Why I Had To Apostatize

[Webers_Home]

-
Christianity's so-called Lord's Day is sometimes confused with Judaism's
weekly 7th day Sabbath; which is associated with creation. (Ex 20:8-11)

The Lord's Day is mentioned by name only once in the entire New Testament
at Rev 1:10. The Greek word for "Lord's" is kuriakos (koo-ree-ak-os') which
appears in only one other verse-- 1Cor 11:20 --where it refers to a Christian
ritual associated with Christ; which in turn is associated with the 1st day of
the week rather than the 7th. (Acts 20:7).

So we're probably pretty safe to assume that the Lord's Day should be on
Sunday seeing as how Judaism observes its 7th day Sabbath on Saturday

The Sabbath is mandatory for Yhvh's people because it's incorporated in a
covenant that they agreed upon with God.

†. Ex 31:13 . . Speak to the children of Israel, saying; You shall surely
observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your
generations, that you may know that I am Yhvh who sanctifies you.
Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you.

Yhvh's people are in breech of covenant whenever they fail to honor their
obligation to keep the sabbath; and thus incur severe covenanted penalties.

†. Ex 31:14 . .Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you.
Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any
work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.

Christ's believing followers are not covenanted with God to keep the
Sabbath; so then, for them, the it isn't a mandatory obligation; and the
penalties for breaking the Sabbath don't apply either because where there is
no covenant, there is no breech of covenant.

†. Rom 4:15 . .Where there is no law, neither is there violation.

†. Rom 5:13 . . Sin is not imputed when there is no law.

The exception is when Christ's believing followers are residents in the land of
Israel.

†. Ex 12:49 . .The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who
sojourns among you.

†. Lev 24:22 . .There shall be one standard for you: it shall be for the
stranger as well as the native

The Lord's Day didn't begin as a sort of Sabbath day; but merely a
conveniently designated day for Christ's believing followers to assemble
together for various purposes. Biblically, the Lord's Day is not a mandatory
observance; though according to the RCC it is: at least for Rome's followers
anyway.

CCC 2177 . . .The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is
at the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the paschal
mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed
as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church."

====================================

 

[epostle1]

-

†. 1John 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.

In order to "try" the spirits (whoever and/or whatever those spirits might be
in, whether thoughts, prophets, writings, clergy, or laymen) one must first
have access to an independent, non proprietary source of truth with which
all other instructional materials must comply. That in itself is an impossibility
for rank and file pew warmers because they depend entirely upon the
integrity of Rome's magisterium for the truth-- a magisterium composed of
human beings who, in reality, may be under the influence of the very spirits
whom Catholics are supposed to try; but have no independent, non
proprietary means to do so.

What I'm saying is this: if the magisterium itself is the unwitting pawn of
dark beings, then the rank and file are inadvertent puppets of the dark
beings through their trust in the integrity of Rome's magisterium; viz: a
Catholic is the perfect patsy because Rome has convinced the rank and file
that the clergy alone has the truth, and convinced them that, on their own,
they cannot find the truth without the clergy's help: a classic catch-22.

In the study of logic, that's called circular reasoning; viz: pointing to Rome's
own proprietary teachings to prove that it's right. That kind of evidence is
inadmissible in a court of law because it's like dismissing the charges against
a defendant simply by virtue of the fact that he says he didn't do it. In other
words: Catholics are confident Rome has the true interpretation of The Holy
Bible because Rome's teachings say it does. Thus the average pew warmer
is a naive child who renders an utterly thoughtless compliance to the string
pulls of an organization which the rank and file have absolutely no way to
validate except by taking its own word for it.

Wrong.
By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and Bishops. Christ promised to protect the teaching of the Church : "He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects you rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me" (Luke 10. 16). Now of course the promise of Christ cannot fail: hence when the Church presents some doctrine as definitive or final, it comes under this protection, it cannot be in error; in other words, it is infallible. This is true even if the Church does not use the solemn ceremony of definition. The day to day teaching of the Church throughout the world, when the Bishops are in union with each other and with the Pope, and present something as definitive, this is infallible. (Vatican II, Lumen gentium # 25). It was precisely by the use of that authority that Vatican I was able to define that the Pope alone, when speaking as such and making things definitive, is also infallible. Of course this infallibility covers also teaching on what morality requires, for that is needed for salvation.

A "theologian" who would claim he needs to be able to ignore the Magisterium in order to find the truth is strangely perverse: the teaching of the Magisterium is the prime, God-given means of finding the truth. Nor could he claim academic freedom lets him contradict the Church. In any field of knowledge, academic freedom belongs only to a properly qualified professor teaching in his own field. But one is not properly qualified if he does not use the correct method of working in his field, e.g., a science professor who would want to go back to medieval methods would be laughed off campus, not protected. Now in Catholic theology , the correct method is to study the sources of revelation, but then give the final word to the Church. He who does not follow that method is not a qualified Catholic theologian. Vatican II taught (Dei Verbum # 10): "The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."
By Rev. W. Most, EWTN
Catholics may read the Holy Bible on their own; but must interpret any
doctrines they derive from Scripture in accordance with Rome and with
Tradition.

What's wrong with that? It's ok for you to follow the traditions of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox and cherry pick from a legion of dissenting, conflicting "reformers", but it's not ok for Catholics to interpret from historical, authoritive and consistent parameters???

CCC 85 . .The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God,
whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to
the living teaching office of the Church alone.

Yea, it's in scripture and not only that, the Magisterium predates the canon of scripture. You will trip yourself up by taking the catechism out of context. American fundamentalists are most paranoid of the Magisterium because it is not a democracy. Neither was the Davidic Kingdom.

The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

To that rule, the rank and file might be inclined to retort: So what? Well; the
consequence of that "so what" attitude is the destruction of conscience and
integrity.

Dead wrong again.

1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:

Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.50
1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection:

Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.51
1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.

1781 Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God:

We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.52
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

[SIZE=14pt]PART THREE, LIFE IN CHRIST[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]SECTION ONE , MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]CHAPTER ONE, THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON[/SIZE]
ARTICLE 6
MORAL CONSCIENCE


First of all, the Catholic needs to learn good basic skills of Bible interpretation. I would recommend a book such as Making Senses Out of Scripture: Reading the Bible As the First Christians Did, by Mark Shea.

Once that is understood, so elementary errors in exegesis and hermeneutics are not committed, a reader so informed is able to learn on his own, pretty much, from Scripture. But the Catholic always has a boundary, beyond which he cannot go: Catholic dogma. The Catholic exegete should always seek to conform his opinion with that of the Church. So it isn't so much that the Church is saying: "You can't interpret Scripture on your own"
(as Protestant critics often caricature our approach).
Rather, it is saying: "don't become so independent that you interpret in a way that is contrary to Church dogma."
How Does the Individual Catholic Approach and Interpret Holy Scripture?

A famous social psychology experiment published in Stanley Milgram's
"Behavioral Study of Obedience", revealed that people are too easily
persuaded to compromise their integrity and suppress their own conscience
while under the supervision of a higher authority. The experiment was
performed with subjects who were under the impression that they were
giving increasingly higher doses of electricity in 15 volt increments, wired to
strangers in an adjoining room who answered questions incorrectly. The
registered voltage could go as high as 420, and the person receiving them
(who was of course just an actor playing a part in the experiment) would let
out increasingly agonized cries from the shocks.

Amazingly, the subjects throwing the switch would sometimes break into
tears from the stress of knowingly causing a stranger undeserved pain.
Others would be sweating, trembling, stuttering, or biting their lips, and
some even broke into uncontrollable nervous fits of psychotic laughter like
souls gone mad; but would still faithfully continue to administer what they
were led to believe was pain and near-causes of death from the electric
shocks jolting suffering people in the adjoining room failing to answer
questions correctly. And even when the actors protested the shocks because
of an existing heart condition, the electricity continued to flow because the
switch operators were told they would not be held accountable if somebody
should die during the experiment.

No, Weber_Home, the Magisterium doesn't shock people. There are lots of lapsed Catholics who pay no attention to the Church's teachings, and are free to do so. If they suffer the consequences of immoral decisions,
it's not the Church's fault, and
the Church is not imposing guilt. That is part of their sin. And
the Church is not shocking them, not even metaphorically.

When Nazi death camp guards were asked how they could, in all good
conscience, justify abusing and killing so many innocent men, women, and
children; they simply answered: You can't blame any of us for that; we
were only following orders.

It's beyond belief, but many of those very same German guards were
Christians who attended church on Sunday, sang the lovely hymns and
partook the Eucharist; then during the week, impaled newborn Jewish
infants-- thrown out of hospital windows --in midair on their bayonets.

There you have the typical Catholic mentality: "It is not for me to reason
why, it's only for me to faithfully comply." Thus many Catholics willingly
suppress their conscience, and surrender control of their sensitivities, their
reasoning, and their better judgment to the Borg-collective nerve center of a
Magisterium like all good little Catholic boys and girls are supposed to do.
And if The Magisterium is wrong? Well, so what? Can you really blame the
rank and file? After all; they were only doing their duty; and how could God
possibly condemn anybody for that?

You have a lot of anger. My guess is, you were spiritually abused as a child by some crazy Catholic family member and have been angry at the Church ever since. But it's been so long, the facts are obscured or obliterated and you are left with just the feelings.

3,000,000 Polish Catholics died in the holocaust, and numerous priests and nuns with them. Hitler made Lutheranism the state religion, but you never hear stupid associations of Nazism with Lutherans.


Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Melchizedek was a high priest of the Most High God in the book of Genesis
contemporary with Abraham. (Gen 14:18-20)

Mel, along with Abraham, existed prior to the covenanted law that Yhvh's
people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy. This is very important seeing as how according to Gal 3:17,
the covenanted law isn't retroactive.

†. Rom 4:15 . . Law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no
transgression.

†. Rom 5:13 . . Sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Christ's priesthood is patterned after Melchizedek's (Ps 110:4, Heb 5:5-6).
So then, seeing as how Melchizedek and his constituents-- which included
Abraham --were immune to the curses stipulated for breaking the
covenanted law, then Christ and his constituents are immune to the curses
too. In a nutshell: neither Christ nor his followers can be sent to hell for
breaking the Ten Commandments.

=========================

 

[epostle1]

-

Melchizedek was a high priest of the Most High God in the book of Genesis
contemporary with Abraham. (Gen 14:18-20)

Fine but you are leaving out some important truths.

Gen. 14:18 - this is the first time that the word "priest" is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.

Psalm 76:2 - Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.

Psalm 110:4 - this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.

Mel, along with Abraham, existed prior to the covenanted law that Yhvh's
people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy. This is very important seeing as how according to Gal 3:17,
the covenanted law isn't retroactive.

†. Rom 4:15 . . Law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no
transgression.

†. Rom 5:13 . . Sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Christ's priesthood is patterned after Melchizedek's (Ps 110:4, Heb 5:5-6).
So then, seeing as how Melchizedek and his constituents-- which included
Abraham --were immune to the curses stipulated for breaking the
covenanted law, then Christ and his constituents are immune to the curses
too. In a nutshell: neither Christ nor his followers can be sent to hell for
breaking the Ten Commandments.

=========================

Is this some form of hyper-Calvinism???

It's never too late to talk to a well qualified Christian counselor. Better still, man-up and see a priest about the truth of whatever pain/abandonment you may have experienced, and stop this displacing on the Catholic Church. From one old man to another old man: It's about time you grew up.

 

[Webers_Home]

-

Is this some form of hyper-Calvinism???

†. Heb 5:9-11 . . He became to all those who obey him the source of eternal
salvation, being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of
Melchizedek. Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain,
since you have become dull of hearing.

"dull" of hearing is not so much a physical impairment, nor a low IQ. The
problem is indifference. For example:

†. Heb 6:12 . . We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who
through faith and patience inherit what has been promised.

The Greek word for "lazy" in that passage is the very same word for "dull"
and it has reference to a lack of interest.

In other words: a serious study of the priesthood order of Melchizedek, and
as to how it relates to Christ, is not everyone's cup of tea. I daresay that the
average Joe-bloe rank and file pew warmer would rather talk around it
rather than actually get into the technical aspects of it-- the nuts and bolts;
so to speak --because it's not all that entertaining; hence it would be very
difficult, if not impossible, for them to stay alert and pay attention; let alone
absorb it.

==========================

 

[epostle1]

In a nutshell: neither Christ nor his followers can be sent to hell for
breaking the Ten Commandments.

Christ can't break any of the Ten Commandments since he is God, and his followers can choose to break the commandments or they/we would have no free will. Eternal security or once-saved-always-saved or imputed righteousness was never heard of for 1500 years and it's not in the Bible.

 

[epostle1]

-

†. Heb 5:9-11 . . He became to all those who obey him the source of eternal
salvation, being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of
Melchizedek. Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain,
since you have become dull of hearing.

"dull" of hearing is not so much a physical impairment, nor a low IQ. The
problem is indifference. For example:

†. Heb 6:12 . . We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who
through faith and patience inherit what has been promised.

The Greek word for "lazy" in that passage is the very same word for "dull"
and it has reference to a lack of interest.

In other words: a serious study of the priesthood order of Melchizedek, and
as to how it relates to Christ, is not everyone's cup of tea. I daresay that the
average Joe-bloe rank and file pew warmer would rather talk around it
rather than actually get into the technical aspects of it-- the nuts and bolts;
so to speak --because it's not all that entertaining; hence it would be very
difficult, if not impossible, for them to stay alert and pay attention; let alone
absorb it.

==========================

It is complicated but a summary might help.

Melchizedek possessed his priesthood not by virtue of his earthly mother or father, i.e., his ancestral heritage, (as did the Levites) but because of a mysterious, special relationship with God. In addition, whereas the sacrificial service of Levitical priests had “beginning of days” and “end of life,” i.e., from age 30 to 50, Melchizedek possessed his priesthood by nature, not appointed for a limited time. Thus, his priesthood was “forever,” which, in his case, meant his whole life. Jesus follows in the royal priestly line of Melchizedek and David (Mt. 1:1; 22:41-46), not Aaron’s Levitical priesthood. Jesus, too, possesses His priesthood by nature, by virtue of His special relationship with the Father. Through His death and Resurrection, Jesus becomes “the source of eternal salvation,” redeeming us from sin and perfecting our human nature (Heb. 5:9). He is thereby designated as a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:10).
read more here


The Eucharist as the Meal of Melchizedek
from a talk by Dr. Scott Hahn a very good read.

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Were you to ask John and Jane Doe pew-warmer if sinners are saved by
grace; they would probably answer YES, that is; if they've been properly
catechized. However, what they really mean is that grace makes it possible
for them to be saved by works; viz: in their minds; Christ's crucifixion
protects sinners from facing justice only if they prove themselves worthy of
it.

For example: Abraham proved himself worthy of being called God's friend,
and a believer in God's promises, by offering his son Isaac as a human
sacrifice.

†. Jas 2:21-24 . . Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he
offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with
his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was
fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as
righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God." See how a person is
justified by works and not by faith alone?

That passage in James' writings appears to contradict Paul's.

†. Rom 4:1-5 . .What then can we say that Abraham found, our ancestor
according to the flesh? Indeed, if Abraham was justified on the basis of his
works, he has reason to boast; but this was not so in the sight of God. For
what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to
him as righteousness." A worker's wage is credited not as a gift, but as
something due. But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who
justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.

†. Rom 5:6-10 . . For Christ, while we were still helpless, yet died at the
appointed time for the ungodly. Indeed, only with difficulty does one die for
a just person, though perhaps for a good person one might even find
courage to die. But God proves his love for us in that while we were still
sinners Christ died for us. How much more then, since we are now justified
by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath. Indeed, if, while
we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son,
how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life.

†. Eph 2:8-9 . . For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is
not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may
boast.

Poorly-trained pew warmers are often stumped by the seeming contradiction
between Paul and James; and it's usually because they're unaware that
some of the same words that they use are ambiguous.

Take for example the word "justification". It can mean acquitted of guilt,
and/or it can simply mean vindication. For example if you were accused of
being God's friend, and of believing His promises: would your actions prove
the accusations true? Well; Abraham's could; and did.

Another ambiguous word is "save".

†. Jas 2:14 . . What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but
does not have works? Can that faith save him?

A study of "salvation" throughout the Bible reveals that it doesn't eo ipso
pertain to hell and/or the wrath of God. Mostly it pertains to providence;
which can be roughly defined as the benefits of God's kindly patronage;
which plays out in preservation, support, guidance, and assistance, etc. The
Old Testament is loaded with stories of God's providence. Well; providence is
conditional. In other words: one's conduct has an effect upon the amount of
kindly patronage that God sends their way. For example:

†. Php 2:12-13 . . So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been,
not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work
out your salvation with fear and trembling. For God is the one who, for his
good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work.

The Philippian believers did not have to worry about hell. According to Php
1:1 and 1:6, they were already marked out for safety in heaven. And
besides, the Paul who penned Php 2:12-13 is the very same Paul who
penned Rom 4:1-5, Rom 5:6-1, and Eph 2:8-9. So in order to harmonize
his writings, we simply have to conclude that Php 2:12-13 is not talking
about hell and the wrath of God, but rather, about obtaining His providence.

======================================

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Q: I'm considering becoming a Catholic. What do you think?

A: I strongly advise that you do some homework first; viz: make very sure
you know what you're getting yourself into before taking the plunge.

CCC 1782 . . Man has the right to act in conscience, and in freedom, so as
personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to
his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his
conscience, especially in religious matters.

That paragraph from the catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges
everyone's rights and freedoms in regard to selecting a religion of their own
personal choice. However, be aware that once you join the Catholic Church,
you will be relinquishing those rights

You will be placed under the jurisdiction of Rome, which is a theocratic form
of government with Christ supposedly at its head; and you will be expected
to fully comply with everything in the Catechism, plus all of Rome's
traditions, and every Bull, every Holy Day of Obligation, every Encyclical plus
all of the Sermon On The Mount and everything taught in the epistles of
Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and John; along with every ruling of Rome's
Church Councils including Nicaea 1 & 2, Constantinople 1 & 2 & 3, Ephesus,
Chalcedon, Lateran 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5, Lyons 1 & 2, Vienne, Constance,
Florence, Trent, and Vaticans 1 & 2.

In addition, you will not be permitted to either interpret, or apply, the Holy
Bible's teachings sans hierarchy oversight.

CCC 85 . .The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God,
whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to
the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is
exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of
interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the
successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Rome will have the final say in all matters pertaining to your faith and
practices.

†. Matt 16:19 . .And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Those keys were not given to John and Jane Doe pew-warmer; they were
given exclusively to the hierarchy; therefore, insubordinate Catholics are
actually rebelling against the Christ whom Rome supposedly represents. It's
a domino effect all the way to the top.

†. Luke 10:16 . .Whoever listens to you; listens to me. Whoever rejects you;
rejects me. And whoever rejects me; rejects the one who sent me.

Insubordination merits punishment; even to the extent of excommunication.

†. Matt 18:17 . . If he refuses to listen even to the Church, treat him as you
would a pagan or one who collaborates with the enemy.

If a candidate for Roman Catholic membership is unsure that they can fully
comply with all that the Church demands, and all that the Church teaches
and stands for; then they might want to consider looking for a version of
Christianity that's a bit more accommodating: like maybe Christ's version.

†. Matt 11:28-30 . . Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I
will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek
and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves. For my yoke is
easy, and my burden light.

======================================

 

[epostle1]

-

Q: I'm considering becoming a Catholic. What do you think?

A: I strongly advise that you do some homework first; viz: make very sure
you know what you're getting yourself into before taking the plunge.

It takes from Sept. to Easter in RCIA classes, usually weekly classes. There are always exceptions. During this time a candidate can think it over and can quit at any time. There are no fees. There are on line home study courses but they do not replace the required in-person element. Here would be a good place to start, and it doesn't take long to realize that anti-Catholics are not telling the truth.

CC 1782 . . Man has the right to act in conscience, and in freedom, so as
personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to
his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his
conscience, especially in religious matters.

That paragraph from the catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges
everyone's rights and freedoms in regard to selecting a religion of their own
personal choice. However, be aware that once you join the Catholic Church,
you will be relinquishing those rights

That is a lie.
We've been over CC 1782 before. Can't you come up with a different paragraph to take out of context?
SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
CHAPTER ONE
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
ARTICLE 6
MORAL CONSCIENCE
Do you think the human person has no dignity and there is no such thing as moral conscience?

You will be placed under the jurisdiction of Rome, which is a theocratic form
of government with Christ supposedly at its head; and you will be expected
to fully comply with everything in the Catechism, plus all of Rome's
traditions, and every Bull, every Holy Day of Obligation, every Encyclical plus
all of the Sermon On The Mount and everything taught in the epistles of
Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and John; along with every ruling of Rome's
Church Councils including Nicaea 1 & 2, Constantinople 1 & 2 & 3, Ephesus,
Chalcedon, Lateran 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5, Lyons 1 & 2, Vienne, Constance,
Florence, Trent, and Vaticans 1 & 2.

In addition, you will not be permitted to either interpret, or apply, the Holy
Bible's teachings sans hierarchy oversight.

Another lie.

CCC 85 . .The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God,
whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to
the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is
exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of
interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the
successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

No context. Here it is.

[SIZE=14pt]PART ONE[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]THE PROFESSION OF FAITH[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]SECTION ONE
"I BELIEVE" - "WE BELIEVE"[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]CHAPTER TWO
GOD COMES TO MEET MAN[/SIZE]
ARTICLE 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

======================================


There is, in the Catholic vision of reality, a profound understanding of the impenetration of matter by grace which we call the Incarnational principle. The Incarnation of God the Son as Jesus Christ is the bedrock which underlies the Christian vision of the relationship between God and man. In assuming a human nature, God demonstrates at once that creation, including human nature, is not only good but is capable of being further elevated through the impenetration of the Divine life.

This is the basis of the entire sacramental system, which uses outward (material) signs to transmit to us a share of God’s life, from the initiation of the believer’s journey in Baptism to its conclusion in Anointing of the Sick. It is the basis of the Church, a visible society which itself serves as a living connection between God and man, a sort of meta-sacrament for the transmission and embodiment of grace. It is even the basis for all of society, which begins with a proper understanding of matrimony, which St. Paul tells us is a model for the relationship of Christ and the Church. For in matrimony a man and a woman join in a profound sanctifying union of both body and spirit, a union which is both faithful and fecund, generating new life.

This understanding of the goodness of creation, of matter, of humanity and of human joys and aspirations—and the lesson that this goodness is designed to be further filled, animated and elevated by the love of God—is so central to God’s plan that Christianity begins and ends with it. It begins with God’s self-emptying of glory as He takes on human flesh and it ends in the Resurrection of the glorified Christ, who henceforth forever retains His identity as man.

It ought to be obvious to just about everybody that no other religion incorporates this particular (and particularly profound) understanding of the relationship of nature to nature’s God. Every human philosophy inevitably makes too much of nature or too little, and sometimes both at once, as in modern secularism which sees nature as all and so ignores that to which it points. What may be surprising, however, is that even among Christians those who have doctrinally fallen away from Rome have largely lost the unique and special wholeness of this Christian vision. Thus, from its beginning, Protestantism has been preoccupied with what it regards as the depravity of human nature, its radical incapacity for goodness, its reliance on grace as on something which supplants man’s nature rather than penetrates it.

Here we find the cause of Protestantism’s inability to understand the importance of works to salvation, which led Luther to revise Scripture and declare the letter of St. James to be apocryphal. Here also we have the root of Calvin’s notion that some are predestined for heaven and others for hell by nothing but the arbitrary will of God. Nor are we surprised to find Protestant sects which have outlawed the celebration of Christmas itself, distrusting the human values and human joy which Christmas both represents and fulfills. Indeed, from the point of view of nature, Protestantism must be described as a very thin, a very incomplete religion.

By contrast, Catholicism flowers in nature, transforming and elevating not only man himself but man’s culture. The astonishing achievements of Catholic culture over two millennia—in art and literature, sculpture and architecture, education and government, work and play, fast and feast—are one and all rooted in the Incarnational principle. The sense that the human body is itself a repository of grace, a temple of the Holy Spirit, fosters a unique Catholic mode of being in which the mind and spirit are never alone, never cut off. Rather man worships God in his body, and carries all of nature beyond itself in the quest to fulfill the very end of religion, which is for all creation to give glory to God.

Not in the abstract, then, is Catholic salvation worked out, but in the concrete; not in the general, but in the particular. The Catholic vision is not one of being “attached” to Christ, but of “putting on” Christ (Gal 3:27), not one of merely receiving an external gift, but of living the Christ life deep within—so that I live, no not I, but Christ lives in me (Gal 2:20). Each virtue is cultivated, each habit transformed and elevated, each relationship purified, each work ennobled. And the power for this continuous transformation is nourished—no, actually ingested—and formed into community through the Eucharist, the Word quite literally made Flesh, the Body and Blood really and actually present, not in figure or even in grace alone, but in its very substance.

Every Catholic is called to a life-long process of incorporating (I choose the word advisedly) his whole self, body and soul, into Christ, and not only his self but his loves, his labors, his own small creations, and the entire world over which he has been given dominion. This project, in which no detail is neglected or flattened, and no element lost or discarded, is unique to Catholicism. As I have said, it is a project rooted in the Incarnational principle. But even the Incarnational principle is not so much explained as demonstrated, not so much taught as lived. It was lived first by Christ Himself, born of Mary and protected by Joseph, in Bethlehem, in a stable, in a manger—and so at length in us.

By Dr. Jeff Mirus

Webers_Home, do you wish to remain in rebellion to the Incarnation principle?

 

[Webers_Home]

-

It takes from Sept. to Easter in RCIA classes, usually weekly classes.

I strongly advise against intelligent inquirers taking that route; but instead
urge them to consult non Catholic, independent sources of information about
the religion of Roman Catholicism. In spiritual matters pertaining to heaven
and hell; one cannot be too cautious considering the potentially grave
consequences for choosing unwisely.

============================================

 

[epostle1]

-

I strongly advise against intelligent inquirers taking that route; but instead
urge them to consult non Catholic, independent sources of information about
the religion of Roman Catholicism. In spiritual matters pertaining to heaven
and hell; one cannot be too cautious considering the potentially grave
consequences for choosing unwisely.

============================================

That would be like going to the Ku Klux Klan for information about Black History Month

 

[Webers_Home]

-

That would be like going to the Ku Klux Klan for information about Black
History Month

It's more like tasking the FBI to investigate the Klan rather than trusting the
Klan to investigate itself.

Come on now kepha31, face up to reality. The Church's conduct, past and
present, has easily demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to be honest
about itself. Seeking the truth about Catholicism from the Church is about as
reliable as seeking the truth about North Korea from Kim Jong Un.

============================================

 

[epostle1]

I can face reality; I am well aware of the Church's conduct over the centuries, I just don't accept your irrational hatred of the Church which is most likely based on childhood traumas. More than one Pope, on more than one occasion, has made apologies for the sins of crazy Catholics of the past, so your claim that the Church cannot be honest is dishonest in itself. At the same time, even with corrupt popes, the Church has never taught an error. The only thing you can do is twist and distort what the Church teaches, and you have done this constantly on this thread. I have never seen a Protestant leader (if there is such a thing) make apologies for the sins of their spiritual ancestors. It's 2015, not 1517 and holding current Christians of all faiths accountable for what happened 100's of years ago is just plain stupid. If you want a rock throwing contest, I can give you one, but for what? Put away your toys of vengeance and grow up.

 

[epostle1]

-
Q: I'm considering becoming a Catholic. What do you think?

A: I strongly advise that you do some homework first; viz: make very sure
you know what you're getting yourself into before taking the plunge.

CCC 1782 . . Man has the right to act in conscience, and in freedom, so as
personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to
his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his
conscience, especially in religious matters.

That paragraph from the catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges
everyone's rights and freedoms in regard to selecting a religion of their own
personal choice. However, be aware that once you join the Catholic Church,
you will be relinquishing those rights

You will be placed under the jurisdiction of Rome, which is a theocratic form
of government with Christ supposedly at its head; and you will be expected
to fully comply with everything in the Catechism, plus all of Rome's
traditions, and every Bull, every Holy Day of Obligation, every Encyclical plus
all of the Sermon On The Mount and everything taught in the epistles of
Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and John; along with every ruling of Rome's
Church Councils including Nicaea 1 & 2, Constantinople 1 & 2 & 3, Ephesus,
Chalcedon, Lateran 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5, Lyons 1 & 2, Vienne, Constance,
Florence, Trent, and Vaticans 1 & 2.

In addition, you will not be permitted to either interpret, or apply, the Holy
Bible's teachings sans hierarchy oversight.

CCC 85 . .The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God,
whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to
the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is
exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of
interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the
successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Rome will have the final say in all matters pertaining to your faith and
practices.

†. Matt 16:19 . .And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Those keys were not given to John and Jane Doe pew-warmer; they were
given exclusively to the hierarchy; therefore, insubordinate Catholics are
actually rebelling against the Christ whom Rome supposedly represents. It's
a domino effect all the way to the top.

†. Luke 10:16 . .Whoever listens to you; listens to me. Whoever rejects you;
rejects me. And whoever rejects me; rejects the one who sent me.

Insubordination merits punishment; even to the extent of excommunication.

†. Matt 18:17 . . If he refuses to listen even to the Church, treat him as you
would a pagan or one who collaborates with the enemy.

If a candidate for Roman Catholic membership is unsure that they can fully
comply with all that the Church demands, and all that the Church teaches
and stands for; then they might want to consider looking for a version of
Christianity that's a bit more accommodating: like maybe Christ's version.

†. Matt 11:28-30 . . Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I
will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek
and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves. For my yoke is
easy, and my burden light.

======================================

What a load of horse muffins.

No, the Church does not prohibit individuals from reading the Scriptures and coming to their own conclusions. It teaches that the faithful are prohibited from interpreting scripture “contrary to that sense which holy mother Church…hath held and doth hold” (Trent, Session 4, “Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of the Sacred Books”). Obviously, the faithful can interpret scripture. If we couldn’t, there would be no Catholic apologists. We interpret scripture all the time, especially when refuting heretical ideas that some claim scripture supports.

As for whether the Church is correct, I invite Weber_Home to use his common sense. If scripture teaches the Church has the charism of infallibility (cf. Mt 16:18; Ac 15; 1Tm 3:15), and if some part of scripture were to contradict the Church, then not only would the Church be in error, scripture would be as well, since scripture cannot contradict scripture.

Regarding the Bereans, they were simply checking Paul’s new revelation that Jesus was the Messiah with the Old Testament teaching on the Messiah, not deriving the teaching that Jesus would be the Messiah from the Old Testament, since that would be impossible (the Old Testament never identifies the Messiah as “Jesus”). Moreover, scripture served as a common authoritative basis through which Paul could reason with those in the synagogue. Even though Paul had authority and spoke equally inspired oral tradition to that of scripture (2 Th 2:15), the Bereans would not have come to such conclusion until Paul made his case through arguing from scripture, the thing in which both camps believed to be inspired.

In fact, the case of the Bereans is almost no different than a Catholic commending a Protestant for searching scripture to see if what we say about scripture is true. But of course, that doesn’t mean Catholics believe scripture is the sole or final authority.
gleaned from this site

Anti-Catholics when quoting from the catechism, ignore the instructions found in it on how to read the catechism.

How To Read the Catechism
read more here

 

[Webers_Home]

-

If you want a rock throwing contest, I can give you one

Recriminations are futile. They'll do nothing to mitigate Rome's guilt nor
excuse its conduct. Rome is what it is and God doesn't grade on a curve.
Recriminations are nothing more than a chicken's way of dragging people
down with them so they don't go down alone.

the Church has never taught an error

You're a Catholic claiming that Catholicism contains no errors. (chuckle)
That's sort of like a defendant expecting the judge to release him on account
of his saying he didn't do it.

======================================

 

[epostle1]

-

Recriminations are futile. They'll do nothing to mitigate Rome's guilt nor
excuse its conduct. Rome is what it is and God doesn't grade on a curve.
Recriminations are nothing more than a chicken's way of dragging people
down with them so they don't go down alone.



You're a Catholic claiming that Catholicism contains no errors. (chuckle)
That's sort of like a defendant expecting the judge to release him on account
of his saying he didn't do it.

======================================

Catholicism has no doctrinal errors. Twisting them to suit your agenda is immoral.

 

[Webers_Home]

-
†. Eph 1:13-14 . . In him you also trusted, after you heard the word of
truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were
sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our
inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession

According to CCC 1317, the seal is an imprinted spiritual mark or indelible
character on the believer's soul. However, according to the syntax of the
passage above, the seal isn't a mark or a character at all, but rather, it's a
person: the promised Holy Spirit.

The koiné Greek word for "guarantee" is arrhabon (ar-hrab-ohn') which
means: a pledge; which Webster's defines as: (1) security for a debt or
other obligation, and (2) something given as security for the performance of
an act.

An excellent example of a pledge is located at Gen 38:15-18. Judah left his
staff and his signet with a women whom he assumed to be a temple
prostitute to guarantee his promise to pay her with an animal from his
flocks. According to the rules of a pledge, had Judah reneged on his promise,
the woman would have legal right to keep his personal items in lieu of the
animal. This is exactly how quite a few pawn shops conduct their short-term
loan business even to this day.

So then, since the Holy Spirit is God's pledge in Eph 1:13-14; then,
according to the principles underlying pledges, if God should renege on His
promise to spare people who hear and believe the gospel, then He has to
forfeit His own Spirit, and the believer gets to keep it, regardless of their
eternal destiny.

Since it would be very embarrassing for God to renege, and even more
embarrassing to send somebody to hell accompanied by His spirit, then I'm
sure you can see right off that once God commits; He will certainly follow
through.

†. Phlp 1:6 . . Being confident of this, that He who began a good work in you
will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

†. John 5:24 . . I assure you; those who listen to my message, and believe
in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for
their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

Webster's defines "never" as not ever, at no time, not in any degree, not
under any condition

Some folk are apparently of the opinion that Christ's Father has a problem
with integrity. Not me. I believe that God's pledge, like His word, is His
bond; viz: I have every right to detain God's spirit in custody until God
makes good on His promise to pull me through to safety.

Another application of the arrhabon pledge is commonly seen in real estate
transactions.

As anybody who's ever bought property knows, earnest money isn't a down
payment; no, far from it. Although it may be applied towards the purchase
price of property, earnest money itself serves a specific purpose of its own in
the real estate business. In some quarters; this is also called good faith
money.

When the contract, and all the other necessary documents are submitted to
Escrow, the buyer is required to also submit a token amount of the purchase
price. It's usually a relatively small number of dollars compared to the full
price of the property. I think ours was just $1,000 back in 1988 on a
$74,000 home. When the buyer follows through on their intent to purchase
the property, the good faith money (minus some Escrow fees of course)
goes towards the purchase. However, if the buyer loses interest in the
property and decides to renege, then they forfeit the good faith money. No
doubt that's done to discourage vacillating buyers from fiddling around
with other people's time and money.

So then, since God's spirit is the Escrow deposit depicted in Eph 1:13-14;
then, according to the principles underlying good faith deposits, if God
should renege on His promise to spare people who hear and believe the
gospel, then He forfeits; and the believer gets to keep the Holy Spirit
regardless of their eternal destiny.

There are people who actually believe the Bible's God can get away with
reneging on His promises. A belief of that nature of course eo ipso insinuates
that the Bible's God is capable of dishonesty and can't be trusted to make
good on anything He says.

======================================

 

[epostle1]

CCC 1317 is one of 7 brief summaries of the section on the Sacrament of Confirmation, which you can't possibly accept, since you have no valid bishops.

ARTICLE 2
THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION

Acts 8:14-17 - the people of Samaria were baptized in Christ, but did not receive the fullness of the Spirit until they were confirmed by the elders. Confirmation is a sacrament that Jesus Christ instituted within His Catholic Church to further strengthen those who have reached adulthood.

Acts 19:5-6 - the people of Ephesus were baptized in Christ, but Paul laid hands on them to seal them with the Holy Spirit. This sealing refers to the sacrament of confirmation.

Eph. 1:13 - Paul writes that the baptized Ephesians were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, in reference to confirmation.

Eph. 4:30 - Paul says the Ephesians were sealed in the Holy Spirit of God, in reference to the sealing of confirmation.

Heb. 6:2 - Paul gives instruction to the Hebrews about the laying on of hands, in reference to confirmation, not ordination. The early Church laid hands upon the confirmand to administer the sacrament of confirmation.

Heb. 6:2 - this verse also refers to the cycle of life and its relationship to the sacraments - baptism, confirmation, death and judgment - which apply to all people.

John 6:27 - Jesus says the Father has set His seal on Him. As the Father sets His seal on Jesus, so Jesus sets His seal on us on the sacrament of baptism, and later, in the sacrament of confirmation.

Rev. 9:4 - the locusts could not harm those with the seal of God upon their foreheads. See also Rev. 14:1 and 22:4.

"And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God."
Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, I:12 (A.D. 181) .

http://scripturecatholic.com/confirmation.html

How Can Confirmation be a Sacrament Since the Word 'Confirmation' is Not in the Bible?
Isn't the Practice of Confirmation an Invention of the Catholic Church?
Does Confirmation Cause the Imparting of the Holy Spirit?
Why Were Early Confirmations Accompanied by Extraordinary Occurrences (e.g. Speaking in Tongues, Prophecy)?

 

[epostle1]

Shock video: Violent mob of topless pro-abort feminists assaults praying men, tries to burn Cathedral
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/violent-mob-of-pro-abort-feminists-tries-to-burn-down-cathedral-attacks-pra

Webers_Home, you would never stand with a violent mob of topless feminists, but your motive is no different.