My question is this----

At one time, eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin. Mortal sin was defined as sin that would land a person in hell. Hell was defined as a place of eternal punishment.

Then eating meat on Friday was no longer a mortal sin.

Within one week, a sin that resulted in eternal punishment became no sin at all and eternal punishment was gone for this "sin".

How could such a thing be? One Friday, eternal punishment (the ultimate horror) became, the next Friday, no sin at all - no eternal punishment.

It's possible my understanding of this is incorrect, but I'm sure that was taught in recent times.

Thank you for any answers.

My question is this----

At one time, eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin.

The Church has a discipline which requires us to abstain from eating meat on Fridays. This discipline was suspended for a short while but has been reinstituted.

The mortal sin is not in whether one eats meat on Fridays, but in one's attitude. If one has the attitude of disobedience and defiance, then one commits a mortal sin. The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ and willfully disobeying the Catholic Church is disobedience of Jesus Christ:

Luke 10 16 He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.


Mortal sin was defined as sin that would land a person in hell. Hell was defined as a place of eternal punishment.

Correct.


Then eating meat on Friday was no longer a mortal sin.

Yes, for one short period in the 60's, that prohibition was removed. However it has been reinstuted with the exception that one either abstains from meat on Fridays or performs an extra sacrifice such as giving alms or extra prayers instead.


Within one week, a sin that resulted in eternal punishment became no sin at all and eternal punishment was gone for this "sin".

That is incorrect. The sin of willfully disobeying God's Church is still a mortal sin. And the discipline of abstaining from meat on Fridays of Lent was not changed and it was and is a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays in defiance and willful disobedience of the Catholic Church.


How could such a thing be? One Friday, eternal punishment (the ultimate horror) became, the next Friday, no sin at all - no eternal punishment.

It's possible my understanding of this is incorrect,

Yes, it is.


but I'm sure that was taught in recent times.

Not as you explained it.


Thank you for any answers.

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Yes, that helped enormously. But I must say that the subtleties you described were never explained that way. Eating a cheeseburger a few minutes before Saturday, knowing it was against the Church rules, could therefore never have made it to mortal sin level unless one ate the cheeseburger in defiance of the Church, and therefore Christ. I hardly think any mortal sin is committed in that sense. Who, understanding the gravity as explained by you, would even be capable of doing such a thing?

Does this, in effect, belie the whole notion of mortal sin? By that I mean, knowing and believing the result, who in their right mind would be capable of such sin? Does this not also eliminate all those who commit horrendous crimes from committing mortal sin - as long as they are not committing it in defiance of the Church/Christ?

The question begged here is does disobedience to Christ, in the sense you mean (i.e. the Church) merit eternal punishment? Can one "disobey" Christ/Church in good conscience?

Yes, that helped enormously. But I must say that the subtleties you described were never explained that way. Eating a cheeseburger a few minutes before Saturday, knowing it was against the Church rules, could therefore never have made it to mortal sin level unless one ate the cheeseburger in defiance of the Church, and therefore Christ.

Knowing it was against Church rules? Yes, I think that constitutes defiance of the Church/Christ. After all, were you starving? You couldn't have waited the few minutes in order to be in compliance with the Church/Christ's ruling? And if you were starving, you couldn't have bought a fish sandwich instead? Or just eaten the bread?

Lets take a couple of examples. Its 11:00 at night. A person has gone all day without eating. He knows its Friday but the only thing the vendor is selling is sausage on a stick and he literally feels like he can't go another step without eating something. The man begs God's forgiveness, buys the sausage and eats it. Then goes to confession at soon as possible.

That was a venial sin to begin with and by his asking forgiveness and intent to go to Confession his sin has already been forgiven if he were to pass away before accomplishing the deed.

Say that a person knows its Friday and has eaten all day fish or other non meat foods. Then its 11:55 pm and he's hungry and he says, "I know God won't mind." Apparently he is convinced that it is not a grievous sin to disobey the Church on this matter and although it is a sin, his orientation is not completely against God and the Church, so, no it is not a mortal sin, but it is a venial sin and he should go to confession for it.

But a person who eats meat all day on Friday, knowing it's a day designated by the Church as a day of abstinence is doing it in defiance of Church/Christ and is committing a mortal sin.


I hardly think any mortal sin is committed in that sense.

How so?


Who, understanding the gravity as explained by you, would even be capable of doing such a thing?

I was at one time.


Does this, in effect, belie the whole notion of mortal sin?

By no means. Just because you can't imagine that someone would do such a thing, doesn't mean that some don't do it.


By that I mean, knowing and believing the result, who in their right mind would be capable of such sin?

Many. Those who are Catholic but don't want to obey the Catholic Church for one reason or another. Those who are raised Catholic but don't want to live according to her strict morality. Those who are not Catholic, having been informed of her teachings and reject them.

Remember, not caring about God and His will is possibly the most grievous of all sins:
Apocalypse 3 16 But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.

In my opinion, it is a form blasphemy against the Holy Spirit:
Matthew 12 32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

Of course, only God knows the heart and He alone knows whether anyone has willfully turned against Him or whether one simply doesn't care about Him.


Does this not also eliminate all those who commit horrendous crimes from committing mortal sin - as long as they are not committing it in defiance of the Church/Christ?

Mortal sin is done in defiance of God. And there are many ways to defy God willfully. God has given you and EVERY MAN a conscience. In that conscience is written the natural law which says that man shall not commit murder.

Anyone who willfully commits a grievous sin against His conscience, even if he doesn't know that God exists or anything about the Church or about Christ. That man commits a mortal sin.


The question begged here is does disobedience to Christ, in the sense you mean (i.e. the Church) merit eternal punishment? Can one "disobey" Christ/Church in good conscience?

Yes. Canon law states that every law of the Church is for the welfare of the human soul. Therefore, if the Church a Church ruling such as abstaining from meat on Fridays endangers the human soul, it is null.

What does that mean?

Say for instance, that a non Catholic person is starving. You are in a position to feed him but all you can obtain is meat. Can you feed this person meat? Of course. You may even join him in eating the meat if it comforts this person for you to do so.

Or say you are on your way to Mass and you see a person who needs medical assistance. Do you stop to help even if it means you will miss the Mass? You will commit a sin if you don't. All you have to do is explain it to the Priest in Confession and he will grant dispensation for you in that case:

Can. 1245 Without prejudice to the right of diocesan bishops mentioned in ⇒ can. 87, for a just cause and according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop, a pastor can grant in individual cases a dispensation from the obligation of observing a feast day or a day of penance or can grant a commutation of the obligation into other pious works. A superior of a religious institute or society of apostolic life, if they are clerical and of pontifical right, can also do this in regard to his own subjects and others living in the house day and night.
Code of Canon Law - IntraText (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4M.HTM)

The actual Canon Law on abstinence:
Code of Canon Law - IntraText (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4O.HTM)

Sincerely,

De Maria

Many. Those who are Catholic but don't want to obey the Catholic Church for one reason or another. Those who are raised Catholic but don't want to live according to her strict morality. Those who are not Catholic, having been informed of her teachings and reject them.

The above is a quote from De Maria. I haven't figured out how to get into a nice neat box.



I had asked, "...knowing and believing the result (eternal punishment), who in their right mind would be capable of such sin"?

De Maria's answer is above beginning with "Many..."

My response -- 1) Does that include the Catholic who doesn't want to obey the Church because he believes it is wrong? 2) Does that include the raised Catholic who doesn't want to live according to her strict morality because he doesn't believe it? 3) Does that include non-Catholics who have been informed of her teachings and reject them because he does not believe in them?



If you respond, I will have to read it tomorrow since I have to go now. Thank you for your responses.

Abstaining from meat on Fridays was a practice, not a doctrine.

To the best of my knowledge it was not ever official teaching that it was a mortal sin. I've found nothing indicating it was.

Abstaining from meat on Fridays was a practice, not a doctrine.

Was? I'm surprised you say that. I consider you a knowledgeable Catholic. Did you not know that it is still and that it was never rescinded? I assumed it had been rescinded in the 60s but since I was an atheist back then, I double checked and it was never rescinded.

See the reference to the CURRENT Canon Law from the Vatican archives:
Code of Canon Law - IntraText (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4O.HTM)


To the best of my knowledge it was not ever official teaching that it was a mortal sin. I've found nothing indicating it was.

There is no specific statement saying, such and such are mortal sins. Or if you have access to such a listing, please let me know. You have to figure it out by what is grave matter.

Willfully violating the canon law discipline on abstinence is a sin of disobedience and a mortal sin.

No sense me going over it again. Please read my first and second messages to Athos.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The above is a quote from De Maria. I haven't figured out how to get into a nice neat box.

What does that mean?


I had asked, "...knowing and believing the result (eternal punishment), who in their right mind would be capable of such sin"?

De Maria's answer is above beginning with "Many..."

What did you want? Specific names?

You asked, "who...?" I answered "Many...." And then I gave examples.


My response -- 1) Does that include the Catholic who doesn't want to obey the Church because he believes it is wrong?
2) Does that include the raised Catholic who doesn't want to live according to her strict morality because he doesn't believe it?

Yes to 1 and 2. Especially the Catholic because he has been given the gift and rejected it by his disobedience:
Hebrews 10 26 For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins,

Can that be any plainer?


3) Does that include non-Catholics who have been informed of her teachings and reject them because he does not believe in them?

That depends. There is something called unintentional ignorance:
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338


If you respond, I will have to read it tomorrow since I have to go now. Thank you for your responses.

Again, I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria

My question is this----

At one time, eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin. Mortal sin was defined as sin that would land a person in hell. Hell was defined as a place of eternal punishment.

Then eating meat on Friday was no longer a mortal sin.

Within one week, a sin that resulted in eternal punishment became no sin at all and eternal punishment was gone for this "sin".

How could such a thing be? One Friday, eternal punishment (the ultimate horror) became, the next Friday, no sin at all - no eternal punishment.

It's possible my understanding of this is incorrect, but I'm sure that was taught in recent times.

Thank you for any answers.

To me personally. This is a perfect example of how silly and fickle religions can be. A bunch of laws and gestures that don't REALLY matter. Why not just live your best life to honor your God according to the love in your heart and the ability to tell right from wrong that resides in your conscience? No meat on Fridays? Silly

Just FYI:

Canon 1251
Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Canon Law still requires that Catholics not eat meat on Fridays... but most Episcopal Conferences have determined that, instead of abstaining from meat, Catholics may perform an act of penance of their choosing.


Catholic bishops to study return to meatless Fridays

By IRA RIFKIN
Religion News Service
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1997

WASHINGTON -- Roman Catholic bishops Monday voted to study bringing back "meatless Fridays" to express the church's opposition to legal abortion and other "attacks against human life and human dignity."

"Our people are waiting for a way in which they can publicly affirm their faith" and "show their opposition to the culture of death," said Cardinal Adam Maida, archbishop of Detroit.

In asking for the study as they opened their annual fall meeting here, the bishops specifically mentioned the widespread acceptance of abortion, growing support for euthanasia, the continuance of war and rising drug abuse.

The church leaders asked that committee reports on the proposal be ready for final action at their June 1998 meeting.

In Mobile, the Rev. Christopher Viscardi, theology professor at Spring Hill College, said, "I think attacks on human dignity are all over the nation ... Attacks are so rampant that we've gotten used to them. Anything that will help raise consciousness would be a good idea."

The Rev. Joseph Jennings, who served at Saint Pius X and Our Savior Catholic churches before retiring and who is filling in at Holy Name of Jesus Church in Semmes, lauded the suggestion of prayer and sacrifice that such a move would indicate.

"There's a need for prayer and a need for sacrifice. We have not had emphasis on it in recent times," he said. "I like meat like anybody else, but the fact that we give it up or make a sacrifice -- that has a value." Abstaining from eating meat was a standard church practice intended to remind the faithful of Jesus' suffering and crucifixion until Pope Paul VI allowed the bishops to establish their own dietary guidelines following the liberalizing Second Vatican Council, which ended in 1965.

Prior to that, the church insisted on meatless Fridays as an act of penance in preparation for confession and receiving communion. Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston said whether the bishops would again insist on the practice or only institute it on a voluntary basis was yet to be determined.

Some church leaders said avoiding red meat would be insufficient.

"A day without meat is hardly a day of penitence when one can always substitute a good lobster meal," said Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, archbishop of Philadelphia.

Bevilacqua and others urged that the study be expanded to include the possibility of asking Catholics to fast every Friday. Other bishops said, however, that would be too difficult for most Catholics and would undercut the effort.

About 280 bishops are in Washington for the four day meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and its social policy arm, the U.S. Catholic Conference.

Speaking to the gathering earlier Monday, Bishop Anthony M. Pilla of Cleveland, president of the NCCB, called for a greater "spirit of reconciliation" among Catholics.

"The first imperative for reconciliation surrounds the way in which some public discussion of issues takes place within the church," Pilla said. "Across the spectrum of church opinion there are some very angry voices who apparently feel justified in using a rhetoric of violence toward whoever disagrees with them."

Outside the Capitol Hill hotel where the meeting is being held, several dozen Catholics demonstrated in support of and against the bishops' Oct. 1 pastoral letter urging parents of homosexuals not to personally reject their children even as activities stemming from their sexual preference are condemned by church doctrine. At times, the two sides angrily confronted each other.

In other action Monday, the bishops voted to continue indefinitely their annual collection to help rebuild the church in the former Soviet Union and other ex-communist European nations.

The bishops also voted to hold their fourth "Encuentro," a national gathering designed to enhance the church's outreach to Hispanic Catholics, in the year 2000.

Cannon Law 1251 has never been appealed, it is from the Episcopal Conference that abstinence from meat or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference is to be observed on all Fridays unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be obsrved on ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

It was qualified by Cannon 1253 that if you do not refrain from eating meat on Friday you are required to do some act of penance. The idea that it was part of the "divine deposit of all faith, and thus a mortal sin from my reading is not the case, but it is merely one of the church rules that require pentence if violated.

Cannon 1253 is being debated ( more or less) as to allowing the act of penance instead of fasting.

Athos

Do you really think that if you eat meat or don't eat meat on a certain day it is going to determine if God loves or condemns you?
I think God is more concerned with deeper matters of the heart.

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."
1 Timothy 4:1-3, KJV

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.
Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
Col 2:16-23

"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air,
upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life
thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."
Genesis 9:2-4, KJV

Athos

Do you really think that if you eat meat or don't eat meat on a certain day it is going to determine if God loves or condemns you? .....

Genesis 3 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die.

Adam and Eve disobeyed a dietary law and did not die physically. Does that mean that God lied? No. It means they died spiritually.

Does that means that God loves or condemns them? No, by their disobedience they condemned themselves.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Yes so I would not disobey the Bible when it says

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."
1 Timothy 4:1-3, KJV

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.
Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
Col 2:16-23

"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air,
upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life
thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."
Genesis 9:2-4, KJV

I see NO where in the Bible that it says to abstain from eating meat one day a week.

Yes so I would not disobey the Bible when it says

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."
1 Timothy 4:1-3, KJV

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.
Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
Col 2:16-23

"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air,
upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life
thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."
Genesis 9:2-4, KJV

I see NO where in the Bible that it says to abstain from eating meat one day a week.

But the Bible does say that God has given authority to the Church and that we should obey our leaders in the Church:

Hebrews 13 7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,

Hebrews 13 17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

Therefore, if the Church tells us to abstain from eating meat on Fridays, we do so.

Sincerely,

De Maria

God gave the authority to the church
so the church has the authority to change the Bible where it says
beware of false teachings in the latter times that forbid certain things and say to abstain from eating meats.
Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

I guess that is more verses of the Bible that the Church contradicts so I should throw them away too?

My point of disagreement is that I don't believe for a minute that the RCC is the CHURCH. The Church has no denominational name, no organizational head, (only Jesus Christ) and cannot be joined, but is entered ONLY by spiritual birth by believing on Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God, repentance from dead works, and by faith in the accomplished work of Christ.
All these rituals are nonsense. Jesus left only 2 ordinances, The Lord's Supper, and water baptism.

God gave the authority to the church
so the church has the authority to change the Bible

The Catholic Church has never changed the Bible.


where it says beware of false teachings in the latter times that forbid certain things and say to abstain from eating meats.

Last I saw, that teaching is still in the Bible.
1 Timothy 4 1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, 3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth.

Yeah. There it is.


Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"?

That isn't what the Church teaches. Are you upset because we believe and obey the words of Jesus Christ:
Matthew 9 15 And Jesus said to them: Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast.

We fast and abstain from certain foods today, because Jesus said that we would. We observe all of Scripture.


These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Really? Then I wonder why St. Paul did it:
1 Corinthians 9 27 But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.


I guess that is more verses of the Bible that the Church contradicts so I should throw them away too?

The Church throws none of the verses of the Bible away. She accepts them all. That is what you are objecting to. You are objecting to our keeping verses of the Bible which you despise.

Sincerely,

De Maria

My point of disagreement is that I don't believe for a minute that the RCC is the CHURCH.

That is your right. I believe the Catholic Church is the CHURCH which Jesus built.


The Church has no denominational name, no organizational head, (only Jesus Christ) and cannot be joined, but is entered ONLY by spiritual birth by believing on Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God, repentance from dead works, and by faith in the accomplished work of Christ.

Jesus seemed to think that He left an identifiable organization:

Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

All these rituals are nonsense. Jesus left only 2 ordinances, The Lord's Supper, and water baptism.[/QUOTE]

What about these:
Matthew 28 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

John 20 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Matt 25 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

John 14 15 If you love me, keep my commandments.

Sincerely,

De Maria

From what I understand in the Catholic Church we practice that only during the " Lent Season ". From the time I receive my Ashes on ash Wednesday, no meat is to be eaten on fridays till after Easter is over.

From what i understand in the Catholic Church we practice that only during the " Lent Season ". From the time i receive my Ashes on ash wednesday, no meat is to be eaten on fridays till after Easter is over.

That would be wrong. You might want to ask your priest if you don't believe my responses above.

Sincerely,

De Maria

To me personally. this is a perfect example of how silly and fickle religions can be. A bunch of laws and gestures that don't REALLY matter. Why not just live your best life to honor your God according to the love in your heart and the ability to tell right from wrong that resides in your conscience? No meat on Fridays? Silly


The level of silliness with regard to NOT eating meat on Fridays is so far beyond hysterics, that it makes one want to laugh himself to death. As we can see, the eternal Savior Jesus, passes the keys on to Peter with the intention of a massive, corrupt institution evolving wherein the hierarchy is allowed to conjure up rules by which they can control the masses. I have no problem with Christians obeying rules, but let's be reasonable. Abstaining from meat on Fridays?? Why did the RC hierarchy invent this discipline in the first place? How did such an idea ever float into the cranial cavities of the power holders? You mean we're supposed to believe that Jesus allows them to conjure up these absurd notions, and then gives the go ahead to bind them around the necks of its members like a yoke on an oxen? LOLOLOL!! Ya, okay. I wonder which doctrine of the Church allows for the cover up of little boy raping for forty years. The Church tried to keep this under the covers for a long time, and we're supposed to continue having faith that this institution holds to rights to ecclesiastical authority? That in itself, is more laughable than NOT eating meat on Fridays. BTW, what's the difference between the corporate world, and the RCC? Nothing.

Scott,
So what was the result?
What did the Bishops decided from that in 1998 or whenever?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Canon Law still requires that Catholics not eat meat on Fridays... but most Episcopal Conferences have determined that, instead of abstaining from meat, Catholics may perform an act of penance of their choosing.[/QUOTE]

Is this an Episcopalian loop hole? Go ahead and eat your meat, BUT choose some other sacrifice you will do. Bargain with God? So silly:cool:

Moved to a separate question.

cozyk,
Please keep in mind that the instruction to eat no meat on Friday's is a penance reserved for Lent and some special days only.
Personally I feel that grieving for wrongs being done and praying for them to stop is a very worthwhile endeavor.
In the case of the killing of millions of persons in the womb it is a vary great and grievious sin world wide and will now get even worse for the USA will now fund abortions in other counties with our tax payers money.
Our new president just reversed the ban on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Moved to a separate question.

Where is it moved to?

Where is it moved to?

Here; Catholics and meat on Friday
I felt it was a separate question so I decided to move it so as not to get into trouble with the moderators

I'm confused. What is the diff between...

Catholics and Meat on Friday, and
Catholic Church and eating meat on Friday?

And what about the Episcopalian part of my question, where is that?

Canon Law still requires that Catholics not eat meat on Fridays... but most Episcopal Conferences have determined that, instead of abstaining from meat, Catholics may perform an act of penance of their choosing.

Is this an Episcopalian loop hole? Go ahead and eat your meat, BUT choose some other sacrifice you will do. Bargain with God? So silly:cool:[/QUOTE]

Cozyk, thanks again for making no effort whatever to moderate your contempt for the Catholic Church. I'm sure the Catholics who read this thread really appreciate it.

Not sure where you get the idea that this is bargaining with God (though I believe you when you say you think it's silly--the repetition has helped that sink in). It's a disciplinary matter, not a matter of doctrine. Catholics are asked to sacrifice something. It can be meat or, if the bishops of a country determine that some alternative would be beneficial, it can be some other penitential practice.

I'm confused. What is the diff between...

Catholics and Meat on Friday, and
Catholic Church and eating meat on Friday?

And what about the Episcopalian part of my question, where is that?

Fasting is an act of penance. It is a virtuous act that “bridles the lusts of the flesh”, to raise the mind freely to God's revelation, and to satisfy sins in a penitent heart. St. Augustine says; "Fasting cleanses the soul, raises the mind, subjects one's flesh to the spirit, renders the heart contrite and humble, scatters the clouds of concupiscence, quenches the fire of lust, kindles the true light of chastity." (De orat. Et Jejun. [Serm. Lxxii (ccxxx, de Tempore)

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Fast (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05789c.htm)

But my question for you, why is it that fasting seems so irksome to you? Do you have an objection to Catholics in pious fasting? Should we not do it for your peace of mind? Most of your posts seem to ridicule anything Catholic, so why would you care whether we fast; or is it that it just gives you more to mock?

JoeT

But my question for you, why is it that fasting seems so irksome to you? Do you have an objection to Catholics in pious fasting? Should we not do it for your peace of mind? Most of your posts seem to ridicule anything Catholic, so why would you care whether or not we fast; or is it that it just gives you more to mock?



A fair point. Questions about Catholicism are perfectly fair, but the constant put-downs get a little tiresome.

A fair point. Questions about Catholicism are perfectly fair, but the constant put-downs get a little tiresome.

If it was a question for the purpose of gathering knowledge, it would be one thing. In my opinion, I don’t see this with most of cozyk’s comments. I’ve been wrong before, but never where I’d admit it!

JoeT

The defination of fasting or to fast has nothing to do with not eating meat. This seems to most that this is simply a ritualistic thing and has nothing to do with fasting as defined below.

A Christian theological definition of Fast - Fasting according to CARM - The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry:
Fast, Fasting

Depriving oneself of food for a period of time for a specific purpose, often spiritual. It is the "weakening" of the body in order to "strengthen" the spirit. It is interesting to note that sin entered the world through the disobedience of eating (Gen. 3:6).

I wonder if it would be a good idea for the mods to merge the two threads on fasting. There's an awful lot of repetition.

This seems to most that this is simply a ritualistic thing and has nothing to do with fasting as defined below.

This may be how it seems to most of those with whom you discuss such matters, but to lots of people it makes good sense. It has LONG been customary for people who are fasting to, for instance, drink water and eat bread. Fasting doesn't have to be ONLY abstinence from all food and drink. This isn't just a Catholic thing: It's how fasting has been done all over the world for thousands of years (CARM notwithstanding).

Moreoever, I for one have no problem with ritual. You've made it clear that you do. That's fine, I guess, though I bet you participate in lots of rituals yourself. If you pray daily, go to church on Sunday, read the Bible... These are all rituals. So to say that abstaining from meat on Fridays is "simply a ritualistic thing" may not be quite the put-down that you take it to be.

The defination of fasting or to fast has nothing to do with not eating meat. This seems to most that this is simply a ritualistic thing and has nothing to do with fasting as defined below.

A Christian theological definition of Fast - Fasting according to CARM - The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry:
Fast, Fasting

Depriving oneself of food for a period of time for a specific purpose, often spiritual. It is the "weakening" of the body in order to "strengthen" the spirit. It is interesting to note that sin entered the world through the disobedience of eating (Gen. 3:6).



It’s my understanding that abstinence from red meats has historically been associated with fasting.

But as to fasting in general: And Jesus said to them: Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast.; (Matt. 9: 15, Cf. Mark 2:20; Luke 5:35) shouldn’t we follow Christ in his recommending fasting?

But thou, when thou fastest anoint thy head, and wash thy face; 18 That thou appear not to men to fast, but to thy Father who is in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret, will repay thee. Matt. 6:16-18 - 17 Why would Christ instruct us how do fast if we weren’t obliged.

Jesus said to them: Because of your unbelief. For, amen I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain: Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove: and nothing shall be impossible to you. But this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting. (Matt. 17-19-20)

The Apostles prayed and fasted (Cf. Acts 13:2-3; 14:23). Isaiah 58 teaches how not to fast. So, don’t Protestant’s fast? If not how do you justify not fasting?


JoeT

Of course we do. Fasting though is not ritualistic and is reserved for specific times or events in our lives. If for instance we have a specific need or burden on our hearts a fast could be in order.

is reserved for specific times or events in our lives.

Then it IS ritualistic.

Is this an Episcopalian loop hole? Go ahead and eat your meat, BUT choose some other sacrifice you will do. Bargain with God? So silly:cool:

Cozyk, thanks again for making no effort whatever to moderate your contempt for the Catholic Church. I'm sure the Catholics who read this thread really appreciate it.

You aren't thankful to me, you are being sarcastic, mean and oh so defensive

Not sure where you get the idea that this is bargaining with God (though I believe you when you say you think it's silly--the repetition has helped that sink in).

Where do I get this idea??? How about the poster that wrote...


Canon Law still requires that Catholics not eat meat on Fridays... but most Episcopal Conferences have determined that, instead of abstaining from meat, Catholics may perform an act of penance of their choosing.

It's a disciplinary matter, not a matter of doctrine. I understand that. Catholics are asked to sacrifice something. Everyone has to sacrifice the same thing? You can't choose your own sacrifice ? It can be meat or, if the bishops of a country determine that some alternative would be beneficial, it can be some other penitential practice.[/QUOTE] Why is the sacrifice decided by the bishops? I guess I wonder why you need to be told what to do, instead of having a personal sacrifice between you and God.

I know you think I am showing contempt for Catholics. It's not a Catholic thing. What I feel contempt for is how I was raised in the christian faith. I didn't think I could dare question what I was told, and the rituals I had to adhere to, and the fear and anguish that was always in my thoughts. Not just for myself, but for everyone that I loved. And even though I saw and was a part of all of that, I saw blatant hypocrisy all around me. I thought that God would much rather you toss all the rituals aside, stop "playing" christian and just LIVE it. When you conduct yourself in a way that pleases God, that covers all the bases. Everything else meant nothing if you did not just LIVE it .

If my questions seem rude, I'm sorry. I am questioning rituals, and when they are said back to you, you think it's being a smart @$$. If you believe in what you practice, I don't understand the defensiveness. I'm waiting and wanting to be convinced and lose my skepticism . So far, rituals seem meaningless and I hate that. The only way I can be convinced is to make sense of some of these things.

Of course we do. Fasting though is not ritualistic and is reserved for specific times or events in our lives. If for instance we have a specific need or burden on our hearts a fast could be in order.

The need is that it’s stated that we should pray and fast in Scripture. Don’t Protestants abide by Scripture? What made you assume that it was a burden?

JoeT

Fasting is an act of penance. It is a virtuous act that “bridles the lusts of the flesh”, to raise the mind freely to God's revelation, and to satisfy sins in a penitent heart. St. Augustine says; "Fasting cleanses the soul, raises the mind, subjects one's flesh to the spirit, renders the heart contrite and humble, scatters the clouds of concupiscence, quenches the fire of lust, kindles the true light of chastity." (De orat. et Jejun. [Serm. lxxii (ccxxx, de Tempore)

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Fast (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05789c.htm)

But my question for you, why is it that fasting seems so irksome to you? Do you have an objection to Catholics in pious fasting? Should we not do it for your peace of mind? Most of your posts seem to ridicule anything Catholic, so why would you care whether or not we fast; or is it that it just gives you more to mock?

JoeT

Joe, I don't get what your reply has to do with my quoted text. I was asking why we had two threads with practically the same title.

For the second part of your reply. I don't find it as irksome as I find it unbelievable and unhealthy. I fasted for 2 days for a church fund raiser one time and I became very sick. Horrible headache, dizziness, blood sugar all out of whack. I can't imagine doing it for 30 days. Bet you could lose some weight. Your question," should we not do it for your peace of mind" tells me that you are getting your snipes in. I don't care that you fast. I care what rituals are practiced and why, and what are they supposed to accomplish. As I said in an earlier post, I WANT to get it, I want it to make sense or make a difference, or be of some benefit. I am depending on the believers and practicing to show me. Your and Akoue's replies to me are showing me the exact opposite. Mean spirited... and not a very good example of your faith you so passionately believe in.

You aren't thankful to me, you are being sarcastic, mean and oh so defensive

Sarcastic, yes. Mean, not by a long shot. You like to pepper your posts with remarks to the effect that you find Catholicism (and perhaps other forms of Christianity) to be stupid. This doesn't make me defensive; it makes me bored. I expect adults to carry on debate and discussion in an adult way. If you have objections into which you have put some thought, and care to formulate them in a thougful way, I, for one, am all ears. So, not defensive either. I have no problem with people raising objections. But the little-pt shots don't conduce to reasoned discussion and they are terrifically tedious. Throwing rhetorical barbs is a long way from articulating a reasoned objection.

[QUOTE]Where do I get this idea?? How about the poster that wrote...

I don't see anything in that post about bargaining. In fact, I don't see anything that even looks like bargaining. Perhaps you can explain why you do and what you mean.


Everyone has to sacrifice the same thing? You can't choose your own sacrifice ?


The two aren't mutually exclusive. There are sacrifices that are shared and there are sacrifices that are private. An example of the latter would be when Catholics individually choose to give up something for Lent. What's wrong with having both? Shared sacrifice is an expression of unity and solidarity, and I, at least, think these are good things.


]I guess I wonder why you need to be told what to do, instead of having a personal sacrifice between you and God.

Again, I see no reason to suppose that the two are mutually exclusive. You appear to favor a "go it alone" approach to religion. But there are good reasons to reject that, too--especially if you're a Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. You're free to choose not to be Christian, though. I have no quarrel with that.


I know you think I am showing contempt for Catholics. It's not a Catholic thing. What I feel contempt for is how I was raised in the christian faith.


So the idea is that it's okay to show contempt for Catholics, and I shouldn't call you on that, since you are contemptuous of a lot of other Christians too? Contempt is contempt, and I'm not sure why you need to have it on display. You can surely ask your questions and raise your objections without doing so... If you choose to. But, as I've said, your need to express it with great frequency gets a little boring, and certainly raises the question whether you have any interest in honest discussion or are instead just grinding axes.


I didn't think I could dare question what I was told, and the rituals I had to adhere to, and the fear and anguish that was always in my thoughts. Not just for myself, but for everyone that I loved. And even though I saw and was a part of all of that, I saw blatant hypocrisy all around me. I thought that God would much rather you toss all the rituals aside, stop "playing" christian and just LIVE it. When you conduct yourself in a way that pleases God, that covers all the bases. Everything else meant nothing if you did not just LIVE it .

I understand why that would turn you off. Since childhood have you studied these matters in an effort better to understand them, or have you instead turned your back on the whole thing with the idea that it's just stupid?

[QUOTE]If my questions seem rude, I'm sorry.

Questions are fine, and I welcome them. These are not simple matters, and there's good to be had even from honest disagreement. But I would suggest that if you really don't want your questions to seem rude, stop asking them rudely.


I am questioning rituals, and when they are said back to you, you think it's being a smart @$$. If you believe in what you practice, I don't understand the defensiveness. I'm waiting and wanting to be convinced and lose my skepticism . So far, rituals seem meaningless and I hate that. The only way I can be convinced is to make sense of some of these things.

Nope, as I've said, questioning rituals is perfectly reasonable. It's healthy, I think. But asking a question and asking a question in a smart @$$ way are two different things. You might get more helpful answers if you don't go out of your way to ask the questions in an insulting way. Here are a few examples:

Why do Catholics fast?
Why do Catholics engage in ritual X?
Do Catholics think that by fasting they can bargain with God?
Have Catholic rules regarding fasting and abstinence changed? If so, why?

These are all perfectly fair questions. And there are plenty of others that it would be fun to discuss and debate.

Your and Akoue's replies to me are showing me the exact opposite. Mean spirited...and not a very good example of your faith you so passionately believe in.

You had already come to that conclusion long ago. It would have made little difference what was written or how it was couched, you’d drawn the same conclusion. But, that’s OK. I understand.

JoeT

Sarcastic, yes. Mean, not by a long shot. You like to pepper your posts with remarks to the effect that you find Catholicism (and perhaps other forms of Christianity) to be stupid. If they sound stupid, maybe they are stupid. And I don't mean that in a bad way.

This doesn't make me defensive; it makes me bored.
Then why do you get so defensive?

I don't see anything in that post about bargaining. In fact, I don't see anything that even looks like bargaining. Perhaps you can explain why you do and what you mean.
The part about instead of doing A, I'll do B, but I'll add C to make it right.



The two aren't mutually exclusive. There are sacrifices that are shared and there are sacrifices that are private. An example of the latter would be when Catholics individually choose to give up something for Lent. What's wrong with having both? Shared sacrifice is an expression of unity and solidarity, and I, at least, think these are good things.
Okay, unity and solidarity, I get that.



Again, I see no reason to suppose that the two are mutually exclusive. You appear to favor a "go it alone" approach to religion.
It is not that I favor it, it is that I don't understand. I was a regular church goer for over 40 years. During that time I (and my husband) held many positions and I was an officer of The Presbyterian Women, and my husband was a deacon. So often, we would stand in church and recite stuff and I realized one day that I did not believe what I was saying. It can't be dictated what and how I am to believe. I could no longer just go along with the program, and follow like a sheep. I had thoughts and beliefs of my own and the one size fits all seemed absurd. It felt more like a cult, or a club.




So the idea is that it's okay to show contempt for Catholics, and I shouldn't call you on that, since you are contemptuous of a lot of other Christians too? Contempt is contempt, and I'm not sure why you need to have it on display.
You are right. It should not be on display. I just so badly want reasonable answers and I get impatient when they don't come.

certainly raises the question whether you have any interest in honest discussion or are instead just grinding axes.
Honest discussion. I've noticed though that so often a a statement is made, I question the point of what is said, and offense is taken for me even questioning it. I think questioning why you do what you do is important. That is the part I over looked for so many years and just fell in line. If it makes the statement maker angry, I get the impression that he/she is also, just a follower like I was. Or else I get an answer that STILL doesn't resonate as sensible, so I dig further.

[QUOTE]I didn't think I could dare question what I was told, and the rituals I had to adhere to, and the fear and anguish that was always in my thoughts. Not just for myself, but for everyone that I loved. And even though I saw and was a part of all of that, I saw blatant hypocrisy all around me. I thought that God would much rather you toss all the rituals aside, stop "playing" christian and just LIVE it. When you conduct yourself in a way that pleases God, that covers all the bases. Everything else meant nothing if you did not just LIVE it .

I understand why that would turn you off. Since childhood have you studied these matters in an effort better to understand them, or have you instead turned your back on the whole thing with the idea that it's just stupid?
I have been praying, searching, seeking, reading, visiting, and debating religion and faith for several years now. SO FAR, it keeps coming back to personal faith over group rituals or beliefs. Personal feels closer to God. If I had turned my back on the whole thing, I would not be spending time on a religious board.


Questions are fine, and I welcome them. These are not simple matters, and there's good to be had even from honest disagreement. But I would suggest that if you really don't want your questions to seem rude, stop asking them rudely.
I'm sorry, I'll make an effort to be more diplomatic.:o

I don't see anything in that post about bargaining. In fact, I don't see anything that even looks like bargaining. Perhaps you can explain why you do and what you mean.
The part about instead of doing A, I'll do B, but I'll add C to make it right.

I'm not going out of my way to be dense, but I still don't get the bargaining bit. The Church is just saying that everyone should participate in a shared sacrifice. If you can't sacrifice the same thing as everyone else (say, for health reasons, you can't go without meat), then do something else in order to be a part of that shared sacrifice (unity, solidarity). I honestly don't see what this has to do with bargaining.


It is not that I favor it, it is that I don't understand. I was a regular church goer for over 40 years. During that time I (and my husband) held many positions and I was an officer of The Presbyterian Women, and my husband was a deacon. So often, we would stand in church and recite stuff and I realized one day that I did not believe what I was saying. It can't be dictated what and how I am to believe. I could no longer just go along with the program, and follow like a sheep. I had thoughts and beliefs of my own and the one size fits all seemed absurd. It felt more like a cult, or a club.

Thanks for that, it makes sense. You're right: If you don't believe it, you shouldn't be doing it.


Honest discussion. I've noticed though that so often a statement is made, I question the point of what is said, and offense is taken for me even questioning it. I think questioning why you do what you do is important. That is the part I over looked for so many years and just fell in line. If it makes the statement maker angry, I get the impression that he/she is also, just a follower like I was. Or else I get an answer that STILL doesn't resonate as sensible, so I dig further.

I agree with you: Questioning is important. And follow-up questions are perfectly fair. I agree that you shouldn't be bullied off asking the hard questions.


I have been praying, searching, seeking, reading, visiting, and debating religion and faith for several years now. SO FAR, it keeps coming back to personal faith over group rituals or beliefs. Personal feels closer to God. If I had turned my back on the whole thing, I would not be spending time on a religious board.

Fair enough. With my question (which could have been clearer) I was wondering whether you had done research into the beliefs and rituals that didn't/don't make sense to you. As I say, I, for one, don't think there's anything remotely wrong with your asking questions about Catholicism or anything else. I hope you'll continue to do so in a spirit of charity.

Akoue,
Yes, cozyK does seem to be hostile to the Catholic Churh.
As has been said, people who seem to hate the Catholic Church som[;ey do not understand it.
So they really just hate what they think it is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I don't care that you fast. I care what rituals are practiced and why, and what are they supposed to accomplish. As I said in an earlier post, I WANT to get it, I want it to make sense or make a difference, or be of some benefit. I am depending on the believers and practicing to show me.

Since you indicated a wanting to learn about Catholic, I’ll expand a little on fasting just in case some Catholic hasn’t already done so. It’s a discipline – you do remember discipline, it’s like the drill sergeant says, there are three ways to do something and all but the latter are wrong; there is the right way, the wrong way and a Marine’s way.

In the Catholic Church of the United States discipline of fasting is not eating for 24-hours. Permitted are water and one light meal at around midday. The amount of food should be sufficient to maintain health given the activity level of the penitent. No red meat. In the U.S. eggs, milk, butter, cheese and fish are not to be eaten; however, bread, cake, fruit, herbs and vegetables are allowed. In other countries, the custom changes according to the ordinances for that country.

Fasting is considered both an act of penance and an obligation. In the United States fasting is all the days of lent; Fridays of Advent; the Ember Days; the vigils of Christmas and Pentecost along with the day of Assumption (Aug. 14) and All Saints day. The old and those with health conditions are not obligated to participate. Equally important to the Catholic is fasting from the previous midnight till mass the next day. Nothing can be eaten or drunk one hour before Mass. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Fast (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05789c.htm)

JoeT

Akoue,
Yes, cozyK does seem to be hostile to the Catholic Churh.
As has been said, people who seem to hate the Catholic Church som[;ey do not understand it.
So they really just hate what they think it is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fair enough Fred. I think the hostility comes from the accumulation of so many things I just don't get.

1. The Pope, Why is this mere human held in such a high regard. And given so much power to change policy. He was in Colorado the same time I was a few years ago. It was like another Woodstock. Thousands of people were rushing the city. When it was over the crowds left a big mess. People seem to worship him like he was a God... AND a rock star. But they were not respectful of the park they gathered in to worship him.:confused:

2. I have MANY Catholic friends. Not one of them is a "practicing" catholic. They disagree with too many of the stances. Is the church losing it's members?

3. Birth Control. ALL of my Catholic friends use birth control. Their parents did not and they had children they could not really afford. My brother-in-law is a perfect example. He is one of five, and he tells about how they couldn't send their kids to college, pay for braces for their teeth, get individual attention, etc. The rhythm method is allowed if I understand correctly, but isn't that a method of birth control too?

4. Priest not getting married. I hear "they are married to the church." Why can't you be dedicated to your church and your wife? God made humans to be sexual. Isn't that against nature for a man to not have a companion, no affection, no relationship of any kind with a woman. God saw that even Adam needed a mate. And masturbation is out of the question too. To me, it sounds like it is just asking for trouble. And how can a priest properly council married couples when he can not empathize?

5. The whole annulment thing. At first you could not get a divorce. Then, you could get a divorce, but you were banned from communion IF you remarried without getting an annulment from the church. Why the change in policy?

6. Now, I know that every religion has their kooks and immoral leaders. Maybe I've been reading all the wrong papers, but it seems like a whole lot of "covering up" is going on within the church. Priest child molesters just being moved from one location to another, but not fired and prosecuted. And I've seen news shows, Oprah, etc. about children, (now grown) mostly boys, having been molested by their priest over and over. So far,
These shows have only been about Catholics. I don't understand, why is it you only hear about Catholics doing this?

I think these will do for now. As Fred always says,
Peace and Kindness
cozyk

[QUOTE=JoeT777;1514542]Since you indicated a wanting to learn about Catholic, I’ll expand a little on fasting just in case some Catholic hasn’t already done so. It’s a discipline – you do remember discipline, it’s like the drill sergeant says, there are three ways to do something and all but the latter are wrong; there is the right way, the wrong way and a Marine’s way. okay, the Catholic way.

In the Catholic Church of the United States discipline of fasting is not eating for 24-hours. Permitted are water and one light meal at around midday.
Is this new? Did fasting used to mean, no food...period? If so, when and why did it change?

Fasting is considered both an act of penance and an obligation. In the United States fasting is all the days of lent; Fridays of Advent; the Ember Days; the vigils of Christmas and Pentecost along with the day of Assumption (Aug. 14) and All Saints day
I'm confused. I thought someone told me a few posts back that there was a time where Catholics fasted for a whole month? Did I mis-read something?

[/COLOR

The old and those with health conditions are not obligated to participate. Equally important to the Catholic is fasting from the previous midnight till mass the next day. Nothing can be eaten or drunk one hour before Mass. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Fast (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen
Does this mean, no breakfast on Sunday morning?
Also, don't some churches have mass on Saturday night? That means they would not have eaten since midnight the night before.

/05789c.htm)

What is the difference between "mass" and what used to be called in the Baptist church, "preaching" or worship service. Is a sermon involved in Mass?

[QUOTE=JoeT777;1514542]Since you indicated a wanting to learn about Catholic, I’ll expand a little on fasting just in case some Catholic hasn’t already done so. It’s a discipline – you do remember discipline, it’s like the drill sergeant says, there are three ways to do something and all but the latter are wrong; there is the right way, the wrong way and a Marine’s way. okay, the Catholic way.

In the Catholic Church of the United States discipline of fasting is not eating for 24-hours. Permitted are water and one light meal at around midday.


Is this new? Did fasting used to mean, no food...period? If so, when and why did it change?


I don’t know when it changed, but it’s gotten a lot less stringent in its observance since Vatican II (1964). It may be just childhood memories, but the priest would give us special penance when fast was broken. But, it’s not important when or why it was changed because it’s considered a discipline of the faithful.


Fasting is considered both an act of penance and an obligation. In the United States fasting is all the days of lent; Fridays of Advent; the Ember Days; the vigils of Christmas and Pentecost along with the day of Assumption (Aug. 14) and All Saints day
I'm confused. I thought someone told me a few posts back that there was a time where Catholics fasted for a whole month? Did I mis-read something?
Yes, you’re missing that lent is 40 days.


The old and those with health conditions are not obligated to participate. Equally important to the Catholic is fasting from the previous midnight till mass the next day. Nothing can be eaten or drunk one hour before Mass. [url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen
Does this mean, no breakfast on Sunday morning? ] yes and any midnight snacks you might be planning.

Also, don't some churches have mass on Saturday night? That means they would not have eaten since midnight the night before.
It’s on Saturday but it’s not really Saturday, it’s real early Sunday. The Jews day was from sunup to sundown. So, after sunset on Saturday it’s really Sunday.


What is the difference between "mass" and what used to be called in the Baptist church, "preaching" or worship service. Is a sermon involved in Mass?

The difference in the Southern Baptist or any other Protestant service is the real presence of Christ. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. (John 6)

The REAL Presence friend! The REAL Presence is the difference.

JoeT

CozyK.
1. The pope is held in high esteem because he sits in Peter's chair which was appointed by Jesus Christ.
He is the leader of 1 billion Catholics world wide. No other group has such a leader.
2. Yes there are some Catholics who do not agree with all Church teachings. They are called cafeteria Catholic because the like to pick what they want to believe.
Jesus warned us about lukewarm people like that.
3. The Church believes that birth control is a no-no because married people are supposed to have children as God so decides. It is up to God how many children a couple should have is the belief.
4. Priest celibacy is a discipline. A priest is supposed to be Christ-like. Jesus never married. His mission was to serve the people while he was here and not be distracted by having a wife and family.
5. An annulment is for those whose marriage was not a unity that falls within fully doctrine Church and thus was not a Catholic marriage under God.
A civil marriage is not a sacrament instituted by God and therefore not a holy union.
6. Yes there were some priest who violated their celibacy and some abused children.
Yes some bishops did move them around which was and is against Church rules.
Now days the axe has fallen on them. They are cut off from practicing as a priest and the Bishops have been disciplined. It was a shameful episode in Church history and steps have been taken to hopefully not let it happen again.
All I have mentioned is a brief answer to your question. A full answer would take volumes of work.
If you want more info on any one of them please start a new thread so that others can add to what you want to know and understand.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

CozyK.
1. The pope is held in high esteem because he sits in Peter's chair which was appointed by Jesus Christ.

That explains the first pope. What about the rest?

He is the leader of 1 billion Catholics world wide. No other group has such a leader.
Isn't that a lot of power for one man. How do they get qualified?

2. Yes there are some Catholics who do not agree with all Church teachings. They are called cafeteria Catholic because the like to pick and choose what they want to believe.
Jesus warned us about lukewarm people like that.



3. The Church believes that birth control is a no-no because married people are supposed to have children as God so decides. It is up to God how many children a couple should have is the belief.

But it's not really up to God if you use the rhythm method is it? And isn't that method approved by the church? I promise I am not being smart, just trying to understand, and plug all the holes. And wouldn't God want us to use our common sense combined with the science available to us to behave in a responsible manner.

Do you think the pope will ever look into this matter and change it to not be so strict like some other changes that have been made?
Is it YOUR belief or just the church's belief?
Am I to assume that all Catholics that are not "lukewarm" Catholics" have not used birth control throughout their marriage.
And another thought I had was that if God decides how many children you have, what happens to free will? These are all things that run through my mind. Do REAL, (not the lukewarm Kind) Catholics ever question the wisdom of the church or the pope, or do they just accept what they are told?


4. Priest celibacy is a discipline. A priest is supposed to be Christ-like. Jesus never married. His mission was to serve the people while he was here and not be distracted by having a wife and family.
But there was only one Jesus, and he was God in the flesh. We are all supposed to be Christ-like. You can be Christ-like and have a normal man/woman relationship at the same time. Can you address my questions about God making woman to be man's mate, as in Adam and Eve?

Do you wish I would stop asking questions and just accept? If I did, I would just be settling again for beliefs that I did not believe in. That is where frustration with religion sets in and I don't want that.


5. An annulment is for those whose marriage was not a unity that falls within fully doctrine Church and thus was not a Catholic marriage under God

So do you have to prove that your marriage was "not a unity that falls within fully doctrine Church" as you say? What if it did fall within unity, etc. You don't get your annulment and the church will declare you an adulterer if you remarry?


A civil marriage is not a sacrament instituted by God and therefore not a holy union.

So does this mean civil married couples that divorce will have no problem marrying a second time, and being recognized by the church?

6. Yes there were some priest who violated their celibacy and some abused children.
Yes some bishops did move them around which was and is against Church rules.
Now days the axe has fallen on them. Were these people prosecuted for allowing this to continue? Not just cut off from practicing but faced criminal charges?
They are cut off from practicing as a priest and the Bishops have been disciplined. It was a shameful episode in Church history and steps have been taken to hopefully not let it happen again.

All I have mentioned is a brief answer to your question. A full answer would take volumes of work.
That is okay, I don't expect volumes. As long as I can continue asking questions. When it resonates as truth with the God that I love and respect , I'll have my satisfaction.

If you want more info on any one of them please start a new thread so that others can add to what you want to know and understand.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I saw this AFTER I had typed my follow up questions. Sorry, I'll start a new thread with any more questions I may have. Am I wearing you out? I appreciate all your efforts.

CozyK,
I'll answer number 1 and hope you do open a new thread of the rest and for any more questions you may have on number one.
Each new pope is a product of apostolic succession as indicated in the book of Acts where after prayer to the Holy Spirit the remaining 11 chose a new apostle to take the place of Judas Iscariot.
The Church believes that it is guided by the Holy Spirit and is so inspired for many things such as promulgating Holy Scripture books into the bible we have today.
So a man who has the call from God to become a monk or priest goes on with study and guidance to become one. Over time (guided by the Holy Spirit) his superiors (that is his bishop with the OK from the pope) he is advanced to become a bishop,
He can advance even farther to become and archbishop and a cardinal.
After much prayer a new pope is elected by the College of Cardinals.
Technically speaking a monk or a mere priest could be elected pope if the Holy Spirit so moved the College of Cardinals to do so.
Yea pope does have great power as leader of 1 billion members BUT each pope is supposed to be a great servant (shepherd) of the huge flock as Jesus so instructed His apostles and disciples to be humble servants. That is like I believe Pope John Pail II was.
I do firmly believe that the Holy Spirit DOES work with the Catholic Church in such and other matters.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

CozyK
Here are a couple of sites for people who have lots of tough questions about Catholicism to ask.
AskACatholic.com - About Us (http://www.askacatholic.com/aboutus.cfm)

This one is also very good.

Welcome (http://www.chnetwork.org/Secondaryintro.html)

Peace and kindness,
Fred

cozyk,

1. All bishops, not just the Pope, are successors of the Apostles. Just as the Apostles chose their successors (an authority they received from Christ), so too they passed on to their successors the authority to choose theirs, and so on. Christ vested this authority in his Church and it is exercised by those who have been chosen to lead the Church. (Of course, the ultimate "leader" of the Church is Christ himself. When I speak of bishops as leaders, I mean to allude to Scripture, where we are instructed to obey the stewards, shepherds, bishops who have been appointed to instruct the faithful.)

3.. Of course, many Catholics have questions, and there is nothing wrong with that. Catholics are not expected to be thoughtless brutes. At the same time, though, we are expected to obey legitimate ecclesiastical authority (the bishops). We are instructed to do so in the NT (I'll spare you lists of passages, as these may best be reserved for another thread, if you still feel like starting one).

As for birth control: The Church abjures the use of artificial birth control. Natural birth control (sometimes called the "rhythm method") is fine. Married couples are expected to be open to the possibility of procreation--a choice which is ultimately to be reserved to God alone (i.e. whether offspring do in fact come along).

4. No, I don't wish that you'd stop asking questions. I do think Fred's idea, which you seem to like too, to start a new thread would be a good idea, though.

In the meantime: Sure, we are all called to be Christ-like. Bear in mind that not all Catholic priests are celibate, only those priests who enter the clerical state in regions that have a long tradition of celibacy. Eastern rite priests are often married. The Church respects the established customs of different areas. At the same time, clerical celibacy, though not always required, has been strongly encouraged since the early Church, since it is believed to be preferrable for a priest to serve his flock wholeheartedly, without the additional strain of providing for a family.

5.I've recently spoken about annulment on a couple of other threads, so I won't repeat myself here.

6.A number of priests were prosecuted, yes. But the Church doesn't have authority to carry out civil prosecutions.

As Fred has rightly said, a lot more can, and probably should, be said in answer to your questions. It's a little difficult to do here since you've asked a number of questions on different topics all in a single post. Perhaps you might consider taking one or two questions at a time and devoting a thread to each, that way we can probe each one in detail. I suspect this will provide you more satisfactory answers and then you'll be in a much better position to decide what you think about Catholic doctrine on any given subject.

May a non-Catholic comment?
All this makes me think of some history of most "holiness" groups in the early to mid 1900's.
Some, in their desire to get closer to God felt that they should forego various things, such as coffee, soft drinks, neck ties, jewelry, make up, movies, certain clothing and hair styles.
These were personal choices, but some began to teach them as rules so that everyone would have to conform to them.
Of course, they had NO scripture to back most of this up. (There is plenty to label as sin without leaving scripture to do so)
Now when these men preached their own convictions, no one was forced to conform, since everyone was free to understand the Bible for themselves.
Not so in the RC church. When the Pope decides something is sin or should be observed, EVERY Catholic is obligated to do so, regardless of what Scripture may say about it. (The Popes seldom agreed on things between themselves.)
So here is a Scripture for you.

1 Tim 4:1-3
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
(KJV)

Not so in the RC church. When the Pope decides something is sin or should be observed, EVERY Catholic is obligated to do so, regardless of what Scripture may say about it. (The Popes seldom agreed on things between themselves.)
So here is a Scripture for you.

A couple of things. The claim that Popes SELDOM agreed is just not serious. Say, if you like, that Popes have *sometimes* disagreed; but to say, or even suggest, that Popes *seldom* agree is not to be taken seriously because it's not a serious or informed claim.


1 Tim 4:1-3
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
(KJV)

Right, and Catholics aren't obligated to be vegetarians. Or is this supposed to show that what the Pope says goes, "regardless of what Scripture may have to say about it"? Because, if so, this is where cherry-picking Bible verses can get you into trouble. We know that Scripture has no problem with fasting. We know that Scripture has no problem with episcopal authority. And I'm unaware of Popes who just cavalierly throw Scripture out the window. There is the sense one gets reading many posts about Catholicism at this site that there is some sort of odd antipathy of the Pope toward Scripture. Many posters seem to labor under that misconception, though I can't see why. And I'm unaware of any Pope who's said that in order to be Catholic one has to be a vegetarian.

In any event, though, Catholics aren't sola scripturists. Sola scriptura is a modern invention. And the passage from 1 Tim. That you quote certainly doesn't seem to say that abstaining from something--even (gasp!) meat--as way to be mindful of one's sinfulness and in order to express solidarity with others is a bad or un-Christian thing to do. Christians have been fasting and abstaining, together, at the behest of the bishops, since the first century.

Akoue,
Roght.
Very good post.
Fred

The Pope decides something is sin or should be observed, EVERY Catholic is obligated to do so, regardless of what Scripture may say about it. (The Popes seldom agreed on things between themselves.)


You do know what the word discipline means. When you apply it to faith we have an authority that we look to for guidance. (Saying that, I know that you look to yourself for authority – which you should find very subjective – isn't it amazing how a pre-determined outcome can be justified, scripturally or otherwise). Anyway, Catholicism obliges us to fast – it doesn't force you or oblige you (the non-Catholic) to fast – for that matter it doesn't 'force' me to fast.

Failing to observe a fast is usually not a sin, either venial or mortal; in certain cases the penitent is excused for legitimate reasons, one of which can be simply that he needs nourishment for his job. The mortal sin is only committed when failing to observe a fast is done in contempt or disobedience. Fasting is a little inconvenience when you compare it to what is gained. "Fasting cleanses the soul, raises the mind, subjects one's flesh to the spirit, renders the heart contrite and humble, scatters the clouds of concupiscence, quenches the fire of lust, kindles the true light of chastity." ( St. Augustine, Serm. Lxxii (ccxxx, de Tempore)

Oh yes, in addition to the other occasions previously mentioned, fasting is most always done prior to any vigil.

JoeT

JoeT777,
Thanks for posting that
Fred

cozyk agrees: You forgot to say... makes you hungry

Yes, sometimes very much so!-In more ways than one.

JoeT

I'm actually torn. I want to know how a God who is so loving and caring, so forgiving, will damn his people for eating meat on Friday. I'm confused how we can actually let one group of people have so much control over our God given "free will" that will do what they say, when they say it and for how long they say. A personal relationship between yourself and the MAN upstairs is just that, a personal relationship. Who has the right to tell you what to give up in HIS name. And it bothers me that most Catholics that I ask this question to (eating meat on Friday) don't own a Bible and have no clue if that "rule" is divine or not! It's just something they do because they we told to.

My question is this----

At one time, eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin. Mortal sin was defined as sin that would land a person in hell. Hell was defined as a place of eternal punishment.

Then eating meat on Friday was no longer a mortal sin.

Within one week, a sin that resulted in eternal punishment became no sin at all and eternal punishment was gone for this "sin".

How could such a thing be? One Friday, eternal punishment (the ultimate horror) became, the next Friday, no sin at all - no eternal punishment.

It's possible my understanding of this is incorrect, but I'm sure that was taught in recent times.

Thank you for any answers.

What is a sin in God's eyes is found in scripture.

Not eating meat on Fridays is not a sin according to scripture, but was decreed to be a sin by a denomination of men.

May a non-Catholic comment?
All this makes me think of some history of most "holiness" groups in the early to mid 1900's.
Some, in their desire to get closer to God felt that they should forego various things, such as coffee, soft drinks, neck ties, jewelry, make up, movies, certain clothing and hair styles.
These were personal choices, but some began to teach them as rules so that everyone would have to conform to them.
Of course, they had NO scripture to back most of this up. (There is plenty to label as sin without leaving scripture to do so)
Now when these men preached their own convictions, no one was forced to conform, since everyone was free to understand the Bible for themselves.
Not so in the RC church. When the Pope decides something is sin or should be observed, EVERY Catholic is obligated to do so, regardless of what Scripture may say about it. (The Popes seldom agreed on things between themselves.)
So here is a Scripture for you.

1 Tim 4:1-3
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
(KJV)

Exactly right.

The problem is people read portions, because it helps their cause. Reading more will open eyes!
1 Timothy 4

Instructions to Timothy

1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
6If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. 7Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.

the problem is people read portions, because it helps their cause. Reading more will open eyes!
1 Timothy 4

Instructions to Timothy

1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
6If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. 7Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.

Opher:

Please clarify: are you saying that those who fast are heretics? Or, are you saying that those who don’t fast are heretics?

JoeT

Im saying that people only take bits and pieces to help their cause... You can take an section of a passage because out of context it says what u say... But words are omitted. The entire passage has to be read to be understood! Fasting and not eating meat are totally different. To fast is to sacrifice for a certain amount of time for a particular reason. But to not eat flesh of a once living creature on a Friday isn't fasting at all. You're still eating and nourishing your body with food. I think if you want to give up meat then do it, but please don't force your beliefs upon people who are using the free will God has given us. We can sacrifice something else for our Lord, anything... As long as our hearts and souls are in the right place and your personal relationship with the Man upstairs is just that; a PERSONAL relationship.

Im saying that people only take bits and pieces to help their cause... You can take an section of a passage because out of context it says what u say... But words are omitted. The entire passage has to be read to be understood! Fasting and not eating meat are totally different. To fast is to sacrifice for a certain amount of time for a particular reason. But to not eat flesh of a once living creature on a Friday isn't fasting at all. You're still eating and nourishing your body with food. I think if you want to give up meat then do it, but please dont force your beliefs upon people who are using the free will God has given us. We can sacrifice something else for our Lord, anything... As long as our hearts and souls are in the right place and your personal relationship with the Man upstairs is just that; a PERSONAL relationship.

Apparently you haven't read this thread in its entirety. These points have been addressed repeatedly.

I actually have read the thread but I feel some points needed to be hammered home again!

i actually have read the thread but i feel some points needed to be hammered home again!

So you are here to proselytize?

Opher:


but please dont force your beliefs upon people who are using the free will God has given us.

Well OK, let's first take a good look at 'forcing' fasting on people. Is that your contention? When was the last time you went to a restaurant on Friday and was refused by the Catholic waiter to be served a hamburger, or any other meat product? How does fasting affect your faith (assuming its non-Catholic)?


Im saying that people only take bits and pieces to help their cause... You can take an section of a passage because out of context it says what u say... But words are omitted.

Yes when people take passages out of context, a lie is being told. But, let's put fasting in full context. God said, “ Now, therefore, saith the Lord. Be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting, and in weeping, and mourning.” (Joel 2:12) I didn't utter these words. I didn't cut them short. And if you go to the book of Joel you'll see that I'm conveying the idea that God wants us to convert the heart with fasting and it isn't a contrivance. Now, if you don't wish to follow this, then maybe you'd follow Christ instead?

You do know that Christ fasted: “ And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards he was hungry.” (Mat 4:2) This too is in context. However, since you're apparently not Catholic you are not obligated. But, this passage, like the previous doesn't say 'only Catholics need to fast', now does it?

In fact what Christ said was, “But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them: and then they shall fast in those days.” (Mark 2:20) The bride of Christ is the Catholic Church. The groom is gone. So, what is Christ saying? Something about fasting when he's gone (not on earth)?

Not only that but Christ tells us how to fast, “But thou, when thou fastest anoint thy head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not to men to fast, but to thy Father who is in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret, will repay thee.” (Mat 6:17,18)

And Paul advises that since we're now Christians we should, “let us exhibit ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience… in fastings, In chastity … “ (2 Cor 6:4 seq.) I did shorten this one a bit, but I didn't want you to fall asleep.

St. Thomas quotes St. Jerome (Ad Lucin. Ep. Lxxi) speaking of fasting says: "Let each province keep to its own practice, and look upon the commands of the elders as though they were laws of the apostles." Therefore fasting is a matter of precept. (St. Thomas Summa II, II, 147, 3)


The entire passage has to be read to be understood! Fasting and not eating meat are totally different. To fast is to sacrifice for a certain amount of time for a particular reason. But to not eat flesh of a once living creature on a Friday isn't fasting at all. You're still eating and nourishing your body with food. I think if you want to give up meat then do it, …We can sacrifice something else for our Lord, anything... As long as our hearts and souls are in the right place and your personal relationship with the Man upstairs is just that; a PERSONAL relationship.

Boy, fasting must be a hard thing for Protestants not to participate in! But, I thought that Protestants were into the Bible only thing; do Protestants leave the fasting out? Just knowing that your Catholic co-worker is going home on Friday and not going to eat meat must be demoralizing. And this should really trample on your free will; I had a small piece of fish. I enjoyed it, and my toe nails didn't curl up from malnutrition. In fact if I fasted for a week without eating a thing, I'd probably be healthier. Does that step on your 'free wills'?

JoeT

Wow,
This has been very interesting to me a former Protestant who art meat on Friday an did not fast.
I had a small bowl of clam chowder for lunch and a few shrimp for supper and the reason I was eating fish was on my mind.
Now my question is those folks who were once Catholic and now go to a different denomination and who enjoy eating a nice steak or other meat on Friday during Lent, are they being sinful? That's those who think, "Now I'm not a Catholic so I don't need to follow the rules."
I wonder this because I firmly believe that a person who well knows and understands the Catholic faith would never leave it.
I also think that once a confirmed and practicing Catholic always a Catholic no matter what they think.
Am I off base on those questions?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I wonder this because I firmly believe that a person who well knows and understands the Catholic faith would never leave it.
I also think that once a confirmed and practicing Catholic always a Catholic no matter what they think.
Am I off base on those questions?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Would it be better to proclaim the Words of the Lord? Showing glory to God in a spirit of love.
Is not the gospel, the faith to follow? And to suffer as a Christain, (1 Peter 4:16) the following and doctrine of Christ. That which walked the earth as Flesh in the Word..What are we to proclaim to our brothers? (Jeremiah 7:2)

Pharisees
A sect that seems to have started after the Jewish exile. In addition to OT books the Pharisees recognised in oral tradition a standard of belief and life. They sought for distinction and praise by outward observance of external rites and by outward forms of piety, and such as ceremonial washings, fastings, prayers, and alms giving; and, comparatively negligent of genuine piety, they prided themselves on their fancied good works. They held strenuously to a belief in the existence of good and evil angels, and to the expectation of a Messiah; and they cherished the hope that the dead, after a preliminary experience either of reward or of penalty in Hades, would be recalled to life by him, and be requited each according to his individual deeds. In opposition to the usurped dominion of the Herods and the rule of the Romans, they stoutly upheld the theocracy and their country's cause, and possessed great influence with the common people. According to Josephus they numbered more than 6000. They were bitter enemies of Jesus and his cause; and were in turn severely rebuked by him for their avarice, ambition, hollow reliance on outward works, and affection of piety in order to gain popularity.

Sadducees

1) a religious party at the time of Christ among the Jews, who denied that the oral law was a revelation of God to the Israelites, and who deemed the written law alone to be obligatory on the nation, as the divine authority. They denied the following doctrines:
a) resurrection of the body b) immortality of the soul c) existence of spirits and angels d) divine predestination, affirmed free will

Christian

1) Christian, a follower of Christ, The name was first given to the worshippers of Jesus Christ by the Gentiles, but from the second century onward accepted by them as a title of honor.. Believers of Christ (Acts 11:26) Suffer as a Christian (1 Peter 4:16)

Would it be better to proclaim the Words of the Lord? Showing glory to God in a spirit of love.
Is not the gospel, the faith to follow? And to suffer as a Christain, (1 Peter 4:16) the following and doctrine of Christ. That which walked the earth as Flesh in the Word..What are we to proclaim to our brothers? (Jeremiah 7:2)

Pharisees
A sect that seems to have started after the Jewish exile. In addition to OT books the Pharisees recognised in oral tradition a standard of belief and life. They sought for distinction and praise by outward observance of external rites and by outward forms of piety, and such as ceremonial washings, fastings, prayers, and alms giving; and, comparatively negligent of genuine piety, they prided themselves on their fancied good works. They held strenuously to a belief in the existence of good and evil angels, and to the expectation of a Messiah; and they cherished the hope that the dead, after a preliminary experience either of reward or of penalty in Hades, would be recalled to life by him, and be requited each according to his individual deeds. In opposition to the usurped dominion of the Herods and the rule of the Romans, they stoutly upheld the theocracy and their country's cause, and possessed great influence with the common people. According to Josephus they numbered more than 6000. They were bitter enemies of Jesus and his cause; and were in turn severely rebuked by him for their avarice, ambition, hollow reliance on outward works, and affection of piety in order to gain popularity.

Sadducees

1) a religious party at the time of Christ among the Jews, who denied that the oral law was a revelation of God to the Israelites, and who deemed the written law alone to be obligatory on the nation, as the divine authority. They denied the following doctrines:
a) resurrection of the body b) immortality of the soul c) existence of spirits and angels d) divine predestination, affirmed free will

Christian

1) Christian, a follower of Christ, The name was first given to the worshippers of Jesus Christ by the Gentiles, but from the second century onward accepted by them as a title of honor.. Believers of Christ (Acts 11:26) Suffer as a Christian (1 Peter 4:16)

You misrepresent the Pharisees and Jesus's attitude towards them. Remember that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, not for their teachings. In fact, he praised their their teachings while at the same time warning others against following them in their hypocrisy. (Thus we are told to fast without calling attention to ourselves for doing so.) Note that included among the Pharisees teachings was an emphasis on oral tradition. This was Jesus's own religious background, the beginnings of rabbinic Judaism.

Also, since Acts was written in the first century and already records the fact that Christians were calling themselves "Christians", it seems odd that you would say that they accepted this label only in the second century.

Note as well that Scripture instructs the faithful to be obedient to the bishops. It is well within the competence of the bishops to encourage the faithful to join together in the small but shared sacrifice of abstaining from meat on Friday as an expression of solidarity with the poor and hungry and as a way of calling to mind our own sinfulness and need for forgiveness.

You misrepresent the Pharisees and Jesus's attitude towards them. Remember that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, not for their teachings.

I have to disagree with you on this.. (Matthew 5:20) says that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. The Pharisees wanted to destroy Christ (Matthew 12:14) The Pharisees were never able to see the light of Christ, the blind leading the blind as it is written (Matthew 15:12-14)



Note as well that Scripture instructs the faithful to be obedient to the bishops. It is well within the competence of the bishops to encourage the faithful to join together in the small but shared sacrifice of abstaining from meat on Friday as an expression of solidarity with the poor and hungry and as a way of calling to mind our own sinfulness and need for forgiveness.

We have to remember what simplicity of Christ is..
(2 Corinthians 1:12) (2 Coringthinas 11:3)

And as Christ told us that we walk in His ways, and in the spirit of love. That which is not of this world but one with Him. So we are not of this world and man, when we walk in the spirit of love with Christ. (John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.) (John 17: 19 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.)


Who is the light of this world in which we walk? Christ (John 11:9)

I have to disagree with you on this.. (Matthew 5:20) says that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees.

Because they are hypocrites. Mt.5 affirms the teaching of the Pharisees. The problem with the Pharisees was their hypocrisy, and this is why in Mt.5 Jesus says that the performance of the act alone is insufficient; the actions must be performed with the right intentions. If the inner man as not in accord with the actions undertaken, then one is a hypocrite. The moral, and spiritual, worth of our actions is not wholly independent of our intentions in performing those actions. A Catholic who abstains from meat on Fridays out of a spirit of humble obedience to the bishop and in order to be especially mindful of his own sinfulness and need for God's mercy is not a hypocrite. A Catholic who abstains from meat on Friday so that he can present himself to others as deeply devout, or who complains all day long about how hungry he is in order to advertise to others the fact that he is abstaining is a hypocrite.


We have to remember what simplicity of Christ is..
(2 Corinthians 1:12) (2 Coringthinas 11:3)

And as Christ told us that we walk in His ways, and in the spirit of love. That which is not of this world but one with Him. So we are not of this world and man, when we walk in the spirit of love with Christ. (John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.) (John 17: 19 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.)


Who is the light of this world in which we walk? Christ (John 11:9)

I have no idea what this has to do with anything I said. Do you imagine that anything I said is at odds with this? Yes, Christ is the light. Any Catholic who says, or even thinks, otherwise is in grave error. Some posters here seem to forget that Catholics do these things not in order to distract them from Christ but in order to strengthen and renew their devotion to Christ. Again, any Catholic who says or thinks otherwise is guilty of grave sin. Catholics fast because Christ fasted and his Apostles fasted. The Church doesn't mandate that every Catholic abstain from all food because many people cannot do that. But Christ fasted for forty days in the desert. So for the forty days of Lent, Catholics have a sort of mini-fast on Fridays and are expected to sacrifice something as a token of their repentance, as a reminder of their sinfulness. Catholics "give up" something for Lent, typically something that they enjoy, as is appropriate since it is surrendered as penance. It is for each Catholic to make the decision, hopefully prayerfully, what to give up, what sacrifice would benefit their relationship with Christ by making them more attentive and receptive to Christ. And if any Catholic chooses to undertake a more demanding fast, he or she is more than welcome to do so.

Going without has a way of focusing the mind. And going without something physical has a way of focusing the mind on the spiritual. It also has a way of reminding us of all that we take for granted, all the many blessings that get overlooked or taken for granted in the hustle and bustle of everyday life.

The problem with the Pharisees was their hypocrisy, and this is why in Mt.5 Jesus says that the performance of the act alone is insufficient; the actions must be performed with the right intentions.

There were more problems than that, though one was hypocrisy. The issues with the Pharisees identified in scripture are:

1) They may have taught many of the right things, but they did not do them:

Matt 23:1-3
2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
NKJV

2) Knowledge of the scriptures, specifically the gospel and failure to follow them, and kept it to themselves so the people had to come to the priests if they wanted to know what was right, which allowed them to get away with the next item (#3).

Luke 11:51-52
52 Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."
NKJV

No matter what they did, no matter what their intent, without Christ their righteousness (or any us) is not sufficient. That is because we have none of our own.

3) They created what was essentially an "ecclesiastical law" of their tradition which was in addition to scripture:

Matt 15:2-4
3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
NKJV

But I also agree that their orientation when doing those things also needed to be right.

3) They created what was essentially an "ecclesiastical law" of their tradition which was in addition to scripture:

Matt 15:2-4
3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
NKJV

But I also agree that their orientation when doing those things also needed to be right.

Agree..
And it was those traditions that became as leaven that Christ spoke of in Matthew 16:11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake [it] not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?

The Pharisees were never able to see the light of Christ, the blind leading the blind as it is written (Matthew 15:12-14)

I have no idea what this has to do with anything I said. Do you imagine that anything I said is at odds with this?

No.. But it is at odds with the teaching of the Pharisees was my point.



Note as well that Scripture instructs the faithful to be obedient to the bishops.

No where do we put are faithfulness above our faithfulness in Christ Jesus. It is His way rather then man..

There were more problems than that, though one was hypocrisy. The issues with the Pharisees identified in scripture are:

1) They may have taught many of the right things, but they did not do them:

Which is hypocrisy. They said one thing but did another.


Matt 23:1-3
2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
NKJV

2) Knowledge of the scriptures, specifically the gospel and failure to follow them, and kept it to themselves so the people had to come to the priests if they wanted to know what was right, which allowed them to get away with the next item (#3).

Luke 11:51-52
52 Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."
NKJV

Notice that this is addressed to the "lawyers" and not the "Pharisees". Lk.11.42-44 gives us "Woe to you Pharisess", three times no less. But Lk.11.45-52 is addressed to the lawyers. His upbraiding of the Pharisees consists in Jesus's emphasizing that the inner life is just as important as the outer. This is what I pointed out in my previous post. So while Lk.11.42-44 does speak to the Pharisees, making exactly the point I already adumbrated above, the portion of the text that you cite, Lk.11.51-52, is addressed not to the Pharisees but to the lawyers.


3) They created what was essentially an "ecclesiastical law" of their tradition which was in addition to scripture:

Matt 15:2-4
3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
NKJV

But I also agree that their orientation when doing those things also needed to be right.

"In addition to scripture" is your own addition. This isn't what Christ says. Mt.15.2-4 is just a snippet from a longer, and continuous, criticism of the Pharisees. And what does Christ accuse the Pharisees of? We find the answer at Mt.15.7: "You hypocrites!"

So your 1 and 3 both concern hypocrisy, and your 2 is drawn from a bit of text where Christ chastises not the Pharisees but the lawyers. In the passage a bit before what you quote, Christ does, however, chastise the Pharisees: For being hypocrites.

It seems we are, however, in general agreement that both actions and intentions (or orientation as you quite rightly call it) need to be in accord with one another. As for the question of fasting and abstaining from meat on Friday, it would be a mistake to suppose that the Catholic Church holds the view that one's orientation (if I may borrow your term) doesn't matter so long as one performs the requisite acts. On the contrary, the act is to be an expression of one's orientation. Otherwise, of course, the act is empty of meaning. At the same time, however, being called to perform an act can often can often focus the mind, and recall to one's attention what is important and what one's orientation is and ought to be. The two, the act and the orientation, are mutually nourishing.

No.. But it is at odds with the teaching of the Pharisees was my point.

Well, inasmuch as the Pharisees were Jews and not yet followers of Christ that's true. Of course, many of the early members of the Christian community were former Pharisees.

Which is hypocrisy. They said one thing but did another.

Yes, that is what I said.


Notice that this is addressed to the "lawyers" and not the "Pharisees". Lk.11.42-44 gives us "Woe to you Pharisess", three times no less. But Lk.11.45-52 is addressed to the lawyers. His upbraiding of the Pharisees consists in Jesus's emphasizing that the inner life is just as important as the outer. This is what I pointed out in my previous post. So while Lk.11.42-44 does speak to the Pharisees, making exactly the point I already adumbrated above, the portion of the text that you cite, Lk.11.51-52, is addressed not to the Pharisees but to the lawyers.

You may wish to read ALL of Luke 11, and see that the whole talk was addressed to the scribes (lawyers) and Pharisees. Note how it ends:

Luke 11:53-54
53 And as He said these things to them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to assail Him vehemently, and to cross-examine Him about many things, 54 lying in wait for Him, and seeking to catch Him in something He might say, that they might accuse Him.
NKJV

The scribes / lawyers were under the Pharisees and took their direction from them. Keep in mind that it was the Pharisees who would be prime in giving direction to the people.



"In addition to scripture" is your own addition.

So you think that their "tradition" which is in transgression to the commandment of God is given to them by God? An interesting theory - perhaps you'd care to back that up by showing us where in scripture God gave tradition which transgresses His own commandments.



It seems we are, however, in general agreement that both actions and intentions (or orientation as you quite rightly call it) need to be in accord with one another.

We are making progress. That is a big step in an of itself.

Well, inasmuch as the Pharisees were Jews and not yet followers of Christ that's true. Of course, many of the early members of the Christian community were former Pharisees.

When we review the doctrine of the Pharisees, we should remember what Christ had said about it..

Matthew 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

It was the idea that their traditions were taught and enforced as the likeness of (leaven that raises) throughout bread. Christ called those trditions the doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees. They did not teach "The Word"

Sndbay, Akoue, et al:


Is not the gospel, the faith to follow? And to suffer as a Christain, (1 Peter 4:16) the following and doctrine of Christ. That which walked the earth as Flesh in the Word..What are we to proclaim to our brothers?(Jeremiah 7:2)

I see this as this argument about the Pharisees as a diversion from the both Traditional and Scriptural evidence of fasting. But, at the same time I must admit Akoue brings forward a concept I've held for a long time. Christ tells us quite emphatically that he didn't come to destroy the Jewish faith; “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Mat 5:17) All Jewish prophetic law was fulfilled in Christ.


Pharisees A sect that seems to have started after the Jewish exile.

The Pharisees weren't, strictly speaking, “a sect;” at least not at the start. The Pharisaic age started about 500 years before Christ. They held to an oral tradition, believed in a spiritual world, a legalistic dogmatic faith, and holding that every man was a priest. Pharisees held to two Torahs, one written, the other oral that were interpreted liberally. The ecclesiastical focus of the Pharisees was the beit knesset (or synagogue)

Pharisees were in opposition to Sadducees; consequently, some hold that the word Pharisee could best be translated as “separatist” (or maybe we could view them as protesters, i.e. Protestants?). You might say the Pharisee externalized his life.

The Sadducees, in large part, had secularized their faith and had interpreted the written Torah literally. Some hold that the Sadducees would be best described as a political party. The Sadducee theology was mostly connected to the Temple. The Essenes held the second Temple and the High Priest as heretical and thus internalized their faith; but so radically they withdrew from the world. Both the Sadducees and the Essenes died out with the Pharisaic class become the Rabbinic teaches seen after the Roman destruction of the Temple.


Which is hypocrisy. Notice that this is addressed to the "lawyers" and not the "Pharisees". Lk.11.42-44 gives us "Woe to you Pharisess", three times no less. But Lk.11.45-52 is addressed to the lawyers. His upbraiding of the Pharisees consists in Jesus's emphasizing that the inner life is just as important as the outer. This is what I pointed out in my previous post. So while Lk.11.42-44 does speak to the Pharisees, making exactly the point I already adumbrated above, the portion of the text that you cite, Lk.11.51-52, is addressed not to the Pharisees but to the lawyers.

I've long held this view of the Pharisee. Christ didn't come to destroy Judaism, rather to fulfill the Old Testament prophetic promises. What He found in the Pharisees were a people that wore their faith like robes; “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.” (Matt 16:4) At first glance this looks like Christ had placed a pox on the Pharisees. But, if you look closer at the story of Jonah we see that the people of Nineveh, once condemned by their own sin now saved by Jonah's preaching; and yet One greater than Jonah is will be their redemption.


"In addition to scripture" is your own addition. This isn't what Christ says. Mt.15.2-4 is just a snippet from a longer, and continuous, criticism of the Pharisees. And what does Christ accuse the Pharisees of? We find the answer at Mt.15.7: "You hypocrites!"

So your 1 and 3 both concern hypocrisy, and your 2 is drawn from a bit of text where Christ chastises not the Pharisees but the lawyers. In the passage a bit before what you quote, Christ does, however, chastise the Pharisees: For being hypocrites.

Agreed. But, what hasn't been pointed out was how Christ *didn't* accuse the Sanhedrin of illegitimacy. A Messiah could have, maybe we could have said he should have claimed they had no right hold judgment over Him. But, he didn't. Why not? Could it be, that being a Jew, the law, whether held internally or externally, demanded respect for the High Priest.

As an example you might remember Paul's run in with the “authorities”

“ And Paul, looking upon the council, said: Men, brethren, I have conversed with all good conscience before God until this present day. And the high priest, Ananias, commanded them that stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him: God shall strike thee, thou whited wall. For, sittest thou to judge me according to the law and, contrary to the law, commandest me to be struck? And they that stood by said: Dost thou revile the high priest of God? And Paul said: I knew not, brethren, that he is the high priest.” (Acts 23:1-5)

The point here is that Paul is being insolent to the High Priest which was contrary to Jewish law and faith. Immediately, he explains that he didn't recognize Ananias as the High Priest, in effect an apology. How much more did Christ show respect to 'authority' then when He, the Messiah, allows the High Priest to question Him and ultimately pronounce a death sentence? Now that's the type of faith every Catholic strives for.


It seems we are, however, in general agreement that both actions and intentions (or orientation as you quite rightly call it) need to be in accord with one another. As for the question of fasting and abstaining from meat on Friday, it would be a mistake to suppose that the Catholic Church holds the view that one's orientation (if I may borrow your term) doesn't matter so long as one performs the requisite acts. On the contrary, the act is to be an expression of one's orientation. Otherwise, of course, the act is empty of meaning. At the same time, however, being called to perform an act can often can often focus the mind, and recall to one's attention what is important and what one's orientation is and ought to be. The two, the act and the orientation, are mutually nourishing.

Accordingly, we do see that fasting, as typified by Christ's life, to be an essential part of our faith.

JoeT

Joe,

I see many problems in your dissertation, but don't have time to go through it all. One key item seems throw a lot of the rest off kilter - Are you aware that the Pharisees were not legitimate priests under OT Judaism? You speak as though you believe that they are. Jesus did not come to destroy Judaism, but the Pharisees, by the addition of their tradition as being equivalent to scripture, had already altered it. That is why Jesus condemned their tradition, and binding the people with their addition of manmade laws and practices which had no basis in scripture.

I see many problems in your dissertation, but don't have time to go through it all. One key item seems throw a lot of the rest off kilter - Are you aware that the Pharisees were not legitimate priests under OT Judaism?

Yes, that was precisely what caused conflict with the Sadducees.


You speak as though you believe that they are.

You might want to consider that your own prejudices lead you to this conclusion.


Jesus did not come to destroy Judaism, but the Pharisees, by the addition of their tradition as being equivalent to scripture, had already altered it. That is why Jesus condemned their tradition, and binding the people with their addition of manmade laws and practices which had no basis in scripture.

Well, when you have time show how this isn’t substantially true.

JoeT

Yes, that was precisely what caused conflict with the Sadducees.



You might want to consider that your own prejudices lead you to this conclusion.

It always has to be an accusation, doesn't it, Joe. Reading your post leaves a clear suggestion that you believe that the Pharisees were legitimate leaders of OT Judaism.


Well, when you have time show how this isn't substantially true.

I take Jesus' word for it.

Matt 15:1-3
15:1 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." 3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
NKJV

It always has to be an accusation, doesn't it, Joe.

Not exactly an 'accusation;' rather more like a tweaking of a child's nose. It's the reaction you're more interested in.

Reading your post leaves a clear suggestion that you believe that the Pharisees were legitimate leaders of OT Judaism. [/QUOTE]

The Pharisees were legitimate leaders and formers of the socioeconomic conditions of their secular theological societal construct prior to and shortly after Christ. They were not the sole influence in this age. In the 2nd Temple, they usually played second fiddle to the Sadducees. Their rabbinic leadership was played out mostly in the synagogue; not the most powerful and prominent leaders in the Judaism (I said this in post 85). By far they were not the single most influential force in Judaism. The Pharisees would be like a prominent political party in the U.S. today.

Are you suggesting that one of Christ's rebukes aimed at the Pharisees condemns all of Judaism, all of the tradtions of the Torah? Why then did Christ offer redemption to the Pharisee? Or, is it that you hold that Christ withheld redemption from the Pharisee?



I take Jesus' word for it.

Matt 15:1-3
15:1 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." 3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
NKJV

Yes, precisely as I stated before; if you would continue reading you'll see Christ saying that they are 'hypocrites'.

Vs 7. Hypocrites, well hath Isaiah prophesied of you, saying:
Vs 8. This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me.
Vs 9. And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.

Now, not only have I properly undstood Christ, but Isaiah as wll as Jonah, have come over to my side.

Instead of 'taking' Christ's words out of context you should try to understand Jesus guided by the Magisterium of the Church; much more reliable than relying on oneself.

JoeT

Not exactly an 'accusation;' rather more like a tweaking of a child's nose. It's the reaction you're more interested in.

I guess for the some folk, respectful discussion is too much to ask.


Reading your post leaves a clear suggestion that you believe that the Pharisees were legitimate leaders of OT Judaism.


The Pharisees were legitimate leaders and formers of the socioeconomic conditions of their secular theological societal construct prior to and shortly after Christ.

Like I said - they were not legitimate leaders of OT Judaism. Why not just admit it?



Are you suggesting that one of Christ's rebukes aimed at the Pharisees condemns all of Judaism, all of the tradtions of the Torah?

I neither said nor implied it. I also note that you chose not to qute me because that would have quickly made it obvious that I neither said nor implied it.


Why then did Christ offer redemption to the Pharisee? Or, is it that you hold that Christ withheld redemption from the Pharisee?

Silly question. Jesus offered redemption to ALL people. (John 3:16)



Yes, precisely as I stated before; if you would continue reading you'll see Christ saying that they are 'hypocrites'.

But don't stop there, as I pointed out with references, He said much more than that.



Instead of 'taking' Christ's words out of context you should try to understand Jesus guided by the Magisterium of the Church; much more reliable than relying on oneself.

The private interpretations of your denomination, or any other denomination are not what guides my beliefs. God's word are what guides my beliefs. If you think that I took His words out of context, then quote what I said, and what He said, and let's discuss. But don't take my words out of context!

Like I said - they were not legitimate leaders of OT Judaism. Why not just admit it?

Why is this so important to you?

My previous statement:

“ The Pharisees were legitimate leaders and formers of the socioeconomic conditions of their secular theological societal construct prior to and shortly after Christ. They were not the sole influence in this age. In the 2nd Temple, they usually played second fiddle to the Sadducees. Their rabbinic leadership was played out mostly in the synagogue; not the most powerful and prominent leaders in the Judaism (I said this in post 85). By far they were not the single most influential force in Judaism. The Pharisees would be like a prominent political party in the U.S. today.”

Are you suggesting that one of Christ’s rebukes aimed at the Pharisees condemns all of Judaism, all of the tradtions of the Torah?

I neither said nor implied it. I also note that you chose not to qute me because that would have quickly made it obvious that I neither said nor implied it.

And the answer is?


“Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Mat 5:17)

Christ didn’t come to destroy Judaism, rather to fulfill the Old Testament prophetic promises. What He found in the Pharisees were a people that wore their faith like robes; “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.” (Matt 16:4) At first glance this looks like Christ had placed a pox on the Pharisees. But, if you look closer at the story of Jonah we see that the people of Nineveh, once condemned by their own sin now saved by Jonah’s preaching; and yet One greater than Jonah is will be their redemption.

Silly question. Jesus offered redemption to ALL people. (John 3:16)
We’re not discussing John 3, what’s being discussed in Matt 5:17;16:4? How does this affect the Pharisees?



But don't stop there, as I pointed out with references, He said much more than that.

VS 7 - ‘hypocrites’


The private interpretations of your denomination, or any other denomination are not what guides my beliefs.

What’s a ‘denomination? I don’t have experience with a denomination.


God's word are what guides my beliefs. If you think that I took His words out of context, then quote what I said, and what He said, and let's discuss. But don't take my words out of context!
?

JoeT

Why is this so important to you?

Why? To ensure that the asker gets an accurate answer. Why is it so important to you?


And the answer is?

You are asking me a question about something that you suggested that I said, but which I did not say. It is therefore irrelevant. You are trying to distract.



VS 7 - ‘hypocrites’

My point is don't be so single focused on the hypocrisy of the Pharisees that you miss what else Jesus said about them. I don't understand why you are so single focused on one thing but appear to ignore the other point that we find in scripture.


What’s a ‘denomination? I don’t have experience with a denomination.

Odd - you keep promoting one denomination over all others.

That was the point back in post # 74 and the reason it was posted Quote: Would it be better to proclaim the Words of the Lord? Showing glory to God in a spirit of love.

Religion is the different denominations in fellowship, but the doctrine of Christ for each should hold firm in "One"

Because: Is not the gospel, the faith to follow? And to suffer as a Christain, (1 Peter 4:16) the following and doctrine of Christ. That which walked the earth as Flesh in the Word..What are we to proclaim to our brothers? (Jeremiah 7:2)

All denominations should watch causiously to remain firm in the traditions shown by Christ and His way.

We show more honor and praise to God's glory in that manner.

When each attempt to do more at the hand of man, we then are enforcing man's traditions (or) doctrine in error as shown by example of the Pharisees.

Christ did fulfill all that is written "The Word made Flesh in Him. He brought forth His Father's Truth.

Our Lord's Truth!

Joe,'
I agree with you but you and Tj3 can go 'round and 'round on this forever.
Fred

sndbay
I agree very much when you said this, "All denominations should watch causiously to remain firm in the traditions shown by Christ and His way."
That includes what Jesus taught by both word and deed as well as what He taught His apostles to do and teach.
It's almost all in the bible but some is in other writings of the apostles called sacred tradition.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

Tj, you just as well drop it. You (and I) believe in the infallibility of the Scripture, and the Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope. Since Pope and Scripture disagree in several points, both views cannot be right, and they cannot be reconciled.

Tj, you just as well drop it. You (and I) believe in the infallibility of the Scripture, and the Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope. Since Pope and Scripture disagree in several points, both views cannot be right, and they cannot be reconciled.

Quite right. It all depends upon what a persons holds to believe is their standard of truth in doctrine, and when it differs, it is no surprise that disagreements arise.

Tj, you just as well drop it. You (and I) believe in the infallibility of the Scripture, and the Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope. Since Pope and Scripture disagree in several points, both views cannot be right, and they cannot be reconciled.

The reason for not dropping this discussion, or any form of reaching out to others with the gospel, is that we are sevants for God. From there it is up to the open ear to discern, and Our Father will reveal by the spirit unto whom He wills. (1 Th 2:4)

I will let Tom speak for himself, but I feel if we have a heart of love for Christ, we do exactly what our hearts offer in love to everyone.

1 Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

As for infallibility, I trust Our Lord, and His Word.

sndbay
I agree very much when you said this, "All denominations should watch causiously to remain firm in the traditions shown by Christ and His way."
That includes what Jesus taught by both word and deed as well as what He taught His apostles to do and teach.
It's almost all in the bible but some is in other writings of the apostles called sacred tradition.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

Fred, God was well pleased with all that His son Christ Jesus did. And we should look to do what is pleasing to God. We are told to follow Christ, His ways, and hear His voice. All that is written was of His Flesh that brought forth from His Father, and revealed in The Word.

You might ask yourself why so many follow man's way in baptism, why so many denominations changed the righteousness of baptism. And instead of hearing and following with that which God looked upon and said He was pleased.

Tj, you just as well drop it. You (and I) believe in the infallibility of the Scripture, and the Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope. Since Pope and Scripture disagree in several points, both views cannot be right, and they cannot be reconciled.


Pope and Scripture do not disagree.

While it is true there is disagreement on the interpretation of Scripture, however there is but one absolute truth. Whether you realize it or not, what's being suggested is God made one truth for you, one for me; a different truth for everyone. Wouldn't you say this philosophy makes our God schizophrenic?


JoeT

Pope and Scripture do not disagree.

While it is true there is disagree on the interpretation of Scripture, however there is but one absolute truth. Whether or not you realize it or not, what’s being suggested is God made one truth for you, one for me; a different truth everyone. Wouldn’t you say this philosophy makes our God schizophrenic?

JoeT

The source of interpretation can be as important as what we define as scripture.

The Bible does say eat but if you do not eat with a good conscience then abstain but NO fish Friday IS man made tradition and nothing more.
As for me I prefer the Bible over the contradictions of the Pope because as Galveston and Tom have said they do not agree and when it comes to man vs the Bible I will go sola scriptura if that is what you prefer to call it,
I see NO Biblical basis for following a fish Friday so NO I do not see where the Pope and the Bible agree on this.

Please don't feel I am picking on just that one act of righteousness (baptism) that was changed by men..

I have also seen other denominations that change Holy communion from unleaven bread to using leaven bread.

This would be a direct example of feeding the leaven of man's doctrine, instead of the unleaven none as uncorrupted or infallible bread of righteousness.

The Bible does say eat but if you do not eat with a good conscience then abstain but NO fish Friday IS man made tradition and nothing more.
As for me I prefer the Bible over the contradictions of the Pope because as Galveston and Tom have said they do not agree and when it comes to man vs the Bible I will go sola scriptura if that is what you prefer to call it,
I see NO Biblical basis for following a fish Friday so NO I do not see where the Pope and the Bible agree on this.

There are no contradictions between the Magisterium of the Church [the teaching authority of the pope] and Scripture.

Furthermore, there is a clear Scriptural mandate for fasting. See my previous post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/catholic-church-eating-meat-friday-254481-8.html#post1575019). Does Scripture say we should not fast; that it's one of those evil things Peter makes us do?


JoeT

PS. Where is that dogmatic adherence to Scripture? Scripture says 'do fast'. You're saying 'do not fast'. Which is correct? Which is Truth?

There are no contradictions between the Magisterium of the Church [the teaching authority of the pope] and Scripture.

Having studied scripture and the teachings of your denomination, I strongly disagree with your opinion on that point, but that is not the topic of this thread.



Furthermore, there is a clear Scriptural mandate for fasting. See my previous post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/catholic-church-eating-meat-friday-254481-8.html#post1575019). Does Scripture say we should not fast; that it’s one of those evil things Peter makes us do?



No one that I have seen is arguing against fasting. The two points that I see are making it mandatory to abstain from a particular food on a particular day - that is not in scripture, and secondly, I would suggest that Biblical fasting is the avoidance of food in part or whole for a specific period. I am not aware of anyplace in scripture where fasting is described as trading one type of food for another - are you?

Having studied scripture and the teachings of your denomination, I strongly disagree with your opinion on that point, but that is not the topic of this thread.

No it isn't the topic of this thread. But having also studied the Scriptures and the teachings of the Catholic Church, I strongly agree that the Church always teaches in agreement with Scripture.

And I strongly disagree that you've studied the teachings of the Catholic Church. You have admitted on this forum that you have studied the writings of rabid anti-Catholics. Especially Dave Hunt.


No one that I have seen is arguing against fasting.

Good.


The two points that I see are making it mandatory to abstain from a particular food on a particular day - that is not in scripture,

And your point? Or do you want someone to infer that if it is not in Scripture it is a sin? If that is your point, provide the Scripture which makes it mandatory for all unsinful behavior to be listed in Scripture. Otherwise, you have no legs to stand on on this point.


and secondly, I would suggest that Biblical fasting is the avoidance of food in part or whole for a specific period. I am not aware of anyplace in scripture where fasting is described as trading one type of food for another - are you?

Again, prove that it must be in Scripture to be acceptable. Otherwise, if you can't, what is your point, that you can read your presuppositions into Scripture?

And I strongly disagree that you've studied the teachings of the Catholic Church. You have admitted on this forum that you have studied the writings of rabid anti-Catholics.

False accusations will get you nowhere - that approach tends to say more about the accuser. I don't even know any anti-Catholics. Now please try to discuss with respect.


And your point? Or do you want someone to infer that if it is not in Scripture it is a sin?

No, I am telling you that scripture explicitly says that it is wrong to mandate that people abstain from certain foods.

1 Tim 4:1-5
4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
NKJV

Col 2:15-18
16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
NKJV

I Tim 4:1-5: This is a reference to the heretical religions of antiquity such as Gnostics, Marcionites, Manicheans. Some forbid eating certain meats at any time, condemned marriage, and some held that all things of flesh were evil. As to the penitential fast, the worthiness of the meat is not in question. This verse simply doesn’t forbid fasting.


JoeT

I Tim 4:1-5: This is a reference to the heretical religions of antiquity such as Gnostics, Marcionites, Manicheans. Some forbid eating certain meats at any time, condemned marriage, and some held that all things of flesh were evil.

So why would anyone migrate such pagan practices into the church?


This verse simply doesn’t forbid fasting.

Strawman argument. No one is saying fasting is wrong.

Joe said it and it is true.
"The Pope and Scripture do not disagree."
The Church from its beginning has treasured holy Scripture and presevened so that all could have access to it.
It is our holy book, our guide and foundation.
It is read every day at every Mass.
All The Church teaching are based on and from it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Joe said it and it is true.
"The Pope and Scripture do not disagree."

Many examples to the contrary have been shown on here, but again that is not the topic of this thread. Start another thread if you wish to discuss.


The Church from its beginning has treasured holy Scripture and presevened so that all could have access to it.

The true church has but not all denominations. One denomination even put the Bible on their index of forbidden books!

Joe said it and it is true.
"The Pope and Scripture do not disagree."
The Church from its beginning has treasured holy Scripture and persevered so that all could have access to it.
It is our holy book, our guide and foundation.
It is read every day at every Mass.
All The Church teaching are based on and from it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

If you’ll permit me to add to your statement Fred, the written Tradition of the early Catholic Church is the Scriptures we know as the Bible.

“It is our holy book, our guide and foundation.” Amen.

Peace and Charity,

JoeT

If you'll permit me to add to your statement Fred, the written Tradition of the early Catholic Church is the Scriptures we know as the Bible.

“It is our holy book, our guide and foundation.” Amen.

The Bible existed long before your (or any) denomination. Ask any Jew.

Yj3,
Since when did the New Testament exist before Jesus Christ and his apostles?
The book we know as THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE was promulgated by The Church no matter what you say of believe.
It IS an historical fact.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fasting is done by individual with praying included... warning evil to bow down and flee from them...

It is written that a man should be kind to his wife, and likewise the wife her husband. To warn off bad spirits from satan, they can give of themself to fasting and praying. (voluntary, and it is kept private.) This is true throughtout scripture for those wanting evil to bow and flee from them.
1 Cr 7:5-6 Defraud ye not one the other, except [it be] with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.But I speak this by permission, [and] not of commandment

Otherwise then that, we walk in Christ from doing evil by holding fast to righteousness.

Job 27:6 My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach [me] so long as I live.
1 Th 3:8 For now we live, if ye stand fast in the Lord.

And in Faith

1 Th 3:11 Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you.

Passover Feast... and celebration

Fasting from leaven bread during Passover feast was commanded (Exd 12:15) and we understand that God no longer wants burnt offering or the blood from sacrifices, because Christ became our Passover. The fasting from leaven bread during the 7 days would be done in honor and glory, showing we hold fast away from the corruption that can rise up amoung men in broken scripture. It is God's will that we hold fast to Christ, and His way.. Righteousness the uncorruptable, unleaven Bread of Life

False accusations will get you nowhere - that approach tends to say more about the accuser. I don't even know any anti-Catholics. Now please try to discuss with respect.

I am. It is you who show a constant disrespect of our intellects by denying that which you previously admitted.


No, I am telling you that scripture explicitly says that it is wrong to mandate that people abstain from certain foods.

That is your false interpretation of Scripture.


1 Tim 4:1-5
4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith,

This is true. Luther, Calvin and the Reformers departed from the faith.


giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,

This is also true. It can be seen today with those who claim to be Christian but permit masturbation, contraception, abortion, euthanasia and many other sinful practices.


2 speaking lies in hypocrisy,

Like those who have twisted the Scripture to permit homosexuality.


having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry,

This is often aimed at the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry.


and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

The Catholic Church permits us to eat all foods. The abstinence rules are only forms of mild fasting, sacrifices which are permitted in the Spirit of the Word of God:

1 Peter 2:5
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.


4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
NKJV

Amen. This is Catholic Teaching. The New Testament is the Book written by the Catholic Church.


Col 2:15-18
16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
NKJV

Exactly. And it is Jesus who said:
Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Therefore it is Jesus who gave His Church authority. And it is in obeying the Church that you obey Jesus.

Sincerely,

De Maria

My question is this----

At one time, eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin.

But why? Because it is disobedience of the Church.

Example: A man forgets the day of the week, and not realizing it is Friday, eats meat. Is that a mortal sin? No.

Another example: A man, knowing it is Friday, eats meat in spite of the Church regulation. Is that a mortal sin? Yes. It is blasphemy against the authority of Jesus Christ which He gave to the Church.


Mortal sin was defined as sin that would land a person in hell. Hell was defined as a place of eternal punishment.

Correct.


Then eating meat on Friday was no longer a mortal sin.

As I have explained. Eating meat on Friday has never been a mortal sin. Disobedience of the authority of Jesus Christ vested in the Church, has always been a mortal sin.


Within one week, a sin that resulted in eternal punishment became no sin at all and eternal punishment was gone for this "sin".

How could such a thing be? One Friday, eternal punishment (the ultimate horror) became, the next Friday, no sin at all - no eternal punishment.

It's possible my understanding of this is incorrect, but I'm sure that was taught in recent times.


As I have shown, your understanding of this subject is incorrect.



Thank you for any answers.

You're welcome.

The Bible does say eat but if you do not eat with a good conscience then abstain but NO fish Friday IS man made tradition

But it is a man made tradition with the force of Jesus' authority which He vested in His Church.


and nothing more.

That is quite a bit.


As for me I prefer the Bible

You mean that you prefer your own presuppositions over the Bible and over the Church.


over the contradictions of the Pope

The Pope does not contradict when speaking on a matter of faith and morals from the chair of Peter.


because as Galveston and Tom have said they do not agree

The Church and the Bible agree one hundred percent.

It is Sola Scripturist's who have misunderstood the Bible and twisted its meaning to their own destruction.


and when it comes to man vs the Bible I will go sola scriptura if that is what you prefer to call it,

It is Sola Scriptura which leads to man vs. the Bible. The Catholic Church teaches the Word of God in Scripture and Tradition in obedience to Scripture:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.


I see NO Biblical basis for following a fish Friday so NO I do not see where the Pope and the Bible agree on this.

Then you don't know Scripture very well. Jesus multiplied the FISH not the beef, pork or chicken.

As for me, I'll follow the Church which Scripture says is:
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

I am. It is you who show a constant disrespect of our intellects by denying that which you previously admitted.

I never admitted any such thing. Now please, let's start showing some respect - or are you trying to get this thread shutdown?


That is your false interpretation of Scripture.

Just telling others that they are wrong and you are right is not convincing.


This is true. Luther, Calvin and the Reformers departed from the faith.

Departed from your faith perhaps.


This is often aimed at the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry.

I'd love to see where the Roman catholic denomination has allowed a practicing priest to marry.


The Catholic Church permits us to eat all foods.

If that were true, then we would not be having this discussion.


Amen. This is Catholic Teaching. The New Testament is the Book written by the Catholic Church.

There were no denominations, including yours, in the 1st century.


Exactly. And it is Jesus who said:
Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Therefore it is Jesus who gave His Church authority. And it is in obeying the Church that you obey Jesus.

Same old, same old - this old claim has been refuted more times that I can remember.

I'd love to see where the Roman catholic denomination has allowed a practicing priest to marry.

Men are not born into the ministerial priesthood. They make a decision. They decide whether they want to be a ministerial priest or not.

If they decide to do so, then they VOLUNTARILY give up marriage. I've yet to hear of anyone being forced to make his vows at the point of a gun.


If that were true, then we would not be having this discussion.

That is false logic. It is true. The reason we're having this discussion is because you don't understand the Catholic Church or Her teachings.


There were no denominations, including yours, in the 1st century.

The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ.


Same old, same old - this old claim has been refuted more times that I can remember.

You can't remember it being refuted because it never has been refuted.

When any one can show me how the RC even faintly resembles the Church revealed in the Book of Acts, then I will reconsider my beliefs.
Until then, the Bible remains, to me, infallible, exclusively.

When any one can show me how the RC even faintly resembles the Church revealed in the Book of Acts, then I will reconsider my beliefs.
Until then, the Bible remains, to me, infallible, exclusively.


Is this a real and honest challenge?

JoeT

Exactly. And it is Jesus who said:
Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Therefore it is Jesus who gave His Church authority. And it is in obeying the Church that you obey Jesus.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Hi DeMaria, If I may reproof this posting by carefully added that it was this authority given to Peter, Peter being the disciple that offered evident indentity of his love for Christ, which by Christ telling us was revealed to him by Our Father in Heaven.

Peter showed his authority in Act 2 with Israel, and Acts 10 amoung the Gentiles.

When we look further to Matthew 18:18-20 the same authority was given to others, where two or three are gathered together. And John 20:21-23 example his disciples given the Holy Spirit, with authority to remit sins.

These scriptures show that by the servants of God, at the choice and will of God, each are granted authority through the Spirit to further the works of God, and do all that is written in The Word which was made Flesh in Christ. We follow the spirit of Christ in His will, just as Christ did His Fathers Will.

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

In my heart I believe the spirit within each will testify of Christ just as Peter did in evident indentiy "YES LORD I LOVE YOU" Liberty other then this is a broken scripture... and is not done by the sheep that follow and hear Christ.

John 15:26-27 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

~ In the spirit of Love

John 15:26-27 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

~ In the spirit of Love


Bible speak, still driving me nuts. Why can't we have a bible that has just paraphrases in everyday language. Then my eyes wouldn't just glaze over as I try to make heads or tails of what is being said? Not only is it hard to understand, it's even hard to read. Ugh!

Men are not born into the ministerial priesthood. They make a decision. They decide whether they want to be a ministerial priest or not.

If they decide to do so, then they VOLUNTARILY give up marriage. I've yet to hear of anyone being forced to make his vows at the point of a gun.

So the Roman Catholic church does forbid the marriage of priests contrary to your earlier statement.



That is false logic. It is true. The reason we're having this discussion is because you don't understand the Catholic Church or Her teachings.


At least you are consistent - your key argument all along is everyone is does not follow the private interpretations of your denomination is wrong. But again, just telling people that they are wrong is not a compelling argument.



The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ.

How many times must this be refuted. The Catholic church did not even exist until 325AD and Jesus did not found a denomination.


You can't remember it being refuted because it never has been refuted.

Mis-representing what others said again I see - I said "this old claim has been refuted more times that I can remember".

That is three times in this one thread that you have mis-represented what I have said. If your position cannot be defended by the truth alone, is it worth defending?

When any one can show me how the RC even faintly resembles the Church revealed in the Book of Acts, then I will reconsider my beliefs.
Until then, the Bible remains, to me, infallible, exclusively.

I'm standing right beside you on that statement.

Bible speak, still driving me nuts. Why can't we have a bible that has just paraphrases in everyday language. Then my eyes wouldn't just glaze over as I try to make heads or tails of what is being said? Not only is it hard to understand, it's even hard to read. ugh!

Try the Living Bible. That is exactly what it is.

So the Roman Catholic church does forbid the marriage of priests contrary to your earlier statement.

And you claim to have studied the Catholic Church? There are lots of married priests. Surely you've heard of Eastern Rite Catholics.


The Catholic church did not even exist until 325AD

Why 325? Do you think the Catholic Church was invented at the Council of Nicea or something? Why do you choose that year?


Mis-representing what others said again I see - I said "this old claim has been refuted more times that I can remember".

That is three times in this one thread that you have mis-represented what I have said. If your position cannot be defended by the truth alone, is it worth defending?

Wow, you just never get tired of recycling this stuff.

And you claim to have studied the Catholic Church? There are lots of married priests. Surely you've heard of Eastern Rite Catholics.

Ah, you did not read what we were talking about. We were talking about the Roman catholic denomination permitting the marriage of a practicing priest.


Why 325? Do you think the Catholic Church was invented at the Council of Nicea or something? Why do you choose that year?

Invented would not be an appropriate word, but started would be.


Wow, you just never get tired of recycling this stuff.

Right. I never tire of telling the truth.

Invented would not be an appropriate word, but started would be.


You didn't answer the question. Why do you choose the year 325? Why not 313, or 314, or 387, or 256? Why 325?

You didn't answer the question. Why do you choose the year 325? Why not 313, or 314, or 387, or 256? Why 325?

I did answer it. It is when the Roman catholic church started. Akoue, I don't why, but you really do seem to miss a whole lot when reading posts. Most of your mis-understandings when discussing from others seems to have to do with things which were said but you did not read for one reason or another.

BTW, look at the title of this thread. Rather than hijacking it, if you wish to discuss the origins of your denomination, I would suggest that you start a new thread.

I did answer it. It is when the Roman catholic church started. Akoue, I don't why, but you really do seem to miss a whole lot when reading posts. Most of your mis-understandings when discussing from others seems to have to do with things which were said but you did not read for one reason or another.

BTW, look at the title of this thread. Rather than hijacking it, if you wish to discuss the origins of your denomination, I would suggest that you start a new thread.

Why do you claim that 325 is the year the Catholic Church started? What event or events lead you to assign the beginning of Catholicism to the year 325?

You are quite adamant that the Catholic Church didn't exist until the year 325. You must have some reason for stating that it began in this year and not some other. So what is that reason? Explain your claim if you can back it up.

BTW, look at the title of this thread. Rather than hijacking it, if you wish to discuss the origins of your denomination, I would suggest that you start a new thread.

You brought it up, Tom. I'm just asking you why you choose the year 325.

You brought it up, Tom. I'm just asking you why you choose the year 325.

Actually, no I didn't. I think that you will find that it is Joe who brought denominationalism into the thread.

And this question has been discussed over and over. If you still don't know what happened to bring your denomination into being, start a new thread.

Actually, no I didn't. I think that you will find that it is Joe who brought denominationalism into the thread.

You are the one who asserted that the Catholic Church did not exist until the year 325. You have made this claim many, many times. And now you are stalling. If you can substantiate this claim, please do. What is your reason for claiming that the Catholic Church began in the year 325 and did not exist prior to 325? What event or events of the year 325 lead you to date the origins of the Catholic Church to 325?

TJ3.
Thanks for once again proving that you do NOT understand the Catholic Church or that your refuse to do so.
Peace and kindness,

Fred

Actually, no I didn't. I think that you will find that it is Joe who brought denominationalism into the thread.

And this question has been discussed over and over. If you still don't know what happened to bring your denomination into being, start a new thread.

Ah, another edit from Tom. I have seen you make the claim that the Catholic Church started in 325 repeatedly and on many different threads. I have not seen you justify it. You made the claim, so justify it.

Ah, another edit from Tom. I have seen you make the claim that the Catholic Church started in 325 repeatedly and on many different threads. I have not seen you justify it. You made the claim, so justify it.

And I have posted information from both Catholic and non-Catholic sources. You seem to disagree with any source which does not say what you want it to.

Once again, I would suggest starting a new thread if you wish to discuss this further.

TJ3.
Thanks for once again proving that you do NOT understand the Catholic Church or that your refuse to do so.
Peace and kindness,

Fred

Can we not have a respectful disagreement, Fred? Must you always make demeaning personal comments and false accusations?

And I have posted information from both Catholic and non-Catholic sources. You seem to disagree with any source which does not say what you want it to.

Once again, I would suggest starting a new thread if you wish to discuss this further.

The thing is, Tom, I've seen you trot out this line with some frequency, but each time I've asked you to back it up you've done exactly what you're doing now, i.e. dodging the question. So I haven't seen this evidence you claim to have. And I've asked a bunch of times now. I've never known you to be terribly shy about changing the subject when it suits you, so I'm increasingly suspicious that your evidence is pretty flimsy.

The thing is, Tom, I've seen you trot out this line with some frequency, but each time I've asked you to back it up you've done exactly what you're doing now, i.e., dodging the question. So I haven't seen this evidence you claim to have. And I've asked a bunch of times now. I've never known you to be terribly shy about changing the subject when it suits you, so I'm increasingly suspicious that your evidence is pretty flimsy.

Akoue, you claim that everyone dodges the question even when paragraphs of information are posted, and then afterward you claim that it was not posted. I have posted information many times, and you have even responded to it, but now you claim that I never posted it. So tell me exactly why anyone should waste their time, especially when you are in the process of hijacking the thread?

I have debated and discussed this and other topics with people who are interested in truth and two things that I find common with such people - whether they agree or disagree, they never play games such as claiming that someone never posted something, and they discuss respectfully.

Over and over I have suggested that if you do wish to discuss, start a new thread. I think that you know that as long as you are hijacking this thread, few people are even going to get into the discussion and it will get shut down. So this approach (which is a consistent approach that I have seen you use) seems to be a way to making cheap shots knowing that when the thread gets shut down you won't need to back it up. Starting a new thread would be a way to keep the discussion going - if you really wanted to discuss.

Yj3,
I just stated what was obvious.
You do not understand the Catholic Church.
There are many who do not.
It is not demeaning to tell te truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue, you claim that everyone dodges the question even when paragraphs of information are posted, and then afterward you claim that it was not posted. I have posted information many times, and you have even responded to it, but now you claim that I never posted it. So tell me exactly why anyone should waste their time, especially when you are in the process of hijacking the thread?

I have debated and discussed this and other topics with people who are interested in truth and two things that I find common with such people - whether they agree or disagree, they never play games such as claiming that someone never posted something, and they discuss respectfully.

I can't off the top of my head think of anyone who's disagreed with you who hasn't been accused by you of failing to "discuss respectfully". This is one of your standby lines, after all. Wondergirl, De Maria, Joe, Fred, asking, and me--just in the last week or so.

All right, though, if you don't want to substantiate your claims I can't force you to do so. You have no problem pressing others to substantiate their claims, but you've made it quite evident that you don't hold yourself to the same standard to which you hold others. So I'll let it drop for now. You're sure to make the same ridiculous claim again very soon.

Yj3,
I just stated what was obvious.
You do not understand the Catholic Church.
There are many who do not.
It is not demeaning to tell te truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,

You need to understand that because something disagrees with you does not mean that they do not understand. Quite the contrary, it is because I understand that I disagree.

I can't off the top of my head think of anyone who's disagreed with you who hasn't been accused by you of failing to "discuss respectfully". This is one of your standby lines, after all. Wondergirl, De Maria, Joe, Fred, asking, and me--just in the last week or so.

Well, you know Akoue, I could not care less whether you can think of anyone or not. After all, you claim not to know of things which have been posted on the board when they don't agree with you, so why should I be surprised that you don't remember other things.


All right, though, if you don't want to substantiate your claims I can't force you to do so. You have no problem pressing others to substantiate their claims, but you've made it quite evident that you don't hold yourself to the same standard to which you hold others. So I'll let it drop for now. You're sure to make the same ridiculous claim again

Ho hum - more false accusations. I can only assume that you fear starting a new thread where this could be discussed openly without hijacking another thread.

start a new thread.



Is this the tactic? Not being able to confront Catholicism on this topic so you jump from topic to topic? Stick to the topic. The topic here is eating meat during fast. Show it to be right or wrong - so far you've bounced back and forth across the line. Where does the Tj3 faith fall on this topic?

JoeT

Tj3,
I understand the Catholic Church and have done so for over thirty years. That is why I quit being a Protestant.
It is obvious to me and any knowledgeable Catholic that you do NOT understand it.
Just because you disagree with some of what The Church teaches does not make you right.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Is this the tactic? Not being able to confront Catholicism on this topic so you jump from topic to topic? Stick to the topic. The topic here is eating meat during fast.

Agreed and I am more than willing to discuss it here. If we can get Akoue to stop hijacking this thread, we can carry on with the discussion


Show it to be right or wrong - so far you've bounced back and forth across the line.

I have put forward a number of scriptures. Let's see your response.

Ot seems that to get back to where the topic diverted, you need to go back to about here and before:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/catholic-church-eating-meat-friday-254481-4.html#post1578540

Tj3,
I understand the Catholic Church and have done so for over thirty years. That is why I quit being a Protestant.
It is obvious to me and any knowledgeable Catholic that you do NOT understand it.
Just because you disagree with some of what The Church teaches does not make you right.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, get on topic or start a new thread.

Tj3,
Thanks for your ORDER.
But I do not follow any orders given by you or talking heads on TV.
I am done with this topic, I think.
And I'm sure you do not want be to start a new thread on "How Tj3 does not understand the Catholic Church."
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3,
Thanks for your ORDER.
But I do not follow any orders given by you or talking heads on TV.

Nor apparently do you respect others by staying on topic.


And I'm sure you do not want be to start a new thread on "How Tj3 does not understand the Catholic Church."

Fred, You've never been able to hold you own in any debate with me on RC doctrine yet, so your protestations mean little to me. You always resort to petty little comments like the above which speak more about the poster than about the person to whom they are aimed.

Nor apparently do you respect others by staying on topic.



Fred, You've never been able to hold you own in any debate with me on RC doctrine yet, so your protestations mean little to me. You always resort to petty little comments like the above which speak more about the poster than about the person to whom they are aimed.


You know, for one who speaks so highly of respect, you should be ashamed. I would suggest an apology.

JoeT

Nor apparently do you respect others by staying on topic.

Fred, You've never been able to hold you own in any debate with me on RC doctrine yet, so your protestations mean little to me. You always resort to petty little comments like the above which speak more about the poster than about the person to whom they are aimed.

You are skilled at rhetoric. At twisting the truth into whatever appeals to you.

Fred speaks the truth in simplicity.

In my opinion, you don't hold a candle to Fred. Especially on Catholic doctrine, which you know little about.

Tj3,
It might be what you think
But That is NOT so!
Deam on.
Fred

Hi DeMaria, If I may reproof this posting by carefully added that it was this authority given to Peter, Peter being the disciple that offered evident indentity of his love for Christ, which by Christ telling us was revealed to him by Our Father in Heaven.

Peter showed his authority in Act 2 with Israel, and Acts 10 amoung the Gentiles.

When we look further to Matthew 18:18-20 the same authority was given to others, where two or three are gathered together. And John 20:21-23 example his disciples given the Holy Spirit, with authority to remit sins.

These scriptures show that by the servants of God, at the choice and will of God, each are granted authority through the Spirit to further the works of God, and do all that is written in The Word which was made Flesh in Christ. We follow the spirit of Christ in His will, just as Christ did His Fathers Will.

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

In my heart I believe the spirit within each will testify of Christ just as Peter did in evident indentiy "YES LORD I LOVE YOU" Liberty other then this is a broken scripture... and is not done by the sheep that follow and hear Christ.

John 15:26-27 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

~ In the spirit of Love

Thank you Sndbay.

It is true that the authority was given to Peter. But do you mean that it was to remain with Peter. Was not the Church of God given authority that would be exercised throughout the centuries until Christ returns in Glory?

You know, for one who speaks so highly of respect, you should be ashamed. I would suggest an apology.


Joe, it is interesting that you think it okay for any sort of demeaning remarks to be made against those who disagree with you, but you feel that anyone who refuse to go along with those demeaning comments ought to apologize.

You are skilled at rhetoric. At twisting the truth into whatever appeals to you.

False accusations will get you nowhere.

Tj3,
I'll say it one more time.
Telling the truth is NOT demeaning.
Fred

Bible speak, still driving me nuts. Why can't we have a bible that has just paraphrases in everyday language. Then my eyes wouldn't just glaze over as I try to make heads or tails of what is being said? Not only is it hard to understand, it's even hard to read. ugh!

:eek:

May I suggest the Children's Picture Bible?
Amazon.com: The Picture Bible: Iva Hoth, Andre Le Blanc, Andre Le Blanc: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Picture-Bible-Iva-Hoth/dp/0781430550)

I believe there is even one with pop-ups:
Little Pop-up Bible Stories Set, 6 Books - - Christianbook.com (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=540671&event=1052CLO)

;)

Thank you Sndbay.
It is true that the authority was given to Peter.

Paul had the same if not greater authority than Peter. But I see that you are trying to distract from the topic again.

How do your denomination's claims that Peter had greater authority have anything to do with what the Bible says about eating fish on Fridays?

cozyk,
Try "The Living Bible"
It was published for folks like you.
It is an easy read.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Where does it say that Paul has the same authority as Peter? Simple question. Find the verse that says "Paul has the same authority as Peter." If ain’t in scripture it ain’t Where did Paul say 'do not fast'?

JoeT

Where does it say that Paul has the same authority as Peter? Simple question. Find the verse that says "Paul has the same authority as Peter." If ain't in scripture it ain't Where did Paul say 'do not fast'?
JoeT

We could get into details, but the onus would be on anyone who claims that one Apostle had greater authority to prove their point from the Bible.

But more so, if you are going to go off topic, you should start a new thread and we can post our respective proofs from scripture there, and let those who wish to discuss the topic, do so.

We could get into details, but the onus would be on anyone who claims that one Apostle had greater authority to prove their point from the Bible.

Does this mean you can't do it?


But moreso, if you are going to go off topic, you should start a new thread and we can post our respective proofs from scripture there, and let those who wish to discuss the topic, do so.


Ok, where did Pope Paul say "do not fast". Was it Pope Paul that had Peter imprisoned for impersonating a bishop?

JoeT


All: I'm going to confession real soon. God help me.

Does this mean you can't do it?

Quite the contrary. But I see no one who claims Peter had primary authority wants to risk a free, fair and respect discussion on what the Bible says. I undersatnd why they would not want such a discuss.



Ok, where did Pope Paul say "do not fast".

Who on this thread has said "do not fast"? That is a logic fallacy known as a "strawman".


I'm going to confession real soon.

I confess to God all the time. No need to go anywhere.