136 replies to this topic

[Paranoid Android]

Wow, seems my post made quite an impression.  And as I expected, most of the comments totally overlooked my actual point.  Just because I disagree with Catholics does not mean I do not think of them as Christians or any such.  But to address specific points, I'll compile my thoughts into a single post rather than post several things within minutes of each other. So here goes:

Yamato -

Yamato, on 11 June 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

Yet how does my church require me to go to confession at least once a year exactly?   Maybe someone who doesn't go to my church can explain that to me.

This is the difference between the force of government and the option of religion.  When government requires me to do something, I'm actually required to do it.

I cannot speak for the absolute accuracy of the quote that I took from the website I used (someone else referenced it, I just looked at it, but it does seem to back up what I have read about Catholics in the past), but if it is accurate then the Roman Catholic establishment requires that its members attend Confession at least once a year.  I don't know if you are a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but if you are (and if this site is accurate) then you MUST attend Confession at least once a year or else face the consequences.  

That said, the link does not address one key issue - does the RCC monitor its members in the amount they use Confession?  If they don't then the once-a-year requirement may be a law in name only and have no effect on a Catholic's life.  But based on the site alone, if a Catholic does not attend Confession with a priest at least once every year then they have no place in the Roman Catholic family.  

BM -

Beckys_Mom, on 11 June 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

So Catholics who believe in following their faith and  confessing sins every so often  can lead them away from salvation and away from Christ...even though repenting plays a key role in Christianity  hence why they feel it is right to confess and try harder to be better christians ....hmmm.  I see   ...That is a new one  lo...... A tad negative about another Christian faith  but hey  I have seen a lot worse ...... I can't help but wonder what  Catholics would think of that one?   Would they feel  delighted? ...OR ..... Feel sad because  they are now in the same boat as non Christians  and atheists. no heaven for the catholics either? I can imagine how delighted they would feel   lol ...  Sorry for laughing a little.. but it is funny when  Christians like to judge each other...I now just see the humour in it all.. it can happen if you are so used to seeing these sort of things  time and time again  lol....I mean  Christians do not need skeptics to put them down or tell them how wrong they have it.. no no no ... a number of you  do that to each other  .. a lot  you l save the skeptics  the trouble...lol  

Catholics are just wasting their time following Jesus if they beleive in confessing sins  ( repenting )  to a church clergy to pray for forgivingness...  Because men of the cloth / clergy do not and cannot ever  contact Jesus....right?  And  even if you don't know all about their faith and why things are with them.. you can still judge them and judge  what pushes them AWAY from their saviour right?...   It just doesn't get any better than that ha ha lol.... I am glad I am not a catholic any more otherwise I might have felt a tad weird about that one !!

Calling out to Jesus  - Jesus  if you really do in fact exist...  here is a problem that could use a good old fashioned  miracle   fix this one.. -->  Get all protestant, Catholics, born again...born again agains  lol to  coexist and all agree with each other...make it so that each will not  say anything negative about the other ...make it so that each will agree  with each other and  not be so judging....Remind them that  only God can do that.... can you do that Jesus?  If that ever does happen.. then and only then I will think you are for real...   

I get the feeling that if Jesus is real.. he still wouldn't touch that mess with a ten foot divine barge pole  lol   Christianity.. ohh dear whatever happened to you   lol

I suppose you missed the part in my post where I stated that I believe there are many Christians sitting in Catholic churches, and that I have most likely met several of them (including a couple I can pinpoint on this website).  And if you notice I never once Judged a single person!  If I did then correct me, please.  Otherwise I think you are simply bringing out a Red Herring (probably not intentionally) because of a knee-jerk reaction to my statement that SOME Catholics may have put more stock in works than Grace.   

Mark -

markdohle, on 11 June 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Confession is diffiuclt, hard and also healing.  In the NT we are encouraged to confess our sins to one another, so I find it inrteresting tha PA would think that led away from Christ Jesus.  Not to confess may be the problem, since one never has to express their strggles and failures to another....try it PA.

Peace
mark

I have no problem with confessing (small "c") my sins to other Christians.  I do, however, have issue with Confession (capital "C") which is a requirement of belonging to a specific denomination, and in which I MUST confess to a person who has a piece of paper saying that they represent a church and that this person can then lay out a penance, which will require further adherence to this denominational view via certain types of prayers and rituals as outlayed by the organisation.

Why not just confess to a friend or confidante, or someone else who I trust?  Why must I go through a priest?

FW -

fullywired, on 11 June 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

What about this bit then?

Jesus told the apostles, "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23).

What of it?  Where in that does it demand that a clergyman of one particular denomination has the authority of these specific individuals at this specific time in history (2000 years ago, now).

8bits -

eight bits, on 11 June 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

PA


The Orthodox aren't Catholic, but they are fine with that statement. The disagreement about the "other sacraments" (rituals of grace other than baptism and commemoration of the Last Supper)  is pretty much between Protestants and non-Protestant Christiians, rather than Catholics and non-Catholics.

"Institution" means that there is a specific canonical speech or overt act of Jesus from which the Christian practice is derived. The instittution narrative for penance (reconciliation, confession, ...) is John 20: 23, as pointed out by fullywired . No more personal involvement in the practice by Jesus than that is claimed by the phrase "instituted by Christ."


Of course, to even describe any of the sacraments as "works" is almost exclusively Protestant. Christians generally read the same canonical New Testament. Catholic and Orthodox Christians know what Paul wrote. They disagree with you about what that means.


I think just about all Christians believe that salvation is literally by grace (that is, by God's discretionary gift). Where the disagreement comes in is how grace is meted out. Confession, like all sacraments in the Catholic-Orthodox view, is a means by which God confers his grace on the participant.

Other views, of course, are possible.

A protestant would argue that their views reflect the original beliefs of the early Christians.  At some point in time, the traditions of the Catholic Church (and yes, the Eastern Orthodox also) took over and those such as Luther and Calvin and Wesley, and others besides simply campaigned for a return to the original roots of Christianity.

I suppose other views are indeed possible.  It depends on how one considers the separation of Grace and Works.  Heck, even Martin Luther (who as you know was one of the most influential [perhaps even THE most influential] reformers) had significant issues with the Grace vs Works issue.  Naturally I am arguing from my own point of view as one who believes in sola scriptura, I'm just explaining why it is that I see some Catholics may be led astray (not pointing fingers or judging anyone, as BM has tried to imply).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyway, I hope this is easier to compile my thoughts into a single post rather than consecutive post entries on the same subject.

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android, 11 June 2012 - 06:19 PM.

[Yamato]

Paranoid Android, on 11 June 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

Wow, seems my post made quite an impression.  And as I expected, most of the comments totally overlooked my actual point.  Just because I disagree with Catholics does not mean I do not think of them as Christians or any such.  But to address specific points, I'll compile my thoughts into a single post rather than post several things within minutes of each other. So here goes:

Yamato -
I cannot speak for the absolute accuracy of the quote that I took from the website I used (someone else referenced it, I just looked at it, but it does seem to back up what I have read about Catholics in the past), but if it is accurate then the Roman Catholic establishment requires that its members attend Confession at least once a year.  I don't know if you are a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but if you are (and if this site is accurate) then you MUST attend Confession at least once a year or else face the consequences.  

That said, the link does not address one key issue - does the RCC monitor its members in the amount they use Confession?  If they don't then the once-a-year requirement may be a law in name only and have no effect on a Catholic's life.  But based on the site alone, if a Catholic does not attend Confession with a priest at least once every year then they have no place in the Roman Catholic family.  

Yep, the RCC.  I haven't been to confession in years.  No consequences in sight.  Nor the RCC before this one.  Nope, I've never heard of monitoring confessions.  If it's something you're willing to do anyway, why not do it before a priest once in a great while where you can at least keep up appearances?  Where you can show that you are indeed confessing your sins and not severing it from your church entirely into something you can do in private?  If it's something we believe in doing we should be able to do it in sight of others.

You wouldn't have any problem at my church on this issue.  I'm sure that wouldn't qualify as a reason for you to leave if you were already here.  If your wife was a devout Catholic would you go to my church for her (granted all your other differences)?  I could easily see myself following your path and drifting into a less-Sacramenty version of Christianity but I see no reason compelling enough to switch.   I do indeed have brand loyalty, primarily due to family.  

[rashore]

Yamato, on 11 June 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:

Hmmm I didn't see that first one...wonder how I missed it?  

The ad posted for this thread was published in the Washington Post over a week before appearing in the USA Today incidentally.   Does USA Today have a bad reputation compared to its peers I wasn't aware of?

Taking advertising money is fine and I might do some research on how much these full page ads cost.  But what bothers me about the ad above (I'm holding it right now) is that it doesn't have any disclaimer or fine print that says something to the effect of: "This ad doesn't reflect the opinions of the USA Today or any of its affiliates."

But the only text on the page not a part of the ad is what's across the top:  USA Today   Friday June 1, 2012 3B

USA Today does not have a bad rep as far as I'm aware of... Just that they are willing to take on full page ads about other things from other groups, so I'm not surprised they were willing to take an ad from FFRF. I popped up their 2012 pricing PDF and it looks like a standard full page one day B&W ad for m-th is about 125,000. They got flexing and deals, but that's about what it boils down to.
I bet it's pretty darn likely that if a Catholic group decided to plunk down 125,000 for a full page ad refuting the FFRF or speaking up in favor of their faith, USA Today would be just as happy to take their money as they were happy to take FFRF's money. I know that the Episcopal Church puts ads in USA Today.
It's a dog eat dog in the paper world, every advertising dollar counts.

[eight bits]

PA

Quote

A protestant would argue that their views reflect the original beliefs of the early Christians.

Some would. Protestant churches differ among themselves about the goal of reconstruction, including what that term might mean in practice.

Protestantism begins more than a millennium too late to be a continuation of any pre-conciliar proto-orthodox Christianity. Moreover, a good deal of the pioneering Protestants' dispute with the existing Catholic-Orthodox churches (and sometimes with other Protestants, like the Anglican Communion) was about the reliability of Tradition, which is largely the patristic writings that may shed light on what happened during the first three centuries of the Common Era.

So, with respect (and you know that for me, that's not just an empty formula), my reaction is much as it is to "ancient Irish druidism." I don't doubt the sincerity of living druids' beliefs. I wouldn't exclude that their project of reconstruction may have succeeded to some extent. I really am unconfident, however, that their practices closely resemble ancient ones in detail.

And, of course, before you say "Ah, but I have a book here from those very times," I'll point out that we have something else as well that makes the epistemological pickle more sour in the Christian reconstruction case. There are two living organizations that have been in undisputed continuous existence from those earliest times. They do not generally play in partnership with each other. But when a question arises, like "Did Paul mean that confession is a "work" in the bad sense?," I notice they agree that Paul did not mean that.

I am not saying that I award the palm to them. I am saying that it is not obvious that they are wrong, or that their view is less likely to represent more faithfully the earliest Christian views than someone else's.

In any case, the bulk of my post was intended to characterize the nature of the disagreement, who argues what, and the alignments among disputatnts, as they appear to an outsider who has looked into it, undistracted by having a dog in the fight. I don't aspire to resolve the controversy.

Edited by eight bits, 11 June 2012 - 08:43 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Paranoid Android, on 11 June 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

BM -
I suppose you missed the part in my post where I stated that I believe there are many Christians sitting in Catholic churches, and that I have most likely met several of them (including a couple I can pinpoint on this website).

I did read it but it was just you going on about how many Christians sit in catholic churches...  I wasn't going to lean on that one remark...But  come to think of it..I wouldn't have said many.. I would have said  all who attended their church...because  to me that is a safer bet..  If I said many I wouldn't know for sure ..How would I know?   It is not a very fair judgement for me to make...

Anyway  ....... It was the finial touch to the post that caught my eye....  The  part where in a new sentence.. you state  well see below..

Paranoid Android, on 11 June 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

This is a very big difference between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians, and though I do believe that there are many Christians sitting in Catholic Churches (I know several of them on UM) I am of the belief that placing too much importance in something like Confession can actually lead away from the doctrine of salvation by Grace and therefore lead away from Christ.

That's my view of things, at least
~ PA

The bold is what really stood out.. You stating it was your belief and your own view. ( which by the way is your right and so be it) .... So to sum up.. Those that see the importance of confessing sin can lead them away from not just salvation but lead them away from Jesus... That would upset any catholic   PA.Well any catholic that cared  enough and  know they did attend mass regularly ..... it did not upset me.. but I did notice and thought  .. ohh my  not looking well.. I tried to make light of the entire situation...because  the funny side hit me.. Only because I have seen so many chrisitans say things like that about other christians...I never can understand why   lol

..  Take what you said for example  - you believe-  Confessions  can lead them away from  salvation  and away from Jesus   <-- we know this means  no heaven .and  no Jesus..  .  They may not think that is fair to say... I mean you wouldnt want anyone to say  they believe  something you practice in your church can lead you from Jesus  and salvation... especially if it were something you did you felt was important to your faith........ Do you see what I am trying to say ?

Quote

Otherwise I think you are simply bringing out a Red Herring (probably not intentionally) because of a knee-jerk reaction to my statement that SOME Catholics may have put more stock in works than Grace.   

No red herring... I was just   pointing out what I felt was a bit unfair but I didn't want to cause any harm by it... You say  SOME Catholics  may have put more in works than grace  <-  that is an assumption  and judgement you have settled with and made it something you believe ...But  my point here is.. How can you know for sure?   Who can really tell?   Out of the billion or so there are..  who can make the fair judgement? ...Do we make that judgement  on the idea  of  those who will attend their church?..Bare in mind I speak only of the Catholics that will go to their churches,  and not of the Catholics..I only mean the church attending, as it relates to your post..  but see when you did this beforehand.. you noted many and not all  who sit in the catholic church... so  it is a judgement you settled with to make your own belief and rest how you view it ..Now it is your right to view it how you see fit......but all I am saying is  how can anyone really know?

I cannot say for sure who really is a true and close to grace ...all I can do is take their word for it... only they will know and god... I am not inside their minds..I do not know who they are as people...   I mean I take your word for it that you are Christian an you strive hard...
Over all... - Sometimes it helps us more if we make a judgement and state it is what we believe is wrong or right...we could at least try and think... If I were those I speak of...how would I react if this was said about me too?  <-- I mean that about us all...including me  because I am guilty big time of jumping the gun   lol   ......... And I hope you are not feeling  a bit off over this... I never meant to say anything  out of order..  It is harder to explain things using text   lol

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 11 June 2012 - 09:48 PM.

[Yamato]

rashore, on 11 June 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

USA Today does not have a bad rep as far as I'm aware of... Just that they are willing to take on full page ads about other things from other groups, so I'm not surprised they were willing to take an ad from FFRF. I popped up their 2012 pricing PDF and it looks like a standard full page one day B&W ad for m-th is about 125,000. They got flexing and deals, but that's about what it boils down to.
I bet it's pretty darn likely that if a Catholic group decided to plunk down 125,000 for a full page ad refuting the FFRF or speaking up in favor of their faith, USA Today would be just as happy to take their money as they were happy to take FFRF's money. I know that the Episcopal Church puts ads in USA Today.
It's a dog eat dog in the paper world, every advertising dollar counts.

So true, I think print media is dying a slow death.   The disclaimer at the bottom of their full page ads should read: "Don't blame us that this ad you're actually reading right now only brought us in $125k".   Thanks for looking it up too btw.  

[fullywired]

What about this bit then?

Jesus told the apostles, "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23).





What of it?  Where in that does it demand that a clergyman of one particular denomination has the authority o0f these specific individuals at this specific time in history (2000 years ago, now).
PA

You seem to be saying that the bible has no meaning in this specific time in history or are you just ignoring the bits you don't like.So much for Sola scriptura or  are you saying Jesus only died for the sins of men of that period and made another set of rules for the rest of us

A similar citation, apparently from St Augustine, is found in Jude Mbukanma's book Is it in the Bible?:
"Let no one say: I confess my sins secretly to God, it is enough that He who is to forgive me knows the penance I make in my heart. If this were the case, Jesus would not have sent the Lepers (Luke 17:11-14) to the Priests nor would He have said to the Apostles: That which you will loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven. If God had given us the power to open Heaven by ourselves, His having given the keys to the Church would be useless. It is not enough to confess ourselves to God, therefore, but we must confess ourselves to those who received from Him the power to loose and bind."
Jesus saw fit to forgive sins, he also saw fit to grant this authority to his followers, an authority which continues to this day. We do well to follow Jesus' lead and go to his ministers for forgiveness.<a href="http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_confessionkm.html#note3">³ This was the practice which Jesus set in place.

paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_confessionkm.html


    fullywired

[Beckys_Mom]

fullywired, on 12 June 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

What about this bit then?

Jesus told the apostles, "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23).

Simple.. it is saying  go forth, you have my power to forgive sins...I trust you will do so..  So that is most likely why the church do it, thinking they are following what Jesus asks..   Or at least that's what the text looks like from where I am sitting !!

[Paranoid Android]

fullywired, on 12 June 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

You seem to be saying that the bible has no meaning in this specific time in history or are you just ignoring the bits you don't like.So much for Sola scriptura or  are you saying Jesus only died for the sins of men of that period and made another set of rules for the rest of us

That is not what I am saying.  I am saying that the fact that Jesus gave a certain group of individuals 2000 years ago the ability to forgive the sins of others does not therefore mean that a person today who has been appointed a clergyman in the Catholic Church therefore has that same ability today.

Let's use an example.  I speak to my brother and convey him the Right to look after my finances in the unfortunate situation where I may be incapacitated and unable to look after them myself.  Let's say I am a leader in a church and someone writes down that I have given this Right to my brother.  Does that mean I have given that Right to every one of my followers to look after my finances?  By no means.  It just means that a certain individual at a certain time in history was able to do it.  

Jesus gave his apostles the ability to forgive sin.  Does that mean that a priest today has that same ability?  I was under the impression that only God alone could forgive sins (Luke 5:21).  That is not to say that we cannot forgive others, indeed the ability to forgive is one of the greatest things we can do for another person.  But when it comes to sins against God, only one person can forgive them - God.  Jesus' comments to the apostles were a specific command at a specific time, and therefore I reject the use of that passage as a reason to hold Confession (capital "C") in church.

~ Regards,

[Paranoid Android]

Beckys_Mom, on 12 June 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

Simple.. it is saying  go forth, you have my power to forgive sins...I trust you will do so..  So that is most likely why the church do it, thinking they are following what Jesus asks..   Or at least that's what the text looks like from where I am sitting !!

Who was given the power?  I read the passage and all I see is the power given to the apostles, a select group of Christ's closest followers.  Not all Christ's followers were granted this, and there is no indication that this power is granted to anyone else once the apostles died off.  As I said above, there is nothing wrong with forgiveness, and it is something we should be encouraged to do when needed.  But our choice to forgive someone does not confer forgiveness of God the way the apostles had, especially not on the basis of someone getting a piece of paper from an earthly organisation saying "this is a priest and can perform Confessionals".

[eight bits]

PA

Quote

there is no indication that this power is granted to anyone else once the apostles died off.

That's not necessarily a winner for you, however. Jesus made no canonized provision at all for a church beyond the generation of his immediate Apostles.

This, then, required a command decision somewhere around the 90's or so. "Well, I see all the capital-A Apostles are gone, and it appears that Jesus isn't coming back when we understood him to have promised to return. Since we are sola what will shortly become scriptura, and a continuing church isn't in the Bible, then we must dissolve our association and await further instructions."

The alternative, of course, was to make some provision for a transfer of authority from one generation to the next, even though no mechanism for that was prescribed by Jesus and recorded in canonical writing. In the event, that's what they did, apparently adapting a mechanism that they had used to extend the reach of the church spatially, aguably needed during that first generation to fulfill the Great Commission, and so Biblically legitimate for that purpose.

If that mechanism is illegitimate for intergenerational use, then we are back to the situation of the earlier paragraph, that the legitimate church of Jesus wrapped up its business long ago. I note that there is no Biblical injunction to revive that church so there is no Biblical basis for a current church, unless the mechanism actually used is legitimate for temporal extension.

If however, the mechanism is legitimate for temporal as well as spatial extension, then there is a problem with your observation,

Quote

  I am saying that the fact that Jesus gave a certain group of individuals 2000 years ago the ability to forgive the sins of others does not therefore mean that a person today who has been appointed a clergyman in the Catholic Church therefore has that same ability today.

If the mechanism for intergenerational continuity is legitimate, then the relevance of how many times the mechanism has needed to be engaged in order to span the time between the ascension and the presumed return of Jesus isn't immediately apparent. It's 2,000 years because that's how long the Father has decided to wait, so far, before sending Jesus back. It cannot be helped.

But, OK, suppose there was a repetition limit. If that limit has not yet been reached, then the current successors are legitimate. When the legitimacy expires isn't our problem or theirs.

If the limit has been reached, then we are back to the situation of that earlier paragraph, except that the legitimate church of Jesus wrapped up its business after the 90's, whenever the intergenerational continuity mechanism went stale. Since there is nothing in the Bible about what to do instead, and no Biblical authority to revive the church, then sola scriptura prescribes an end to the business.

At the very least, the Great Commission was given only to the first generation, and so unless there is an intergenerational mechanism for transmitting responsibility for that, then there is no Biblical basis for Christian missionary activity or proselytizing today. Christians could indefinitely follow Biblical instructions, of course, and pray in private by retiring to their closets.

Edited by eight bits, 13 June 2012 - 09:29 AM.

[fullywired]

Paranoid Android, on 13 June 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

That is not what I am saying.  I am saying that the fact that Jesus gave a certain group of individuals 2000 years ago the ability to forgive the sins of others does not therefore mean that a person today who has been appointed a clergyman in the Catholic Church therefore has that same ability today.



Jesus gave his apostles the ability to forgive sin.  Does that mean that a priest today has that same ability?  I was under the impression that only God alone could forgive sins (Luke 5:21).  That is not to say that we cannot forgive others, indeed the ability to forgive is one of the greatest things we can do for another person.  But when it comes to sins against God, only one person can forgive them - God.  Jesus' comments to the apostles were a specific command at a specific time, and therefore I reject the use of that passage as a reason to hold Confession (capital "C") in church.

~ Regards,

The fact that Jesus gave the power to forgive sins to men ,defeats your statement that only god can forgive sins .You just can't reject a passage of scripture because it doesn't suit your mind set.I repeat eight bits question ,When did the legitmacy expire ,it doesn't say  in the scripture I have read ,however my knowledge of scripture is limited if so could you point out the relevant passage. I wasn't aware that believing in sola scriptura meant only believing the bits you like
fullywired

[Beckys_Mom]

Paranoid Android, on 13 June 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

Who was given the power? (SNIP)

PA.. read  all that is in here --> http://www.catholic....iveness-of-sins I am not going to get into another one of those   - lets see who can interpret  what scripture ?  Or  Whos  devine message is it anyway?  lol  ...I have been there done that a few times in the past.with others .It can drag on ..those kinda of discussions  normally do.

If  ( after you read all in the link provided) and  you still cannot see why priests  over time   have felt they were chosen to forgive  by the power of Christ.( and I am guessing being protestant you aint gonna  lol) ....  Then stick with this answer- >  One day a priest got bored, and felt hey I don't have enough duties... I want to be MORE like Jesus..and so he asked the pope  - Can we start  forgving sins? it might take the load off jesus? It is good to help out, Jesus is always helping us, so we should do something to help him... lets forgive sins in his favour?... The pope said  hmmmmmmm  well I normally hate to impose   but ... .. Yea why not? lets give it a go.. and from then on in... They held confessions  lol Well  ya can never really tell.. it could have happened   lol

Joking aside.. PA  I cannot convince you..And if the site I threw out there doesnt help then nothing more can be added..well nothing I would want to drag on with ...

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 13 June 2012 - 04:23 PM.

[Dash--]

Enthralling Conversation  (<finally found a use for that word)

This is not aimed at anyone in this thread in particular.

The Catholic Church....I'm gonna enjoy this.

First.let me just introduce ya'll to my little friend here Mr.KJV. (but you can "pick your poison",they all sum up the same thing.Trust me.I checked.haha)

Paul the Apostle
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;  1st Timothy. (no chapters henceforth....hey.what do you expect? read your bible.we all need to get off the internet anyway  )

But wait Dash...your just quote-mining. (to forever be known as "scripture-mining")Remember that phrase.(Ya'll heard it here first.lol)
Well then,let me give you the full chapter.

Again:Paul the Apostle ( from the opening of... :hint:Chapter 2:hint,hint)

2 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
² For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
³ For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
⁴ Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
⁵ For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
⁶ Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
⁷ Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
⁸ I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

Verses 9-15 are irrelevant to this topic.(but it will be discussed another day perhaps,just not today)
⁹ In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
¹⁰ But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
¹¹ Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
¹² But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
¹³ For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
¹⁴ And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
¹⁵ Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
1st Timothy
Now,I know that we can debate about Paul all day long as there is much to debate about him,but...Yawn. (been there,done that...kicked a** ,took names)

We're talking about St.Paul. Not Paul that played for the New Orleans Saints. We're talking about St.Paul the Apostle.Ya know.The Catholic Saint.(<see what i did there?)
And yes,as of this post,he is still considered a Catholic Saint and an Apostle.

Does the Catholic Church adhere to these scriptures?Or do they pick and choose as they see fit?...Nonetheless,his words stand in the Bible.One mediator...Jesus.Pretty clear to me.
Does the Catholic Church have the "divine" empowerment to take away these religious attributes from the Saints? Apostles? Or Paul?..He was both.

Can they pick and choose what religious beliefs they want or don't want from the Saints or Apostles? Should it be the Churches discretion? Wouldn't that be "divine" matters?Not Church officials.

In Paul's teachings,you read that you don't need to go to church.Let alone have to be absolved by anyone other than Jesus.(- pray,give thanks,and lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.)That is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.That's what Paul said...right? Is this correct? Or not?

Is he saying we need a mediator to the mediator between God and man?I thought he said one.Let me check.....Yep...One..Now folks,I'm just a simple feller,but even I know two ain't one, and one ain't two.

Isn't a priest that hears confession suppose to be your mediator to Jesus?Or else,why would you need a priest for confession?
Heck! How many different divisions of religious authority is there in Catholicism? (don't answer that.it was rhetorical.).
Not all are mediators,ok,ok,but even if there's just one division of priests that mediates from you to him to Jesus,within the Catholic Church...well you get the point.Is there such a division in the Catholic Church?(again rhetorical)
St.Paul said you only need one.One divine(my adjective) mediator.Jesus

Now if they can pick and choose what religious beliefs the Saints or Apostles had,please show me where.Or is it in the Pope-only bible.Cause I haven't read that one yet.
And if they can,sign me up today.For that is one powerful religion,that has "divine" authority from God to take religious attributes away from Saints, or Apostles,or both.

Wait a minute.Wait a minute.Wait just one doggone minute. Don't tell me that the Catholic Church would now be guilty of the fallacy of "scripture-mining".. ...(< I'm on a roll)

And this is just one argument I have against the practices of the Catholic Church.On this subject alone(the catholic church),I could fill up many more posts just like this one.

But,I implore you,to research the data yourself.Find your own answers.

I can't do it for you.


Told ya I'd enjoy this.

Edited by Dash--, 13 June 2012 - 06:50 PM.

[Paranoid Android]

eight bits, on 13 June 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

PA


That's not necessarily a winner for you, however. Jesus made no canonized provision at all for a church beyond the generation of his immediate Apostles.

This, then, required a command decision somewhere around the 90's or so. "Well, I see all the capital-A Apostles are gone, and it appears that Jesus isn't coming back when we understood him to have promised to return. Since we are sola what will shortly become scriptura, and a continuing church isn't in the Bible, then we must dissolve our association and await further instructions."

The alternative, of course, was to make some provision for a transfer of authority from one generation to the next, even though no mechanism for that was prescribed by Jesus and recorded in canonical writing. In the event, that's what they did, apparently adapting a mechanism that they had used to extend the reach of the church spatially, aguably needed during that first generation to fulfill the Great Commission, and so Biblically legitimate for that purpose.

If that mechanism is illegitimate for intergenerational use, then we are back to the situation of the earlier paragraph, that the legitimate church of Jesus wrapped up its business long ago. I note that there is no Biblical injunction to revive that church so there is no Biblical basis for a current church, unless the mechanism actually used is legitimate for temporal extension.

If however, the mechanism is legitimate for temporal as well as spatial extension, then there is a problem with your observation,


If the mechanism for intergenerational continuity is legitimate, then the relevance of how many times the mechanism has needed to be engaged in order to span the time between the ascension and the presumed return of Jesus isn't immediately apparent. It's 2,000 years because that's how long the Father has decided to wait, so far, before sending Jesus back. It cannot be helped.

But, OK, suppose there was a repetition limit. If that limit has not yet been reached, then the current successors are legitimate. When the legitimacy expires isn't our problem or theirs.

If the limit has been reached, then we are back to the situation of that earlier paragraph, except that the legitimate church of Jesus wrapped up its business after the 90's, whenever the intergenerational continuity mechanism went stale. Since there is nothing in the Bible about what to do instead, and no Biblical authority to revive the church, then sola scriptura prescribes an end to the business.

At the very least, the Great Commission was given only to the first generation, and so unless there is an intergenerational mechanism for transmitting responsibility for that, then there is no Biblical basis for Christian missionary activity or proselytizing today. Christians could indefinitely follow Biblical instructions, of course, and pray in private by retiring to their closets.

fullywired, on 13 June 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

The fact that Jesus gave the power to forgive sins to men ,defeats your statement that only god can forgive sins .You just can't reject a passage of scripture because it doesn't suit your mind set.I repeat eight bits question ,When did the legitmacy expire ,it doesn't say  in the scripture I have read ,however my knowledge of scripture is limited if so could you point out the relevant passage. I wasn't aware that believing in sola scriptura meant only believing the bits you like
fullywired

A "church" is a gathering of believers, not an organisation.  I reject the authority of any earthly institution. There is only one church, a universal church not constrained by codified doctrines.  Christ's church is the only real church and does not bear the name "Anglican" or "Bapist" or "Presbyterian" or even "Roman Catholic".  I do not see why having a piece of paper issued by such an earthly institution confers upon someone an ability to forgive sins.  Only God can do that.  And for FW the early Apostles were an exception granted by God himself (Jesus) in order to establish the early church.  And for 8bits, as the church is not an organisation but gatherings of people, there is no transference of authority for Apostles.  Apostles (capital A) are chosen by God, not by humans.  Priests are the overseers of the modern church, not Apostles.  

I'm sorry, we're just never going to agree.  I accept sola scriptura but in that idea I reject that this means only accepting the bits I like.

Beckys_Mom, on 13 June 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

PA.. read  all that is in here --> http://www.catholic....iveness-of-sins I am not going to get into another one of those   - lets see who can interpret  what scripture ?  Or  Whos  devine message is it anyway?  lol  ...I have been there done that a few times in the past.with others .It can drag on ..those kinda of discussions  normally do.

If  ( after you read all in the link provided) and  you still cannot see why priests  over time   have felt they were chosen to forgive  by the power of Christ.( and I am guessing being protestant you aint gonna  lol) ....  Then stick with this answer- >  One day a priest got bored, and felt hey I don't have enough duties... I want to be MORE like Jesus..and so he asked the pope  - Can we start  forgving sins? it might take the load off jesus? It is good to help out, Jesus is always helping us, so we should do something to help him... lets forgive sins in his favour?... The pope said  hmmmmmmm  well I normally hate to impose   but ... .. Yea why not? lets give it a go.. and from then on in... They held confessions  lol Well  ya can never really tell.. it could have happened   lol

Joking aside.. PA  I cannot convince you..And if the site I threw out there doesnt help then nothing more can be added..well nothing I would want to drag on with ...

Yes, in this matter you cannot ever convince me that a person who has a piece of paper issued by an earthly institution with an ABN, Tax File Number, a CEO, and Executive Officers (like most businesses, actually) can therefore have a special ability to forgive me of my sins - an ability that they apparently didn't have before they got that piece of paper.  I respect a person's Right to believe differently, but it doesn't change that I still believe other views to be incorrect.  Respect does not mean that I necessarily agree.

~ Regards,