In a recently released book titled “American Catholics Today: New Realities of Their Faith and Church,” University of Connecticut Professor and Emeritus of Sociology William d’Antonio confirms a consistent trend among younger Catholics – in every survey since 1987, younger Catholics have become increasingly more liberal and less practicing in their faith and values.
The results are most striking among college-aged Catholics.
"We've had four [surveys] since the first one,” d’Antonio says, “and what they have shown over time is that there's a big generational gap between the grandparent's generation – that is Catholics born in the forties – and Catholics of the millennial generation, who were born in the seventies and eighties.”
According to the results, only 15 percent of college-aged Catholics said they attended mass. In contrast, 60 percent of those aged 65 and older said they attended church services every week.
Most revealing, however, is the divergence in views among younger Catholics with their parents and grandparents regarding abortion, homosexuality, and divorce.
D’Antonio attributes the results to the increasing tolerance that young people give to different lifestyles in today’s culture.
"When I was [that] age I didn't know anyone who was homosexual. When anyone got divorced, it was a scandal,” he says.
Other studies, meanwhile, have revealed that Catholics as a whole have generally become more diverged in their views when held up to official church teachings.
In June 2007, The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Marriage and Family Life released results that revealed a high acceptance of divorce among adult Catholics; 76 percent said they believed divorce was acceptable.
“Cafeteria Catholicism,” the practice of picking and choosing only those beliefs considered “convenient,” has been attributed to the increasing rise in liberal views among many Catholics.
The term has no status in official Catholic teachings. However, the practice of selective adherence to the magisterium of the church has been repeatedly condemned through the teaching of the popes.
Pope Benedict XVI spoke against the divergence with church teachings when he delivered his April 2005 homily at the opening Mass of the conclave that elected him the 265th pope.
“[R]elativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and ‘swept along by every wind of teaching,’ looks like the only attitude [acceptable] to today's standards,” he said.
“However …” he added later, “[b]eing an ‘adult’ means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today's fashions or the latest novelties.”
“A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature."
Following Benedict's election, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote: “For American Catholics – especially women and Democratic pro-choice Catholic pols – the cafeteria is officially closed.”
RSS
Tliml,
Let those who know the Lord Jesus Christ judge between the Scriptures and the traditions of your religion. The example we have – “Jesus quoting scripture” is biblically based. So, you can continue to talk about candles, beads, relics, apparitions, and other medieval mysteries. All of the previous mentioned religious practices are nowhere to be found in the Scriptures. Authority; we have the same authority that Jesus himself had – “It is written”. If it was good enough for him than it is good enough for me.
tliml,
"Is there a commandment "Thou shalt keep holy the scripture"? "
No, but there is one that says, I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me.
When the pastor preaches during the sermon, he oftentimes takes his sermon from a bible text, and we follow through the scriptures with him.
But the point I guess is that, what better day, than the day we set aside for the Lord, to spend time in His word to us. And I'm not sure that I've ever taken any scripture casually.
Oh and by the by... what authority do Protestant churches have? Seriously... The Catholic Church has been studying the bible about... umm... 100 times longer than you...? Your churches have no authority. The Catholic Church is the only true authority. Would you like to know our authority? The Eucharist. And I have a story to tell. You know Our Lady of Guada Lupe? Well... the shroud she is on was owned by Juan Diego, it was made of cactus fibres and, being fibres, they would generally disintegrate within 40 years. The shroud was touched, examined, placed near candles, and almost burned. It is still in pristine condition to this day. There are pigments in the painting that scientists cannot identify as any element or compound of this earth. Mary's face is painted in watercolor, her cloak is in oil. This is IMPOSSIBLE (was at the time) you see, the sizing that they put on the painting before they paint it has to be either water color, oil, or berry, otherwise it just doesn't work. And you have to use the same sizing, so obviously nobody could have actually painted it. Mary's blue cloak has stars on it in the EXACT position that the starts would have been in at the time. In her eyes are a PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGE of the bishop of Guada Lupe and Juan Diego in the exact positions they were in when Juan Diego showed the shroud to the bishop. I need to go and I will continue this later, there is much more evidence in the miracle of Guadalupe.
Online4Him-
Your conclusions of the scripture are, once again, bent to what you want them to say. A priest is simply one that preaches and serves Jesus. :D Happy happy joy joy, I have swatted down your quotes with a definition.
GMG-
Wrong. Is there a commandment "Thou shalt keep holy the scripture"? No there is NOT, so the Sabbath OBVIOUSLY takes supremecy over reading the Scripture. What, while your umm... "Reverand" is talking you just read the bible? Wow... he is just wasting his breat then, when he/SHE knows very well that you are not concentrating on him/HER, but casually brushing over Genesis through JUDAS.
Tliml,
Again, Mass is what you call your gatherings; it is a Catholic term. Meditating on the Word of God is more beneficial than meditating on repetitious liturgy. There is a vast difference between your religion and what the Scriptures teach; your religion makes you entirely dependent on its clergy. In contrast, the Scriptures teach that every believer in Christ is a minister. Keeping the Sabbath holy is as you describe it, does not sound so holy. Have ye not read these passages?
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ – 1Peter 2:5.
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; - 1Peter 2:9.
tliml
How can reading the bible, God's own word to us, be something other than making Him #1?? What is it about the mass that you think is more important than God's word.
When you are reading the bible during mass instead of paying attention to the mass itself you are not making God numero uno. Keep Holy the Sabbath means not only GO to mass, but when you are at mass, you keep it holy, by PAYING ATTENTION and meditating on the MASS. I find it HILARIOUS that you scoff at us for observing the commandments.
thelordismylight,
How does reading the Word of God in church wrong? That sounds very legalistic, if you ask me. Hearing or reading the Word of God is better than a repetitious liturgy.
Online4Him-
My trip was wonderful, you do not need to post any verses. Thou shalt keep holy the sabbath. Do not act like private devotions replace the liturgy, God's greatest prayer.
Tliml,
How was your trip? Mass? Protestants do not have mass; so, opening your bible is wrong during service? That may be so in your religion; which “private” verses would you like me to post?
Here is something wrong with the Protestent Church(es) During mass people read the bible. I have seen it done. They will crack open a bible when the priest is talking and begin reading it. Private devotions do NOT replace the greatest prayer of them all, mass. The Protestant Church even encourages it.
Online4Him-
To which church do you belong? You must attend mass somewhere.
Heeeeeeeeeeeere'sJOHNNY!
Taj,
The issue is really not how many times a particular church is mentioned; it is the message itself. The real issues are the gospel and salvation; you know accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Many of these articles are interesting and relevant for our day, however, most of the postings here regarding the articles on "faith" are what people here are discussing and debating.
Online4Him,
I come here because they write interesting articles about Catholics. Does it offend me when people criticize my faith? no, because it shows that my faith is relevant. For example, let's take the former group you used to belong to: the seventh day adventists. How many articles does CP write about them? not very many. Actually if you look in the archives you will see it is a very small amount. Why? because nobody really cares what they think about various issues. I mean when you get a lot of comments about a study which premise is that Catholic youth are more liberal than previous generations and it receives a lot of comments (good and bad) one notices the relevance of the Church.
star2,
No worries; we are still pals :)
I have to go to work now; we will chat later. God bless.
truthandjustice,
First of all; you come here (CP) to post statments concerning your faith; does it offend you that others post statements disagreeing with you? If you do not want to hear any rebuttals concerning your claims; why post anything at all?
Online4Him
Forgive me. God is our judge whether we be right or worng. None of us are perfect.
faithmustbeproven,
Your religious zeal blinds you my friend.
faithmustbeproven,
I do not buy it; am I to take your word over historians? How can you sit there and try to justify the numbers? IT WAS WRONG TO BEGIN WITH.
Star2,
"My" personal experience with timl concerning his word and logging on or logging off is a fact. My point was - he has told me that he would be right back in about 15 minutes and then never returned; this happened several times. So, I do not think making a factual statement concerning my experience with him justifies "talking behind his back". Why even post something like that?
Well I have to go.
Ya know, it is pretty safe to say that Martin Luther, if he came back now, would probably rejoin the Catholic Church instead of joining one of the Protestant denominations.
The English Protestants SHOULD have said "Semper Fideles... until the going gets rough... or our hands get dirty... or we lose faith because we are bored..." Oh and by the way I did some research. Martin Luther. You know that guy? He believed in the Immaculate Conception. He loved Mary. He wrote in his journal "She is the path that leads me to Jesus" which is IRONICALLY the way the Catholic Church looks at her.
Our church song expresses the church itself.
Adeste fideles, laeti triumfantes:
Venite, venite, venite in Bethlehem:
Natum videte, Regem angelorum.
Venite, venite, venite adoremus Dominum.
The Catholic Church is the only one that has remained faithful, so when english Protestants were saying Semper Fideles... that is a load of bull stool.
Online4Him-
I have to write a book about this, it will be titled "The Inquisition, Reasonless? Or Reasonful?" The minor and major Protestants alike were doing something very similar to the Catholics, even though it was village by village and not organized as well it was still just as widespread as the Catholic Inquisition, and by the way, many Protestant books about the Inquisition LIE. One VERY popular book said 90 million people were killed by the Inqisition... Euroupe didn't have that many people to kill... Yea, the book is saying the Catholic Church outdid Hitler, the TRUE number, estimated by non-biased sources is actually about 20,000 that actually DIED from all of the French to Spanish Inquisitions. Around 8,000 executions are estimated to actually have been carried out by CHURCH officials, the rest were carried out by government officials. The Inquisition is EXTREMELY exaggerated by Fundamentalists to try and prove somehow that Catholicism is wrong... right...
Catholicism has one thing that gives it a greater authority than all other churches.
star
Thank you.
GMG
I concur, you are correct here. I appoligize.
star
I don't make negative comments about tliml when he has to leave.
truthandjustice1,
That same question can be directed back at you; you continually comment on other articles that do not pertain to the Catholic Church.
Not true, I believe I did once on an article related to mormonism. 98% of the time Catholicism is discussed or mentioned in the article and I'm usually defending my faith against people like you. Why would you care if a study found more Catholics sang on the way to Church or are more liberal? The reason is because even a useless study like this is important because the Church is relevant. Personally I wouldn't comment if I read an article about some other denominations youth appearing more liberal in a study.. what makes this article relevant to me is because they are Catholic
Online4Him
tliml made the following statement on "Jehovah witnesses, mormons.." article the other night.
"And I have to go now. Sorry, I have a life that demands my attention. When I have to go I have to go, so you can shut your obnoxious little mouth about when I am on and when I am not. Seriously dude, I don't make comments when you or Online say you are getting tired or you have to leave.'
You and Prophet were debating/discussing different issues related to Catholism. When tliml was gone Prophet in this case was making some very ugly comments. I don't blame tliml for being upset.
As far as you and GMG goes, when tliml leaves you two make remarks about him actually keeping his word about coming back. He has always come back when he has told me he would. I just think it is a little unkind to talk negatively about him even if some of your experiences indicate he won't keep his word. Read the exchange between you, GMG, and me in regard to him having to leave to do something on page 6,7,8 of this board.
Re: tliml comment - I don't make comments when you or Online say you are getting tired or you have to leave.'
I side with him here. I don't ever remember him making negative comments about you, GMG, Prophet or anyone else for that matter when they need to leave the discussion.
What is said obviously bothers him. I don't think that it is Christ like to talk the way you all talk about him when he is gone. Prophet was the worse. 1 Corinthians 13:2 - "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." I think as Christians we need to take heed to this verse.
Of course, thelordismylight says some pretty ugly things when he is talking with us all. He is kind of mean and harsh like faithmustbeproven12356 says.
star2,
Well, I will have to review this tomorrow. I am going to retire for this evening :)
Let me go get some specific examples.
Hi Online
I don't know if faithmustbeproven12356 will be back tonight. Their time I think is about 8 hrs ahead of central time, I think.
Star2,
Re:What I am refering to is the exchanges between you and GMG when he leaves for awhile.
Can you be a little more specific here? As to what I may have said.
Faithmustbeproven,
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; - Matthew 5:44.
This is something that men in general “choose” not to do. It is difficult to live in certain parts of the globe but all acts of violence are not of God. Remember what Jesus said –
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service – John 16:2.
Unfortunately, men have and do feel that it is within their power to “impose” their beliefs upon one another. Again; this is not of God. The acts that you described are shameful to say the least; I do not support violence of any sort.
You said, “And you lot really did help Ireland out in all sorts,”
As you speak of these injustices; your church is world renowned for its hostility to those outside its walls. Your church was one that sanctioned the inquisition and ruled Europe for a thousand years, known as the dark ages. It has been known to subvert entire kingdoms in order to have its way in matters of faith. It has instigated wars all in the name of God throughout its history.
faithmustbeproven12356
By the way, not that it really matters, Online4Him, wilderness, and GMG are all ex-Catholics.
I am not an ex-Catholic. I was raised and saved in the Baptist Church.
faithmustbeproven12356
Re: Online4Him said - just because we passionatley dissagree with one another does not mean "hate".
I don't hate you and neither does Online. No protestant on this board whether it be me, Online, wilderness or GMG hates you or any Catholic. We just strongly diagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church. They are not scriptural. They do not bring truth and life.
As far as getting thumbs down - it is hard to get them. Everyone wants others to agree with their opinion. But, reality has it, that isn't possible.
It is human nature to look to man for our approval. One needs to look to God for his approval and not to man. Not always an easy thing to do; at least, not for me. I have failed many times in this.
faithmustbeproven12356
I am sorry to hear about the ungodly acts of the Prostestants and the Catholics in Ireland towards one another. If they don't repent, receive Jesus as their Savior and Lord, and walk (live their life) in obedience to Him they will perish. I don't care what religious affiliation they have.
Their ungodly acts only go to prove that they have never been saved and are in rebellion against God.
lol, I can totally play the hate card. I get the "hate card" played on me about once a week. Try being a Catholic in England. Somehow I cannot believe in a religion that spraypaints people's houses just because they are Catholic, sets off C.D. players in the middle of a mass connected to speakers so that everyone has to evacuate, steals the Eucharist and desecrates it, and does all sorts of horrendous things to us. I find it extremely difficult to believe. And you lot really did help Ireland out in all sorts, you basically made the streets of Belfast a mine field.
I caught your last post before logging off; please do not play the hate card, just because we passionatley dissagree with one another does not mean "hate".
faithmustbeproven,
Jesus' death on Calvary is all sufficient and the only sacrifice that was needed; I will be back in a couple of hours; errands to run. I guess, we will continue this a bit later.
Online4Him-
No, they are not even reading them, they gave my comment a thumbs down thirty seconds after it was posted, they couldn't have read it. They are just disagreeing with me because I am Catholic. I GET IT GUYS! I AM CATHOLIC, YOU HATE ME, YOU DISAGREE WITH EVERYTHING I SAY! I don't need you to figure that out.
Online4Him-
I will pray for you that you doubt Jesus' ability to make a wafer his body.
faithmustbeproven,
Obviously, there are those who are reading our discussions; don't blame me if others do not agree with you assumptions.
faithmustbeproven,
It is astonishing to me that you really belive that a little round wafer is acutally Jesus? Please read your bible and come out of the dark ages.
lol, you gave THAT a thumbs down too? Ok, seriously, grow up.
Look, Jesus only died once, but he gives us his body and blood to renew the promise that he made. It is also a symbolism of the Covenant that God made with humanity, a ditch was filled with animal blood and God was making a promise to Abraham and he walked through the blood saying "If I break this covenant this is what you may do to me" and then when it came for Abraham to walk through it, God walked through it again saying "If you break this covenant then this is what you do to me" He made the all atoning sacrifice only once, but he renews the promise with the Eucharist.
Alright, within thrity seconds of its posting it got two thumbs down, you couldn't have even read it. That is just pathetic.
faithmustbeproven,
Are you even reading my posts or are you just frantically typing away your assumptions?
* bread should be blood
YOU keep a vague comment that may not even necessarily MEAN what you twist it to mean, I will keep Jesus. No matter how you bend it, Jesus said "This is my body" and "This is my bread" I don't know what else there is to argue about, it is pretty clear.
And here is one "I am with you all days, from now unto the consummation of the world" No matter how you slice that, it supports the Catholic Church. It means that the TRUE Church must be the one that Jesus founded, because Jesus said "from now" and that means no break-offs. If it scares you too much to look at it that way, you can look at it as though there must ALWAYS be a representative of Jesus with the True Church, at ALL TIMES. The only Church to have fulfilled this is the Catholic Church that keeps the Chair of Peter. I do not see any way you can twist that to be in support of the Protestant Church.
faithmustbeproven
This was an earlier post that I left with tliml; Now, should I accept the Word of God in regards to the ONE TIME, ALL SUFFICIENT SACRIFICE of Jesus Christ or should I accept the "magical transport" interpretation? Hmmm. . . I will stick with the Bible.
The Scriptures speak contrary to your “unbloody sacrifice” which you described as a “magical transport”. . . . There are no further sacrifices needed for the people of God; apparently, Christ’s atoning sacrifice on Calvary is not “sufficient” for you.
Hebrews 7:27, "...who (speaking of Jesus) does not need DAILY, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did ONCE FOR ALL WHEN HE OFFERED UP HIMSELF."
Hebrews 9:12, "...and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place ONCE FOR ALL, having OBTAINED eternal redemption."
Notice that the word “OBTAINED” is used in the past tense; no need for a daily “bloodless sacrifice”.
Hebrews 9:28, "...so Christ also, having been OFFERED ONCE to bear the sins of many..."
Hebrews 10:10-12&14, "By this will we have been SANCTIFIED through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL. And every priest (Jewish) stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, HAVING OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR ALL TIME, sat down at the right hand of God...For by ONE OFFERING He has PERFECTED for all time those who are sanctified."
LOL you are afraid of contradictory evidence? I would like to see the cowards that keep giving my non-opinionated posts thumbs down.
Jesus addressed Peter, and you have yet to explain why petros is for peter and petra for christ, you are very vague "I believe that petra more accurately typifies Christ" yea... show me why. And Jesus said "I give you the keys to heaven" and he said it to PETER! And nobody can doubt that Jesus is the cornerstone, he is the Saviour for Christ's sake. Ask any Pope "Are you superior to Jesus?" He will say "HECK NO!"
Online4Him-
It may be that Jesus did not institute Last Supper until later, but He was making way for it by saying this. And, as tliml also said, Jesus did not call the crowds back when they began to walk away, he did not say it was figurative, which can only mean that he meant it literally. And I REALLY do not understand how Protestants say that the bread and wine is not Jesus when Jesus said word for word that it was. I have seen your argument that it is only in remembrance. Whatever. Provide scriptural evidence that is absolute proof that denies Jesus' words saying "This is my body" and "This is my blood"
truthandjustice1,
That same question can be directed back at you; you continually comment on other articles that do not pertain to the Catholic Church.
The flag was a accidental "double post"
The Church - Biblical Christianity was well established long before Rome came upon the scene and not everyone accepted Rome’s claim. There were cities like Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem that did not recognize her claim. The Eastern Orthodox Church in 1054 also rejected the papacy.
Previous to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by the Roman army, at which time the apostles were dispersed, the gospel had gone to Samaria, Ethiopia, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, and India. Similarly, the term Celtic Christianity will apply to all churches and nations which used the Celtic language in their divine worship, such as Galatia and France, as well as Ireland, Scotland, and England. Shortly thereafter we find Christians who kept to the scriptural gospel such as the Ambrosian Church which was not subject to the laws of Rome; Ambrose, who died A.D. 397, was Bishop of Milan for twenty-three years. His theology, and that of his diocese, was in on essential respects not any different from that which Protestants hold today.
The Rock - Rome says that the reason Peter is called petros is because petros is the masculine form of the feminine noun petra (meaning ‘rock’), and it was fitting that Peter’s name should be masculine. However, I have never seen them (RCC) offer an explanation for why the feminine petra is always used in the Scriptures to refer to Christ, but never the masculine petros, which is only used to refer to Peter. I believe it is because, by definition, petra more accurately typifies Christ, while petros more accurately typifies Peter. It is upon the petra that Christ is building his Church.
The scriptures teach that Jesus is the Rock on which he would be his church –
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed –Romans 9:23.
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ – 1Corinthians 10:4.
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed – 1Peter 2:8
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; - Ephesians 2:20.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body – Ephesians 5:23.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence – Colossians 1:18.
Faithmustbeproven,
Genesis 3:15 – This passage is NOT speaking about Mary; this is an exaggerated interpretation of Scripture. This passage is speaking of the enmity between the followers of the wicked one and those who follow Christ; who will eventually crush the head of the serpent. This verse is a prophecy and promise that someday a certain Son, a particular male Child, would be born into the world (a descendant of Eve), to contest the devil, and though terribly bruised in the contest (His death on the cross), He would conquer the devil with a fatal blow to the head at the end time. “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.” (Hebrews 2:14).
In Galatians 3:16 the Bible further clarifies that “to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”Thus it is plain to see that it is not Mary at all, but “her seed,” Jesus Christ- that destroys Satan at last. Let us now, with emphases supplied, reread Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity (hostility) between thee (Satan) and the woman (Eve), and between thy seed (Satan’s followers) and her seed (her descendants in Christ, the Deliverer); it (Christ- the promised Seed, the Deliverer Himself) shall bruise they head (the death blow- Christ’s complete victory over Satan), and thou (Satan) shall bruise His heel (Christ’s death on the cross-a serious wound, but not permanent, for He rose from the dead, having the keys of the grave and death, having utterly spoiled Satan’s kingdom.
John 6 - It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged his followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord's Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted. As suggested above, it is best to understand this passage in light of coming to Jesus, in faith, for salvation. When we receive Him as Savior, placing our full trust in Him, we are “consuming His flesh” and “drinking His blood.” His body was broken (at His death) and His blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26, “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.”
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life – John 6:63.
It appears as though someone here has a problem with a little bit of fact.
Hello.
Wilderness hasn't responded to my question. Perhaps some of the other "Christians" here can help me out: if you really think the Catholic Church is wrong and don't care what the Catholic Church then why are you ALWAYS attracted to stories about the Catholic Church??? I mean a study about how young Catholics are becoming more liberal, what possible interest would that have for you? Catholics more likely to sing on the way to Church, study shows. Would you like to comment about that too? I think you commenting about this article says a lot about you. However discussing anything regarding the Catholic faith is important because it shows the relevance of the Church, so I should always keep that in mind.
Star2-
I just caught your comment about no salvation in the Catholic Church. That is wrong. The Catholic Church is the original church founded by Christ. Do you not realize that you are only leaving space for maybe like a total of 4 billion people to have been saved?
I took evidence from the bible, how could you not agree with it? It wasn't opinion.
Whoever gave my comments a thumbs down I would like to know why, somebody did it in like the last fifteen seconds.
As tliml says, Jesus puts clear emphasis on LITERALLY eating his body and drinking his blood. He also gives Peter supremecy over the other apostles by saying "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I build my Church" and also by saying "I give to you the keys of heaven" Most non-catholic faiths completely deny Jesus' presence in the Eucharist and Peter's supremecy.
Star2-
All of them? The Church is COMPLETELY against the word? That seems a bit far-fetched... I know the ones that non-Catholics constantly pick on, the Immaculate Conception, the Eucharist, forgiving in the name of God. What I do not understand is why the finger is constantly being pointed at Catholics when many such fingers could be pointed right back at non-catholics. As for Immaculate Conception there IS scriptural proof (I have been reading past posts) in Genesis 15 God says "I shall put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed" to the serpant, this is giving the woman equal enmity to the serpant that her son will get. The son is interpreted to be Jesus Christ (God said "It shall bruise thy head") and since they have equal enmity, Mary must have been Immaculate. I never knew about what tliml said about the vessel, but it makes sense. And no, I am not a bishop.
Online4Him
Re:There is nothing that we have discussed that I have not also told tliml personally. I can say that with a clear conscience.
What I am refering to is the exchanges between you and GMG when he leaves for awhile. I don't preceive them to be very Christ like. I may be wrong. Only God can judge your heart.
Hi online
Star2,
Hello,
“However, to be fair before God, Online4Him, and GMG have not been so kind to him behind his back.”
There is nothing that we have discussed that I have not also told tliml personally. I can say that with a clear conscience.
Faithmustbeproven,
Hello and welcome.
“All dogmas are based on scriptural and logical evidence.”
This is an inaccurate statement; there are many RC dogmas that are not even mentioned in the Scriptures. You can continue to revel in your pope and his education while I will boast in my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. He knows all languages known to man and has given us his Word -
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;”- 1Timothy 2:5.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” - 2Timothy 3:16.
As your username suggests; why not prove your faith from the Word of God? Neither you nor your pope can support the following dogmas from the Word of God – Immaculate Conception, the assumption of Mary, Indulgences, Purgatory, etc.
“I think he knows what he is talking about, in fact I bet you couldn't stand up to the pope in a scripture argument for five minutes.”
The very dogmas that your church proclaims is evident that he does not know what he is talking about. “Five minutes”, yeah, okay; first of all, I do not have any desire to meet anyone who “assumes” to replace the only mediator between God and man (Jesus Christ). The true Vicar of Christ is the “Holy Spirit” –
“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come” – John 16:13.
“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” – John 14:16.
faithmustbeproven12356
thelordismylight said that he had a Bishop friend he went to school with. Are you that man?
faithmustbeproven12356
Re:Thelordismylight, I cannot really agree with everything you say, more how you say it, you can be very harsh and mean.
Yes, you are right, he has been. However, to be fair before God, Online4Him, and GMG have not been so kind to him behind his back. I was not so kind to comment negatively to him about his personal life. None of us have shown each other God's love in our relationships with one another. We all stand guilty before God.
Re: Online4Him, all dogmas are based on scriptural and logical evidence.
The teachings of the Catholic Curch are contrary to the Word of God.
Re:Trust me. A guy that can speak about 27 languages, has 5 different degrees in theology, and has been bishop for at least 50 years probably knows more about scripture than you do.
All you know is the traditions of man for which none of them are based on the Word of God.
Your credentials mean nothing.
Re: I think he knows what he is talking about, in fact I bet you couldn't stand up to the pope in a scripture argument for five minutes.
Not so.
Re:all you did was tell me I wasn't saved.
There is no salvation in the Catholic Church. Catholism is not a path way to God. If you have placed your faith in the teachings and the practices of the Catholic faith for your salvation, you my dear friend, are lost.
I have to go, it was nice talking to you, even though all you did was tell me I wasn't saved.
Oh and just warning you, I am not a very good arguer, I think I will let tliml (apparantly people call him by his initials) handle that when he comes back XD
Star2-
Oh? How do you figure? And by the way, nice to meet you.
faithmustbeproven12356
You neither know God nor the Word of God.
hello, I am new on here, but I checked out this thread and I have read all the posts on this page. Thelordismylight, I cannot really agree with everything you say, more how you say it, you can be very harsh and mean. Online4Him, all dogmas are based on scriptural and logical evidence. Trust me. A guy that can speak about 27 languages, has 5 different degrees in theology, and has been bishop for at least 50 years probably knows more about scripture than you do. I think he knows what he is talking about, in fact I bet you couldn't stand up to the pope in a scripture argument for five minutes.
GMG,
Sounds great; hopefully, it will play the whole thing. Let me know if it works.
online
I think I've found a downloadable version of Messages from heaven at
http://www.creationists.org/MessagesFromHeaven/english.html
Have to reboot my computer before I can download it (unless I want it to take 14 hours!!!) so I'll let you know if it works.
correction:
Lol - typing to fast
I also encourage you to continue to fight the fight of biblical faith.
Hello GMG,
You are welcome; it can be frustrating when people misquote you or assume that you stated something when in fact that was not the case. I also encourage you to continue to the fight of biblical faith. There is a short clip of the DVD - “Messages from Heaven”. This DVD is very informative and gives a sound biblical explanation for these apparitions. I have it in my library and have shared it with many; it is worth purchasing at www.eternal-productions.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnZIU4g6IHM
Another must see is the “Antichrist Chronicles” - http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/products/details.cfm?prod=15
Online -
Thank you for showing my post from the other article, it appears he never went back there to see it. Unfortunately, he probably will not remember and will continue to insist this is my view. He's on another roll it seems. Unfortunate. But keep up the good fight!
That CD you talked about on the "visions", is any of that info available online do you know? I remember as a youngster getting taught all that, and when my mom died I found a book on it in her things, a book written for children with my sister's name in it. Amazing stuff by the catholics. I am so thankful the Lord brought me out of that.
tliml,
. . . anything in the bible that supports mine. . . ???
That is what I have been waiting for; the majority of your dogmas are nowhere to found in the bible. Despite our disagreements, have a safe trip – Honestly.
Oh yes, I am signing off for tonight and I am going on a religious retreat with the Archdiocesan Boys Choir of Philadelphia to a seminary, so I will be gone for about three days.
Online4Him-
I do not expect it to, you did not come here open-minded. Anything that supports your faith is literal and anything in the bible that supports mine is figurative and metaphorycal, how can I expect to convince you of anything?
tliml,
There is really not anything that you stated that convinces me that your religion is biblical. Everyone who has a substantial knowledge of Scripture realizes this.
Congratulations, you have conjured up a whole bunch of nothing. You are a model Protestant.
Online4Him-
Jesus did not mean it metaphorically, he did not speak this way. He meant what he said. Even as the gathered crowds began to walk away when he said "He who does not eat the Son of Man and drink his blood has no life" he did not call back to them saying it was metaphorical. He in fact turned to Peter and asked him if he would stay and Peter said "You are my Lord" And Online4Him, I explained that when Bernadette sprinkled the vision with Holy Water roses bloomed at its feet, so obviously it was no demon. And I am sorry, I was wrong, you do need the Eucharist to go to heaven, unless of course you have no knowledge of it. But it is not idolatry because that IS Jesus, JESUS SAID SO! Sheeeesh! As for GMG, I could have sworn she said that, but I know for a FACT that Star2 brought up quotes from Romans and supported them by saying "If you do not have the Word, you cannot go to heaven, I hope you see the Truth some day" It is kind of ironic that her "truth" is the kind that excludes most people. And as your quotes... Oh my gosh. I studied this in the SIXTH GRADE! Obviously the Protestant School curriculum is lacking these days. Satan does not necessarily mean Lucipher, it means stumbling block, your first quote means that those who have sinned will become light, duh! There are MANY ways to interpret the second, spirit can mean enemy of, so the enemies of demons will perform miracles, which would actually support our beliefs. Or, because miracles only means an extraordinary act and can even be negative, it could be saying simply that demons shall wreak the earth with havoc and horrible acts.
It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged his followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord's Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted. As suggested above, it is best to understand this passage in light of coming to Jesus, in faith, for salvation. When we receive Him as Savior, placing our full trust in Him, we are “consuming His flesh” and “drinking His blood.” His body was broken (at His death) and His blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26, “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.”
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life – John 6:63.
Miracles –
Not all miracles are of God; read the following passages below.
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light – 2Corinthians 11:14.
For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty – Revelation 16:14.
There is a DVD called “Messages from Heaven” that speaks of these apparitions that you are referring to; I have seen it, check it out.
Tliml,
Not only do you tend to assume to know what people think but you also tend to misquote others as well. Not only did you try to assume that I such and such; you did the same with GMG. Here is what GMG actually said,
“I never said those who don't know about Jesus are automatically damned. I simply asked you about the "works" part of your statement. So don't lump me in some general category either. At least have the decency to get your specific assertions matched with the proper person.”
You can see for yourself what was said if you click on page three of this article – “Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons Fastest-Growing 'Churches' in U.S.”
I have repeatedly discussed the issue of the “bloodless sacrifice” as you call it. You seem to have a short memory; on this very article (page 3), I responded to this issue. Since you forgot; I will paste here again.
Tliml,
“It is not idolatry because we are not worshipping something that is NOT Jesus”????
I attended a wedding a couple of weeks ago at a Catholic church; the priest lifted up the host and proclaimed, "this IS Jesus". Your statement contradicts yours priests.
“You do not NEED to receive Eucharist to be saved.”
This is totally unbiblical; the mass (being a bloodless) sacrifice is not a sacrifice at all. There is a very clear analogy in John 6 to the days of Moses and the eating of manna. In the days of Moses, manna was God’s provision for food for the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness. In John 6, however, Jesus claimed to be the true manna, the bread of heaven. With this statement Jesus claimed to be God’s full provision for salvation. Manna was God’s provision of deliverance from starvation. Jesus is God’s provision of deliverance from damnation. Just as the manna had to be consumed to preserve the lives of the Israelites, so Jesus has to be consumed (fully received by faith) for salvation to be received.
Nor have you been able to explain when Jesus stated "He who does not eat the son of man and drink his blood has no life" :( I have asked you to explain it four times now :( Please
explain that comment. So far no Protestant has been able to, like you, they just keep dodging it :(
And faith in God's Word alone... wow that is just a wonderfully convenient excuse when you cannot explain something. What about faith in billions of cures from a spring that was dug at the place where an apparition occurred?
Online4Him-
You all agree? REALLY? You said that somebody COULD gain access to heaven if, by no fault of their own, they did not know the Truth. GMG and Star2 said they couldn't, this seems a pretty big difference, and by the way you have yet to explain my miracles to me.
she appeared to Bernadette in the Grotto near Lourdes. Bernadette told the priest that she saw a lady with a blue gown and a white veil and the priest told her to throw Holy Water upon the vision, thinking it was a demon. When Bernadette threw the water at "the lady" roses blossomed at her feet. She told the priest this. The priest, thinking Bernadette was lying to get attention, told her to ask the lady who she was. Bernadette did so and the lady said "I am the Immaculate Conception" or Immaculata Concepcion in French. Bernadette was dumb and she had no idea what the words meant. They were big words and she was afraid she would forget them so all the way to the priest she kept repeating them over and over again. When she got to the priest she told him and he was bewildered because at the time hardly anyone outside of the clergy and the well educated knew of the new dogma. He figured that Sister Claretta, Bernadette's teacher, must have taught it or mentioned it. He even got mad at Bernadette and called her a liar. He asked the sister if she had been teaching the dogma of The Immaculate Conception and she said that she hadn't and that she had never even mentioned it in front of the children. Bernadette's parents did not know what it was. Her mother and father were illiterate so obviously they couldn't have told her. Not to mention the spring at Lourdes cures millions every year. Explain how Bernadette knew those words. I am sure you will find some way she could have found it out.
tliml,
Have you not noticed from your time spent here on the CP that all the Protestants that you have met agree upon “salvation”? We all declare with one voice that salvation is through Jesus Christ "alone" through faith in him "alone" which is by God's grace "alone". That is the difference between your religion and true biblical Christianity; as Protestants, we are more concerned about “being in Christ” rather than being under a specific “name tag.” You still don’t get it –
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new – 2Corinthians 5:17.
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life – 1John 5:12.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his Romans 8:9.
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God – Romans 2:29.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God – John 3:3.
Salvation is coming to know Jesus Christ personally and surrendering your life to him; it is not achieved through works or your religious affiliation. No church can save you; this is a transformation of the heart that God alone can perform.
Protestantism will last maybe 7 more generations, 10 tops, it is already tearing itself apart. And if they are so similar as you say, how come they are not all one?
Wilderness... THE VESSEL OF GOD HAD TO BE PURE WITHOUT BLEMISH!!! How do you not see the logic that, Mary also being a vessel of God, would also be without blemish? Seriously. It ISN'T in the scripture, but neither are you! Do you exist? It never said "And the true church will break off from the church that I begin" did Jesus say that? No! Not everything is in the scripture! Like it would matter to YOU! The Eucharist IS in the scripture and you STLL don't believe THAT! Even if it did say "And she was born without sin" you would find some way to see it "in context" and say that she wasn't! It doesn't matter to you whether or not it is in the Scripture! And that site does not have a nihil obstat and imprimatur so it is void.
Tliml,
“If Protestantism is the true religion how come IT came so late?”
The name Protestantism is very recent: the thing itself is ancient. In a word, Protestantism is revived Christianity. It is a call to biblical Christianity; to shed all the medieval traditions piled upon it over the centuries. Kind of like the Pharisees did to the first church.
tliml,
It is completely illogical to compare tables of stone on which the Ten Commandments were written with a person.
Here is a portion of what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about “full of grace” and the “immaculate conception of Mary.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
Immaculate Conception
The doctrine
In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
Proof from Scripture
Genesis 3:15
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
Luke 1:28
The salutation of the angel Gabriel -- chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.
By the Catholic Encyclopedia’s own admission, Immaculate Conception cannot be proven from scripture, “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.”
By the Catholic Encyclopedia‘s own instruction, Mary “Full of grace” is only an illustration. An illustration of what? An illustration of a doctrine that cannot be proven in scripture. Because of scriptural error, a belief system of goddess adoration has been created. Goddess? Yes, and the Catholic Encyclopedia would seem to agree: “…full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul…”
That which Catholicism ardently defends (immaculate conception) is built upon sand.
They have strayed from 2 Timothy 3:16, 17: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
I already explained our reasoning for the Dogma, as for why it came so late, it was actually proposed many times before-hand, but the Church said that the age was not ready for it. the dogma was almost passed in the 1600's but the Pope who was about to pass it died and the next Pope thought it should wait until the future. I mean... If Protestantism is the true religion how come IT came so late? And in explanation of your quotes, Romans must be seen to point out the fact that humanity must strive for perfection because, looking at it logically, someone could be born, get baptized, and instantly die, they did not sin. And Mary WAS immaculately concieved. Any vessel that carried God (the ten commandments) had to be completely pure and blessed, because Mary would be carrying God, she would have to be free of blemish as well. And you still haven't explained the miracle of Lourdes. How did an illiterate girl hear about the Immaculate Conception?
Tliml,
Wow; I thought you would be giving me Scriptural passages instead of an essay of opinions.
The Immaculate Conception is nowhere to be found in scripture my friend; this doctrine was put forth in 1854; why so late? When we review the New Testament in general and the book of Acts specifically, many of these doctrines are not found. I mentioned the book of Acts because it a history of the early church directly after the ascension of Jesus. This doctrine and many others are simply absent. As for Mary being born without sin; this is contrary to the scriptures:
Read these passages - “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” – Romans 3:23.
Mary herself says in Luke 1:47 – “And my spirit hat rejoiced in God my SAVIOUR”. Mary needed a savior just like the rest of mankind.
As for “Christ’s” nature – let’s allow God’s Word to speak for itself –
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: - Romans 8:3.
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; - Romans 1:3.
Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? – John 7:42.
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; - Hebrews 2:14.
Mary was not immaculately conceived as you claim; the scriptures say nothing of this. Jesus partook of the same flesh and blood as we have (Hebrews 2:14). Finally, our faith is in GOD’S WORD not in apparitions.
And check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun
Actually, my church IS scripturally based. I asked my friend about the Immaculate Conception. Here it is. In the time of Moses, the tablets of stone with the Ten Commandments on them were God's presence. They were God. Whenever they were placed into the golden carrier it had to be cleaned and blessed, it had to be free of blemish. Mary who was also carrying Jesus would have had to be free of blemish as well. In fact, Mary confirmed this when, about four years after the dogma was passed, she appeared to Bernadette in the Grotto near Lourdes. Bernadette told the priest that she saw a lady with a blue gown and a white veil and the priest told her to throw Holy Water upon the vision, thinking it was a demon. When Bernadette threw the water at "the lady" roses blossomed at her feet. She told the priest this. The priest, thinking Bernadette was lying to get attention, told her to ask the lady who she was. Bernadette did so and the lady said "I am the Immaculate Conception" or Immaculata Concepcion in French. Bernadette was dumb and she had no idea what the words meant. They were big words and she was afraid she would forget them so all the way to the priest she kept repeating them over and over again. When she got to the priest she told him and he was bewildered because at the time hardly anyone outside of the clergy and the well educated knew of the new dogma. He figured that Sister Claretta, Bernadette's teacher, must have taught it or mentioned it. He even got mad at Bernadette and called her a liar. He asked the sister if she had been teaching the dogma of The Immaculate Conception and she said that she hadn't and that she had never even mentioned it in front of the children. Bernadette's parents did not know what it was. Her mother and father were illiterate so obviously they couldn't have told her. Not to mention the spring at Lourdes cures millions every year. Explain how Bernadette knew those words. I am sure you will find some way she could have found it out.
Tliml,
You are full of assumptions my friend; I did not give a thumbs up concerning your personal life. The other assumption is that your church is scripturally based; perhaps, I should wait until your bishop friend comes aboard to help give you a mature explanation for what you think you believe.
Online4Him, I gave your comment a thumb's up... I know that they make you feel good :D
Online4Him-
You are wrong wrong wrong. Jesus said "He who does not eat the son of god and drink his blood has no life." apparantly we do need it. And I am seriously shocked that you would take it upon yourself to give a thumbs up to a comment about my personal life... get a life. My standards of you have gone from low to in the crapper. Besides the fact that it was obnoxious, it is kind of pathetic that you give each other thumb's up to like every other comment to make them feel better... taj and myself are content without giving each other thumb's up... Also, we KNOW we agree on everything because we are both Catholic. Could the same be said for YOU?
thelordismylight
I flagged my comments about your personal life so that no one else could read it.
tliml,
I wil read your response sometime tomorrow.
Tliml,
The Scriptures speak contrary to your “unbloody sacrifice” which you described as a “magical transport”. . . . There are no further sacrifices needed for the people of God; apparently, Christ’s atoning sacrifice on Calvary is not “sufficient” for you.
Hebrews 7:27, "...who (speaking of Jesus) does not need DAILY, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did ONCE FOR ALL WHEN HE OFFERED UP HIMSELF."
Hebrews 9:12, "...and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place ONCE FOR ALL, having OBTAINED eternal redemption."
Notice that the word “OBTAINED” is used in the past tense; no need for a daily “bloodless sacrifice”.
Hebrews 9:28, "...so Christ also, having been OFFERED ONCE to bear the sins of many..."
Hebrews 10:10-12&14, "By this will we have been SANCTIFIED through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL. And every priest (Jewish) stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, HAVING OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR ALL TIME, sat down at the right hand of God...For by ONE OFFERING He has PERFECTED for all time those who are sanctified."
What? Nobody?
It is hilarious how you all criticize the RCC when you yourselves claim not to affiliate yourselves with any set church. Where the bishop is let the people also be. Saint Ignatious of Antioch.
Alright, my already low opinion of you people has gone even lower. When somebody makes a poorly assumed comment about your personal life you do not say "Oh yea, I agree with it." Just common tact. Oh my God I just can't get over that. It is just so obnoxious.
Wait a minute... oh my god that is just obnoxious. Who gave Star2's comments about MY PERSONAL LIFE a thumbs up? Do you want me to rate your lives? You are a bunch of Protestants obsessed with tearing down the faith that has ten times the populous as you do and is the biggest threat to you. It is very pathetic that you seek out any forum about Catholicism so you can just go and start attacking it. You go OUT OF YOUR WAY to point out flaws in other faiths when, if your faith were actually the true faith, you would be content with just that. We don't go to forums about Protestants and point out their flaws. There, that is my rating on your lives. I am sorry, but it is just absolute obnoxiousness to give a thumbs up to a post that, besides being completely irrelevant, makes assumptions about someone's personal life.
God has mercy. Obviously more mercy than you people. He forgave the Israelites for turning on Him. The Ninivites actually KNEW about God and turned him away, but God gave THEM a second chance for redemption, why would he not give someone who DIDN'T know about it a second chance? If you believe that God would not give them a second chance then you are ruining Christian Faith by portraying God as a horrible being without forgiveness, mercy, and compassion. If you believe that you can be forgived for MURDERING someone just by praying then how come you cannot be forgiven for lack of knowledge?
Star2-
Do not concern yourself with my private life. I do spend quality time with my family. I talked to Bishop Burbidge and I have answers to your questions:
Jesus addressed Peter, saying he built the church upon that rock. He also said that he is with the church always, which means there must be a representative of Jesus with the church at all times, thus the chair of Peter.
And Online4Him-
Jesus did die absolutely only once, but he reinstates his death and renews his sacrifice with us through his body and blood. He preached that "Those of you that do not eat the body of the Son of God and drink his blood, have no life" as they walked away He did not beckon them back saying "I was speaking metaphorically" He meant what he said.
And a letter from Saint Paul (my friend forgot the exact one) stated that:
"He who does not know through no fault of his own shall not be damned." Not to mention there is the whole "mercy" side of it, not that you Protestants would know what mercy was...
I will be back later. . . going to take a break.
tliml,
“The written scripture could not depict every detail of his life...”
We are not talking about every detail of his life; we are talking about what Jesus said and when taken in its context, yes I said context, with the rest of the scriptures. . . . The bloodless sacrifice is nowhere to be found.
Tliml,
Rome says that the reason Peter is called petros is because petros is the masculine form of the feminine noun petra (meaning ‘rock’), and it was fitting that Peter’s name should be masculine. However, I have never seen them (RCC) offer an explanation for why the feminine petra is always used in the Scriptures to refer to Christ, but never the masculine petros, which is only used to refer to Peter. I believe it is because, by definition, petra more accurately typifies Christ, while petros more accurately typifies Peter. It is upon the petra that Christ is building his Church.
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed –Romans 9:23.
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ – 1Corinthians 10:4.
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed – 1Peter 2:8
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; - Ephesians 2:20.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body – Ephesians 5:23.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence – Colossians 1:18.
No, Online4Him, Jesus did NOT mean he built it upon himself. It would be like saying "You are Peter, and I am building this church upon myself" There would be no point in saying "Thou art Peter" if he meant it that way. You are just WRONG. The Church was built upon Peter, Peter went to Rome, hold onto your tradition. Pretty clear if you ask me.
Let's try this again. Jesus... said... TO Peter. "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I build my church." PETER'S SUPREMECY! The bible also said, I believe in thessolonians, "Hold onto your tradition, men" HOLD ONTO YOUR TRADITION!
Star2-
That was a joke... wow. You need to get out more.
Star2-
I am blessed with the truth. "I am with you all days, from now unto the consummation of the world" that means that the true church must have been around since Jesus said that. Where the bishop gathers let the people also be there. Saint Ignatious.
thelordismylight
Please don't fight with your wife. It will only hurt you, her, and the kids.
thelordismylight
I am taking the day off; it is the sabath for me and I want to rest. Hopefully, we can meet up again some other day. Jesus loves you. My God bless you with the truth.
The written scripture could not depict every detail of his life... Did the scriptures say "And the son of god will preach on a hill, and make several fish many. He will then proceed to feed these fish to the starving people. Then on Thursday he will pick up his sackcloth from the cleaners. Then he will heal a man. Then he will go to sleep. Then he will wake up. Then he will put on his sackcloth. Then he will go outside."
It is mentioned. Jesus said it was his body and blood, so it was. The scripture did not go into every detail of every single thing that happened. Do not expect it to. You are being extremely picky. It is not like Jesus was a lawyer. You can choose to accept WHAT HE SAID or you can choose to think that because it never actually mentioned the body and blood in the scripture that when Jesus says "This is my body" and "This is my blood" mean something totally different. It never said anything about YOU in the scripture. In fact I choose not to believe in you because you are not in the scripture. You do not exist. You never happened.
tliml,
Sorry the host is NOT Jesus and the magical transport is not mentioned in scripture. I too have to step out for awhile; we be back in a couple of hours.
I will be back in one half hour.
I am not contradicting our priest. Idolatry is when you worship something that is not Jesus, we are worshipping something that IS Jesus. You obviously overlooked the fact that I said we did NOT worship something that wasn't Jesus, which would make it NOT idolatry.
Tliml,
“It is not idolatry because we are not worshipping something that is NOT Jesus”????
I attended a wedding a couple of weeks ago at a Catholic church; the priest lifted up the host and proclaimed, "this IS Jesus". Your statement contradicts yours priests.
“You do not NEED to receive Eucharist to be saved.”
This is totally unbiblical; the mass (being a bloodless) sacrifice is not a sacrifice at all. There is a very clear analogy in John 6 to the days of Moses and the eating of manna. In the days of Moses, manna was God’s provision for food for the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness. In John 6, however, Jesus claimed to be the true manna, the bread of heaven. With this statement Jesus claimed to be God’s full provision for salvation. Manna was God’s provision of deliverance from starvation. Jesus is God’s provision of deliverance from damnation. Just as the manna had to be consumed to preserve the lives of the Israelites, so Jesus has to be consumed (fully received by faith) for salvation to be received.
It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged his followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord's Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted. As suggested above, it is best to understand this passage in light of coming to Jesus, in faith, for salvation. When we receive Him as Savior, placing our full trust in Him, we are “consuming His flesh” and “drinking His blood.” His body was broken (at His death) and His blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26, “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.”
I am back.
It is not idolatry because we are not worshipping something that is NOT Jesus, we are worshipping something that IS him. He said it was him, we kind of have Jesus on our side here.
good night tliml
tlimy
The blood and the wine that we part take of is only a symbol or a reminder of what Jesus did for us. To say it is literally His body and blood is idolatry.
Ok star2, I will ask about that as well. I have to go as well though. Nice chatting. Bye.
good night online and GMG
I need to say good night also. God bless, everyone.
Online4Him-
You do not NEED to receive Eucharist to be saved. I am merely pointing out, as Jesus did, that it is his body and blood. I do not care about anything else. Jesus said it was his body and blood. You cannot deny that. I do not care if I take it in remembrance, I am taking JESUS. Because JESUS SAID IT WAS HIS BODY AND BLOOD! Soooo simple but you make it impossible.
tliml
Mark 16:15-16
15 "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
If some one has never heard the gospel how can they believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose from the dead? You have to hear the gospel and believe before you can be saved.
Good night all
star2-
I am going to ask a friend of mine about that, he is a Bishop so I am sure he will know the answer. I grew up with him in highschool.
tliml,
I will read and commnet on your response tomorrow; I have to get up early in the morning.
God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden. He also states, “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission” – Hebrews 9:22. The Mass is a repetitive bloodless sacrifice that is not supported by scripture and again, Christ died ONCE for the sins of the world.
The Biblical purpose
Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 shed even more light on this matter:
"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:23-24
When Jesus said, "Take, eat: this is my body," He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin eating His literal body. To even suggest such is ridiculous. He was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross.
Notice how that verse ends: "...this do in remembrance of me." Observing the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's work at Calvary, not a reenactment. The same is true of Christ's blood:
"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:25
Jesus Himself taught the same lesson to his disciples at the Last Supper:
"And he (Jesus) took bread, and gave thanks, and
brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." Luke 22:19
tliml,
This is what it means; this is a previous post of mine.
Though this one verse does appear to teach transubstantiation, if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making that statement, Jesus said:
"... For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." John 6:33-35
This teaching is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body. The Lord goes on to further clarify:
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life..." John 6:40
Again, Jesus points out that eternal life comes through believing in Him. When the Lord's disciples murmured at His words, Jesus explained:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63
Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically. He was explaining that spiritually, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating His body.
Nowhere else in the Bible does God endorse transubstantiation. In fact, God forbids the practice:
"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." Genesis 9:4
"... No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood." Leviticus 17:12
I will be right back.
What does "This IS my body" and "This IS my blood" mean? I could care less about how we take it. Jesus said it was his body and his blood. Simple as that.
thelordismylight
Re:Jesus can still save them through his grace. Who says they have to know about Him? It just says through him. It doesn't say "If you never heard of him you are out of luck"
God says so throught the Apostle Paul:
Romans 10:
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Star2-
It can be interpreted like this (Thank God for my Catholic help books) Nobody is made righteous. You have to develop virtue and righteousness on your own.
tliml,
No one is denying what he said; I am denying what "you" think he said. Jesus said,
"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:23-24
"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:25
What does remembrance of me mean?
Online4Him-
He is not giving his life. He did that only once, he is giving a part of him. And you can't get around the fact that Jesus said "This is my body" and "This is my blood" You just can't.
Star2-
give me a second. I need to refer to my texts :D
So, my altruistic tendencies will get me to heaven anyway?
Jesus can still save them through his grace. Who says they have to know about Him? It just says through him. It doesn't say "If you never heard of him you are out of luck"
No one has virtue.
"As it is written, There is none righteous, no,not one." (Romans 3:10)
tliml,
Jesus gave his atoning life ONCE as the scriptures tell us; not a reoccurring bloodless sacrifice.
Romans 3:23
"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
Romans 6:23
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of god is eternal life throught Jesus Christ our Lord.
GMG-
If you couldn't possibly have ANY way of knowing about or having access to the Truth then you can still be saved through heroic virtue.
Oh but it is in the bible. Maybe around the point where Jesus says "This is my body" and "This is my blood" or do you not believe that Jesus' powers extend that far?
>>>And if you do not know of Him you can still be with him through virtue<<<
What does that mean?
Online4Him-
You may try to coat your little cynicism and sarcastic attitude with smiles and hugs and kisses, but I can see right through to your deceitful, and unkind core and guess who else can. The big daddy in the sky.
As it is written, There is none righteous, no,not one. (Romans 3:10)
tliml,
Magically transports? Hmmmm. . . where is that in the bible?
Thou hath no faith.
star2,
Really; that has not been my experience - lol
Online4Him-
If some of my blood magically transports into a cup, then that is my blood. I am still alive, but that is my blood. It IS a sacrifice, but then again many things are. I am sorry that we take his words literally. Maybe it isn't your bag but...
GMG-
If you are not with me you are against me. If you are not against us you are with us. If you ARE with Jesus you are obviously not against Him. This divides people overall into two groups then, if you want. Those that are with Him and the people that are against Him. So, since there are only those two groups, if you are not against him you are with him. And if you do not know of Him you can still be with him through virtue.
Don't sell him short online. He has always come back when he has told me this.
GMG,
Do not hold your breath; many times tliml says he will be right back - this is a sign that he is usually gone (he takes off) without coming back.
tlisml,
That is my point; it is a "rememberance" not the Mass as your church practices.
tliml -
So if I am not "against" you, that automatically means I agree with you and are in your camp right along with you?
I will be back in like 15 minutes tops.
When Jesus transubstantiated the bread and wine at the Last Supper he did not die. So he only died for us once, but he gives us a PART of him in Eucharist. He does not sacrifice his whole self and die again.
tliml,
If you compare your last two posts they are not the same; anyway, I know what your are saying now. The bible never says the Lord's Supper is a continual bloodless sacrifice; this is unbiblical.
with Jesus= not against him
not against him= on his side or with him
It makes perfect sense.
You said that when put into context "This is my body" and "This is my blood" do not actually mean it literally... when Jesus said it literally. Why don't YOU explain? I don't think I should have to explain it...
Here is the logic. If they are with Jesus, they are on his side and they are the only ones that are not against them, so if they are not against Him they WOULD be on their side or "with us"
tliml,
It seems that I showed up right at the nick of time; how wonderful to be talking about me.
"Well, from what online told me here is what I understand. When interpreted in context "This is my body" and "This is my blood" means "This is bread" and "This is wine"
Can you explain? What did I say?
Sorry, came out wrong. What I meant was:
Somebody goes to hell because they did not have the knowledge? That is not scriptural.
tliml -
Read it again.
Matt 12:30 HE WHO IS NOT WITH ME IS AGAINST ME, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.
Mark 9:40 For HE WHO IS NOT AGAINST US IS ON OUR SIDE.
You are right, it isn't scriptural. Not everything is in the scripture. It couldn't possibly be. I am not sure if it is the same for Protestants, but we Catholics have a thing called Mercy Foundations of Character. We believe that if someone doesn't have access to knowledge it would be unfair for them to go to hell because they did not do anything. That is not scriptural. Unless of course everyone's destiny is predetermined? That is not scriptural either. We have free will so nothing is predetermined.
thelordismylight
I am talking about this posting you made:That is also somewhat false. What about the people that do not have access to the good news? What about them? The Catholic Church states that "those who, by no fault of their own, do not have shared faith in Jesus, can still be saved through heroic virtue" and yet we are called heartless when you people are ready to condemn anyone that doesn't even know about Jesus? Or throw anyone in hell that doesn't think the way you do? (homosexuals) Who is without mercy here?
tliml,
What a surprise.
Well, from what online told me here is what I understand. When interpreted in context "This is my body" and "This is my blood" means "This is bread" and "This is wine"
The position of the Catholic church on those who have never heard of Jesus is not scriptural.
If Jester were here I am sure he would be having a fit, because he is so keen to call us heartless and merciless and saying that we exclude all other means to salvation.
I do not understand what there is to explain... how do those verses knock down what I said?
Star2,
That is also somewhat false. What about the people that do not have access to the good news? What about them? The Catholic Church states that "those who, by no fault of their own, do not have shared faith in Jesus, can still be saved through heroic virtue" and yet we are called heartless when you people are ready to condemn anyone that doesn't even know about Jesus? Or throw anyone in hell that doesn't think the way you do? (homosexuals) Who is without mercy here?
change Only Jesus can day (Eph 2:8-10). to Only Jesus can save (Eph 2:8-10).
>>>2. The Catholic Church does not interpret one part of the bible literally and another part of it "in context" as the Orthodox Christians do. Notice that "in context" was quoted.<<<
Okay, then explain these two verses, both of which are Jesus' words.
Matt 12:30 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.
Mark 9:40 For he who is not against us is on our side.
No, that is not what I say. God wants us to do good works but our good works will never save us. Only Jesus can day (Eph 2:8-10). Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him. (Heb 5:9). You have to be like the thief on the cross that got saved if you want to go to Heaven. No other way will work.
Ok, if there is no argument here I will just go argue with my wife XD
So you get to heaven by saying "I am bad, forgive me" then while you are saying this an old dying lady asks you if you can call 911 for you and you say "I don't have to, I am already saved" hmm seems too good to be true. I know what you are going to say, something like "It is just right to help them" or "Did we ever say we don't help people?" but this is the question: Do you believe that you can accept Jesus, not help people, not do anything good, not go out of your way to be a Christian, and still get to heaven?
Well, I'll let online and wilderness address those issues you brought up.
I like talking with you. I'm female you know and females like fellowship of sorts.
Just remember, salvation doesn't come from accepting the dogma of some church. It comes from being convicted that you are a sinner and worthy of damnation, that Jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead. If you want to accept what Jesus did for you, then turn to God in prayer and ask God to forgive you of your sins, come live in your heart, and be the Lord of your life. If you do, then He will give you a new nature after His own. He will change your life. He will set you free from sin, etc.
GMG-
I apologize, I was forgetting the SB church. They are also pro-life. My mistake.
I will even do the courtesy of repasting it.
And as for the whole liberal thing? Please do not point the finger at us. Because you will find, if you look at your hand, that three are pointing right back at you. We have TONS more ammo than you in that area.
1. The Catholic Church is strictly against abortion. All mainline Protestant churches (excluding Anglecan) are pro-choice.
2. The Catholic Church does not interpret one part of the bible literally and another part of it "in context" as the Orthodox Christians do. Notice that "in context" was quoted.
3. The Catholic Church believes that one must attend the mass on the Lord's day. The Lord has only one day, as specified in the ten commandments.
4. The Catholic Church never used the King James bible to support slavery. I'm sorry, but how accurate can a bible be if it was used to support slavery? Really.
5. The Catholic Church stays true to the sacraments. We stayed with what Jesus said. Guess what, people. It is his flesh and blood which, ironically, is exactly what he said.
6. We believe that people can forgive in the name of God. What's that? You say they can't? Well... I think Jesus said they could. Oh wait, was that in context too? "Go and forgive in my name, and those you forgive in my name, my Father shall forgive"
I dunno... who is the liberal one? We aren't the ones straying away from Jesus' words... and by the by, how can you accuse us of being liberal when it comes to abortion when mainline Protestant religions actually support it? How stupid is that? And I am just wondering... Do you guys have anything like Lourdes? Millions of people cured by water? No... no you don't. How are we wrong when all these ummm... well wonderful things happend around us? The Pope magically survives a bullet because it curved around his heart? On Mary's day? Coincidence? I think not.
Hello.
Is Souther Baptist considered mainline?
Well, executive attorney, whatever. My check says Executive Officer Attorney
I am head attorney at IBM yea.
Star2,
Listen... I have not had a good argument in months. My hands are shaking. I did not come on here for pleasantry lol. Plz adress what I said.
Umm..no, not really. Are you the main lawyer at IBM?
No, IBM has merged with intitech, it is a small company that was working on programming and gaming, it started growing so IBM bought them out.
Oh and if you are wondering how I found this place with all of you guys... I typed Catholic into the search bar, hit the thing at the top of the list and BAM! there were your posts. I bet that is how YOU found this place as well...
Oh, IBM is wanting to hire some interns of some sorts?
Star2,
No. No they did not. Nobody wanted to sue IBM, IBM wanted to merge with a company. Lots of work for me.
And umm... really. These are just boys and girls they are interviewing. In ten years they will think differently. I had some liberal notions when I was their age. It is only natural.
What was going on at work? Did someone want to sue IBM?
I am good, star2.
And as for the whole liberal thing? Please do not point the finger at us. Because you will find, if you look at your hand, that three are pointing right back at you. We have TONS more ammo than you in that area.
1. The Catholic Church is strictly against abortion. All mainline Protestant churches (excluding Anglecan) are pro-choice.
2. The Catholic Church does not interpret one part of the bible literally and another part of it "in context" as the Orthodox Christians do. Notice that "in context" was quoted.
3. The Catholic Church believes that one must attend the mass on the Lord's day. The Lord has only one day, as specified in the ten commandments.
4. The Catholic Church never used the King James bible to support slavery. I'm sorry, but how accurate can a bible be if it was used to support slavery? Really.
5. The Catholic Church stays true to the sacraments. We stayed with what Jesus said. Guess what, people. It is his flesh and blood which, ironically, is exactly what he said.
6. We believe that people can forgive in the name of God. What's that? You say they can't? Well... I think Jesus said they could. Oh wait, was that in context too? "Go and forgive in my name, and those you forgive in my name, my Father shall forgive"
I dunno... who is the liberal one? We aren't the ones straying away from Jesus' words... and by the by, how can you accuse us of being liberal when it comes to abortion when mainline Protestant religions actually support it? How stupid is that? And I am just wondering... Do you guys have anything like Lourdes? Millions of people cured by water? No... no you don't. How are we wrong when all these ummm... well wonderful things happend around us? The Pope magically survives a bullet because it curved around his heart? On Mary's day? Coincidence? I think not.
Hi thelordismylight. How are you ding. Long time no see.
I am back. Work was a kiiiiiilller. Sorry taj lol. I hope you held down the fort without me well. But you are right, taj. I have noticed many Protestants that go out of their way to find a Catholic to confront. Does it make them feel better to duke it out? Maybe. And I have taken the liberty of doing some research. Wikipedia gave me the following polls.
The average Protestant youth is twice as likely to commit the crime of murder than that of an atheist youth.
A Catholic youth is 2.5 times less likely to try drugs than a non-catholic.
68% of atheists polled said that they viewed Catholicism as having the best output on society of other religions. (choices were Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, and Muslim) let me add, that Judaism came second, which is not a surprise seeing as the Jewish populous has to be the most peacable and honorable, and Muslim came third. So Orthodox Christianity was dead last...
Just a few factoids.
Here's a straight forward question for you wilderness that will clearly show your true Christianity: if you really think the Catholic Church is wrong and don't care what the Catholic Church then why are you ALWAYS attracted to stories about the Catholic Church??? I mean a study about how young Catholics are becoming more liberal, what possible interest would that have for you? Catholics more likely to sing on the way to Church, study shows. Would you like to comment about that too? I think you commenting about this article says a lot about you.
A statement posted by truthandjustice1: “It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16).”
A response:
Luke 10:16 does not justify ceremony compilation. Again, we must read that verse in context. If not, people will be tempted to broaden their phylacteries, enlarge the borders of their garments, and be lost in the fog of traditional garb that leads them from the truth, unto the embracing of an empire of one voice that guides into biblical heresy.
“He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me” (Lk 10:16)
So, what did Jesus mean when he said, “He that heareth you heareth me”? Contextually, we can go back to Luke 9:1-6, Luke 9:60, Luke 10:1, 9. They were to preach the kingdom of God. This has nothing to do with vain traditions that would stand equal to scripture or the commandments of men being channeled over the centuries through Peter.
As Christians, we too, are to preach and be witnesses to the kingdom of God. What is the kingdom of God? We can find that in Romans 14:17: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
As one can see, Luke 10:16 does not endorse the preaching of pope succession, the pope being carried in a chair, the pope’s foot, knee, or ring being kissed, immaculate conception, assumption of Mary, bead prayer inventions, invoking the “Queen of Heaven,” shrine pilgrimages, bowing before statues, etc.
Then again wilderness you are defending a vague study. This week younger Catholics becoming more liberal next week younger Catholics more technologically knowledgeable. Wow these studies are great. As I said before it is pathetic wilderness that you would use such a study to use for your anti-Catholic rants, it's real Christian of you.
Without the Catholic Church's teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What's more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).
“But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:13-15).
The traditions taught to the Thessalonians is past tense (have been taught) and not futuristic or progressive embellishments of ceremonies to be passed down over time.
So, what are these traditions in 2 Thessalonians 2:15? We find greater understanding by reading a little further (contextual reading). “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received from us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you” (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 7).
2 Thessalonians 3:6, 7 now gives us the proper definition of how “traditions” is being used in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. The definition is “behavior” (walking orderly). It is not about traditions of worship such as: candles, pictures, smoke, shrines, incense, statues, elaborate robes, wearing expensive crowns, saint worship or adoration, invoking the saints in heaven, chanting, kissing the pope’s foot, bead prayer inventions, scapulars, medallions, popery, etc.
The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.
Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith.
We could go around and around about this, but in the end it is up to the individual to form their own relationship with Christ. To blame a church, any church, for a person's lack of a relationship with Jesus is just pathetic. Unless you live in a dictatorship and you are not allowed access to the bible then you have only yourself to blame. Further, youth in all denominations is arguably more liberal then at some earlier time - what exactly does this prove? People who jump on a vague study to espouse their anti-Catholicism bigotry are just sad. I guess it's the same people who like those bizarre racial studies that show differences in intelligence.
Instead of a gap from biblical truth, may we see the young Catholics enter into a gap that frees them from being spoiled by Rome “through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col 2:8).
I have been a Catholic myself and I personally feel that there are two major factors contributing to the lack of interest from the Catholic youngsters. 1) the fact that the Catholic church does not promote a relationship with Jesus Christ as they focus more on tradition. 2) there is no church as a body concept as it meant in the Bible. That is promoting people to be active within the local body and let the youths use their wonderful talent to give golry and honour to our Lor and saviour Jesus Christ. Therefore due to these deficiences, youths lack interest and go and try to fill up their lives with the things of this word which are leading them astray.
It is difficult, but not impossible. If we show it as being genuine, they will notice it. I heard a speaker one day say, " She wanted to be in the fire and not in the ashes." We don't need to be lukewarm christians. We don't need to be fakes either. If we are going to call ourselves Christians, then we need to act like one all the way. If it is real, it will be like a drug, and others will want to try the high too. They are going to want what the rest of us have. Just be real!
It is definitely true that ALL denominations have problems in many areas. The church is in trouble today. I guess my point was that in some denominations and Catholicism, for a young person, the church and its practices and rituals seem very cold. As an adult I can see the invaluable practices of these in showing our devotion to the Lord, but for young people it's difficult to understand without having that personal relationship with Christ and meaningful worship and praise which is abesnt in so many denominations.
It isn't happening with just the Catholics. It is happening with most all religions. We are becoming too lax and compromising too much. If you give the devil an inch, he is going to take a mile........and then he is going to laugh at us, because we are so easy to manipulate. Instead of allowing the Lord to control us, many of us are giving that control to the devil. There is no way out. We are either going to serve the Lord, or we will be serving the devil. I choose to serve the Lord, and desire to be a better servant of His everyday I live. No, I am not perfect! We are living in our fleshly bodies in this fleshly world, but we can try to get as close to perfect as we can. It is kind of like playing horseshoes. I don't usually make the ringer, but I try to make it or get as close to it as I can. The world is moving closer to evil, but I choose to get as close to my ringer as I can. My ringer's name is JESUS, and His Word is the Holy Bible. If we get familiar with His Word, we will get familiar with Him. The closer one gets to Him, they will desire to please Him, and they will want to obey His Word. They will NOT want to be lax or compromise with His Holy Word, if they have a relationship with Him.
Thank you truthandjustice
I think this could be said about any denomination. When one of us suffers, we all suffer, so let us lift each other up in prayer. Fighting the good fight is anything but easy.
I guess the article doesn't suprise me much. I don't mean to be critical of Catholics, but just speaking from my own experience as own who has had many Catholic friends and cousins when I was younger, their faith was not very important to them at that time in their lives. So I don't really believe this is something new. Now, I really don't know for sure the reasons why this is so. While there are some young protestants that don't take their faith very seriously when they're young, I believe there is a definite difference. I don't know how the youth programs and youth apologetics are handled in the Catholic church, but they may be an area that should be looked at.
Dear Truthandjustice, It sound like you are a very faithful and practicing Catholic. Awesome!! Keep up your defense of the Faith as St Peter says “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”
I Peter 3:15. I was very anti-Catholic for years and God brought me in kicking and screaming into the Church but I can't tell you how grateful I am to be here and how much more in love I am with Our Lord and His Church everyday. I won't be back on much because I'm going out of town but I just wanted to encourage you in your faith!! God bless you. Keep up the good fight and stay close to Our Lord.
TAJ: The money aspect didn't come from the article, it came from your money-centered response. I just wasn't expecting you to be that crass about it, that's all.
Well citizen, I'm not sure what a topic: Younger Catholics Becoming Increasingly Liberal, Studies Show is of interest to you? I guess the Christian thing to do is to find the negative aspect of the story and try to make Catholics feel bad about the situation. However, as a Catholic I'm not overly concerned about it and that bothers you. You don't know how good that makes me feel :)
TAJ: I see, so what matters is not whether the priests are in touch in with the laity, its all about the money. I guess that means that you'll start to care when the laity are so turned off by the conservatism of the hierarchy that they stop contributing money, even if that means a great many dropping out of Catholicism completely. Or maybe when Catholicism gives up the pretense of being a religion and operates solely as a business, running the institutions you mentioned.
As for town-owning, I understand that the Scientologists controls one or more towns in Florida as well. The Transcendental Meditators have Vedic City in Iowa. The Mormons, of course, have their own state.
As a young Catholic, I've posted my reaction here: http://www.americanpapist.com/2008/02/report-younger-catholics-becoming.html
thanks!
Instead of a gap from biblical truth, may we see a gap that frees them from Rome and into a relationship with Jesus Christ that is in spirit and truth.
1 other note citizen: what other denomination built a town/city in the last few years to protect their beliefs and produce more conservative youth?
http://www.avemaria.com/
Don't worry be happy :)
continue to stagnate and be ignored? look it doesn't matter too much if the youth (in general and I'm not just talking about Catholics) are considered liberal..they thought the youth was too liberal in the 60s and the Catholic Church survived just fine. Once the youth continues to attend Georgetown, Notre Dame, Boston College, Seton Hall, Marquette, Gonzaga, Xavier,......... it will not matter because they are Catholic institutions and some of the $ will continue to be put back into the Church as a whole. The youth paying tuition might be more liberal but the Catholic institutions - Churches, schools, hospitals, charities, .... are doing just fine because the leaders know what they are doing. Do you think it matters to BYU if the youth are a bit more liberal? the funds are still going to the mormon church. I've known a lot of atheists, agnostics,.... who attended Catholic institutions as long as these rebels continue to put funds in good places what do I care or the church leaders?
People don't just change their beliefs because it's "convenient." They also change them when they've searched their hearts and souls and follow their consciences, not just tradition.
TAJ: How long will an increasingly liberal laity stand for a hierarchy that is more and more out of touch with its values? It seems to me that either this new generation will produce a more liberal hierarchy, or only the conservative minority will even bother to go into the priesthood, and the hierarchy will continue to stagnate and be ignored.
I agree with you Kevin. However, there are a lot of movements in the Catholic Church to sustain the faith. I like the last comment about the cafeteria being officially closed. At least the hierarchy isn't becoming liberal which sadly many protestant denominations are currently strongly with.
This is sad news, though hardly surprising. However, you can argue that the small percentage of Catholic youth/young adults who practice their faith are stronger and more vibrant than ever, with a greater self-consciousness of their counter-cultural agenda. Plus, they have the backing of the Vatican and much of the hierarchy which will help sustain these youth in an otherwise depressing cultural backdrop.