguistically incorrect, -- St. Paul already mentioned various privations such as hunger and would have no need to repeat it between vigils and chastity)
  7. patient when we lead a chaste life (and devil tempts us to sexual activity)
  8. patient when we study to gain knowledge
  9. patient as we endure for a long time, maintaining sweet disposition under the leadership of the Holy Ghost
  10. patient as we extend charity

A fast is something you do yourself. When the Church says to abstain from meat (a form of fast), the Church is not going to raid your refrigerator and remove meat products. If she did so, that would no longer be fast, but hunger: enduring the lack of food. It is nevertheless a commandment. You fast because you want to participate in the suffering of Christ.

***

I have a long list of mistranslations in various Protestant Bibles, similar to this one. If you are interested, I can point to quite a few. They all have one thing in common: the original meaning is too Catholic, so it is changed to better suit Protestant theological fantasies. A Protestant, especially given the professed interest in the scripture above all else, should ask himself: Why do they lie to me?

48 posted on 11/13/2009 11:54:32 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: annalex

I said we’re done. You’re lost.


49 posted on 11/13/2009 9:59:15 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four

If at some point you become interested in finding out why the Protestant belief system is fraudulent, send me a note.


50 posted on 11/14/2009 11:14:15 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson