CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[T.Lex]

I have a question.

If Christ dies for me, my sins are forgiven if I repent to Him, where does it speak of reciting hail mary's as a penance? What the criteria for a punishment, per se', if Christ already died and has forgiven me? Isn't that minimizing the death of Christ and suggesting His death is not good enough? Secondly, where does it say I must go to another man (specifically a priest) to have my sins forgiven?

Sounds like to me, the catholic church likes to place its priests and such above the cross - at the very least equal to.

It does not matter if anyone thinks it is a good idea, what does he bible say about it?

You keep coming back to the "above the cross" despite explanations that such is not actually happening. Well, at least not supposed to be happening. And doesn't happen, in my experience.

What's up with that?

 

[Ziggidy]

And if the church believes that saying a hail mary is a prayer, then why does a priest make it a punishment (penance)? It seems to me forcing someone to chant a prayer minimizes it's meaning and purpose.

I don't get it.

Why not just allow the Holy Spirit to convict you of you wrong doing and have a heartfelt talk with God; who says you are forgiven if you ask "Him".

 

[Ziggidy]

You keep coming back to the "above the cross" despite explanations that such is not actually happening. Well, at least not supposed to be happening. And doesn't happen, in my experience.

What's up with that?

To be fair, you have not answered my question.

To answer yours, above the cross is meaning they (the church) places their priests on a higher ground than Christ. It's denied, but it's practiced. Walking into a booth and telling a priest you sins and having him give you a penance is certainly an example of of minimizing the Cross; which is why we are forgiven in the first place. Why are you making me do something that Christ Himself does not require? IMO, that is minimizing Christ (the Cross) and lifting up man (priest).

 

[Mark 1911]

To be fair, you have not answered my question.

To answer yours, above the cross is meaning they (the church) places their priests on a higher ground than Christ. It's denied, but it's practiced. Walking into a booth and telling a priest you sins and having him give you a penance is certainly an example of of minimizing the Cross; which is why we are forgiven in the first place. Why are you making me do something that Christ Himself does not require? IMO, that is minimizing Christ (the Cross) and lifting up man (priest).

Why is that in a thread that is called "civil religious discussion", which I visit occasionally at most, just about every time I read an anti-Catholic bias justified as being supported by Christ? This thread is not a civil thread at all, it seems to be a place for people to vent their anti-Catholic sentiments, which is anything but Christian. Sorry if my perception doesn't agree with yours, but the fact is that every time I visit this thread I read another post like this one.

All of us can stand to acquire a deeper understanding of the bible. Forgiveness of sins is, of course, a topic that is very prevalent throughout the bible, no dispute there. What I would suggest, and here is where the dispute comes in, is that the institution of the priesthood, as is true with all of the sacraments, most of which have been abandoned by most Christian denominations except for baptism and matrimony, among those the sacrament of confession, was accomplished by Christ and biblically based.

 

[T.Lex]

To be fair, you have not answered my question.

I have, multiple times in this thread. (Wait. Maybe its the Christianity thread.)

Frankly, I'm trying to come up with a different way of answering it.

 

[Ziggidy]

I have, multiple times in this thread. (Wait. Maybe its the Christianity thread.)

Frankly, I'm trying to come up with a different way of answering it.

Sometimes when people keep asking the same question, worded differently, might be due to the answer being vague or not pertaining to the actual question. Sometimes, not always. I am not as word savvy as many here so it may take me a few times to actually read the answer in a post.

 

[T.Lex]

Sometimes when people keep asking the same question, worded differently, might be due to the answer being vague or not pertaining to the actual question. Sometimes, not always. I am not as word savvy as many here so it may take me a few times to actually read the answer in a post.

Particularly with nuanced responses, it can be helpful if the answerer - like a teacher - can use different strategies to convey the concept. Just to be clear, in this context, that's on me. I need to make sure I'm doing the best I can to provide understandable answers, even if it means using different ways of explaining it. (Which, BTW, is kinda what Jesus did with all the parables.)

 

[Ziggidy]

Why is that in a thread that is called "civil religious discussion", which I visit occasionally at most, just about every time I read an anti-Catholic bias justified as being supported by Christ? This thread is not a civil thread at all, it seems to be a place for people to vent their anti-Catholic sentiments, which is anything but Christian. Sorry if my perception doesn't agree with yours, but the fact is that every time I visit this thread I read another post like this one.

All of us can stand to acquire a deeper understanding of the bible. Forgiveness of sins is, of course, a topic that is very prevalent throughout the bible, no dispute there. What I would suggest, and here is where the dispute comes in, is that the institution of the priesthood, as is true with all of the sacraments, most of which have been abandoned by most Christian denominations except for baptism and matrimony, among those the sacrament of confession, was accomplished by Christ and biblically based.

Well, i ask allot of questions, sorry about that. Is it a dispute or an actual discussion?

If I may ask, where does it speak of priests being the in-between? In the Old Testament, we had the Jewish leaders who felt the same way and Christ spoke down on them. The death and resurrection of Christ is for the forgiveness of sins and made it possible to remove rituals to get right with God. Christ died for what? Why was His death necessary if all we needed to do is go to a priest, say a few hail mary's and be forgiven? Why did Christ die, if we have priests? One of the 2 is all we need, not both. Did Christ die in vain or are the priests over stepping their purpose?

Why do I need to go to a priest when I can go directly to God?

Just a discussion question.

 

[foszoe]

This thread, as Mark1911 says, keeps veering to places the Christianity thread should cover....unless you guys don't consider each other Christians.

 

[foszoe]

What need are you referring to? I'll answer in the Christianity thread unless Catholics aren't Christians.

In fact I am going to post there anyway on related issues

Well, i ask allot of questions, sorry about that. Is it a dispute or an actual discussion?

If I may ask, where does it speak of priests being the in-between? In the Old Testament, we had the Jewish leaders who felt the same way and Christ spoke down on them. The death and resurrection of Christ is for the forgiveness of sins and made it possible to remove rituals to get right with God. Christ died for what? Why was His death necessary if all we needed to do is go to a priest, say a few hail mary's and be forgiven? Why did Christ die, if we have priests? One of the 2 is all we need, not both. Did Christ die in vain or are the priests over stepping their purpose?

Why do I need to go to a priest when I can go directly to God?

Just a discussion question.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, FYI, I'm plotting a response to Ziggidy in the Christianity thread on this.

 

[historian]

We were so close to taking over this thread for Christianity!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[CCCCCCC]

I feel the bible is the greatest (and only) moral compass there is. When you add in cultural tradition you begin to add the human ingredient; which is evil in nature.

This is when you begin to see gay priests being accepted in ministry, you see leaders deciding what is right or wrong based on the moral climate of the world, you hear church board members talk about the (paraphrased) the spiritual value of allowing an individual with a lifestyle contrary to the church teach children....and so much more. If there is no concrete foundation, if there is no firm ground on which the gospel of Jesus perceived, if there is an ever changing base - how do you expect society to view the church.

God's moral word never changes and is applicable to today as it was in the past - and will be in the future. The catholic church cannot say the same - it has changed allot. What is moral to the church 10 years ago, is not the same as it is today. It brings a watered down gospel to the people from a watered down church. IMHO.

(not specific to the catholic church)

Your mental gymnastics are quite entertaining. Cultural tradition is not automatically evil. I would try to flush these things out with you, but you seem set in your ways. But I am willing to bet that we would agree more than we disagree on a host of issues.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

A Papal nuncio has just dropped a massive bombshell in the McCarrick scandal, revealing that Pope Francis knew about his behavior for years and not only covered it up but restored his privileges

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...ling-to-act-on-mccarricks-abuse-reports-81797

The Catholic hierarchy is rotten, and I feel bad for Catholics that have to deal with it.

 

[BluedSteel]

Yes. Yes I do.
Are you offering a sign-on bonus?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

A Papal nuncio has just dropped a massive bombshell in the McCarrick scandal, revealing that Pope Francis knew about his behavior for years and not only covered it up but restored his privileges

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...ling-to-act-on-mccarricks-abuse-reports-81797

The Catholic hierarchy is rotten, and I feel bad for Catholics that have to deal with it.

From Ross Douthat:

this document is quite possibly a truly historic bombshell in the life of the Roman Catholic Church.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/do...ONYXCMVX-XENGLISH-CORRECTED-FINAL-VERSION.pdf

Written by the former papal nuncio to the U.S., it does exactly what many have called for, and offers testimony concerning who in the hierarchy knew what, and when, about the crimes of Cardinal McCarrick. The testimony implicates a host of high-ranking churchmen. And the pope.

In fact, both popes. But Benedict appears as a figure (weakly, insufficiently) attempting to act on testimony concerning McCarrick's crimes, while Francis is portrayed as intent on restoring the pederast cardinal to activity and influence *despite* his awareness of those crimes.

This is either an extraordinary and vicious slander or an act of revelation that should be the undoing of just about every figure mentioned in its pages. It has an apocalyptic feel either way.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The Catholic hierarchy is rotten, and I feel bad for Catholics that have to deal with it.

This is one of the issues with organized religion. Any time there is a power structure, there will be those who forget the mission and focus on the power. Maybe with good intentions, maybe just because human nature. The bigger the hierarchy, the more money, the more secular authority, the greater the temptation. I don't blame those who are turned away by it, and I know some here scoff at the notion of "unorganized religion", but if you were outside looking in could you not at least understand that perspective?

 

[BluedSteel]

Then you might be happy to learn that neither the "Vatican" nor local churches are interested in covering it up anymore, and haven't been for some time.

I'm not sure what strikes you as "nothing more than rhetoric" or "empty apologies." From the ground level, I can share with you that concrete steps have been, and are being, taken to prevent, identify, and protect against these kind of abuses, and others.

I would like to believe you. I really would. But honestly, why would I? Why would anyone?

I can trace my family's history back to the southern portions of what is now Germany. Apparently my ancestors were quite happy there until around, oh say, 1529. When the enlightened leadership of the the Catholic Church decided that they and any other anabaptist "persons of either sex should be put to death by fire, sword, or some other way" (from the 1529 Diet of Spires). So they unleashed their own private army to kill us all. Literally. What caused this pogrom, this exercise of mass extermination? In large part it was because of this belief - "One cannot and should not use force to compel anyone to accept the faith, for faith is a free gift of God. It is wrong to compel anyone by force or coercion to embrace the faith, or to put to death anyone for the sake of his erring faith."

So what does this have to do with today's issues? Everything. 500 years ago my family was chased halfway across Europe, then to England, across the Atlantic and into the New World by a Church that not only refused to comply with the laws of man; but also blatantly ignored the teachings of it's own scriptures and the direct commandments of God. What has changed in those 5 centuries? Nothing.

The Catholic Church is still treating itself and it's priests/employees/representatives/organizational self as being above the law of the countries it operates in [which is itself against the scriptures]. And it's clergy (at least some of them) are still getting away with ignoring the teachings of Christ and the laws of Moses. A practice which goes back even farther in history than my family's personal experience; back to at least the sixth or seventh centuries A.D.

So, with respect to the sincerity of your beliefs; and aknowledging your right to your opinions: I submit to you that it takes a special kind of naive to believe in an institution that has been engaged in corrupt and criminal activities for over 1500 years.

There is nothing in either the Old Testament, New Testament, or even the Apochrypha that teaches you have to be a member of the Catholic Church to believe in "the one true God of Israel" - or to be in His good graces. But there is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that it is not possible to do both. Jesus said it himself -
Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters . . . Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

It is up to each of us in this life to decide for ourselves how we are going to act, who we are going to believe in and who we are going to follow. Some follow Popes and proclamations and man-made doctrines of the magesterium. I prefer to follow Joshua.

Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve . . . but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

 

[foszoe]

It depends

For those that don't know, I came from a Protestant background, late teens early 20s sincerely investigated Roman Catholicism including some RCIA classes and ultimately ended up agnostic/friendly athiest for about a decade because I could not accept the papal infallibility dogma along with the 2 Marian dogmas that directly followed.

I ended up Orthodox due to a long chain of events that I won't go into but for one, once I discovered it, the idea of conciliarity. My delving into the Roman Church had laid the groundwork for me to accept Orthodox teaching. It is exactly the teaching that would frustrate most Roman Catholics and Protestants that are looking for continual progress but I found it appealing precisely because it preserved the faith.

This is one of the issues with organized religion. Any time there is a power structure, there will be those who forget the mission and focus on the power. Maybe with good intentions, maybe just because human nature. The bigger the hierarchy, the more money, the more secular authority, the greater the temptation. I don't blame those who are turned away by it, and I know some here scoff at the notion of "unorganized religion", but if you were outside looking in could you not at least understand that perspective?