PretteePlease
#fakeworkouts
This is all very interesting but why isn't this on the Christian part of the board. Like folks
are super fast to move Kardashian threads
are super fast to move Kardashian threads
The Official Catholic Thread
- Thread starter Galadriel
- Start date
kanozas
se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
No one is saved yet, that is Calvinism. None of us know yet who will go to Heaven, we live the faith in hope that heaven will be ours (not fear, but hope) because He is the final just Judge. We are saved (in the end) from "shame, sin, suffering and death." I remembered that from RCIA
But as another put it, it's "defense of the faith" and not coercion. It's answering to negative charges against and explanation. Consider it this way, when someone says that "sola scriptura" is the only biblical way, that "I am saved (now) by believing...," that Saturday is the only day of rest - those are absolutes. Imagine making an absolute while telling the Church that came before it that they cannot make absolute statements on the faith that was studied and agreed upon through a series of councils with 3,500 years of Judaism to back it up. I'm afraid, we all make absolutes._______________________________________________________________
As for confessing to a priest, here's a short piece on the Jewishness of 'confession'
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1518774/jewish/Is-Confession-a-Jewish-Thing.htm
"..The first is that it serves merely as a declaration of one’s feelings of repentance. We take our thoughts more seriously when they are spoken...
.The second way to understand the function of vidui is that it serves not only to reveal or reinforce our inner thoughts, but to intensify them; for when spoken, human emotions run faster and thicker....
The third perspective is most intriguing.
Close analysis of a passage in the Sefer HaChinuch (authored by an anonymous 13th-century scholar) reveals that, in his view, vidui doesn’t just serve to express or intensify existent thoughts, but it is also a means of creating feelings of remorse when they are sadly nonexistent...
..
LOL
And here’s where attending my own lecture comes in. Upon reflection, it was then that I got the concept of vidui loud and clear. It struck me that no matter how critical or “objective” we try to be of ourselves, we are blinded by self-love which, according to King Solomon, “prevents us from seeing our shortcomings.”5
Here's a catholic piece:
http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/confession-of-sins---how-biblical-is-it.html
"Leviticus 19: 20-22: A man who committed adultery had to bring a guilt offering for himself to the door of the tent of meeting (holy place where the ark of the covenant, which contained God’s true presence was kept). But then it adds “And the priest shall make atonement for him …before the Lord for his sin…and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven.” (see also Leviticus 5: 5-6) The priest could not make atonement if he were not aware of the man's sin. He is acting as a mediator for the repentant sinner.
The complaint might be, well that is the Old Testament, but now we have Jesus, who suffered for our sins. What does the New Testament have to say?
Matthew 3: 6 (and Mk 1: 5): “. . . they were baptized by him [John the Baptist] in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” So he who prepared the way for Christ, listened to confessions of sin.
John the Baptist, whom Jesus called him the greatest "among them that are born of woman," preached a baptism of repentance. Mark tells us that ". . . there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. We learn in Luke's account of the Baptist that he answered many questions for the people concerning the behavior they should follow, but freely confessed that he was not the Christ (Luke 3: 16-17). He doubtless heard countless confessions of sin, but he knew where forgiveness of sin came from for when Jesus approached he declared, "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world" (John 1: 29). Jesus than sent his disciples to baptize throughout Judea (John 3: 22) and they too, doubtless heard the confessions of many sinners as they traveled from village to village. So Jesus used his disciples and John the precursor to hear confessions of sins, but this is not the sacrament of confession, anymore than the baptism of John was the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which came after John the Baptist's time. Let's see if the New Testament shows men receiving the authority to forgive sins in God's name.
Matthew 9: 6-8: Jesus tells us that He was given authority on earth to forgive sins (a power reserved to God alone) and proves it with miraculous healings and then Scripture notes this same authority was given to “men” (plural). Is this merely a figure of speech? No, John's Gospel makes it clear Jesus intended to give this sacrament to men:
John 20: 21-23: In his very first Resurrection appearance our Lord gives this awesome power to his Apostles with the words:
“Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” How could they forgive sins if they were not confessed? They could not. This authority comes through the gift of the Holy Spirit which precedes it.""
dicapr
Well-Known Member
I’m not talking religion. I’m talking about the attitudes of those willing to engage in the “Im right” argument with an attitude of superiority that confuses me. If you are persuaded in your own mind and so is the other person what’s the point? Do you really think these differences are salvation issues? Do you think in the big picture God
really cares about sola scripture vs extra biblical writings? Like I said upthread God is worried about our love for him and our fellow man. So long as we are following as He leads we will be ok.
kanozas
se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
Those still function as "absolutes" and "this way is the only way," even declaring that G-d doesn't care about xyz. You know, the bible in a nutshell is the golden rule, "what you don't like done to you, don't do to another." People still have to go to mikveh, pay alms, observe the feasts, stone adulteresses, stone the apostates, dress modestly with a host of fence laws to prevent people from coming close to ..." I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to sin no more and to avoid the near occasions of sin," (which is the Act of Contrition in the Catholic faith).
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
And I tend to fully believe this. If you' ve everj followed any observance in orthodox Judaism or even Reform, you'll see clearly, it's just about the same damned thing. Observance, confession, High/H-ly Days/Observance, 10 Commandments to examine one's self, times of prayer (morning, noon, afternoon and for others, various other times that coincide), ...it's the same thing. I came to that conclusion ages ago. Of course, that's what I saw. I can't speak for others. All these things are important to perform, shrugs. It's a matter of vision and exposure, I suppose. Religion....important enough for G-d to ordain it and to demand observance of it. You all realize, you're not held to the standard if you are not a part of it, right? You'd have to convert. This is defense of what Catholics hold as true, it's not telling you you have to become one. But know, everybody makes "absolutes" of faith, practice, belief, even atheists and agnostics..."there is no G-d...I don't have to abide by that, it's probably not true..." It's so easy to comprehend imo, esp. when things are put into proper historic perspective and context.
dicapr
Well-Known Member
I have absolutes for myself. I’m just not someone who feels endowed with the power to try and tell someone they must accept my belief system and my personal absolutes as their own.
I have that issue with people in general across the board. People thing they way they do things from making the bed to how they cook to what side of the sink they place the soap dish is the only way. It drives me crazy. Because if you can’t agree with the consensus you are “wrong”
and need to be corrected. I’ve always seen the world differently from the majority and have been punished for it all my life. I just refuse to take on that attitude of my absolute rightness without giving people the room they need to live their lives as they are lead to. And no I don’t believe being dogmatically right is the end all be all of religion. I believe a righteous heart in adhering to the truth God has revealed to you is the ruler in which we will all be measured.
kanozas
se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
So have I, which is why I don't do that. Who here among us is telling YOU that your beliefs are wrong? Defense of the beliefs.tenets, dogma, doctrine differs from someone who is judging you unfairly because of your beliefs. Just as someone who tells Catholics their Church is wrong and over-stepping, they are also over-stepping. That's what non-Christians believe all day long about any Christians.
Incidentally, your last statement is in the catechism.
The Church recognizes that God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation. Regarding the doctrine in question, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states:This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)
John 10:10
The thief cometh not but to steal and to kill and to destroy. I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
So, just as someone who doesn't know Him might still be saved in the end (according to living the truth in faith as much as was revealed to him) , if he did get to know Jesus, his life would have been lived more abundantly. This is the same with people who have known Jesus and come into the fullness of the truth about the faith He gave to us and his prescriptions on worship. Isn't it the same as one who knows Him but doesn't go to Church at all compared to the one who grows closer to Him who does attend church is thanksgiving for His sacrifice and abundant love? The gentiles weren't close to G-d but the Jews were. They lived the prescription handed down to them. There are degrees of anything.
Again, this is in defense of the knowledge of the Church and the authority it has as handed down by Jesus, who handed Peter the keys. That's an issue one would have to take up with G-d. It's right in scripture. Surely, not everyone believes in it, nor scripture, even in G-d. I could have the authority to say my jellybeans are red. Another might protest that I don't have that authority to say it. Yet, the jellybeans are red. The person who made and gave them to me told me they are red and showed me. Who takes issue with the authority of the jellybean maker? The one who was handed down the jelly beans or the one who has no jellybeans and doesn't believe in the color "red?" Defense of the faith within ITS OWN CONTEXT is not judging those who do not find it to be truthful.
Last edited:
dicapr
Well-Known Member
I’ve got nothing else to say. You are persuaded that your stance is correct and truly that is the end of the conversation. There is no real postitives in going back and forth about it. My statements are about human nature not Catholicism or Protestantism. I don’t need to prove you wrong to validate my “rightness.”
Like I said my focus isn’t on being “right”’or proving my rightness to man. I am focused on being right with God alone and following the path he has given me.
jerseyhaircare
Well-Known Member
Yes, please Mods. Please transfer to the Christian Forum.
ang3lface816
Well-Known Member
Oh, I've come across some with some funky views on the Trinity, especially if they crossed over into SDA from being Jehovah's Witness (both denominations were born from the same Advent Movement of the 1800's based on the teachings of William Miller). However, I think after A.T. Jones, the Adventists moved more toward acceptance of the Trinity, which actually IMHO is a good thingIf I were to ask my grandmother (who is SDA) about the Trinity, she'd plainly explain that she believes in the Trinity, no problem. Unfortunately, there are some SDA I've had discussions of this nature with who kind of went off sideways, and I suspect the reasoning for that is because they were holding to the *earliest* SDA views (pre-1890's) which DID reject the Trinity.
I don't think it's a moot point at all. What happens to the soul after death, or the immortality of the soul, is a HUGE piece of the Christian puzzle, as Jesus Christ came and died in order to *save* our souls--hence what God teaches about the nature of the soul is of extreme importance. Neither Christ nor the Apostles taught that the soul ceased to exist or fell into a state of unconsciousness after death. When you die, Jesus Christ immediately judges your soul--no matter who you are. The soul is immortal, and death is the separation of the soul and body.
Great! But unfortunately some of your SDA sisters do, and turned a thread on a statement of Pope Francis to fellow Catholics on how wrong/bad Catholics are.
Agreed, I have seen amazing Christ-like individuals who were Catholic, Evangelical, Methodist, etc. I have even visited Protestant churches with friends and family (in fact, I'm the only Catholic in my family), so my intention is not to say SDA aren't Christian, but if some SDA person (not you in particular) is going to come out swinging against Catholicism then perhaps that person needs to take a step back and look at the order of their own house, yeah?
I guess this was aimed at me. I have no issue with Catholics.
Not swinging at Catholics at all. Just merely highlighting things going on in the news currently. I explained I came back to this thread because it's the one where the previous discussion took place. But if you read back to some of my previous posts last year and those of others, you can probably find a few where people were not so kind.
I simply posted a follow up. I couldn't hate you on the basis of that gorgeous hair alone! So please don't take it that way. I apologize if i came off the wrong way.
kanozas
se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
If anyone is brave enough
I remember him but didn't know he died this year.
We can only guess as to why Jesus didn't. But I think He felt he'd made it perfectly obvious. How much more explicit can you get than calling a man aside, changing his name, and telling him you want to build your Church with him? Please read the Early Church Fathers. These are men who didn't have the Bible but knew the details first hand from e.gthe apostle John. They would have had plenty of opportunities to question and clarify. But please I would advise caution when delving into the early Church...In the words of John Henry Cardinal Newman " To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant".
itsallaboutattitude
Cancer Support in Health
Can this be moved to CF, please and thank you.
Why?
The Christian forum has specific rules and guidelines that would prevent this thread from being as informative and free flowing as it has been. Not everntying about Christianity needs to be discussed in the CF. Just my opinion.
jerseyhaircare
Well-Known Member
Because it turned very biblical and it seems more at home here.
Galadriel
Well-Known Member
Ah, I'm unaware of a previous discussion that may have been attached to this one so I can't really comment about that, but I do appreciate the clarification (and thank you for the compliment!). As I said a little earlier up-thread, my grandma is SDA and I've visited her SDA church--I've only had warm, welcoming experiences with them
However it's very easy for us to get defensive when certain comments are made about Catholicism because many of us hear such comments (often with antagonistic intentions) a LOT.
kanozas
se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
That's rather disingenuous and unfair being that I only give defense. I've also made points that WE ALL believe our way is right, I mean everyone. Perhaps you glossed over that? It's very easy to make charges against another and not see how we all fit within the very same at some point. I reiterate like stale vomit ( in the years I've been on here, I have repeated ad nauseam ) that I do not proselytize....not everyone is going to be a Jew...or a Hindu...or _______ ). Fair discourse is actually easier. I'm only saying that this is what is taught and can provide the backup on the why's do the source is heard. It serves no one for fallacies to be promoted. My motto is pretty much, "Go to the source," rather than regurgitating third person which is bound to contain untruths as to what is a really taught and/or believed. I believe in fairness even if I personally do not agree with something. Shrugs.
Lucia
Well-Known Member
But the Bible does not say to hold scripture over tradition, nor is there a tradition that dismisses scripture they are both important one is not more authoritative than the other. Where scripture is silent we have the traditions passed down from the apostles taught to them by Jesus himself.
For example the last supper is what Catholics celebrate at mass in the sacrament of the Holy Communion, the Eucharist. It is both tradition and it’s clearly written in scripture.
There’s no scripture that says have altar calls, or describes a practice similar to what would look like altar calls, but Protestants fo this all the time in the denominational and the non denominations.
Jesus gave the apostles authority over many things and not all were written down, so why couldn’t he give the apostles the authority to forgive sins in His stead, oh that’s right He did.
In Matthew 10-3
Jesus called his twelve disciples together and gave them authority to cast out evil spirits and to heal every kind of disease and illness. Here are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (also called Peter), then Andrew (Peter's brother), James (son of Zebedee), John (James's brother), Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew (the tax collector), James (son of Alphaeus), Thaddaeus, Simon (the zealot), Judas Iscariot (who later betrayed him).
But Here’s Scripture on Confession
John 20:19-23
On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews,[c] Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If *you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”
*you: here is referring to the apostles, mere men, who Jesus choose to establish His church. A man who gives up his life to serve God and the church (or temple OT) is usually called a Preist it’s in the Old Testament.
James 5:16
Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.
Tradition
1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I commend you for remembering me in everything and for maintaining the traditions, just as I passed them on to you.
2 Thess 2:14-17
14To this He called you through our gospel, so that you may share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter. 16Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and God our Father, who by grace has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope, 17encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good word and deed.
John 20:30-31
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
-Why weren’t all the signs and wonders and things Jesus did written down if scripture alone were the only authority? How about OT before it was written down it was entirely passed down through orally and through tradition.
-I would like to see some articles from reputable sources, journalists, etc... regarding the Pope trying to silence fundamentalists. I haven’t seen or heard anything about that.
Regarding the dirty war in Argentina those military leaders were also persecuting the church and especially members of clergy. Why would the Catholic Church fund something that would ultimately destroy it. First there’s a big difference in paying for a regime, and allegedly not standing against it strongly enough.
That’s what people held against the Argentinian branch of the Catholic Church. Please read up on who did what then in a South American country under a military regime the first thing they get rid of is God and churches. Even when clergy inter ended on behalf of prisoners they were mostly lied to and kept in the dark about what was really going on. It’s only the people who had missing family members who alerted them to what was really going on. Preists were kidnapped, tortured and murdered too because they were suspected of helping the resistance.
http://world.time.com/2013/03/14/the-new-pope-and-argentinas-disappeared-of-the-dirty-war/
https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2...es-pope-will-declare-murdered-priests-saints/
OriginalBeauty
Well-Known Member
I have been studying and following this thread for some time.
I was raised as a Baptist. My grandfather was a founder of the first African Baptist Church in my hometown.
But for some time I have been transfixed by Catholicism and as I study it seems to be most in line with the original intended Church.
I do not take it lightly. My travels have taken me to some far, far places. However, what would you Catholic sisters recommend to someone who is interested in converting?
Also, I have two young children I would like to raise in the Church. My husband is agnostic. He was raised Presbyterian and prays some, but he describes himself as agnostic.
Thanks in advance.
I was raised as a Baptist. My grandfather was a founder of the first African Baptist Church in my hometown.
But for some time I have been transfixed by Catholicism and as I study it seems to be most in line with the original intended Church.
I do not take it lightly. My travels have taken me to some far, far places. However, what would you Catholic sisters recommend to someone who is interested in converting?
Also, I have two young children I would like to raise in the Church. My husband is agnostic. He was raised Presbyterian and prays some, but he describes himself as agnostic.
Thanks in advance.
kanozas
se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
I'm all for anyone who finds a niche in this life, whichever it is. You can contact a local parish of interest for RCIA courses. You'll need to study at least 6 months for the conversion. I tried it around 3 times...over 10 years...found my niche. It definitely is a period of reflection and study
kanozas
se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
A few bad apples can make the whole thing look bad...regarding the Catholic Church in Latin America, bishops are usually people of means and raised in a certain class and the higher you go. There were instances in which some countries' clergy sided with their class and the regime over the gospel. The so-called religious dissidents are the ones disposed of...not the ones who turn a blind eye who have interests.
You quoted James 5:16
Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.
The verse before this, James 5:15
And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven.
Doesn't the above show that priests are not needed for confession and forgiveness of sins since we can confess our sins to each other and give prayers offered in faith?
And you said that "Jesus called his twelve disciples together and gave them authority to cast out evil spirits and to heal every kind of disease and illness." I don't disagree with you. but I am going to need you to answer this question. Since Catholic priests and popes are claiming to be the sole direct descendants and representants of the 12 disciples, when was the last time the Pope or any Pope has cast out evil spirits and healed every kind of disease and illness? When was the last time a priest has done that?
ETA: Not saying priests are not needed as spiritual guides of their churches. I have known wonderful priests for whom I have the UTMOST respect. I am just questioning the idea that they are the only ones that can forgive sins.
Last edited:
Belle Du Jour
Well-Known Member
That is exactly what drew me in to Catholicism (I have no doubt that it is the Church Christ established). Also there are so many varying Protestant beliefs--each claiming to be the "correct" Biblical interpretation--that it doesn't make any sense. I'd rather go with the original. Also the stripping away of various beautiful traditions with Jewish roots bothered me. Also the high point of any Christian service--Holy Communion--has been totally stripped away in many Protestant services. It's more of an afterthought. There's a reason Our Lord instituted Holy Communion on the night before He died. This was His final act before His death. Not. A. Random. Coincidence.
You can definitely take classes at your local parish called RCIA as Kanozas said. If you're still in the contemplation stage, you can read Rome Sweet Home and No Price Too High about Protestant ministers who left their livelihood once they discovered the truth about the origins of Christianity. Catholicism for Dummies is also really good for explaining the basics. I am a convert and would be happy to answer any specific questions you have
Belle Du Jour
Well-Known Member
In a sacramental sense, any ordained priest has the authority to forgive sins in persona Christi, in the person of Christ. When we go to Confession, the priest is the agent acting on behalf of God. God forgives my sin. The Bible talks about the type of sin that leads to death (mortal sin)--these can only be forgiven through the sacrament of confession. We are not in a state of grace after committing mortal sin and need a sacrament to restore that grace and that relationship with God. The priest is a conduit of this grace.
As far as priests casting out evil spirits, um, that actually happens. There are more exorcisms now than ever because people are getting into that more. And we have the sacrament of anointing of the sick--any ordained priest has the ability to anoint the sick with holy oils. All of the Sacraments practivcd by the Church were established by Jesus Himself. We didn't add anything or take anything away.
Lucia
Well-Known Member
You asked regarding James 5:
Doesn't the above show that priests are not needed for confession and forgiveness of sins since we can confess our sins to each other and give prayers offered in faith?
The short answer, no it does not. Let me explain why.
1. The verse before James 5:14 talks about the going to the elders to pray over them (members of the congregation) and annoint them with oil. It does not say that anyone off the street, any member of the church, or any lay person it specifies elder for a reason. Why? Because there’s a certain degree of knowledge and level of prayer an elder needs to have I mean we can and should make assumptions about their prayer lives. Mainly their prayer lives should be more intense than us regular congregation folks.
Since we are talking about the Catholic Church that would mean a Priest someone who in the Catholic church has been given certain authority through laying of hands, taking of vows, ( one of those vows being the seal of confession, he must NEVER tell what he has heard) high level studies, training and ordination. When I say authority I mean the authority stated in the Bible in John 20 and other places in scripture, that was passed down by laying of hands from Jesus to His apostles from Jesus’ apostles to their “disciples” down through the ages, so on and so forth until now (this is also the same authority and succesion that applies to Peter and all the Popes after him) That is the unbroken chain of succession Catholics refer to. (See chart and link below)
2. To sum up the verses : verse 14 call for the elders, verse 15 prayer of faith, then in verse 16 it says therefore confess your sins to one another. After the prayer of faith not before, the context is important.
Therefore means:
for that reason; consequently.
"he was injured and therefore unable to play"
synonyms: consequently, so, as a result, hence, thus, accordingly, for that reason, ergo, that being the case, on that (from Webster’s)
In the Webster’s example both these phrases work in conjunction with each other one standing alone makes no sense. He was unable to play, why? He was injured. They can also interchanged.
That means that the previous verse is linked to, and/or contingent upon the next, they do not work independently of each other but in conjunction with each other. So yes if you pray you will be forgiven but only if you also confess your sins to each other. Or if you confess your sins to each other and pray you will also be forgiven. That’s what Catholics do in Confession we confess to the Priest (who’s there in stead of Jesus= in persona Christi) then we pray to God, this appears to follow the scripture, and doesn’t go against it at all.
3. The most obvious reason a Preist is a man, a person first so when scripture says confess your sins to each other that does not and cannot automatically exclude Priests on the basis of them just being Preists there’s nothing in those verses of James or in the Bible that refute confessing sins to Priests.
James 5:13-16
13 Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise. 14 Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
4.
But there’s John 20:19-23
On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews,[c] Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.
^^I don’t know how more clear scripture could be, Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit upon them, and basically told them I (Jesus Christ fully a God, fully man, son of the Living God) give you my apostles the authority to forgive and not to forgive sins. Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit into them. That means He gave His Priests authority to forgive or retain sins that means authority to absolve or not absolve sins in His stead. The fact that he specifically gave this authority to the 12 is very important and significant. If Jesus wanted anyone off the street to have that authority He would have done so, but He didn’t notice He did not give this authority or others to any women. It’s really that simple. If you have another interpretation I’d love to hear it.
Next you asked another valid question:
And you said that "Jesus called his twelve disciples together and gave them authority to cast out evil spirits and to heal every kind of disease and illness." I don't disagree with you. but I am going to need you to answer this question.
Since Catholic priests and popes are claiming to be the sole direct descendants and representants of the 12 disciples, when was the last time the Pope or any Pope has cast out evil spirits and healed every kind of disease and illness? When was the last time a priest has done that?
Just to clarify that wasn’t me, I was quoting Mathew 10:1-3
Here’s Mathew 10:1-8
Mat 10:1-8
Then Jesus[a] summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to cure every disease and every sickness. 2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him.
The Mission of the Twelve
5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim the good news, ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’[c] 8 Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers,[d] cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment.
The rest of the verses just reiterate in more detail the authority Jesus gave His apostles. Acts is chalk full of detailed accounts.
-To preface my answer we all know that not everyone even if they are called to serve in a higher religious capacity like deacons, pastors priests, nuns, that doesn’t mean they will all be given certain gifts some people are better at some things than others, it’s the way it is God has given people certain gifts or charisms for certain things that’s all.
But there are are Priests who perform excorcisms, some heal the sick, some have a gift for speaking many languages, writing, being scholars, teaching, preaching etc...
St. Pope John Paul
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...e-that-earned-John-Paul-II-his-sainthood.html
Pope Francis
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news.../inspiration-nation-pope-holds-baby/72671356/
https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/art...pe-list-of-miracles-performed-by-pope-francis
http://nypost.com/2016/03/27/how-the-pope-healed-me/
Various priests and clergy
http://www.charismamag.com/life/351...-the-faith/1269-the-priest-with-healing-hands
http://www.michaeljournal.org/artic.../saint-padre-pio-the-priest-with-the-stigmata
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/07/04/meet-10-of-the-most-amazing-priests/
Medjugorje healings
https://www.medjugorje.com/medjugorje/signs-and-miracles/540-testimonies-of-physical-healings.html
https://www.medjugorje.com/medjugorje/signs-and-miracles/544-spiritual-healings.html
Our lady of Lourdes
https://olrl.org/stories/lourdes.shtml
Healing Saints
https://www.catholiccompany.com/getfed/30-healing-saints-for-common-ailments/
Fr Aniello Salicone
http://www.spiritdaily.net/aniello.htm
Our Lady of Fátima miracle
These were 3 poor uneducated illiterate country children 100 years ago, who were able to answer complicated questions of faith when questioned.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...70000-gathered-to-see/?utm_term=.5c41dfd2ed73
https://youtu.be/rBIs8cuIwTo
https://youtu.be/5lgBVR6ATXU
Movie made about it
https://youtu.be/-hI--srx4tc
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/iss...-the-miracle-of-the-sun-dazzled-the-sceptics/
I could go on and on but this reply is already too long.
Excorcisms
Accounts of true excorcisms pretty much most of the scary slightly exaggerated Hollywood movies made about excorcism has been based on a book based on the true life journals of a real life modern day excorcism.
The Excorcist was real it was a boy in the true life case not a girl.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism_of_Roland_Doe
The Rite Movie based on true story of excorcism
http://www.chasingthefrog.com/reelfaces/therite.php
Fr Chad Ripperger -Excorcist Priest
Modern day excorcisms
Gary Thomas Excorcist Priest
I hope I was able to answer your questions.
Last edited:
Lucia
Well-Known Member
About RCIA
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/who-we-teach/rite-of-christian-initiation-of-adults/
Please feel free to ask questions about anything “Catholic” that comes to mind we will do our best to help.
If you’re still pondering
RCIA, the books the ladies recommended also I would recommend that you pray for your husband ask God to give him the gift of faith. Here some books I recommend once you’ve started your RCIA:
Reasons to believe -Scott Hahn
Beginning Apologetics- Frank Chacon
Manual for spiritual warfare -Thigpin
Available at Amazon or here
https://www.catholiccompany.com/
Last edited:
Lucia
Well-Known Member
I’m gong to have to take issue with that statement.
Seriously though, It is a well documented fact that the Protestant Bible is missing 7 Canonical books (inspired word of God) and that Martin Luther took it upon himself alone to remove these books and add “by faith alone” to a text in the Bible to suit his arguments.See link:
http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=358315&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=
The argument by Martin Luther was that there were no Hebrew texts to back up these 7 books, so Luther based his decision 2 arguments:
1. Hebrew texts of the 3rd century Rabbinical schools rather than the original apostles who actually lived and learned from Jesus Himself- it’s kind of ironic especially since the Greek texts did exist and Luther being a Catholic Priest knew about them.
Since Greek was the emerging language of the day one could assume that the Greek came from the Hebrew texts. This claim by Luther has since been proven to be false. There are the Quran Dead Sea Scrolls that have some of the Hebrew texts of those 7 books.
2. Luther cited St. Jerome’s opinion that they should never have been included in the bible and tossed 'em. (Never mind that they’d been considered Scritpture by all christians for the 1,200 years prior to his decision/declaration, nor that St. Jerome never went so far as to proclaim his judgement to be authoritative on the matter) Some Protestant Bibles now have an apocrypha but it’s not considered the inspired word of God by Protestants when there’s enough proof that they are.
The Catholic deuterocanonical scriptural texts are:
- Tobit
- Judith
- Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4–16:24)[9]
- Wisdom (also called the Wisdom of Solomon)
- Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
- Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint)[10]
- Additions to Daniel:
- Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90)
- Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
- Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)
- 1 Maccabees
- 2 Maccabees
Just to add Martin Luther did believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and consecration of the host and wine. See Luther’s Works vol 37, 54
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther's_canon
Last edited:
