An Opinion about rituals "in religions:"

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
When a person, or religious organization, keeps inventing sacraments, then it is they're keeping of the sacraments they have faith in, not Christ. Otherwise, why keep those invented sacraments?

And when one goes to a confessional and tells a "priest" about their sins, then it is their going to the confessional and doing the confession ritual and penance that they have faith in, not Christ. Otherwise, why not go directly to God, from within the heart, through Christ for the forgiveness of sins as Christ taught?

Christ never taught anything about ritualistic sacraments, or going to confessionals. It is only the flesh, seeking to feel it has earned its spiritual relationship with God that comes up with the formulation "these are the things I do because of faith." Christ's teaching was that faith is not about man "doing." It is faith in what God says and does.

Just so that everyone knows I'm not singling out the Catholics, it would be entirely possible to write exactly what I am writing only substituting the ritual and legalism details of any protestant denomination for the mass/ritualistic sacraments/confessional part, and the doctrinal point would be just as valid.

It is the Catholic Church that invented all the nonsense about Mary being a lifelong virgin, and that one prays to her to get healing, favors, and whatever. And it is the Catholic Church, which elects "saints", and says you can pray to them for special favors; isn't it? I don't remember Christ, or Paul, teaching anything about praying to Mary or "saints". And it is the catholic church that teaches that you can't be forgiven for sins without coming to its confessional booth, telling your sins to someone it calls a "priest" and doing whatever penance that "priest" tells them to do; right? That is the Catholic Church, isn't it? Or is the church that does all that stuff some other church and I just got confused for a second? This isn't a stereotype, it is just fact. Is the Catholic Church now teaching that one simply goes to God in personal prayer about sin and is forgiven based on the perfection and efficacy of Christ's work on the cross? If that's what they're teaching these days it would be the first I've heard about it.

If the rituals, ceremonies, legalisms, and taboos the Catholic Church started inventing in the middle of the first millennium are just a natural outgrowth of Christ's teaching (the expression of faith, if you will) then why would not the rituals and ceremonies and taboos and legalisms of any other church be the same? For instance, the day of Pentecost was shortly after Christ's death and resurrection and we are told people were speaking in tongues, etc. So why would it not be valid for Pentecostal churches to say: well, what we do goes all the way back to the days of Christ's ministry, death and resurrection, so when we "speak in tongues" it is simply a natural outgrowth of Christ's ministry and what early Christians did. Therefore, you can't be saved or have a relationship with God unless you join our church and do this "speaking in tongues" thing.

Although most protestant denominations only practice the concept in part, the orthodox (or doctrinal) Christian concept is that all believers in Christ are priests with Jesus Christ as our intermediary with God. Forgiveness for our sins is based on Christ's work on the cross and our faith in Christ and his work. That is why (doctrinally speaking) we can approach God directly in our personal prayers. As for forgiveness of our sins we already have received forgiveness through the Blood of Jesus.

The Catholic Church, AND OTHERS, have taken this concept rooted in grace and turned it into a system called religion whereby humans earn forgiveness from God by going to a particular place (the confessional), "confessing" sins to someone whose business they are not and then performing some more works ("penance") to complete the business of earning God's forgiveness. The concept at the root of it all is that Christ's work on the cross was incomplete or a failure, and so we have to add our works to Christ's work to make them complete.

Nothing could be more out of keeping with the Christian doctrine Paul wrote, which teaches that Christ's work on the cross was complete, perfect and perfectly efficacious.

I will say this, instead of simply changing out a protestant system of works for a catholic system of works a person really should consider Christ's message of faith that He gave to Paul.

A person can reach the point of exasperation, trying to figure out the un-figurable (which church's or denominational system is the right system to please and impress God). But Christ's message, given to Paul, of relationship with God through faith makes all the figuring unnecessary.

I appreciate and agree with the orientation of many posts: the intended grace nature of what the Catholic Church has termed "sacraments" and turned into empty rituals, the spiritual (rather than physical) nature of Christ's church, the idea of all religion as schemes for pleasing God with the energy of the flesh rather than faith, the concept of salvation through faith alone rather than a program of religious works, rituals and observing legalisms, taboos and "sacraments."

I understand that the antiquity of the traditions and rituals the Catholic Church has invented appeal to many, (at least more so than those traditions and rituals invented by the evangelical/fundamentalist protestant churches), but that is their choice. However, these things would come between Jesus and I.

Every church and denomination has "Jesus" and "faith" and "Christ" readily rolling off its collective tongue. But Christ taught that just because one says "Lord, Lord" that doesn't mean that they will have a relationship with God, but only those who do the will of God. The message that Christ gave to Paul taught that the will of God is his creations responding to him in faith.

I am where I am now because of a volitional choice to respond to Christ's message of faith with faith. And I find that message of faith very comforting indeed: a relationship with, and justification and righteousness before, the God who created my soul based only on my faith in the savior he sent for me (and the guidance of God's own spirit thrown in at no extra charge whatsoever).

All this without having to work, work, work at rituals and taboo observance and magic worked by "saints" and the "virgin Mary" and all the rest of that nonsensical claptrap. Instead "doing" what Christ's message to Paul taught us to do; believe on the one whom God sent and rest and be relieved of our burdens of sin by God's grace.

(Nor any need to search and hunt and figure out and research which church hierarchy's claims to have "truth" or "validity")

I can't get more comfortable than that, and why anyone would choose the works route is beyond me (except I can understand their flesh screaming at them, "ok, so now what do I have to do?")

This is not rocket science. On the one hand you have Christ's message to Paul clearly teaching faith alone and on the other hand you have the Catholic Church teaching mass attendance, compulsory confession, worshipping Mary, the Lord's table sharing turned into a system of magic, "last rites" for salvation, and on and on. And various other churches teaching a relationship with God based on emotional ecstatic, moral purity of the flesh, ritual observance, etc.

It really doesn't seem like much of a choice to me, or is it anything that requires great academic diligence. I prefer Christ's message of faith given to Paul.
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
H.Richard,

I am not a Roman Catholic and do not know there rituals or the rituals of any other Catholic tradition.
 

Born_Again

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2014
1,324
159
63
US
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
See, this is why I belong to a non-denominational church. I focus on my relationship with Jesus Christ and what He has called us to. Most of the traditions cited are based on either misinterpreted scriptures or twisted scriptures.

You know, Jesus said His church was infallible. HIS CHURCH! It doesn't mean the churches out there that claim to be His church are infallible. They might have started out that way, but it is easy to see that is not how it is now.
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
H. Richard said:
And when one goes to a confessional and tells a "priest" about their sins, then it is their going to the confessional and doing the confession ritual and penance that they have faith in, not Christ. Otherwise, why not go directly to God, from within the heart, through Christ for the forgiveness of sins as Christ taught?

Christ never taught anything about ritualistic sacraments, or going to confessionals. It is only the flesh, seeking to feel it has earned its spiritual relationship with God that comes up with the formulation "these are the things I do because of faith." Christ's teaching was that faith is not about man "doing." It is faith in what God says and does. And it is the catholic church that teaches that you can't be forgiven for sins without coming to its confessional booth, telling your sins to someone it calls a "priest" and doing whatever penance that "priest" tells them to do; right? That is the Catholic Church, isn't it? Or is the church that does all that stuff some other church and I just got confused for a second? This isn't a stereotype, it is just fact. Is the Catholic Church now teaching that one simply goes to God in personal prayer about sin and is forgiven based on the perfection and efficacy of Christ's work on the cross? If that's what they're teaching these days it would be the first I've heard about it.

Forgiveness for our sins is based on Christ's work on the cross and our faith in Christ and his work. That is why (doctrinally speaking) we can approach God directly in our personal prayers. As for forgiveness of our sins we already have received forgiveness through the Blood of Jesus.

The Catholic Church, AND OTHERS, have taken this concept rooted in grace and turned it into a system called religion whereby humans earn forgiveness from God by going to a particular place (the confessional), "confessing" sins to someone whose business they are not and then performing some more works ("penance") to complete the business of earning God's forgiveness. The concept at the root of it all is that Christ's work on the cross was incomplete or a failure, and so we have to add our works to Christ's work to make them complete.
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending 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 them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” This is one of only two times that God breathed on man (the other being in Genesis 2:7) when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was. This sacrament has been passed on thru Apostolic Succession. Do you not agree that Christ sent out his followers to do his work?

Jesus gave the Apostles instructions on what to do whenever your brother sins against you and refuses to repent for that sin: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. And He empowered them to do as he did: As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. A sacrament for the forgiveness of sin? The Church believes so and it has been taught/practiced by Christians for 2,000 years. Do you not agree that Christ sent out his followers to do his work?

Scripture does not say we have to only go to God to confess our sins: Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. However, only God can forgive our sins just like the Catholic Church teaches. What you have written about the Catholic Church is not true.
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
H. Richard said:
It is the Catholic Church that invented all the nonsense about Mary being a lifelong virgin,
Scripture says Mary was a virgin: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.

Where in scripture does it say she lost her virginity?

Where in scripture does it say she rescinded her vow to God? A vow of continual, devoted service to the Lord. A vow that meant she would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity. Show me in scripture where she gave up that vow.

Have you ever read The Protoevangelium of James?
 

Born_Again

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2014
1,324
159
63
US
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
tom55 said:
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending 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 them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” This is one of only two times that God breathed on man (the other being in Genesis 2:7) when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was. This sacrament has been passed on thru Apostolic Succession. Do you not agree that Christ sent out his followers to do his work? And these are chosen by man. God appointed the initial apostles. Or when they appoint a pope that resigns. How do you explain that one? Doesn't sound like an infallible decision was made there. Small things like these is why i challenge the ability of the RCC to make infallible decisions. Seems a bit of a bold statement to claim as much.

Jesus gave the Apostles instructions on what to do whenever your brother sins against you and refuses to repent for that sin: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beloosed in heaven. And He empowered them to do as he did: As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. A sacrament for the forgiveness of sin? The Church believes so and it has been taught/practiced by Christians for 2,000 years. Do you not agree that Christ sent out his followers to do his work?

Scripture does not say we have to only go to God to confess our sins: Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. However, only God can forgive our sins just like the Catholic Church teaches. What you have written about the Catholic Church is not true.
Then why bother going to a priest?
Please see above. ^ ^ ^
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
Born_Again said:
Please see above. ^ ^ ^
And these are chosen by man. God appointed the initial apostles. Or when they appoint a pope that resigns. How do you explain that one? Doesn't sound like an infallible decision was made there. Small things like these is why i challenge the ability of the RCC to make infallible decisions. Seems a bit of a bold statement to claim as much.

Not sure what a Pope resigning has to do with infallibility. I guess you need to first educate yourself on what the infallibility of The Church means.

If the RCC isn't infallible then who or what Church is? Who or what Church has infallibility or ability or authority to bind and loosen sin like scripture says? Who or what church has the authority to decide what we should agree on so that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment? What happened to the authority Jesus gave his Apostles? Did it go away after they died? There are thousands of different churches teaching hundreds of different interpretations of Scripture. To you It looks like satan is winning. So when did the gates of Hades overcome His Church and satan start winning by dividing the word and the Church of Christ? Jesus said the gates of Hades would not overcome His Church. (Matthew 16:18) I don't think gates of Hades has prevailed against His Church which is the RCC. Some men in the RCC have failed but not The Church.

Then why bother going to a priest?

Is a priest not a person? So why couldn't one go to a priest since scripture says I can go to any Christian to confess my sins?

A priest is a successor of the Apostles (Apostolic Succession) and, as stated before, the Apostles by the authority of Jesus were given the authority to loosen and bind sins among other things. Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see to the first three generations of apostolic succession; his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach. So you tell me Born_again. When did that Apostolic Succession end? The generation after the generation that Timothy taught?
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Did not Jesus instruct the apostles to baptise (Mt 28:19)? And when this ritual was performed on a believer he/she would be saved (Mk 16;16).

Then there is the laying on of hands to impart the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17 & 19:6). Another ritual.

And the laying on of hands for ordination (Acts 6:6, 1Tim 4;14, 2Tim 1:6). More ritual.

There is nothing wrong with rituals.
:
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
tom55 said:
Scripture says Mary was a virgin: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.

Where in scripture does it say she lost her virginity?

Where in scripture does it say she rescinded her vow to God? A vow of continual, devoted service to the Lord. A vow that meant she would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity. Show me in scripture where she gave up that vow.

Have you ever read The Protoevangelium of James?
It is difference of interpretation between Roman Catholic and Protestants. There may be a place that infers it in even the Roman Catholic versions. I do not know enough about the other Catholic denominations though they all claim to be the original Catholic Church. I do not believe the teaching is shared among all Catholic Churches.
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
tom55 said:
Scripture says Mary was a virgin: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.

Where in scripture does it say she lost her virginity?

Where in scripture does it say she rescinded her vow to God? A vow of continual, devoted service to the Lord. A vow that meant she would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity. Show me in scripture where she gave up that vow.

Have you ever read The Protoevangelium of James?
***
Mark 6:3
3 Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" So they were offended at Him.
NKJV
 

lforrest

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Admin
Aug 10, 2012
5,546
6,793
113
Faith
Christian
kerwin said:
It is difference of interpretation between Roman Catholic and Protestants. There may be a place that infers it in even the Roman Catholic versions. I do not know enough about the other Catholic denominations though they all claim to be the original Catholic Church. I do not believe the teaching is shared among all Catholic Churches.
Doesn't this mean she didn't remain a virgin.
Matthew 1:25
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
lforrest said:
Doesn't this mean she didn't remain a virgin.
Matthew 1:25
Yep. It does. Its simply a spin job to say otherwise. This verse alo g with verse 24 says Joseph didn't know (have sex with) Mary until after the birth of Jesus.

I didn't have a glass of Pinot Grigio till after I got home from work. I didn't got to work till after I went to the gym.

Now would anyone say i didn't have a glass of wine or go to work?
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
lforrest said:
Doesn't this mean she didn't remain a virgin.
Matthew 1:25
Infers means hints so it is not a smoking gun.

I do not believe she did remain a virgin as I have I have heard it is a tenet only a few centuries old but the Orthodox churches also seem to hold to it so that may be wrong. The Koine Greek itself is vague as well so the best I can do is point to a Scripture about having sex with her husband til after Jesus' birth.


Matthew 1:25 American Standard Version (ASV)

25 and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name Jesus.

Here is the same verse from a Catholic Version; which includes a note.


Matthew 1:25Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

25 but knew her not until she had borne a son;[a] and he called his name Jesus.

Footnotes:

1.25 This means only that Joseph had nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. It implies nothing as to what happened afterward.
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
FHII said:
Yep. It does. Its simply a spin job to say otherwise. This verse alo g with verse 24 says Joseph didn't know (have sex with) Mary until after the birth of Jesus.

I didn't have a glass of Pinot Grigio till after I got home from work. I didn't got to work till after I went to the gym.

Now would anyone say i didn't have a glass of wine or go to work?
I raced til dawn then I raced some more afterwards.

It is literally say what was done up til x time and is used in many cases to indicate a change in state of the action not in relationship to the time as I use it above.

The largest argument against Mary abstaining from sex the rest of her life is there is no evidence to support the claim except the fallen human desire for the dramatic.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
kerwin said:
I raced til dawn then I raced some more afterwards.

It is literally say what was done up til x time and is used in many cases to indicate a change in state of the action not in relationship to the time as I use it above.
Exactly. It's FHII that's trying the spin job.

"until" or "till" or denotes a period of time from A to B where A is the starting point and B is the 'until' point. It says nothing aboit what happend afterwards, either in English or in Greek.

It can often be inferred from the context or what it says afterwards but in itself it implies nothing about what happened afterwards..
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
kerwin said:
The largest argument against Mary abstaining from sex the rest of her life is there is no evidence to support the claim except the fallen human desire for the dramatic.
There is no smoking gun but there are many arguments supporting it.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Mungo said:
Exactly. It's FHII that's trying the spin job.

"until" or "till" or denotes a period of time from A to B where A is the starting point and B is the 'until' point. It says nothing aboit what happend afterwards, either in English or in Greek.

It can often be inferred from the context or what it says afterwards but in itself it implies nothing about what happened afterwards..
Absolutely not. Its a plane fact that Catholics continue to deny. Jesus had half brothers and sisters, with Jesus being the oldest.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
FHII said:
Absolutely not. Its a plane fact that Catholics continue to deny. Jesus had half brothers and sisters, with Jesus being the oldest.
Nowhere does scripture say that these "brothers" and "sisters" were Mary's children.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Mungo said:
Nowhere does scripture say that these "brothers" and "sisters" were Mary's children.

There goes that spin....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.