 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 810 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 16th, 2006 02:14 am |
|
| so i understand that one must recognize and repent of his sins before taking the eucharist in good faith. I know part of the mass is for just this purpose. But what if i repent and all in the penintential rite yet can not stop sinning afterward. Say i am thinking ill of my neighbor, critical or judgmental thoughts. Or thinking bizarre or other sinful things, or sinnig somehow even in the service. Should that person still receive becasue they are trying to repent and fight the sin, or is it wrong to receive if you are aware of the fact that you have clearly sinned in your heart even since the penitential rite. It seems impossible to ever realy be pure of heart even for small amounts of time.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2117 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 16th, 2006 09:16 am |
|
Brian, there are two things I see here.
First, often these thoughts are not sinful precisely because the person is rejecting them as they occur. These are just temptations, and the net result is that the person is not only not sinful but he is actually performing a virtuous act by rejecting the thoughts.
This is true especially with regard to impure and judgmental thoughts. Oftentimes physical feelings occur along with these thoughts: pleasure with sexual thoughts, anger with judgmental thoughts, etc. No matter. If the person rejects them in his heart and does nothing overtly to promote them, they remain just temptations and he is free of sin.
Second, even if the person is not rejecting the thoughts but is dwelling on them and perhaps even accepting them to some extent, how often does the person actually go on to commit an overt sin of speech or act afterwards? And how often are the thoughts themselves actually of grave matter? Chances are very high that whatever bad thoughts the otherwise good Christian person has consented to are not grave matter or are only partially consented to. Therefore, the sin is seldom mortal.
The devil loves to play tricks like these on people who have are beginning to direct their lives along the path of virtue. Have no fear; he cannot harm those who resist him.
The bottom line: Venial sin does not prevent a person from receiving communion; the life of grace is not extinguished. Only mortal sin can do that — that’s why we call it mortal. With this in mind, the person should definitely receive and allow the grace of the sacrament to help him to resist those sins in the future. After all, this is what the sacrament is for.
It is impossible for a person to suppress all his faults in this life. Even those we call “saints” and “perfect” are subject to a few small ones. So the battle against evil is never won until we are safely home in heaven, or at least in purgatory. God allows this to keep us humble, for humility is the necessary foundation for all other virtues.
David
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 4th, 2006 05:09 pm |
|
David,
Can you give me some examples of mortal sin? What exactly does the Catholic Catechism say about mortal sin?
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2117 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 4th, 2006 11:48 pm |
|
Darlene, the Catechism has many sections that treat of mortal sin, the kinds of sin that can be mortal, the conditions for committing it, the consequences, the cure. After all, this is what salvation is all about, is it not? Following are sections of the Catechism which speak verbally of sin in general and mortal sin in particular.
Hell 1033–1037 (The numbers are the paragraph numbers)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM
Sin 1846–1876 (This section contains a passage on the distinction between mortal and venial sin beginning at 1854)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P69.HTM
(Use the Previous – Next buttons to navigate to the next page)
To get an idea of what can constitute a mortal sin, an examination of the meaning of the Ten Commandments should be close to exhaustive.
The Catechism’s extensive treatment of the Ten Commandments begins here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P78.HTM
The following links are to paragraphs in the Ten Commandments section where mortal sin is mentioned by name. The verbal references are by no means exhaustive, but are meant merely as a guide to understanding.
Anger 2302 and Genocide 2313
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P81.HTM
Lying 2484
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8K.HTM
Envy 2539
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8U.HTM
Let me know if you need more help.
David
|
|
|
mea_maxima_culpa
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | Concord, New Hampshire USA |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Peter | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | U.C.C./Congregational, American Baptist, & now home in Rome! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 01:37 pm |
|
Can I ask a follow up question. Is there a difference between knowing you are doing wrong, and doing it, and wilfully and stridently saying "no" to church teaching.
I'm thinking about the sexual sins of premarital sex and birth control, or masturbation for that matter.
I'm in a quandary in that it would seem that, to be honest, you would need to go to confession weekly, confess to those sins, so that you can receive honestly the Host.
Or, like many modern Catholics (as I am learning), you go to confession 1x/year before Easter to atone for all the lapses from church teaching.
A side question is, assuming you are going to the same priest, how may "do overs" are you allowed to confess a continuing weakness, or propensity to that sin, before you will not receive absolution
I'm just trying to figure out how to live the faith honestly.
Thanks
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 02:28 pm |
|
mea_maxima_culpa wrote: Can I ask a follow up question. Is there a difference between knowing you are doing wrong, and doing it, and wilfully and stridently saying "no" to church teaching.
I'm thinking about the sexual sins of premarital sex and birth control, or masturbation for that matter.
I'm in a quandary in that it would seem that, to be honest, you would need to go to confession weekly, confess to those sins, so that you can receive honestly the Host.
Or, like many modern Catholics (as I am learning), you go to confession 1x/year before Easter to atone for all the lapses from church teaching.
Our Church teaches us to confess mortal sins "as soon as possible" and as frequently as necessary. Most Catholics today go to confession once or twice a year because they misunderstand the nature of sin, or are so full of pride that they refuse to believe they are sinners. Many have been caught in the Protestant fallacy of confession directly to God and do not believe confession to a priest is necessary. And many priests don't want to preach about sin and damnation because it doesn't make people feel good.
Our former Holy Father John Paul II suggested going to confession once a month if we don't have mortal sins to confess, and as often as necessary to confess mortal sins. If we have committed a mortal sin we cannot receive Eucharist, or, as St. Paul taught us, we are sinning against the Body and Blood.
A side question is, assuming you are going to the same priest, how may "do overs" are you allowed to confess a continuing weakness, or propensity to that sin, before you will not receive absolution
No priest should refuse absolution for any normal sin as long as you confess it honestly and make a sincere attempt to stop committing it. (Some heresies and extreme cases of public apostasy are reserved to the bishop or the pope, but you and I are not likely to be victims of those sins.) Of course we will fail. That's expected because we are human. The important thing is that when we confess, we honestly mean it when we say we will try to do better. If I am a bank robber and I stop off at church to confess my crimes while on my way to another job, I am not forgiven (even if the priest grants absolution) because I am lying in making my confession.
Jesus taught us to forgive "seven times seventy-seven" times, which is essentially a euphemism for an infinite number. There is no time we cannot be forgiven as long as we seek forgiveness with sincerity and humility.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
mea_maxima_culpa
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | Concord, New Hampshire USA |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Peter | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | U.C.C./Congregational, American Baptist, & now home in Rome! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 04:58 pm |
|
cajunrick wrote: Many have been caught in the Protestant fallacy of confession directly to God and do not believe confession to a priest is necessary.
Could you elaborate please?
Thanks
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 08:52 pm |
|
mea_maxima_culpa wrote: cajunrick wrote: Many have been caught in the Protestant fallacy of confession directly to God and do not believe confession to a priest is necessary.
Could you elaborate please?
Thanks
Jesus told us "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." If all we are to do is confess directly to God, to whom did Jesus give the authority to "retain"? If we are automatically forgiven when we repent, what is "retained"?
In the early Church, confession was made to the entire assembly and a person had to repent before the entire assembly. If they were to confess directly to God, why was repentance before the entire assembly required?
When King Henry killed Thomas Becket, history records that he wore sackcloth and begged on the steps of the Cathedral for three years as his penance. If he was to confess directly to God, why did he do public penance?
When Archbishop Milingo was "married" by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church, and sought forgiveness for his act, he publicly knelt at the feet of Pope John Paul II to request and receive forgiveness. If he was to confess directly to God, why did he make a public confession? (He later returned to his heretical ways, but for awhile he had returned to the Church.)
My point is that it is the 2000 year teaching of the Church, both Catholic and Orthodox, that forgiveness requires absolution from a validly ordained priest. It dates from the instruction of Jesus shortly before his ascension, and continues to this day. The fact that Protestants have falsely rejected Jesus' teachings does not change the teaching.
Does God forgive our sins? Of course. But that is not enough. We must also be forgiven by the Body of Christ because we have also offended the Body of Christ. When we stub our toe, our hand feels the pain as well. The pain and infection spreads throughout the entire body, so the entire body needs healing. To treat only the wound is not sufficient to heal the body. Private confession to God does not heal the Body of Christ.
Catholics United for the Faith have a Faith Fact on the biblical basis of confession to a priest. You'll find it here.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
GodBlessJoanie
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Washingtonville, New York USA |
| Posts: | 10 |
| First Name: | Joanie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10th, 2006 11:10 pm |
|
Hi,
Could you elaborate regarding the circumstances a Priest would elect to 'retain' sins??
Blessings,
Joanie
Jesus told us "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." If all we are to do is confess directly to God, to whom did Jesus give the authority to "retain"? If we are automatically forgiven when we repent, what is "retained"?
____________________
God doesn't call the qualified, HE qualifies the CALLED!
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 01:03 am |
|
GodBlessJoanie wrote: Could you elaborate regarding the circumstances a Priest would elect to 'retain' sins??
Let's say I have stolen something and refuse to make restitution. The priest would properly refuse absolution. Or if I confess molesting children and have no intention of stopping. Or if I have murdered someone, and someone else has been accused and convicted of the crime, and I refuse to confess so his life will be spared. Or if I am having an affair and have no intention of stopping. Or if I am cohabitating without marriage and have not moved out.
Confession is not enough. As far as possible, I must make an honest intention to reform my life and make restitution to anyone I have harmed if it is possible to do so. Sometimes I can make restitution through my actions, such as returning stolen money in the form of a charitable contribution if I can't return it to the person I took it from, or spending time volunteering at a food bank if I can't return the money. I am not required to confess to the police unless someone else has been charged with a crime, in which case restitution would require me to make every effort to have them exonerated, up to and including confessing to the crime myself.
Also, there are some sins that are reserved. A priest who gets married without permission can only be forgiven by the Vatican. A person who has been formally excommunicated can only be forgiven by the official who handled the excommunication, usually the bishop. Of course, if a person is in danger of death, any priest can give absolution and forgive any sin, even if it is reserved to the Holy Father.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
GodBlessJoanie
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Washingtonville, New York USA |
| Posts: | 10 |
| First Name: | Joanie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 08:28 am |
|
cajunrick wrote: GodBlessJoanie wrote: Could you elaborate regarding the circumstances a Priest would elect to 'retain' sins??
Let's say I have stolen something and refuse to make restitution. The priest would properly refuse absolution. Or if I confess molesting children and have no intention of stopping. Or if I have murdered someone, and someone else has been accused and convicted of the crime, and I refuse to confess so his life will be spared. Or if I am having an affair and have no intention of stopping. Or if I am cohabitating without marriage and have not moved out.
Confession is not enough. As far as possible, I must make an honest intention to reform my life and make restitution to anyone I have harmed if it is possible to do so. Sometimes I can make restitution through my actions, such as returning stolen money in the form of a charitable contribution if I can't return it to the person I took it from, or spending time volunteering at a food bank if I can't return the money. I am not required to confess to the police unless someone else has been charged with a crime, in which case restitution would require me to make every effort to have them exonerated, up to and including confessing to the crime myself.
Also, there are some sins that are reserved. A priest who gets married without permission can only be forgiven by the Vatican. A person who has been formally excommunicated can only be forgiven by the official who handled the excommunication, usually the bishop. Of course, if a person is in danger of death, any priest can give absolution and forgive any sin, even if it is reserved to the Holy Father.
Bravo!
Many thanks for your reply -- that clears it up wonderfully!
Blessings,
Joanie
____________________
God doesn't call the qualified, HE qualifies the CALLED!
|
|
|
Dan Bryan
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 21 |
| First Name: | Dan | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Protestant - I presently have no current Church Affiliations |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 02:36 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: [size=Darlene, the Catechism has many sections that treat of mortal sin, the kinds of sin that can be mortal, the conditions for committing it, the consequences, the cure. After all, this is what salvation is all about, is it not? Following are sections of the Catechism which speak verbally of sin in general and mortal sin in particular.
To get an idea of what can constitute a mortal sin, an examination of the meaning of the Ten Commandments should be close to exhaustive.
The Catechism’s extensive treatment of the Ten Commandments begins here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P78.HTM
The following links are to paragraphs in the Ten Commandments section where mortal sin is mentioned by name. The verbal references are by no means exhaustive, but are meant merely as a guide to understanding.
I was not aware that the Catechism regarded disobedience the 10 commandments as mortal sin.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P4K.HTM#PENT.DEU.5.6
Is there not however truly just 9 commandments instead of 10; as the whole of the Christian community, both Protestant and Catholic willfully, intentionally ignore the Sabbath? or is all Christian-dom Apostate?
Can you please show me how and where this has been reconciled in RCC doctrine.
If God established a particular day of the week in which to rest, how did this morph into Sunday worship?
If this Sunday worship is in error, where is the repentance or does the RCC observe the Sabbath as a day of rest with Sunday as a day of worship?
Saturday mass does not constitute the Sabbath when it falls into Sunday at sundown.
Who can pick and choose which law or commandment we keep?
Thanks in advance,
dan
____________________
Be anxious for nothing; we make our own plans, but the Lord determines our steps..............Bible
|
|
|
japhy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 188 |
| First Name: | Jeff (you can call me "japhy" | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic (Latin Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 04:14 pm |
|
Dan Bryan wrote: I was not aware that the Catechism regarded disobedience the 10 commandments as mortal sin.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P4K.HTM#PENT.DEU.5.6
Is there not however truly just 9 commandments instead of 10; as the whole of the Christian community, both Protestant and Catholic willfully, intentionally ignore the Sabbath? or is all Christian-dom Apostate?
Can you please show me how and where this has been reconciled in RCC doctrine.
If God established a particular day of the week in which to rest, how did this morph into Sunday worship?
If this Sunday worship is in error, where is the repentance or does the RCC observe the Sabbath as a day of rest with Sunday as a day of worship?
Saturday mass does not constitute the Sabbath when it falls into Sunday at sundown.
Who can pick and choose which law or commandment we keep? Simply put, the early Church, by the authority given it by God, celebrates Sunday, the first day of the week, as the Lord's Day, for it was the day on which Jesus was raised from the tomb, ushering in a new Genesis of sorts. Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for Man.
Much (if not all) of the Old Testament was a foreshadowing of the New Testament; in the same way, the setting aside of Saturday as the Sabbath (or, more specifically, sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday) as the day God rested is fulfilled in the resting of Jesus Christ in the tomb on Holy Saturday. This "resting" of God is now followed by an ongoing "working" of God, through His Church, to spread the gospel to all nations and make disciples for Christ.
As for where the Catechism deals with this, see paragraphs 1166 and 2174-2176.Last edited on Tue Sep 11th, 2007 04:22 pm by japhy
____________________
[Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 11:50 pm |
|
Japhy had a good answer for you, but there is one other point to be mentioned. Jewish Christians celebrated the Sabbath as observant Jews, then gathered to share the agape meal on the Lord's Day. When gentiles were admitted to the Christian faith (see Acts on the Council of Jerusalem) it was decided that they were not bound by Jewish law, and so they did not need to be circumcised, and did not need to observe the Jewish Sabbath. Later, when Jewish Christians were expelled from the Temple, they also ceased honoring the Jewish Sabbath and transferred their observance to the Lord's Day because, as Jesus said, he is Lord of the Sabbath as well.
The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, so Christ through the Church has authority over even the Sabbath.
As Catholics we learn the commandment as an instruction to keep holy the "Lord's Day" which is the day of his resurrection, the first day of the week.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Dan Bryan
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 21 |
| First Name: | Dan | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Protestant - I presently have no current Church Affiliations |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 12:08 am |
|
japhy wrote: Simply put, the early Church, by the authority given it by God, celebrates Sunday, the first day of the week, as the Lord's Day, for it was the day on which Jesus was raised from the tomb, ushering in a new Genesis of sorts. Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for Man.
Much (if not all) of the Old Testament was a foreshadowing of the New Testament; in the same way, the setting aside of Saturday as the Sabbath (or, more specifically, sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday) as the day God rested is fulfilled in the resting of Jesus Christ in the tomb on Holy Saturday. This "resting" of God is now followed by an ongoing "working" of God, through His Church, to spread the gospel to all nations and make disciples for Christ.
As for where the Catechism deals with this, see paragraphs 1166 and 2174-2176.
Dear Japhy,
Thank you very much for the links explaining the celebration of Sunday as a replacement of the Sabbath.
You said: Simply put, the early Church, by the authority given it by God ……am I hearing you correctly?
Authority To Change the Commands or Laws of God?
Are you certain that God gave anyone such authority?
By the term ‘Early Church’ are you referring to the days of the Apostles or the period during and shortly after St. Augustine?
In my review of the Catechism links you sent and the prior related to the Decalogue I make notes;
1166 By a tradition handed down from the apostles………
‘The Early Church’ of the bible period worshiped on the Sabbath and they were as fact the children of Abraham by blood.
The Early Church evangelism was to the Jew first and the message of the Kingdom was presented to them in their synagogues where ever they went...on the Sabbath.
I can understand that the day of Christ’s resurrection could be considered a poignant day for celebration in itself, one of tradition and not of obligation in light of Biblical reference.
Do you have any data as to the date that this change occurred?
Did this become cannon law, and if so when?
1170 At the Council of Nicaea in 325, all the Churches agreed that Easter, the Christian Passover, should be celebrated on the Sunday....
Is this the date that Sunday was adapted?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P78.HTM
Also here a key-point synopsis of compliance to the Church doctrine regarding the Decalogue
1) following Jesus Christ involves keeping the Commandments
2) The Law has not been abolished
3) They are pre-eminently the words of God
4) they contain the terms of the covenant
5) Law is part of the covenant God sealed with his own
6) the Church has acknowledged the primordial importance and significance of the Decalogue
7) Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians
8) Council of Trent - the justified man is still bound to keep them, Second Vatican Council confirms the observance of the Commandments
9) the Ten Commandments reveal, grave obligations, They are fundamentally immutable
10) No one can dispense from them
How do these Biblical verses below square with what I see as an incongruity in Church Doctrine…. Catholic or her daughter Protestant?
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
I do not take away form the Passion and the Glorious Resurrection, however can you can see my dilemma?
It appears to be this choice? The traditions of man or the Law of God?
Thanks,
dan
____________________
Be anxious for nothing; we make our own plans, but the Lord determines our steps..............Bible
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 228 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 04:27 am |
|
Dan Bryan wrote: You said: Simply put, the early Church, by the authority given it by God ……am I hearing you correctly?
Authority To Change the Commands or Laws of God?
Are you certain that God gave anyone such authority?
Consider Jesus' command "As the Father sent Me, So I send you" in the context of your question, and ask what authority did Christ have?
Regards Dave
|
|
|
japhy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 188 |
| First Name: | Jeff (you can call me "japhy" | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic (Latin Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 11:28 am |
|
Dan Bryan wrote: You said: Simply put, the early Church, by the authority given it by God ……am I hearing you correctly?
Authority To Change the Commands or Laws of God?
Are you certain that God gave anyone such authority?
By the term ‘Early Church’ are you referring to the days of the Apostles or the period during and shortly after St. Augustine? First of all, Dan, this is completely off-topic for this current thread. If you wish to pursue this any further, the forum rules require you to start a thread in the proper sub-forum.
The earliest Church records we have indicates that the New Covenant celebrated the Lord pre-eminently on Sunday, the first day of the week. They did it in Acts 20:7; it seems that the Sabbath was spent in synagogues primarily for the preaching of the gospel to those Jews assembled therein. This New Covenant sheds a new light on the Ten Commandments -- Jesus taught them with an authority greater than that of Moses. The early Church recognized the first day of the week as the day to celebrate the New Covenant.
Outside of Scripture, there are writings from the late first and early second centuries that attest to Sunday gatherings. But in this case, "early Church" means, indeed, the days of the Apostles.
____________________
[Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 03:07 pm |
|
Dan Bryan wrote: You said: Simply put, the early Church, by the authority given it by God ……am I hearing you correctly?
Authority To Change the Commands or Laws of God?
Are you certain that God gave anyone such authority?
Dan, please post this question and any follow-ups you might have in the forum dedicated to The Church or The Magisterium. It is an excellent question and deserves a full discussion in the proper area.
Everyone, please, no further responses to this line of questions in this thread as it is off topic. The question is too important not to be treated separately and given the full consideration it deserves.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Dan Bryan
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 21 |
| First Name: | Dan | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Protestant - I presently have no current Church Affiliations |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 03:11 pm |
|
japhy wrote: First of all, Dan, this is completely off-topic for this current thread. If you wish to pursue this any further, the forum rules require you to start a thread in the proper sub-forum.
Since the diversion of this post was entertained by you, I beg one final indulgence of my reply in closing.
Ok, so now we live in Christ in new covenant, which completes and satisfies the former law, with the weight of the old covenant-commandments being no longer, this I can agree with you, however;
Also reading Church Doctrine has shown me that it demands that we must keep and hold the Decalogue, and any disobedience to it as that of a mortal sin, and I could possibly agree with this.
So in summation from what I read here we are not bound to the Decalogue, then I also read that the Church demands compliance to the Decalogue, but yet again these laws can be interpreted or Changed, so we can truly have it both ways!
It would be of encouragement to me if the Church would better clarify the Doctrine, while I will remain in the Word.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
Mat 5:17 Jesus said; Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
Please forgive my topic transgression in the post!
However also note that it was not of my diversion, but initiated by Darlene and our moderator David W. Emery.
I will no longer post here on this topic except to answer any additional further response.
Please feel free to respond via private message
Thank you for your clarification and fine consideration.
dan
PS: DrDave, I wish you well. Your avatar appears a little dark, does it truly represent you?
____________________
Be anxious for nothing; we make our own plans, but the Lord determines our steps..............Bible
|
|
|
|
| | |
