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?Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
JoeT
|
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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.
[QUOTE=cozyk;1514036]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.
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.Quote:
Where do I get this idea?? How about the poster that wrote...
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.Quote:
Everyone has to sacrifice the same thing? You can't choose your own sacrifice ?
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.Quote:
]I guess I wonder why you need to be told what to do, instead of having a personal sacrifice between you and God.
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.Quote:
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.
[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?
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.Quote:
If my questions seem rude, I'm sorry.
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 @$$ way are two different things. You might get more helpful answers if you don't go out of your way to ask the questions in an insulting way. Here are a few examples:Quote:
I am questioning rituals, and when they are said back to you, you think it's being a smart @$$. 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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
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'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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
Thanks for that, it makes sense. You're right: If you don't believe it, you shouldn't be doing it.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
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
JoeT
Fair enough Fred. I think the hostility comes from the accumulation of so many things I just don't get.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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
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=cozyk;1514618]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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
Yes, you’re missing that lent is 40 days.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
yes and any midnight snacks you might be planning.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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
This one is also very good.
Welcome
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)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
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.Quote:
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)
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
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
Yes, sometimes very much so!-In more ways than one.Quote:
cozyk agrees: You forgot to say... makes you hungry
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.
What is a sin in God's eyes is found in scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Not eating meat on Fridays is not a sin according to scripture, but was decreed to be a sin by a denomination of men.
Exactly right.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISTopher1020
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.
Apparently you haven't read this thread in its entirety. These points have been addressed repeatedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISTopher1020
I actually have read the thread but I feel some points needed to be hammered home again!
So you are here to proselytize?Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISTopher1020
Opher:
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)?Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISTopher1020
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISTopher1020
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)
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'?Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISTopher1020
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
Would it be better to proclaim the Words of the Lord? Showing glory to God in a spirit of love.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
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.
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
We have to remember what simplicity of Christ is..Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
(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)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
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.Quote:
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)
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.
There were more problems than that, though one was hypocrisy. The issues with the Pharisees identified in scripture are:Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.
Agree..Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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)
No.. But it is at odds with the teaching of the Pharisees was my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
No where do we put are faithfulness above our faithfulness in Christ Jesus. It is His way rather then man..Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:06 PM. |