Posted on 01/28/2015 1:23:00 PM PST by RnMomof7
Where is THAT in the DSM-IV?
Families don't allow family members to continue down a path that will lead to annihilation. Check out what Christ said to the seven churches in Revelation. Those that were in error were rather harshly warned.
No, we're not all sinners. Born again believers are saints. We're saints who sometimes sin.
If we sin, we confess it and move on.
Most catholics seem to be hung up on the idea, that they think we can get saved, then we can go live like Hades, because, after all, we are saved, so we can do whatever we want. They have been told a thousand times this is false, and it hasn't sunk in yet. Someone who does that is not saved in the first place. That is the attitude I had when I was a catholic. I enjoyed sinning, because I thought I would go confess to a priest, say my our fathers and Hail Marys and I would be ok. Not. Now that I am saved, I can not possibly enjoy sinning like I did when I was a catholic. I don't feel good about it at all, but, as you say, confess it and move on. Not at all a difficult concept to grasp is it?
Well...
...that's not been working too effectively; has it!
 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
The variable measurement of time between your last known sin and asking for forgiveness over it.
Last Rites can handle that small problem IF a priest is available.
An altruistic love between brethren would encourage fraternal correction. The parents though, have the right to speak to their children in ways intrinsic to their authority; when the children argue amongst themselves, does the parent not intervene and have the final say? Would he not encourage peace among his children?
God made each of us unique, like snowflakes. There are differences between us. Those differences can be discussed as people who love God: a common thread between us that supersedes our differences, and should permeate all our discussions.
I would like to see an ecumenical prayer thread, where we each praised God, thanked Him, declared our love for Him together. I tried recently. When I speak of unity among Christians, I don't believe that means that we must belong to one church, or any church, if one chooses. God works wonders every moment in His Creation. God worked in my life by saving my mother's life when she was terminally ill and sent home to die with her family. I was a baby then, but my Mom and my Dad and I never forgot that God had given us a miracle! I believe that each of us here has a story to tell of how God helped them through a difficult time. We all have so much to be grateful for, even in these difficult times, as it is God Who sustains us.
May He bless you always, and give you His peace!
Pinging a bunch of former Catholics for them to find out that for their entire lives, they had been lied to about how to take communion and that they never really received the sacrament. Now, that (not actually properly receiving the eucharist) according to Catholic doctrine would then probably put untold millions of Catholics for generations in hell.
I think you may be confusing dissolving and then swallowing (it has to go somewhere) versus chewing somewhat. To receive the sppsd body and body and engage in endocannibalism one must ingest it, but i find no infallible teaching that excludes dissolving and then swallowing, versus gently munching and then swallowing.
"Fr." Z's Blog, ...in a manual by Heribert Jone, OFM, we find the opinion that if one only allows the Host the dissolve in the mouth, one does not receive the Sacrament. -http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/quaeritur-host-became-stuck-in-my-throat-did-i-commit-sacrilege/
250 Q: In receiving Holy Communion you must never let it entirely dissolve in your mouth, for if you do not swallow it you will not receive Holy Communion at all. - Baltimore Catechism No. 4, Thomas L. Kinkead; http://biblehub.com/library/kinkead/baltimore_catechism_no_4/lesson_22_on_the_holy.htm
This is a popular topic at Catholic Answers (where even many Caths get banned), which includes answers as,
In the Eastern tradition, where leavened bread is used, one must chew the Body.
Jesus is present in the host only for as long as the appearance of bread remains. If it is completely dissolved, the appearance of bread is gone, and so is Jesus. You would have held Him in your mouth for awhile, but not actually received Holy Communion as is intended.
The reason you don't want to chew is that your teeth have crevices and can hold a lot of the host...the smallest particle is the entire Christ - nondiscriminate chewing retains pieces of the host in your teeth which will prolong the real presence in your mouth without you even knowing it - unlike in your stomach where common oppinion is about 15 minutes before the stomach fluids break down the host and the Real Presence is gone.
How many people chew the host like a cracker then will go to breakfast immediately afterwards - it's just plain disrespect...the old catechisms even recommended not spitting for at least an hour after receiving... It's downright disrespectful to our Sovereign God to invite Him into your heart for Communion then go immediately to the KofC breakfast downstairs while the Real Presence of Christ still exists in your heart. - - http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=328042
Caths would be very uncomfortable according to the description of the Lord's supper in 1Cor. 11:19-34 , in which the members of the body of Christ were to "show," declare, His death for that body (Acts 20:28) and thus their union with Him and each other by unselfish considerate sharing of a communal meal. Which some were not doing by eating independently of others, shaming them that have not, and thus Paul said they did not come together to eat the Lord's supper, though they came to eat.
I’m wondering what happened to the poster who asked the question.
For all the answers that question has received, I have not seen one response to them yet.
I’ll take Him living in my heart by faith 24/7 thankyouverymuch.
Wow again.
I am certain I read it in Jone-Adelman, about forty years ago. I was not aware that ANYBODY in recent times was discussing this.
I remember with crystal clarity being instructed to allow the Host to dissolve in our mouths. That’s why, when I read about this in Jone-Adelman about fifteen years later, it stuck in my minds.
There is NO WAY that anybody is in hell as a consequence of being badly instructed in how to receive Communion.
“Eucharist” means “thanksgiving” or “giving thanks.”
Of course, there are no references to giving thanks in the Scriptures.
People go to hell because of their deliberate sins.
No one ever went to hell because of invincible or inculpable ignorance.
The post served its purpose...thread disruption.
IMO the poster asked the question so they could give their answer and then leave.
I'd have more respect for your diatribe if I read you saying the same thing on the Roman Catholic Religion Forum threads that bash Protestants and any Christian who isn't a Roman Catholic.
People go to hell for rejecting God’s gift of salvation offered in and through a relationship with Jesus.
Yes, sin is the reason we are condemned to hell but if all someone did was sin ONE sin and live an otherwise perfect life, they’d still be going to hell.
It took only one sin for Adam and Eve to break their relationship with God and have Him promise a redeemer.
So even if it were possible to die not in an actual state of sinning, the record of our life testifies against us, unless that record is wiped clean and judicial pardon is granted.
It is one of those non-binding competing tradition.
There is NO WAY that anybody is in hell as a consequence of being badly instructed in how to receive Communion.
Well, i think the logic was that since RCs tell us we must literally physically consume the flesh and blood of Christ in order to obtain spiritual and eternal life, invoking Jn. 6:53,54 - though nowhere in Scripture does literally physically consuming anything material or corporeal gain anything spiritual - then if one does not receive the "sacramement" then one is lost.
In reality, if one believes receiving the so-called "Real Presence" gains them eternal life, and their own merit, even if by grace, then they are headed to Hell-fire.
And therein lies a distinct difference between those who put their faith in Christ alone and those who put their faith in the Catholic Church. Catholics believe that "parent" is the Catholic Church. They tell us again and again that the Catholic Church is their mother. Those who trust in Christ alone know that the "parent" is God alone and look to His word and the indwelt Holy Spirit for that guidance and correction. It is God who has that final say.
>>Would he not encourage peace among his children?<<
And He does. But those who refuse to adhere to His word alone but rely on the word of man are either not His children or have yet to submit themselves to His guidance and correction.
>>Those differences can be discussed as people who love God: a common thread between us that supersedes our differences, and should permeate all our discussions.<<
I agree wholeheartedly. That can only be accomplished by those who have submitted themselves to God alone without the insertion of some person or entity between themselves and God. The Catholic Church would like people to think they are the "pillar and foundation of truth" but let's look at the Greek order of the words in that passage.
1 Timothy 3:15 If moreover I should delay that you might know how it behoves one in the household of God to conduct oneself which is the ekklesia of God the living pillar and base of the truth.
The word "ekklesia" in the Greek refers to "those called out" or "an assembly of those called out". That word is used for assemblies of community leaders who have been "called out" of the community to assemble for some purpose. It is also used for those who have been "called out" by God as His chosen people. Those "called out" of the world if you will.
With that in mind look at that the verse above again. It's God who is the pillar and base of truth. Now you might read in many Bibles the term "foundation of truth" but that is NOT what the Greek says. the Greek word for "foundation" is θεμέλιος or transliterated "themelios". That is NOT the word used in the verse above concerning the ekklesia (church). It is used in Ephesians 2:20 where it says the apostles are the foundation.
Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
So you can see that there is a terrible misunderstanding of who that "pillar and base of truth" is. It's not some "church". It's God Himself with Christ as the cornerstone. The foundation of the ekklesia is the apostles who were the first chosen by Christ to begin the building of His called out ones. There is no "church" that has been given the task of being the "pillar and foundation" of truth. It is no "church" that is the "mother of us all". Our "parent" is our Father in heaven who gave us His word in scripture. It is He who has "the final say".
>>When I speak of unity among Christians, I don't believe that means that we must belong to one church, or any church, if one chooses.<<
I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, there is a tendency for those who "belong to one church" to put that church in the place of God who they go to for truth. It is that "church" that they go to for truth rather than God. "Christians" are those who follow Christ alone with no arbiter between themselves and God. It is the Holy Spirit (God) who is our counsellor and teacher. We can have those who point out the truths of scripture to us but as Paul said, we had better "search the scriptures daily to see if what they say is true".
I made myself a bit unclear. I'm not as articulate as some; please excuse me! When I metaphorically referred to a family, I meant God as the father/parent having the authority over his children, that is, all of us; and that the children do not have authority over one another as peers. I did not refer to the Catholic Church, as I wished to be inclusive of all of us.
What we believe as Catholics is that God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit do have the final word. As you believe that one can interpret individually with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we believe our Church heirarchy has the same capacity to receive that Guidance.
As the father is to a family, so is God to us. As a mother is often the one at home, taking care of the children, instructing them, but with the father still head of the household. Thus the Church is often referred to as Mother. Mater et Magistra, (Mother and Teacher) is the name of an encyclical of Pope St. John XXIII as well.
I'll reply to the next part as soon as I can. My eyes need a rest right now. Thank you for your thorough and courteous answer!
God bless you!
Oh but we do have the authority to reprove, rebuke, and exhort.
2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
>>What we believe as Catholics is that God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit do have the final word.<<
I would question that statement. Catholics rely on the "magisterium" to not only interpret but also to require beliefs not found in scripture which we all agree are the words of God. What assurance do you have that what the Catholic Church teaches is the word of God? Catholics are reduced to faith in their "magisterium" because they cannot prove that what the Catholic Church teaches as tradition is exactly what the apostles meant when they claimed they were teaching tradition.
>>As you believe that one can interpret individually with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we believe our Church heirarchy has the same capacity to receive that Guidance.<<
But Catholics restrict that interpretation to the "church hierarchy". Even the apostles didn't make that distinction.
Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
They didn't restrict us to be in subjection so some earthly "magisterium" to tell us what scripture means.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
We rely on the Holy Spirit given to us all to open our eyes and enlighten us as to truth. No where in scripture do the apostles teach to be in subjection to some "hierarchy" or "magisterium". In fact, just the opposite is true. We are warned about false prophets and false teachers.
Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
>>Thus the Church is often referred to as Mother.<<
And that falsely. The "church" is not our mother.
Galatias 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
The term "mother church" is a false man made believe. Not once in scripture is some "church" referred to as our mother.
>>Mater et Magistra, (Mother and Teacher) is the name of an encyclical of Pope St. John XXIII as well.<<
See 1 John 2:27 above.
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.