Giving up soemthing for lent

[Anastacia]

-- Except for the fact that bigapes first post WAS false and it was I who was "exposing falseness." Let it go.


As far as Lent, it is like any other Christian practice, the level or seriousness or importance is dependent upon that level an individual Christian put on it.


My father used to give up chocolate for Lent. Chocolate. That was it. For him it WAS a sacrifice because he loved it, but he did - by his own admission - absolutely nothing else.
No additional reflections. No further in-depth studying of the cost and value of personal sacrifice in your walk with Christ. Nothing. His own admission, not mine.


Catholics practicing Lent run the gambit from those who give up chocolate to those who use it as a time of real sacrifice and reflection to help renews their relationship with Christ (which is what we are all supposed to do.)


The concept is an outstanding one. I know of churches that do communal fastings where all members of the church (on their honor system) commit to different levels of fasting over a 21 to 40 day period. Fasting from sunup to sundown, one-day fast, 3-day fast, one-week fast, 21-day Daniel Fast.


During this time the church members lift up both their individual concerns and church issues and seek God on a new level.


As far as 'sacrifice,' be it via lent or a fast, the rule of thumb I have heard is that if the sacrifice is no big deal to you, it will be no big deal to God, either.


He sees the heart, the motive, and the effort and rewards accordingly.

You can't add to what Jesus has done. We offer our bodies as living sacrifices as our form of worship to God.....when we abstain from immoral sex, and when we obey the teachings of Jesus. What sacrifices do you think someone can add to what Jesus has already done for all who believe? The Catholic religion believes and teaches that you can offer even your pain to the church, but that is not from the Word of God.

 

[Foreigner]

Anastacia, are you really clueless as to the concept of Fasting?

Jesus himself, in Matthew:

"Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. "But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face so that your fasting will not be noticed by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."

That implies that Jesus expects people to fast.

Relax. Eat some fruit or something.

 

[Anastacia]

Anastacia, are you really clueless as to the concept of Fasting?

Jesus himself, in Matthew:

"Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. "But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face so that your fasting will not be noticed by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."

That implies that Jesus expects people to fast.

Relax. Eat some fruit or something.

Take note....Foreigner has made personal attacks to me in his post.

Foreigner, Is the person fasting offering a sacrifice? Or are they trying to concentrate on their prayers to God? Which is it? If they are doing it to be noticed by others...then I guess they aren't doing it for their pray time, right?

So when you fast...do you believe you are giving a pain offering to the church? What exactly is fasting to you?

 

[jacobtaylor]

Anastacia, are you really clueless as to the concept of Fasting?

Jesus himself, in Matthew:

"Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. "But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face so that your fasting will not be noticed by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."

That implies that Jesus expects people to fast.

Relax. Eat some fruit or something.

He also expects you to do it in private.

"But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face so that your fasting will not be noticed by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."

So why start a tread making and asking for a public announcement about your fasting for lent? It looks like public announcement = loss reward. :unsure:
and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."

 

[Foreigner]

Take note....Foreigner has made personal attacks to me in his post.

-- Really? lol........Where? Please be specific. A quote should be easy enough to produce, I would think.

Please feel free to ask others here to help you.

All I remember is telling you to "let it go," exactly mirroring what you told me first and suggesting you relax and eat some fruit.

Surely a Christian such as yourself should have a better understanding of "personal attacks."



Jacob T, you make an excellent (and accurate) point.
Fasting is like doing good deeds for others and tithing. Make it public and you have then already received your reward.
Meaning your effort means nothing in God's eyes.



.

 

[Anastacia]

-- Really? lol........Where? Please be specific. A quote should be easy enough to produce, I would think.

Please feel free to ask others here to help you.

All I remember is telling you to "let it go," exactly mirroring what you told me first and suggesting you relax and eat some fruit.

Surely a Christian such as yourself should have a better understanding of "personal attacks."

Don't tell me I'm clueless---when I'm not clueless. Don't tell me to relax---what do you know about me and when I'm not relaxed? And don't tell me to eat fruit or something. Keep you personal attacks to yourself.

Now back to the topic. What is fasting to you? Do you believe it is a sacrifice for the church?

 

[Foreigner]

Enhance your calm, Anastacia. I didn't call you clueless. I asked if you were clueless on that topic (based on your rather....uninformed....line of questioning.)

Your question makes no sense. I will try to interpret...

The leadership of a church can call on the members of that body to (voluntarily) fast as they see fit for a period of time. Some can't because of medical reasons. Some won't because they simply don't want to. Some will do it for a short time or a long time as they see fit. No one give the church a commitment list of time or what is being sacrificed.
It is done individually, personally, privately. The church leaders (and members) have no idea if anyone AT ALL joined in unless they chose to share what God has done for them or revealed to them afterwards.

A church asking that those who are fasting to remember to pray for the church body an its leadership along with their own prayers/requests is hardly a "sacrifice for the church."

When I was a Catholic I remember being told that the sacrifices during Lent were for our own personal development with Jesus. Not a collective one for the Catholic Church.

Feel better now?

 

[Selene]

I suppose prejudice is a point of perspective. I personally think If your speaking about prejudice against the CC look at it from a protestant view. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is one thing, but the CC says that this communion is only valid if preformed by its catholic priest. Communion any where else is invalid. So when you start looking and understand what the CC believes and teaches who is prejudice against who? Its to catholic because the CC makes it to catholic.

That's not quite true. Catholics believe that communion in the Orthodox Church is valid. Communion in an Anglican Church is also valid because the Anglicans view the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ and not merely a symbol of it.

 

[jacobtaylor]

That's not quite true. Catholics believe that communion in the Orthodox Church is valid. Communion in an Anglican Church is also valid because the Anglicans view the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ and not merely a symbol of it.

Your walking on ice here and claiming you can walk on water.
The Orthodox Church, I'll call it the old eastern Roman empire. Is still not considered to be in full communion by the RCC. Simply because they don't recognize the Pope as the head of Christ on earth. The Orthodox Church, yes, is the closest any church has ever been to being recognized by the Pope in Rome. No other church is extended the privilege of offering the "valid" Eucharist from the Pope. Because the Orthodox church doesn't recognize the Pope as he desires, they still don't enjoy full acceptance from the Roman Pope The RCC still claims to have sovereign authority over the Orthodox. This sovereign authority is presumed by the RCC that the Pope is over all the earth all peoples and nations. Long story short anyone that doesn't acknowledge the Pope is the head over all the earth from Christ is not in communion with Rome.

I forgot to mention that this is why the RCC is actually the one that started this so called prejudice that some here have accused Protestants of being guilty of. The RCC was prejudice long before the Protestant reformation. Thats evident in the schizm that separated the Orthodox from Rome in the first place.

 

[Selene]

Your walking on ice here and claiming you can walk on water.
The Orthodox Church, I'll call it the old eastern Roman empire. Is still not considered to be in full communion by the RCC. Simply because they don't recognize the Pope as the head of Christ on earth. The Orthodox Church, yes, is the closest any church has ever been to being recognized by the Pope in Rome. No other church is extended the privilege of offering the "valid" Eucharist from the Pope. Because the Orthodox church doesn't recognize the Pope as he desires, they still don't enjoy full acceptance from the Roman Pope The RCC still claims to have sovereign authority over the Orthodox. This sovereign authority is presumed by the RCC that the Pope is over all the earth all peoples and nations. Long story short anyone that doesn't acknowledge the Pope is the head over all the earth from Christ is not in communion with Rome.

I forgot to mention that this is why the RCC is actually the one that started this so called prejudice that some here have accused Protestants of being guilty of. The RCC was prejudice long before the Protestant reformation. Thats evident in the schizm that separated the Orthodox from Rome in the first place.

While it's true that the Orthodox Church is not in communion with the Pope, that does not mean that their sacraments are invalid. In fact, we recognize all their sacraments and liturgies to be valid. There are Catholics in the East who are in communion with the Pope such as the Maronite and Chaldean Catholics, and their sacraments and liturgies are exactly the same as the Eastern Orthodox Church; therefore, Rome recognized the sacraments and liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Church as valid. In fact, I was even told by my bishop that I can receive Holy Communion in an Orthodox Church if there are no Roman Catholic Churches nearby.

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

If your not doing this 24-7-365 your pretending to be born again. IMHO

I see your point,,,,,,This may be a better explaination....


I love my wife, I'm loyal to her everyday, I kiss her and tell her I love her everyday, I go to work to provide for my family everyday, I do the best I can to provide what my family needs.....

Everynow and then, I'll say something extra special, or do something extra special, Just to show her I love her.

A gift from the heart is always a great thing.

We get caught up in our daily lives and things become rutine,,,,, even in our relationship with the Lord,,

Do this, do that, read this read that, church, pray, etc etc....... Everynow and then it's good to take some time and give something thoughtfull, or give up something that you enjoy as an expression of gratitude.

Sometimes just saying thankyou doesn't do as well for the soul as actions.

 

[jacobtaylor]

While it's true that the Orthodox Church is not in communion with the Pope, that does not mean that their sacraments are invalid. In fact, we recognize all their sacraments and liturgies to be valid. There are Catholics in the East who are in communion with the Pope such as the Maronite and Chaldean Catholics, and their sacraments and liturgies are exactly the same as the Eastern Orthodox Church; therefore, Rome recognized the sacraments and liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Church as valid. In fact, I was even told by my bishop that I can receive Holy Communion in an Orthodox Church if there are no Roman Catholic Churches nearby.

To pull the subject back on track your point is taken. But it still resembles straining at gnats and swolling camels. In the strictest sense of the word, full communion with Rome requires acceptance of the Roman Pope. As you say, "I'm not going to confirm it my self" the Maronite and Chaldean's have apparently confest the Pope of Rome is above all Christians or the head of Christ how ever you wish to say it. So were still talking about a very small number of churches compared the number of churches world wide that the Roman Pontiff does not recognize communion or salvation. The only sacrament they do recognize is water baptism if done in such a way that is acceptable to Rome. My whole point, before you began adding these small exceptions is simply the Rome church is the one guilty of prejudice in the first place "schizm of the Orthodox church" For a catholic in this tread to say protestants are prejudice as some are is simply the pot calling the kettle black.

Answer me a question, If someone denys that the Pope is head of the Church - Christ on earth are they in or out of a state of complete salvation?

 

[jacobtaylor]

I see your point,,,,,,This may be a better explaination....


I love my wife, I'm loyal to her everyday, I kiss her and tell her I love her everyday, I go to work to provide for my family everyday, I do the best I can to provide what my family needs.....

Everynow and then, I'll say something extra special, or do something extra special, Just to show her I love her.

A gift from the heart is always a great thing.

We get caught up in our daily lives and things become rutine,,,,, even in our relationship with the Lord,,

Do this, do that, read this read that, church, pray, etc etc....... Everynow and then it's good to take some time and give something thoughtfull, or give up something that you enjoy as an expression of gratitude.

Sometimes just saying thankyou doesn't do as well for the soul as actions.

I think you describe it well. You did the first time to. I don't have a problem with lent, its pretty clear it a tradition first practiced by the early catholic church. The catholics have no problem admitting to practicing lots of traditions. I don't mind or really care, but when they try to support them as a necessity for salvation I will disagree. Not that anyone has implied that lent is mandetory according to the RCC but some traditions are taught as dogma within its Catholicism. Many Catholics try to argue for scriptural support of these traditions IMO by using singular verses that can perhaps be interpreted in that manner but certainly nothing is clearly taught about many of them. For example the divine attributes of Mary are not found in NT or OT. If these traditions were necessary for salvation I believe they would be mentioned in scripture but there not.

I personally don't have a problem with Catholics being Catholics and following any number of traditions ect. But when they try to use scripture to support something that is clearly not in scripture I take exception whether they be Catholics, Baptist, atheist or agnostic.

 

[Selene]

To pull the subject back on track your point is taken. But it still resembles straining at gnats and swolling camels. In the strictest sense of the word, full communion with Rome requires acceptance of the Roman Pope. As you say, "I'm not going to confirm it my self" the Maronite and Chaldean's have apparently confest the Pope of Rome is above all Christians or the head of Christ how ever you wish to say it. So were still talking about a very small number of churches compared the number of churches world wide that the Roman Pontiff does not recognize communion or salvation. The only sacrament they do recognize is water baptism if done in such a way that is acceptable to Rome. My whole point, before you began adding these small exceptions is simply the Rome church is the one guilty of prejudice in the first place "schizm of the Orthodox church" For a catholic in this tread to say protestants are prejudice as some are is simply the pot calling the kettle black.

Answer me a question, If someone denys that the Pope is head of the Church - Christ on earth are they in or out of a state of complete salvation?

Hello Jacob,

First of all, the fact that the Catholic Church DO accept the sacraments and liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Churches and even some of the sacrament of the Protestant churches only goes to show that the Catholic Church is not all that prejudice as you claimed. The doctrines of the Eastern Orthodox Church is actually almost identical to the Catholic Church.

You ask, "If someone denies that the Pope is the head of the Church - Christ on earth - are they in or out of state of complete salvation? The answer to that question is "IN." Why? Because according to our Catechism, all Christians are joined together with us despite that they are not in perfect communion with us. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church #838:

CCC #838 The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."[sup]322[/sup] Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."[sup]323[/sup] With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."[sup]324[/sup]

Thus, despite the fact that you deny the Pope his authority, you are still joined together with us through our Lord Jesus Christ because there is only ONE body of Christ. All who profess in the name of our brother Jesus Christ as the Son of God and God Himself are one with us despite your denial of the Pope and your imperfect communion and sacraments.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[revturmoil]

I suppose prejudice is a point of perspective. I personally think If your speaking about prejudice against the CC look at it from a protestant view. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is one thing, but the CC says that this communion is only valid if preformed by its catholic priest. Communion any where else is invalid. So when you start looking and understand what the CC believes and teaches who is prejudice against who? Its to catholic because the CC makes it to catholic.

We can dig dirt on any church if we really want. The RCC has the same or very similar creeds as the Protestant's. And Catholic's do have their rightfull
place in the body of Christ.

Protestant interpretations were and still are influenced by Rome's history. For example they would like you to believe that Babylon is Rome. And they have become anti-ecumenical. I was Catholic and still go there sometime and have no problem calling myself Catholic.

 

[jacobtaylor]

We can dig dirt on any church if we really want. The RCC has the same or very similar creeds as the Protestant's. And Catholic's do have their rightfull
place in the body of Christ.

Protestant interpretations were and still are influenced by Rome's history. For example they would like you to believe that Babylon is Rome. And they have become anti-ecumenical. I was Catholic and still go there sometime and have no problem calling myself Catholic.

Yes its easy to find fault with a church or any individual for that matter. What people need to realize is they will someday have to give an account for what they has done as well as what they believe. To keep from a long reply Im going to use a metaphor. When the Lord asked Adam what is this you have done? His reply today sounded pretty dumb. The woman you gave to me she gave it to me. I think God was looking for a direct answer to a direct question. Today its an acceptable practice for people to place their trust in others to teach and lead without bother about looking or thinking for themselves. Whether a church be true or false is irrelevant when we place our selves in Adams place. Now lets say that God asked you what have you done "good or bad" and you do as Adam and point toward your church "Eve" and say I do everything she tells me to do.

As for similar creeds your going to have produce a list. Most Protestant churches have 2 or 3 baptism, communion, for some speaking in tongs. Most don't require them for salvation as well. The catholic list is longer and they are required to be saved.

Never said you didn't have a place.

Roman influence on Protestants?
Sure it has, since the beginning the RCC outlawed all other religions in Rome and enforced the RCC alone. The very foundation of the RCC rest on it outlawing all opposition. Now thats not influence by choice. And there are clear truthful biblical teachings from the RCC as well, and none of them are questioned by anyone that agrees.

Did you have something to add to the talking points here, or were you simply casting a vote for the RCC?

 

[Selene]

As for similar creeds your going to have produce a list. Most Protestant churches have 2 or 3 baptism, communion, for some speaking in tongs. Most don't require them for salvation as well. The catholic list is longer and they are required to be saved.

My brother, what you say here about Catholicism is false. You say the Catholic list is longer and they are required to be saved? I can tell you and even cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church stating that a person who did NOT have the sacrament of baptism can still have salvation (CCC #1259 - 1261).

 

[jacobtaylor]

My brother, what you say here about Catholicism is false. You say the Catholic list is longer and they are required to be saved? I can tell you and even cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church stating that a person who did NOT have the sacrament of baptism can still have salvation (CCC #1259 - 1261).

Selene I know I believe you call it the baptismal of desire. Your example will be the thief on the cross. The reason the one sacrament of the 7 baptism. In holding with this requirement the RCC developed the baptism of desire. The thief on the cross could not be baptized after asking for the Lord to rember him. So If its in anyone's power to be baptized before they die they must be baptized. If they choose not to the baptism of desire does not apply. These little exceptions to basic catholic presents are found every where with in the Catholicism, your Popes and Cardinals have had 1600 years to find answers and exceptions to all of the basic sacramental requirements. Thanks for mentioning it but If you continue to site all the legal exceptions to every doctrine taught we will be here for perhaps years. You present these exemplary conditions as though Im not telling the truth or distorting the facts.

One of the latest exemplary conditions put fourth by the RCC is married priest. If your a priest from another denomination and are married. You can convert to Catholic faith as a priest and stay married. Like I said for 1600 years the RCC has made exemplary clauses for hundreds of things, but recognizing the Pope and the other I mentioned above will probably never have an exception.

Now will you please dispense with the accusation "what you say here about Catholicism is false" If you don't Im going to ask that we go to the catholic answers forum and post the question their. Then lets just see what the replies are. I you don't cool the accusations I'll both report you and go there myself and find a tread named "do you have to be baptized to be saved" Im more than certain there are dozens. If you would like to support your accusation I suggest you go there and post the link back here for everyone to see that catholic don't believe the sacrament of baptism is necessary. If you insist on arguing this point I'll do it myself so everyone can see for themselves that baptism is necessary for salvation according to the catholic Catholicism. Except when it impossible, unknown of, or mental impairment .then the baptism of desire kicks in.

Hammerstone has been trying to reign in the the tone of conversations here. If you continue to call me a lair with out evidence were going to butt heads. Now note your the one that started it and I have reminded you. I really don't understand why Catholics here get so upset about talking about what they believe. I can and have been speaking with respect and a civil tone lets keep it that way OK. I have not in any way misrepresent your faith. Like I said I'll start posting thread links here If I have to from the Catholic answers forum.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

This ones for people that are mentally impaired or people that live in the middle of the rain forest


1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."[sup]63[/sup] Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

This one is a hot button topic with the CC its self, with out baptism there is no assurance from Rome about their salvation because they were not baptized.


1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"[sup]64[/sup] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Hello Jacob,

First of all, the fact that the Catholic Church DO accept the sacraments and liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Churches and even some of the sacrament of the Protestant churches only goes to show that the Catholic Church is not all that prejudice as you claimed. The doctrines of the Eastern Orthodox Church is actually almost identical to the Catholic Church.

You ask, "If someone denies that the Pope is the head of the Church - Christ on earth - are they in or out of state of complete salvation? The answer to that question is "IN." Why? Because according to our Catechism, all Christians are joined together with us despite that they are not in perfect communion with us. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church #838:

CCC #838 The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."[sup]322[/sup] Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."[sup]323[/sup] With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."[sup]324[/sup]

Thus, despite the fact that you deny the Pope his authority, you are still joined together with us through our Lord Jesus Christ because there is only ONE body of Christ. All who profess in the name of our brother Jesus Christ as the Son of God and God Himself are one with us despite your denial of the Pope and your imperfect communion and sacraments.

In Christ,
Selene

None of my statements contradict this in fact it simply confirms what I have said is in accordance with CCC 838
But you insist on looking at the small exceptions that are made and ignoring the other 80% of the world that have no exeptions. In that there still in an imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Even If they profess Christ as their savor.

 

[jacobtaylor]

Single and only church there is no other. This CCC states and does not recognize any other church as being of Christ.
Paragraph 3. The Church Is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic

811 "This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic."[sup]256[/sup] These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other,[sup]257[/sup] indicate essential features of the Church and her mission. The Church does not possess them of herself; it is Christ who, through the Holy Spirit, makes his Church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and it is he who calls her to realize each of these qualities.

812 Only faith can recognize that the Church possesses these properties from her divine source. But their historical manifestations are signs that also speak clearly to human reason. As the First Vatican Council noted, the "Church herself, with her marvelous propagation, eminent holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in everything good, her catholic unity and invincible stability, is a great and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefutable witness of her divine mission."[sup]258[/sup]

This one states there is no one else on earth greater than the Pope and his collage of Bishops.

The episcopal college and its head, the Pope. Please note 882 and 883

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."[sup]398[/sup] Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."[sup]399[/sup]

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.[sup]400[/sup] "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."[sup]401[/sup] This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."[sup]402[/sup] "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."[sup]403[/sup]

883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."[sup]404[/sup]

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."[sup]405[/sup] But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor."[sup]406[/sup]

885 "This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."[sup]407[/sup]

<a name="886">886 "The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches."[sup]408[/sup] As such, they "exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them,"[sup]409[/sup] assisted by priests and deacons. But, as a member of the episcopal college, each bishop shares in the concern for all the Churches.[sup]410[/sup] The bishops exercise this care first "by ruling well their own Churches as portions of the universal Church," and so contributing "to the welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which, from another point of view, is a corporate body of Churches."[sup]411[/sup] They extend it especially to the poor,[sup]412[/sup] to those persecuted for the faith, as well as to missionaries who are working throughout the world.

887 Neighboring particular Churches who share the same culture form ecclesiastical provinces or larger groupings called patriarchates or regions.[sup]413[/sup] The bishops of these groupings can meet in synods or provincial councils. "In a like fashion, the episcopal conferences at the present time are in a position to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegiate spirit."[sup]414[/sup]

 

[Selene]

Selene I know I believe you call it the baptismal of desire. You example will be the thief on the cross. The reason the one sacrament of the 7 is baptism. In holding with this requirement the RCC developed the baptism of desire. The thief on the cross could not be baptized after asking for the Lord to rember him. So If is in anyones power to be baptised before they die they must be baptized. If the choose not to the baptism of desire does not apply. These little exceptions to basic catholic presents are found every where with in the Catholicism, your Popes and Cardinals have had 1600 years to find answers and exceptions to all of the basic sacramental requirements. Thanks for mentioning it but If continue to site all the legal exceptions to every doctrine taught we will be here for perhaps years. You present these exemplary conditions as though Im not telling the truth or distorting the facts.

If you know about the baptism of desire, then why did you say that it is required for a person to receive all the sacraments in order to be saved? My brother, Moses, Abraham, and all the prophets were never baptized, but we believe that they have salvation. Baptism did not come until St. John the Baptist. However, because they believed in God our Father, do you honestly think that Abraham, Moses, and all the Prophets called by God are condemned to Hell? This is what we call a "baptism by desire." Baptism is a sacrament of faith. It is through their faith in God our Father that they have salvation. Baptism was not invented by man. It was actually ordered by God (See Matthew 21:25 and John 1:33).

One of the latest exemplary conditions put fourth by the RCC is married priest. If your a priest from another denomination and are married. You can convert to Catholic faith as a priest and stay married. Like I said for 1600 years the RCC has made exemplary clauses for hundreds of things, but recognizing the Pope and the other I mentioned above will probably never have an exception.

Now will you please dispense with the accusation "what you say here about Catholicism is false" If you don't I going to ask that we go to the catholic answers forum and post the question their. Then lets just see what the replies are. I you don't cool the accusations I'll both report you and go there myself and find a tread named "do you have to be baptized to be saved" Im more than certain there are dozens. If you would like to support your accusation I suggest you go there and post the link back here for everyone to see that catholic don't believe the sacrament of baptism is necessary. If you insist on arguing this point I'll do it myself so everyone can see for themselves that baptism is necessary for salvation according to the catholic Catholicism. Except when it impossible, unknown of, or mental impairment .then the baptism of desire kicks in.

Hammerstone has been trying to reign in the the tone of conversations here. If you continue to call me a lair with out evidence were going to butt heads. Now note your the one that started it and I have reminded you. I really don't understand why Catholics here get so upset about talking about what they believe. I can and have been speaking with respect and a civil tone lets keep it that way OK. I have not in any way misrepresent your faith. Like I said I'll start posting thread links here If I have to from the Catholic answers forum.

My...my...my...what a harsh tone you have. Something must surely be bothering you inside? What ails you, my brother? I was not accusing you of being a liar. I was correcting you. You did say that Catholic list is longer and they are required to be saved? This is false, and I am merely CORRECTING you with patience and kindness. According to CATHOLIC ANSWERS, this is what they stated and I included the website below:

The Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is so unshakable that even the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted" (Large Catechism 4:6).

Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through "baptism of blood," martyrdom for Christ, or through "baptism of desire", that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism.

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).

As the following passages from the works of the Church Fathers illustrate, Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood.

http://www.catholic...._of_Baptism.asp

In other words, people like Abraham, Moses, and all the Prophets who were called by God and who were never baptized have a baptism by desire or a baptism by blood because they had faith. And baptism is the sacrament of faith.