This week in Christian History

[gcreekrch]

I think we will let Jesus sort that one out.

Very true Martin, in my view, we all think we are in the right. Regardless of one's following, none of us know for sure.

 

[TexasBred]

We kiss the cross on Good Friday to venerate (to show our respect, reverence, and love) for all that He has done for us by means of the cross. We are worshipping Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, and grateful beyond any understanding for all that He has done for us through His Holy Cross, by Which He redeemed the world.

Sometimes it seems my protestant brethren have problems with the physical aspects of their faith even as they accept something two dimensional yet refuse to have anything to do with something that has the 3rd dimension. Burnt, indeed conversion takes a response on our part. An "Action" as even faith is an action word. And then it takes perseverance. I think most protestants view salvation as that one instant when they go down a church aisle and accept Christ as their savior and at that point it is finished... complete.....Catholics have that "Blessed Hope" and believe that it is the condition of our soul at the moment of death rather than at some moment in life 50 years ago. A lifelong journey.

At the risk of raising more than eyebrows, are you saying that a priest who has spent his life molesting kids has more chance going to heaven than a person with Christian values that rarely goes to church and doesn't believe in worshipping "idols" if a crucifix might be called so?

Not at all. Only saying that salvation is not a destination but rather a lifelong journey (As he said "Take up your cross daily")

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Sometimes it seems my protestant brethren have problems with the physical aspects of their faith even as they accept something two dimensional yet refuse to have anything to do with something that has the 3rd dimension. Burnt, indeed conversion takes a response on our part. An "Action" as even faith is an action word. And then it takes perseverance. I think most protestants view salvation as that one instant when they go down a church aisle and accept Christ as their savior and at that point it is finished... complete.....Catholics have that "Blessed Hope" and believe that it is the condition of our soul at the moment of death rather than at some moment in life 50 years ago. A lifelong journey.

At the risk of raising more than eyebrows, are you saying that a priest who has spent his life molesting kids has more chance going to heaven than a person with Christian values that rarely goes to church and doesn't believe in worshipping "idols" if a crucifix might be called so?

Not at all. Only saying that salvation is not a destination but rather a lifelong journey (As he said "Take up your cross daily")

Why does a person that hasn't lead a "Christian" life get last rites? Why not let Jesus decide?

 

[Martin Jr.]

Who may receive the Sacrament.

Canon 998
The anointing of the sick by which the Church commends to the suffering and glorified Lord the faithful who are dangerously sick so that He relieve and save them, is conferred by anointing them with oil and using the words prescribed in the liturgical books.

Canon 1004
1. The anointing of the sick can be administered to a member of the faithful who, after having reached the use of reason, begins to be in danger due to sickness or old age.
2. This sacrament can be repeated whenever the sick person again falls into a serious sickness after convalescence or whenever a more serious crisis develops during the same sickness.

These canons can be summarized as follows. Those who satisfy three conditions may be anointed:

1. A baptized Catholic,

2. Reached the age of reason,

3. Begun to be in danger from illness or the infirmities of age, or have become sick again or underwent a further crisis. It should be noted that the danger need only have begun to exist. The person does not have to be "in extremis" (in imminent danger of dying). This is a change from the pastoral practice before the Second Vatican Council.

The ritual gives the following examples:

· "those who are dangerously ill through sickness or old age"
· "a sick person...before surgery whenever the surgery is necessitated by a dangerous illness"
· "elderly people...if they are weak, though not dangerously ill"
· "sick children...sufficiently mature to be comforted by the sacrament"
· "sick people who have lost consciousness or who have lost the use of reason...if ...they would have requested it if they had been in possession of their faculties"

Doubts about who may receive.

Canon 1002
The communal celebration of the anointing of the sick for many of the sick at the same time who are duly prepared and rightly disposed can be performed according to the prescriptions of the diocesan bishop.

Canon 1005
This sacrament is to be administered when there is a doubt whether the sick person has attained the use of reason, whether the person is dangerously ill, or whether the person is dead.

Canon 1006
This sacrament is to be conferred upon sick persons who requested it at least implicitly when they were in control of their faculties.

Canon 1007
The anointing of the sick is not to be conferred upon those who obstinately persist in manifest serious sin.

From the canons and the ritual it is clear that the sacrament may not be given indiscriminately. So, for example, the following may not receive, except where noted.

1. One who is not a baptized Catholic. Those who are not baptized may never receive. Baptized non-Catholics may not receive, unless the provisions of canon 844 and the norms of the local bishop and the bishops conference are met. For Orthodox Christians and other Churches with valid sacraments, canon 844, 3 provides that they:

· ask for it on their own
· be properly disposed.

For all other baptized Christians (Anglican, Lutheran and Protestant), canon 844, 4 states that the following conditions must be met:

· danger of death or other grave necessity
· inability to approach a minister of their own community
· ask for it on their own
· manifest Catholic faith in the sacraments
· be properly disposed

Proper disposition for anyone who is conscious includes the confession of all mortal sins since the last good confession, or since baptism, if the person had never made a confession.

2. One who has not reached the age of reason. Those who have not reached the age of reason, or never had its use, may not be anointed. However, a child may not have reached the normal age of First Confession and First Communion, the typical application of the "age of reason" standard, but still may show enough use of the faculty to understand what is taking place and benefit from the sacrament. This could also be the case with a mentally challenged individual. Doubt about whether the person has sufficiently use of reason would be decided in favor of the sick person (c.1005).

3. One who is not in danger from sickness or infirmity of age. Those who are simply ill or old, without danger from sickness or infirmity, may not be anointed. Even communal celebrations of the Sacrament presume this condition (c.1002). Excluded also are the physically or mentally handicapped without any accompanying danger from sickness or infirmity of age. There is obviously both a medical and pastoral component to this issue. In that regard, the ritual states, "a prudent or reasonably sure judgment, without scruple, is sufficient for deciding on the seriousness of an illness; if necessary a doctor may be consulted" (n. 8). Finally, those in danger from some external cause, such as war, natural disaster, sentence of execution, or surgery unrelated to a dangerous illness, are excluded.

An unspoken criteria, alluded to in canon 1005, is that the sick person must be alive. All the sacraments presume that the recipient is in the "wayfaring state" and has not departed this life for eternity. However, the Church permits anointing if there is doubt. The pastoral practice is to favor the person and anoint them, provided it is not certain that they are dead. This anointing should be absolute rather than conditional, as in the past. In 1983 the Congregation for Divine Worship, in keeping with this canon in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, deleted the conditional form of anointing from the ritual ("Promulgato Codice," Notitiae 19 [1983] 551).

Finally, canon 1007 excludes the giving of the sacrament to those who are manifestly unrepentant. If the person is still conscious the way to the state of grace is through the Sacrament of Penance, not through Anointing of the Sick. Having repented, they can then be anointed. If the sick person is unconscious and is known to have obstinately persisted in grave sin up to the point of losing consciousness, with no sign of repentance, they cannot be anointed. However, this is a high bar for denying the sacrament. Such a person who showed even an implicit sign of repentance (e.g. "please call the priest"), could be anointed. Another person who while not an obstinate sinner was nonetheless in the state of grave sin, but who had manifested an habitual desire to die a Catholic, could be anointed, even if he became unconscious in the very act of sinning. The basis of the different treatment is a prudent judgment that given their habitual frame of mind the person would repent if he could.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References:

The Canon

 

[TexasBred]

James 5:14-15: "Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man. And the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him."

 

[burnt]

James 5:14-15: "Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man. And the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him."

"Priests"? Or elders?

 

[Martin Jr.]

My New American Bible gives the word as 'Presbyters'.

Elders, Presbyters, Overseer, Shepherd, & Bishop could be used interchangably in most cases.

And since a Bishop is also a priest, Priest could also be used. At least in Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopalian and others.

Those Christians who do not have 'Priests" may prefer the term 'Elder".

 

[TexasBred]

James 5:14-15: "Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man. And the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him."

"Priests"? Or elders?

Depends on which Bible you are reading. "Those who presided over the assemblies". KJV says elders. My Douay-Rheims says "Priests". I think the words are often interchangeable. Some bibles simply say "pastor".

 

[TexasBred]

Would anyone disagree with his and if so why?? Posted just for discussion and comments......Thanks.

If you choose to wear a crucifix, or a cross, then remember to behave accordingly. You are telling the world that you believe in and are trying to live the Gospel message.

It would be wrong to wear a cross or crucifix and then behave in an unchristian-like manner.

The MOST important thing that Jesus did for us was die for our sins to give us the gift of everlasting life.

He did rise from the dead but rising from the dead did not open the gates of heaven for us, dying for our sins did. The crucifix in no way denies the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ is the MOST important point in all of history.

The crucifix reminds us of this moment.

The following Scriptures even suggest that Jesus wants us to lift up his image:

Numbers 21:8-9 states: And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a saraph and mount it on a pole, and if anyone who has been bitten looks at it, he will recover." Moses accordingly made a bronze serpent and mounted it on a pole, and whenever anyone who had been bitten by a serpent looked at the bronze serpent, he recovered.

And in John 3:14-15, Jesus says in correlation: "And just as Moses lifted up the [image of a] serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."

 

[burnt]

May 12, 1871, John Herschel, great Christian scientist and man of many talents and accomplishments, died on this day.

http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1801-1900/john-herschel-laid-to-rest-beside-newton-11630557.html

May 13, 1881: "A revised New Testament went on sale. By day's end, 800,000 copies had been sold." (Nat.Post)

May 14, 347: "St. Pachomius, who was born in Egypt and founded the first monastery, died." (N.P.)

May 14, 1948: "After nineteen centuries of enforced exile, the Jewish people regained their homeland when the State of Israel was formally proclaimed in Tel Aviv. On this same date, the U.S. became the first world nation to recognize the newly-refounded state of Israel." (StudyLightOrg.)

May 16, 587: "Irish monk St. Bredan died. He's known for setting out in the Atlantic with two other monks in a skin boat and possibly travelling as far as North America." (N.P)

May 18, 1291: "Acre, the last territory in Palestine taken by the first Crusaders, fell to invading Moslem armies. It signalled the end of a Christian "military presence" in the Near East. (Afterwards, friars sought to spread the gospel by preaching instead.)" (SLO)

May 18. 1631: "The General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony decreed that 'no man shall be admitted to the body politic but such as are members of some of the churches within the limits' of the colony. (Separation of church and state was an unthinkable concept in early American colonialism.)" (SLO)

 

[burnt]

May 20, 325: "1st Christian ecumenical council opens at Nicæa, Asia Minor" (Scopes System)

The Council was called by Roman Emperor Constantine to deal with a number of church issues, mainly Arianism. Constantine wanted the controversy around Arianism resolved because it was threatening to create a political rift in the Roman Empire between the Eastern and Western factions of the schism. Therefore, he ordered the council participants to settle the matter in the interest of political stability as much as for theological accuracy.

Arius, the founder of Arianism, taught that that Jesus was not of eternal, divine origin, but created by God for the purpose of salvation. This was a well-intentioned but misguided effort to protect the Judeo-Christian principle of monotheism (one supreme God) against the pagan idea of polytheism.

His concern was understandable since many of the believers of his day had come from pagan backgrounds that worshiped multiple gods or deities and he did not want to see them, in error or confusion, return to worshiping the three persons of the Trinity as separate entities.

His concern about Trinitarian teaching - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit - resulted in very faulty conclusions which he taught in the Church and in public. Although there are three persons in the Godhead, they are of the same substance and there is no hierarchy among them. However, Arius erroneously taught that "there was a time when he (Christ the Son) was not".

Why does this matter? Jesus Christ is fully God and yet fully human, a tension which our mortal minds cannot grasp. The impact of this truth on our salvation cannot be overemphasized.

Because if Jesus Christ is less than God, he did not qualify to pay the penalty for our sins on the Cross - only the one who proclaimed the Divine Law could say "IT IS FINISHED", meaning that the penalty for the sin of humanity had been paid in full by the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross of Calvary!

And conversely, if Jesus Christ was not fully human, he could not identify with our humanity and therefore could not be the perfect substitutionary sacrifice for our sins since he was not "one of us", making his work on the Cross ineffective.

So does this matter today, some 1700 years later? Indeed it does, because if we do not recognize Jesus as Savior AND Lord of our lives, we are effectively saying that he does not have any impact in human affairs, once again separating the Divine from the human, just as Arius taught.

He is Savior, LORD and friend to all who believe in him.

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place..." (Phil. 2:6-9, NIV)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stEPqrS6OzM

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

May 22, 337: "Constantine, the first Christian emperor of Rome, died at age 47." (National Post)

May 22, 1541: "In Germany, the Ratisbon (Regensburg) Conference ended, its mission to reunify the Catholic Church having failed. From this time on, the Protestant movement became permanent.(SLO)

May 23, 1633: "By French edict, only Catholic settlers were permitted permanent residence within the country known as New France (called "Canada" today), thus ending 30 years of attempted colonization by Huguenots (Protestants)." (SLO)

May 24, 1930: "Pioneer linguist Frank C. Laubach, while serving as a Congregational missionary, wrote in a letter: 'As one makes new discoveries about his friends by being with them, so one discovers the "individuality" of God if one entertains him continuously.'" (SLO)

May 25, 1085: "Alfonso VI of Castile captured Toledo, Spain, and brought the Moorish center of science into Christian hands." (SLO)

 

[James T]

My New American Bible gives the word as 'Presbyters'.

Elders, Presbyters, Overseer, Shepherd, & Bishop could be used interchangably in most cases.

And since a Bishop is also a priest, Priest could also be used. At least in Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopalian and others.

Those Christians who do not have 'Priests" may prefer the term 'Elder".

Your right. Some denominations who like to think they have supreme authority like to do a little twisting to establish this - 2 Peter 3:14-18

Early gatherings consisted often consisted of one of the older men (elder) calling the meeting together. The differences today are dramatic:

Theirs were informal but serious.
Ours are ritualistic and formalistic.

Theirs were periods of celebration and joy.
Ours are somber and restrained.

Their activities were shared jointly.
Ours are "preacher-centered," for everything revolves around him.

Theirs were incessant worship.
Ours consist of specific "acts of worship" and no more.

Words of love and compassion, spoken prior to their meetings, were worship.
The same words spoken prior to our "services" are not worship, for worship doesn't begin until the hands on the clock are at a certain crossroads.

Their meetings were alive and active.
Ours are "services," as at a funeral.

Their meetings were without the professional ecclesiastic.
Ours would "die on the vine" without him.

God's children today are not content with elders ('judges' under the Old Covenant) to shepherd them (I Timothy 3:1-7, 5:17, & Titus 1:5-9). They want 'kings' who can fight their battles, speak and make decisions for them, go to God on their behalf, do their ministering by proxy, and organize 'sacrificial offerings'.

The purpose of elders, pastors, priests...needs further research.

 

[TexasBred]

My New American Bible gives the word as 'Presbyters'.

Elders, Presbyters, Overseer, Shepherd, & Bishop could be used interchangably in most cases.

And since a Bishop is also a priest, Priest could also be used. At least in Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopalian and others.

Those Christians who do not have 'Priests" may prefer the term 'Elder".

Your right. Some denominations who like to think they have supreme authority like to do a little twisting to establish this - 2 Peter 3:14-18



Early gatherings consisted often consisted of one of the older men (elder) calling the meeting together. The differences today are dramatic:

Theirs were informal but serious.
Ours are ritualistic and formalistic.

Theirs were periods of celebration and joy.
Ours are somber and restrained.

Their activities were shared jointly.
Ours are "preacher-centered," for everything revolves around him.

Theirs were incessant worship.
Ours consist of specific "acts of worship" and no more.

Words of love and compassion, spoken prior to their meetings, were worship.
The same words spoken prior to our "services" are not worship, for worship doesn't begin until the hands on the clock are at a certain crossroads.

Their meetings were alive and active.
Ours are "services," as at a funeral.

Their meetings were without the professional ecclesiastic.
Ours would "die on the vine" without him.

God's children today are not content with elders ('judges' under the Old Covenant) to shepherd them (I Timothy 3:1-7, 5:17, & Titus 1:5-9). They want 'kings' who can fight their battles, speak and make decisions for them, go to God on their behalf, do their ministering by proxy, and organize 'sacrificial offerings'.

The purpose of elders, pastors, priests...needs further research.

Sounds like you would prefer a "free for all" with no sense of any organized assembly at all. That is not what Christ taught. The purpose of elders, pastors, priests has been discussed since Pentecost. Do we need more division? Christ called us "Sheep". He also told Peter "Feed my sheep". Some pastors, priests, elders are better at this than others, thus the Church which flourishes and the Church that "dies on the vine".

 

[Martin Jr.]

Justin in about the year 150, relates this as their worship on the first day of the week:

"But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has asserted to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethern are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethern bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to recieve these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by sayng Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
And this food is called among us Eucharisti'a, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that after the same manner, having taken he cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. "


So the 'President' as the translation calls him, who, in the Name of Jesus, pronounces the words "This is my body; this is my blood" today would be the Bishop or priest.

The words of the Gospel is read, and Justin don't mention song, but assuredly song was part of the celebration, just as it is today.
And in my experience, Jesus, not the priest, (or preacher), is the center of the worship, and the whole Mass is a continual worship, beginning with silence beforehand for private reflection and prayer. You get out of it what you put into it; know the Gospel being read and put yourself into it.

I usually find services alive and active, even at funerals.

Though I have been to funerals at other churches where I wondered if anybody was alive.

Have a good day!

 

[James T]

My New American Bible gives the word as 'Presbyters'.

Elders, Presbyters, Overseer, Shepherd, & Bishop could be used interchangably in most cases.

And since a Bishop is also a priest, Priest could also be used. At least in Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopalian and others.

Those Christians who do not have 'Priests" may prefer the term 'Elder".

Your right. Some denominations who like to think they have supreme authority like to do a little twisting to establish this - 2 Peter 3:14-18



Early gatherings consisted often consisted of one of the older men (elder) calling the meeting together. The differences today are dramatic:

Theirs were informal but serious.
Ours are ritualistic and formalistic.

Theirs were periods of celebration and joy.
Ours are somber and restrained.

Their activities were shared jointly.
Ours are "preacher-centered," for everything revolves around him.

Theirs were incessant worship.
Ours consist of specific "acts of worship" and no more.

Words of love and compassion, spoken prior to their meetings, were worship.
The same words spoken prior to our "services" are not worship, for worship doesn't begin until the hands on the clock are at a certain crossroads.

Their meetings were alive and active.
Ours are "services," as at a funeral.

Their meetings were without the professional ecclesiastic.
Ours would "die on the vine" without him.

God's children today are not content with elders ('judges' under the Old Covenant) to shepherd them (I Timothy 3:1-7, 5:17, & Titus 1:5-9). They want 'kings' who can fight their battles, speak and make decisions for them, go to God on their behalf, do their ministering by proxy, and organize 'sacrificial offerings'.

The purpose of elders, pastors, priests...needs further research.

Sounds like you would prefer a "free for all" with no sense of any organized assembly at all. That is not what Christ taught. The purpose of elders, pastors, priests has been discussed since Pentecost. Do we need more division? Christ called us "Sheep". He also told Peter "Feed my sheep". Some pastors, priests, elders are better at this than others, thus the Church which flourishes and the Church that "dies on the vine".

Well hell's bells TB. A "free for all" would certainly afford more interaction than what your Sunday denominational meeting brings, although I am not recommending a "free for all". Seriously, "kneel", "sit", "recite", "sing that hymn", "fill this plate", "greet the fella next to you for 30 seconds". Yep, that's some interaction, discussion, edification, encouragement system going on there. I don't know how you can absorb it all!

The role of an "Elder" is that of a servant compared to now what is often considered a position of dominance either through ecclesiastical position or anointing in many denominations. And in my opinion, that's wrong.

Consider: "Does the clergy role that so prevails throughout the Western Church today find its basis in the Bible? Sadly, history tells us that the functioning of clergy was adapted from the pagan practices of the Greeks and Romans who depended on priests to stand between them and their gods. The role of clergy so recognized throughout much of the Church today got its philosophical underpinnings from the dualistic teachings of Plato in the fifth century BC. Many of today's followers of Jesus, however, are attempting to return to the biblical role of pastoring as it was understood by our first-century forefathers. The difficulty is that most Christians today are so accustomed to the clergy/laity separation in their congregations that they are amazed or even angered when that distinction is questioned."

1 Thessalonians 5:21 prove all things; hold fast that which is good;
1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Galatians 6:10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good to all men, especially to them who are of the household of faith.

 

[Martin Jr.]

Maybe we should see what all this kneel, stand, sit, is all about.

First when the presiding minister comes in it is an act of respect to rise, and remain standing while penitential prayers and praise to God (the Gloria). Then we may be seated while readings from the epistles or old testament are read. Then in respect to the Gospel standing is appropriate during the reading of the Gospel. Being seated is appropriate during the Homily.
Then after the homily we stand for the profession of faith and the peace offering to those around us, and kneel as act of prayer during the prayers over the offerings (Bread and Wine), and during the consecration of the bread and wine to the Body and blood of Jesus.

After going forward to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, one may kneel for a time of reflection and prayer, then sit at the final prayers.

I left out singing! We begin with a song, and the Psalm is usually sung. Another song at the offering (collection), and song at the communion.
And ending with another song.

Some people say Catholics don't sing much. This may be true in some places, but I grew up going to an Indian Mission church and the Indians like to sing. So, we all grew up singing, sometimes even in Lakota.

 

[TexasBred]

James T I'm not going to get involved with your "anti-catholic hate mongering". I love my Church and when I walk out the door I feel truly fed. Enjoy yours. :wink:

 

[James T]

James T I'm not going to get involved with your "anti-catholic hate mongering". I love my Church and when I walk out the door I feel truly fed. Enjoy yours. :wink:

I have no hate of Catholics but I'll sure rebuke any efforts you make at continuing to argue or infer that Catholicism is the one and only religion of Jesus Christ. Or infer that all others are in error. That's total bs.

I hope one day you'll be free in Christ. :wink:

 

[TexasBred]

James T I'm not going to get involved with your "anti-catholic hate mongering". I love my Church and when I walk out the door I feel truly fed. Enjoy yours. :wink:

I have no hate of Catholics but I'll sure rebuke any efforts you make at continuing to argue or infer that Catholicism is the one and only religion of Jesus Christ. Or infer that all others are in error. That's total bs.

I hope one day you'll be free in Christ. :wink:

Take a deep breath and relax. I haven't posted anything that. Let's not clutter the forum, however, for your own perusal and directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

 

[James T]

James T I'm not going to get involved with your "anti-catholic hate mongering". I love my Church and when I walk out the door I feel truly fed. Enjoy yours. :wink:

I have no hate of Catholics but I'll sure rebuke any efforts you make at continuing to argue or infer that Catholicism is the one and only religion of Jesus Christ. Or infer that all others are in error. That's total bs.

I hope one day you'll be free in Christ. :wink:

Take a deep breath and relax. I haven't posted anything that. Let's not clutter the forum, however, for your own perusal and directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

That's real cute TB. "I haven't posted anything that." Followed by: "sin of the separation". This quote is not so much biblical as it is a Catholicism quote. Separation might be considered a sin if it were a fact that the Catholic church were the one true church but it isn't. The one true assembly of believers (church) is just that. Headed by none other than Jesus Christ.

And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. Ephesians 1:22, 23
And he is the head of the body, the church ... Colossians 1:18a

Jesus seek inclusion in HIS body. This is very distinct from inclusion into a man-made denomination or religious faction. However, a person might gain some understanding and edification from a denominations and realize the truth.