Christian Forums

"Convinced"

Convinced Movie Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JblwFtu4jn4#ws)

Check out the "Convinced" project:

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/convinced (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/convinced)

Thanks Andre for the link . It is encouraging to know that such projects are coming more to the fore .

As to the question " Why would anyone become Catholic? " the Blessed John Henry Newman , whose feast is kept today , said that to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant .

The following is a reflection on Blessed John Henry Newman from ICN for today :-

" Blessed John Henry Newman was a priest, theologian, writer and preacher. His life spanned most of the 19th century. He was an Anglican for the first half of his life and became a Catholic in the second half.

Born in London in 1801,  Newman studied at Oxford's Trinity College, was a tutor at Oriel College and for 17 years was vicar of the university church, St Mary the Virgin. He  published eight volumes of Parochial and Plain Sermons as well as two novels. His poem, the Dream of Gerontius,  was set to music by Sir Edward Elgar.

After 1833, Newman was a prominent member of the Oxford Movement, which emphasized the Church's debt to the Church Fathers and challenged any tendency to consider truth as completely subjective.

Historical research made Newman suspect that the Roman Catholic Church was in closest continuity with the Church that Jesus established. In 1845, he was received into full communion as a Catholic. Two years later he was ordained a Catholic priest in Rome and joined the Congregation of the Oratory, founded three centuries earlier by St Philip Neri. Returning to England, Newman founded Oratory houses in Birmingham and London and for seven years served as rector of the Catholic University of Ireland.

Before Newman, Catholic theology tended to ignore history, preferring instead to draw deductions from first principles. After Newman, the lived experience of believers was recognized as a key part of theological reflection.

Newman eventually wrote 40 books and 21,000 letters that survive. Most famous are his book-length Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, Apologia Pro Vita Sua (his spiritual autobiography up to 1864) and Essay on the Grammar of Assent. He accepted Vatican I's teaching on papal infallibility while noting its limits, which many people who favored that definition were reluctant to do.

When Newman was named a cardinal in 1879, he took as his motto 'Cor ad cor loquitur' (Heart speaks to heart). Newman died in 1890. He was buried in Rednal (near Birmingham) 11 years later. After his grave was exhumed in 2008, a new tomb was prepared at the Oratory church in Birmingham.

Pope Benedict XVI beatified Newman on 19 September 19, 2010, at Crofton Park, near Birmingham. The Pope noted Newman's emphasis on the vital place of revealed religion in civilized society but also praised his pastoral zeal for the sick, the poor, the bereaved and those in prison. "

Cardinal Newman Beatification on Sept. 19, 2010 , a blessed day for the Church in England .
Cardinal Newman Beatification on Sept. 19, 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ULvXL1FYmg#)

Ask Fr. Barron: To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant? and secular?
Ask Fr. Barron: To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant? and secular? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGyf-eqngSE#ws)

The initial video was nothing but a feel good fluff Catholic peace. That's okay. It is your section of the site, after all.

More interesting, I think, was the quote from John Henry Newman, "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." I will say that I agree and disagree. Much of Protestantism embraces "faith alone." Much of Protestantism believes in the impossibility of apostasy. Neither are tenable positions, in my opinion, from scripture, and certainly not from the writings of the early Christian writers.

Protestantism, however, is not monolithic, and I would suggest that "to be deep in history" does not support Catholicism either. I believe Catholic soteriology is more historically and scripturally accurate than mainstream Protestantism, but many of the Catholic accretions are not to be found in early Christian writings. I just don't see the institutional Catholic Church as being the one true church from getting deep into history. I don't condemn all Catholics as "unsaved," as some Protestants do. But I don't see papal succession, Mariology, purgatory, celibacy of priests, and other doctrines as being either scriptural or as being supported in the early history of the church.

As you are aware, no doubt, those hosting this site are part of the Restoration Movement. It was an Enlightenment movement, and relied upon inductive reasoning. As a result, it wasn't driven so much by a theological starting point against Catholicism as by adopting positions that accounted for all the evidence - a scientific / inductive approach. Therefore, we look at baptism, discipleship, and obedience differently than most Protestants. We don't rely upon institutional allegiance, but allegiance to Christ. We don't rely upon some one time faith experience, but we rely upon a life in relationship to our Lord and Savior. We view the church as all the saved, not an institution. Those in Acts 2 who believed that Jesus is Lord, repented, and were baptized were added to the number of the saved. If the Catholic Church believes otherwise, then I'll choose to believe God rather than men.

I don't know why any one would "become" a Catholic.  I certainly wouldn't.  I understand to a point those who were raised from infancy in that church being Catholic. But, I do not see it for someone who reads and understands the Bible as an adult.  I am not someone who believes that all Catholics are "unsaved".  But, I do see almost all of the practices as unbiblical.  Not pertinent for salvation, if you will. 

I know that most Catholics are sincere in what they believe concerning purgatory, being the one true church, Mary, communion, papal infallibility, or papal succession.  But, I believe they are sincerely wrong.

I know they believe we are wrong about things too. 

I also believe that anyone, Catholic or Protestant who is truly a believer, has history all the way back to Jesus.  If you practice what He taught and do what He says to do, you belong to Him.  But, I just would not choose to be a Catholic. 

Well said, Kensington, but you would be surprised at how many devout Catholics question the points that you mentioned: purgatory, being the one true church, Mary, communion, papal infallibility, or papal succession.

As you implied, many people are of the religious faith followed by one or both of their parents, which is due to random chance.

Well, kensington, if you watched the video, now you know!  Isn't that wonderful!

I chose to become Catholic and I find that all of those things you question are in perfect harmony with the Gospel and the Bible and they really show us more concerning the nature of God than perhaps you are used to.

Well said Catholica!

After being raised in the Church of the Nazarene, Assembly of God and a brief stint in the Church of Christ; I seriously considered changing to Catholicism. 

I knew people who felt a call to change in that way.  CCM artist and guitarist/banjoinst extraordinare' John Michael Talbot was inspired to leave his family's traditional Baptist church for the RCC.  His brother Terry is still devout Baptist.

To me it would have to be a matter of God's individual call.  I ended up in Messianic Judaism because that was where my call led.

I have only ever known people to come of the R Catholic church. I cant see any reason at all to go the other way.

: chosenone  Tue Oct 14, 2014 - 13:58:50
I have only ever known people to come of the R Catholic church. I cant see any reason at all to go the other way.

The best reason is that the Catholic faith is true.  It is not easy, it is not convenient, it may even seem crazy when seen from a secular point of view.  But one big reason to become Catholic is that the Catholic faith is true.  This video testifies to many people attesting to that very thing.

The other reason is, being true, it is a sure guide for living "The Way" that is Jesus, and through the Eucharist we have "The Life".  The Catholic Church, being founded by Jesus, radiates Jesus who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, WHEN people are faithful to the teachings of the Church and the life of the Church.

 ::smile::Hi, I am a "protestor" for Luther's and Calvin's and my own Bible study reasons, BUT :
I can certainly see how one can become disillusioned by the lack of church discipline in many/most? of the Protestant churches today and by the continual/perpetual division and sub-division and sub-sub-division of the body of Christ which is spitting Jesus our Creator, Savior, Lord, and Sustainer in His face and shoving the crown of thorns deep into His eyes and adding another piece of sharp, jagged bone or glass to that cat-o-nine tails and hammering those nails one more time. If you doubt that then read His prayer to the Father as He prepared to leave His disciples and all believers behind. One of His strongly felt burdens which he repeatedly beseeched the Father over was UNITY of all believers (John ch17).

I think that in realizing that every believer and receiver in/of the power of the blood of Jesus Christ, God the Son, IS endowed with the capacity through the Holy Spirit to receive direct, divine inspiration, we open up the potential for that power to be misused, misunderstood, and counterfeited by those who are weak, immature, or ambitious in their faith. And maybe that is OK IF there is the establishment of a strict and universal/ecumenical board/committee/whatever group to maintain accountability to at least the basic/fundamental principals of Christianity found in God's Holy Word. But now that there exists such a vast divide among Protestants today I don't see the potential needed for such cooperation and agreement; and satan smiles thinking to himself-divide and conquer.

I am not too familiar with the added doctrine of the Catholic church but I know enough; such as Jesus our Lord and Redeemer has been, in effect, dethroned from being what God's Holy Word calls our ONLY Mediator between God and man and that they have added an inordinate amount of focus upon the humble and lowly virgin, Mary, to the point of worshiping her and that they worship a multiplicity of icons instead of our one and only Lord. As I see it, they still believe in the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ though, don't they? All of this other stuff certainly constitutes significant hurdles and obstacles to their growth and maturation and empowering by the Holy Spirit, but aren't they still saved if they believe and confess with their mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord? I ask this because I am FED UP with the lack of church discipline in the Protestant church and the resulting weak, worldly, Spiritually lethargic, and  chaotic mes it is becoming.

: Sailingflutist  Tue Oct 14, 2014 - 18:22:56
::smile::Hi, I am a "protestor" for Luther's and Calvin's and my own Bible study reasons, BUT :
I can certainly see how one can become disillusioned by the lack of church discipline in many/most? of the Protestant churches today and by the continual/perpetual division and sub-division and sub-sub-division of the body of Christ which is spitting Jesus our Creator, Savior, Lord, and Sustainer in His face and shoving the crown of thorns deep into His eyes and adding another piece of sharp, jagged bone or glass to that cat-o-nine tails and hammering those nails one more time. If you doubt that then read His prayer to the Father as He prepared to leave His disciples and all believers behind. One of His strongly felt burdens which he repeatedly beseeched the Father over was UNITY of all believers (John ch17).

I think that in realizing that every believer and receiver in/of the power of the blood of Jesus Christ, God the Son, IS endowed with the capacity through the Holy Spirit to receive direct, divine inspiration, we open up the potential for that power to be misused, misunderstood, and counterfeited by those who are weak, immature, or ambitious in their faith. And maybe that is OK IF there is the establishment of a strict and universal/ecumenical board/committee/whatever group to maintain accountability to at least the basic/fundamental principals of Christianity found in God's Holy Word. But now that there exists such a vast divide among Protestants today I don't see the potential needed for such cooperation and agreement; and satan smiles thinking to himself-divide and conquer.

I am not too familiar with the added doctrine of the Catholic church but I know enough; such as Jesus our Lord and Redeemer has been, in effect, dethroned from being what God's Holy Word calls our ONLY Mediator between God and man and that they have added an inordinate amount of focus upon the humble and lowly virgin, Mary, to the point of worshiping her and that they worship a multiplicity of icons instead of our one and only Lord. As I see it, they still believe in the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ though, don't they? All of this other stuff certainly constitutes significant hurdles and obstacles to their growth and maturation and empowering by the Holy Spirit, but aren't they still saved if they believe and confess with their mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord? I ask this because I am FED UP with the lack of church discipline in the Protestant church and the resulting weak, worldly, Spiritually lethargic, and  chaotic mes it is becoming.

I would respectfully suggest that you try other churches. Where I live there are loads of good and godly churches full of those who love God and who have also have great pastors whose desire is to see people saved.  Even though I am in the UK, a pretty secular nation, within about 5 miles I can think of 8 or 9 such churches.

: Sailingflutist  Tue Oct 14, 2014 - 18:22:56
::smile::Hi, I am a "protestor" for Luther's and Calvin's and my own Bible study reasons, BUT :
I can certainly see how one can become disillusioned by the lack of church discipline in many/most? of the Protestant churches today and by the continual/perpetual division and sub-division and sub-sub-division of the body of Christ which is spitting Jesus our Creator, Savior, Lord, and Sustainer in His face and shoving the crown of thorns deep into His eyes and adding another piece of sharp, jagged bone or glass to that cat-o-nine tails and hammering those nails one more time. If you doubt that then read His prayer to the Father as He prepared to leave His disciples and all believers behind. One of His strongly felt burdens which he repeatedly beseeched the Father over was UNITY of all believers (John ch17).

I think that in realizing that every believer and receiver in/of the power of the blood of Jesus Christ, God the Son, IS endowed with the capacity through the Holy Spirit to receive direct, divine inspiration, we open up the potential for that power to be misused, misunderstood, and counterfeited by those who are weak, immature, or ambitious in their faith. And maybe that is OK IF there is the establishment of a strict and universal/ecumenical board/committee/whatever group to maintain accountability to at least the basic/fundamental principals of Christianity found in God's Holy Word. But now that there exists such a vast divide among Protestants today I don't see the potential needed for such cooperation and agreement; and satan smiles thinking to himself-divide and conquer.

I am not too familiar with the added doctrine of the Catholic church but I know enough; such as Jesus our Lord and Redeemer has been, in effect, dethroned from being what God's Holy Word calls our ONLY Mediator between God and man and that they have added an inordinate amount of focus upon the humble and lowly virgin, Mary, to the point of worshiping her and that they worship a multiplicity of icons instead of our one and only Lord. As I see it, they still believe in the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ though, don't they? All of this other stuff certainly constitutes significant hurdles and obstacles to their growth and maturation and empowering by the Holy Spirit, but aren't they still saved if they believe and confess with their mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord? I ask this because I am FED UP with the lack of church discipline in the Protestant church and the resulting weak, worldly, Spiritually lethargic, and  chaotic mes it is becoming.

Hi Sailingflutist,

It is nice to meet you.  I think what you say will resonate with a lot of people.  There are many people like you who are seeking for something stable and greater than themselves.  And I believe that this feeling deep inside is the work of the Holy Spirit.  We have the words of scripture to remind us of the house that is built on the rock that will not be swept away by the storms that will surely come.  I think we all desire inside to live in that house, but many are like you who look out and see rather shifting sands.  And also many are like you who seek a greater calling in their life, as you say, spiritual discipline.  You shouldn't ignore these movements that you have felt inside, they resonate with the Gospel.

As for the Catholic faith, though it is too much here to explain, I can tell you that there are real stable theological reasons for these beliefs we have that some people call "accretions".  Many of the people in the video that I posted also held that view.  Many of them were (and are) brilliant Bible scholars.  Scott Hahn, Jeff Cavins, Francis Beckwith, these were men of the word even before they became Catholics, and still are.  They know full well these doctrines some call "accretions".  But yet they are able to understand them, and not only accept them (with all their biblical study) but also proclaim them to others with full sincerity.

It's like what Regenerus said in that trailer, "Their explanations are better than I thought they would have".  And another said (paraphrasing) that 'every person with intellectual honesty owes it to himself to learn about the Catholic faith'. 

Just as it is not really that great of an idea to try to understand what science teaches from a non-scientist, it is not a good idea to really understand what the Catholic Church teaches from a non-Catholic.  Let knowledgeable Catholics teach you themselves.  Some people, such as chosenone, want to drive you away based upon their own biases and misunderstandings.  As long as they have this attitude they will never try to understand what that thing they are against is really about.  You have to know the heart of something before the peripherals make any sense, and those who disdain the Catholic faith almost always focus on peripherals without seeing the heart.

I'd encourage you to be true to those movements you feel in your heart and at least explore the Catholic faith.  I can tell you that the Catholic faith I have found not only to be quite true, but also very stable and spiritually challenging.  But I can only witness from my experience; I encourage you to at least see if what I say carries weight in your soul.

You want to do what God wants you to do, and so do I.  So at least pray about it to God and He will lead you where you are to go.

God Bless,

Andre

: Catholica  Tue Oct 14, 2014 - 08:50:01
Well, kensington, if you watched the video, now you know!  Isn't that wonderful!

I chose to become Catholic and I find that all of those things you question are in perfect harmony with the Gospel and the Bible and they really show us more concerning the nature of God than perhaps you are used to.

and you previously posted on here that you became a Catholic in order to marry your wife.  I've known a number of people who have done that.   You joined a religious denom for worldly gain.

things like purgatory, worshipping/praying to Mary, praying to the dead, not going to Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin, placing the RC/pope on the level of Christ are not in the Bible. 
No where does the Bible instruct one to read the RC catechism for further rules, regs, information.  Christians are not bound by the law.  It was not replaced by those from the RCC/CCC.

: skeeter  Wed Oct 15, 2014 - 09:50:15
and you previously posted on here that you became a Catholic in order to marry your wife.  ...  You joined a religious denom for worldly gain.

"Worldly gain?" Really?  Does that square with this verse?

Proverbs 18:22  He who finds a wife finds a good thing And obtains favor from the Lord.

: skeeter  Wed Oct 15, 2014 - 09:50:15

: Catholica  Tue Oct 14, 2014 - 08:50:01
Well, kensington, if you watched the video, now you know!  Isn't that wonderful!

I chose to become Catholic and I find that all of those things you question are in perfect harmony with the Gospel and the Bible and they really show us more concerning the nature of God than perhaps you are used to.

and you previously posted on here that you became a Catholic in order to marry your wife.  I've known a number of people who have done that.   You joined a religious denom for worldly gain.

I did become Catholic to marry my wife.  But I joined out of love for a human person, not for worldly gain.  There is nothing worldly about sacramental marriage.

It wasn't until later when I really needed God in my life that I came to find what so many people have already found, and that is that the Catholic Church teaches the truth of the Gospel, unadultered.  I remain Catholic having come to realize the truth of the faith. 

And it wasn't until I was seeking God that there were even divisions in Christianity.  The more I sought to learn about the Catholic faith the more I found it to be true and others to be missing something, which only strengthened my convictions that the Catholic Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth spoken of in the Bible.

Here is the testimony of another person who asked himself this same question:

http://calvin2catholic.com/?p=308 (http://calvin2catholic.com/?p=308)

Why Would Anyone Want to be Catholic?

I heard from a woman last week who watched a PBS documentary on the Vatican. The show was little more than a sensationalistic "hit piece," meant to defame the Church as much as possible. Propaganda, pure and simple. But it was effective propaganda. After watching, the woman asked me, "Who, on earth, would ever want to be Catholic?"

Well, me, for one. I joined the Church at the height of the media frenzy over abusive clergy. I had my eyes wide open and I can say honestly that the scandal did not deter me from becoming Catholic.  And I am not alone. I know countless men and women who have made an honest investigation of the Church's claims and have embraced them even in the face of a non-stop media assault on the integrity of Catholicism.

The reasons are really not that hard to understand. The Church is not a cult of personality. When I became Catholic, I was not committing myself to the integrity of this or that Catholic leader. I was joining myself to a communion of saints and sinners that extends backwards in time to the Church's foundation and forward to the end of time. It encompasses all the faithful joined to Christ, living and dead. In heaven, purgatory, and on earth. When I became Catholic, I knew that in some ways I was shaking hands with St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) or St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226) more than with some abusive priest in Boston.  Ultimately, I was seeking to join myself to Christ. For as St. Gregory of Nyssa said, "He who beholds the Church really beholds Christ."

Since the late 1980s, more and more Protestant clergy, leaders, and intellectuals have embraced the Catholic Church. This is something the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus predicted in his book The Catholic Moment: the Paradox of the Church in the Postmodern World. (1990) Neuhaus saw clearly that only the Catholic Church had the intellectual, cultural, and spiritual resources necessary to confront the challenges of the twenty-first century. Writer Joseph Bottum has explored how this has played out since Neuhaus, how Catholic ideas and influence have come to dominate religious discourse in the public sphere. (See his new book An Anxious Age: the Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America.) Historian Philip Jenkins explains that anti-Catholicism has become the last acceptable prejudice precisely because Catholicism represents the leading opponent to secularism, relativism, and atheism. (See his book The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice.)

This last point is worth emphasizing. One reason for the all-out media frenzy against the Church is that the Church represents the most articulate, well-reasoned, thoughtful response to the errors of atheism and relativism. This is not to deny that Catholics have done things deserving censure. But the sins of Catholics do not merit the disproportionate attention they receive in the media. Can you imagine the public outcry that would result if PBS published a hit piece on the sins of ..... ?  (Fill in the blank with the name of any politically-protected constituency.)  No, the Catholic Church remains a target because she reserves the right to speak with boldness to the whole of man's existence, and she does so with a loud voice.

Even within the world of Protestant thought and culture, more and more leaders have come to realize that they must rely on the leadership and spiritual patrimony of Catholicism in order to confront the contemporary crisis. Protestant historian and theologian Mark Noll believes that contemporary Protestantism is impoverished, and sees at least a selective return to Catholic tradition as the answer. In an article for First Things, Noll writes:

Whenever evangelicals in recent years have been moved to admonish themselves and other evangelicals for weaknesses in ecclesiology, tradition, the intellectual life, sacraments, theology of culture, aesthetics, philosophical theology, or historical consciousness, the result has almost always been selective appreciation for elements of the Catholic tradition.

Catholicism offers a profound tradition of moral reasoning, a visible and audible Magisterium that can speak this tradition to the world, a sacramental holiness that transcends the merits or failings of any individual, and the witness of two-thousand years of saints and martyrs. There is nothing like it anywhere.

I don't expect all Catholics to be perfect. (I'm sure not.) But the Church expects me to be perfectible. I didn't join the Church because Catholics are all sinless, but in order to get rid of my sins. Oscar Wilde once said that the Catholic Church is "for saints and sinners alone – for respectable people, the Anglican Church will do."  Today, the Church may not be respectable in the eyes of the world. It certainly is not respectable to PBS. But to millions of us converts, it offers things far more valuable: the truth about our origin and destiny in God, and a credible claim to deliver that destiny.  Through the Church we have received grace – faith, hope, and charity through Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Marriage in it's self is not spiritual.  Many a worldly marriage has there been.  What makes a marriage spiritual is that BOTH are believers when it happens. 

God being in the marriage to begin with is what makes it a Christian marriage.   That said, many a person has come to the Lord through their spouse already being a Christian. 

I too have seen people who joined churches or religions to please another human being.  And for many other reasons.  My bil joined the Catholic church because his wife said he could get a Harley Davidson.  Sadly. He sought an annulment from his first wife because my FIL would not pay for their wedding unless it was in the CC.  Sadly.
He did it all for the Love of someone. My sil walks around as though her marriage is more sanctified in the Lord than other marriages are. Which speaks of what the bondage of religion can do to peoples lives.

: kensington  Wed Oct 15, 2014 - 23:51:00
Marriage in it's self is not spiritual.  Many a worldly marriage has there been.  What makes a marriage spiritual is that BOTH are believers when it happens. 

Sacramental marriage, which is what I said in my post, is definitely spiritual, when validly entered into.  Only baptized persons can have a sacramental marriage.  That is Catholic teaching.

: kensington  Wed Oct 15, 2014 - 23:51:00
God being in the marriage to begin with is what makes it a Christian marriage.   That said, many a person has come to the Lord through their spouse already being a Christian. 

A natural marriage can be made sacramental (supernatural) once both persons are baptized.  That is how I would phrase what you just said in Catholic speak.

: kensington  Wed Oct 15, 2014 - 23:51:00
I too have seen people who joined churches or religions to please another human being.  And for many other reasons.  My bil joined the Catholic church because his wife said he could get a Harley Davidson.  Sadly. He sought an annulment from his first wife because my FIL would not pay for their wedding unless it was in the CC.  Sadly.

If that was truly why your brother in law joined the Catholic church, then that was wrong on his wife's part.   They could have gotten married in a Catholic Church even if he didn't become Catholic; they just couldn't have had a Catholic mass at the wedding. 

Even if your Father in law hadn't said that he wouldn't pay for the wedding, he still would have had to seek an annulment from his first wife to be married to his current wife, because Jesus does not recognize divorce, and neither does the Catholic Church.  The annulment was to examine the first marriage to see if it was valid.  If it had been valid, then he could not have married his now wife.  Period.  They would not be married in the eyes of God, and every sexual act they would have done would have been an act of adultery.  So says the scriptures.  And there is nothing "sad" about it.  It is joyous that people can know with certainty whether or not their marriage was valid in the eyes of God.  No one wants to be united by God in a one flesh union with someone who he calls his "wife". 

: kensington  Wed Oct 15, 2014 - 23:51:00
He did it all for the Love of someone. My sil walks around as though her marriage is more sanctified in the Lord than other marriages are. Which speaks of what the bondage of religion can do to peoples lives.

You don't believe that sacramental (supernatural) marriage is more sanctified in the Lord than natural marriages?  Maybe you are speaking about how she speaks about your marriage, which, since your husband was Catholic, is invalid in the eyes of the Church (who has the power to bind and loose) if it was held outside a Catholic Church without the permission of the bishop.  Perhaps that is why you say she "walks around as though her marriage is more sanctified in the Lord"?

Well, the truth is, (and you may find this shocking)...  My husband and I were BOTH born again believers when we got married. Neither of them were, they were just Catholic (Or she was) he was not. He did not join until years later.  We were married by a man of God, a Chaplain in the US Navy. I find NO scripture that implies her marriage is more in God than mine is.  Because there isn't one.

But, yes she has said these things to me, "your marriage isn't sanctified"..  and "If you joined the CC you marriage would be sanctified"... By whom?  My husband and I both walk with the Lord, and they lived together, he divorced his wife, and then annulled her, they smoke pot, drank beer daily.  He married his high school sweetheart, and they had two children together.  They were separated when he went out to the bars with his friend and met my sil.  She was living alone with her child she had out of wedlock.  He moved in with her that night and never went home.  And she has the nerve to call my marriage "not sanctified"?...  She never even read her own Bible until I stood up to her, backing my stance with the Word of God... she set off to prove me wrong, got a bible and started reading.  It's been 28+ years she has not come back with any "Proof". 

  I do not and never did need the CC to recognize my marriage.  My husband does not need them to approve.  She is working on her 2nd Miserable marriage, her first husband died, she married the dad of the baby she conceived out of wedlock this time...  and she (they) are miserable.  She doesn't even have affection for him.  He also joined the CC church so they could marry in the church... and does not believe. 

So, you tell me which one of us is the "Believer"?  Which marriage is sanctified by God? 

: kensington  Thu Oct 16, 2014 - 14:31:16
Well, the truth is, (and you may find this shocking)...  My husband and I were BOTH born again believers when we got married. Neither of them were, they were just Catholic (Or she was) he was not. He did not join until years later.  We were married by a man of God, a Chaplain in the US Navy. I find NO scripture that implies her marriage is more in God than mine is.  Because there isn't one.

You were both born again, but not because of some arbitrary judgment on your part, but because you were baptized.  She was also born again because she was baptized.  If he was baptized, then he was born again.

It doesn't actually matter who marries you.  The ministers of the sacrament are the husband and wife themselves.  However to protect the form of the sacrament, Catholics are either required to be married in a Catholic Church by a priest, or to receive dispensation from the bishop to be married elsewhere.  Your husband is a Catholic, and so he is bound to the law of the Church that he was a part of.  I assume from what your sister said that he didn't pursue permission from his bishop to be married by that Chaplain.

Laws such as these are part of scripture, indirectly.  They follow under the Church's power to bind and loose.  The Church has the power to bind that your husband needed to either get married in a Catholic Church in the witness of the Priest or receive a dispensation, and apparently he did not, making your marriage invalid. 

If your husband would ever want to divorce you he could have your marriage annulled, for reason of improper canonical form.  More than likely, your sister in law's marriage is valid and cannot be annulled.  She is operating under the sacrament of grace, and divorce is not possible, so she must take up her cross and bear her sufferings now, and through uniting those sufferings to Jesus' own, it will help save her husband.

: kensington  Thu Oct 16, 2014 - 14:31:16
But, yes she has said these things to me, "your marriage isn't sanctified"..  and "If you joined the CC you marriage would be sanctified"... By whom?

By God because you would be operating according to His established order.

: kensington  Thu Oct 16, 2014 - 14:31:16
My husband and I both walk with the Lord, and they lived together, he divorced his wife, and then annulled her, they smoke pot, drank beer daily.  He married his high school sweetheart, and they had two children together.  They were separated when he went out to the bars with his friend and met my sil.  She was living alone with her child she had out of wedlock.

I suppose that you think your sins are so much less bad?  All his sins that you mention were washed away when he was baptized.  Hers are washed away by Jesus through the Sacrament of Confession.  God doesn't remember them any more, but for some reason you do.

If he received an annulment then he was never married, in the eyes of God, to his first "wife" in the first place.  So the "divorce" was only the end of a civil contract which has no bearing before God.  The Church declared the marriage "null"; he didn't "annul his wife."

: kensington  Thu Oct 16, 2014 - 14:31:16
He moved in with her that night and never went home.  And she has the never to call my marriage "not sanctified"...  She never even read her own Bible until I stood up to her, backing my stance with the Word of God... she set off to prove me wrong, got a bible and started reading.  It's been 28+ years she has not come back with any "Proof". 

We are sanctified by God's work, not our own.  Marriage is not a civil contract between two people who consider themselves born again because they think they are so holy.  Marriage is a spiritual and real one-flesh union made so by God by two people who have been born again through baptism and married in accord with the order that God has established.

: kensington  Thu Oct 16, 2014 - 14:31:16
I do not and never did need the CC to recognize my marriage.  My husband does not need them to approve.

Yes, actually, he did need the permission of his bishop.  Because the bishop has the power to bind and loose granted by God.  If you had married someone who was not a Catholic, or to a Catholic who received dispensation or to a Catholic in a Catholic Church, then you wouldn't need any permission and your marriage would be valid.  It can still be made valid though, but you have to go to the Church.  Otherwise, in the eyes of God, your husband and you are committing fornication.  And you are the ones having children out of wedlock (or had, depending).  But your ignorance of this order, if it is ignorance and not simply defiance, reduces your culpability for your sins regarding marriage.

: kensington  Thu Oct 16, 2014 - 14:31:16
She is working on her 2nd Miserable marriage, her first husband died, she married the dad of the baby she conceived out of wedlock this time...  and she (they) are miserable.  She doesn't even have affection for him.  He also joined the CC church so they could marry in the church... and does not believe. 

So, you tell me which one of us is the "Believer"?  Which marriage is sanctified by God?

A person whose spouse dies is free to marry.  If they are miserable, it is because they are suffering because of their sin AND unwilling to accept that suffering.  You don't need affection to make a marriage, you can love someone without having affection for them.  If he does not believe, then that is a big problem for both of them and a source of much suffering.  She would be less miserable if she were to suffer willingly and offer those sufferings up to God for the continued conversion of her husband.  I'd love to talk to her sometime, I think that I could really help her.

As to which marriage was sanctified by God, if I had to judge by the evidence you gave me, I would say that hers is.  Being sanctified doesn't exempt a person from suffering.  In fact, God offers us suffering so that we can be made perfect.  Evidence of suffering is better evidence of God's work than non-suffering.

Oh malarkey...  We were saved before we got Baptized.  And the rest of that Catholic gobbldy goop is marlarky too.   

Her marriage where no one prays or worships or even tells the truth is more sanctified by God because a religion signed off on it?  That is not scriptural at all.  And your saying her marriage is more sanctified does not make it so.  That is ridiculous to say the least.  God's word and His blessings are for those who "BELIEVE".  Not those who do what their religion says.  The standard for relationships, marriage, and be a believer is the WORD OF GOD. 

My husband did not need a Bishops permission to marry me.  We do not seek approval of the CC.  He left that and renounced it.  He has never once desired to go back and be a part of it or seek anyone's approval for his life.  He served as Protestant Layleader for the NAVY four different commands.  He walks uprightly with God.  THAT is what a BELIEVER does.  We are THE CHURCH.  And we have the authority to bind and loose things, given by God.  My husband is NOT a Catholic.  He is not bound by anything He himself did not choose. Salvation and faith are personal choices that we must all make for ourselves.  He heard the truth and believed. Then was baptized later. 

Did YOU choose to join the Catholic Church?  Then, HE could choose to leave it and not be a catholic.   Don't even go there.  Unless, you can PROVE it by THE WORD OF GOD. 

I don't hold her sins against her... But I do remember that she persecuted me and still does.  I remember that a hypocrite hurt and persecuted me. A mind cannot just shut off pain purposely caused by someone else.  I don't believe God makes her suffer, I believe that her choices brought that on. She walks in her own wisdom rather than to seek God first.  We all know that will bring disappointment and pain.  You cannot claim to be a Christian and live willy nilly with out God being involved and then blame him when it hurts.  You cannot live without God daily in your life and then expect Him to just show up at your wedding. It does not work that way.  What good is confession if you do not intend to change when you come out?  (Hebrews 10:26-31).

Marriage is a covenant, and that is what we have.  I can clearly see the difference.  Not that I seek to, but because the evidence is there for all to see.  We are not blind. God granted us eyesight on such matters.  We line them up with the word of God and see for ourselves.  That is what we are told to do.  Like it or not, I do get to speak to the things that have been done and have affected my life. It is my witness.  Read Paul...  he does indeed put his life experiences in what he says.  If it affects no one but me, then I can still speak to it.  If it has caused me to cling more to the word of God and to hold on tighter to my God... So be it.  If God allowed it all for my perfecting, then I am all the better for it. 

However, there has been no repentance of the things done and said to me, and occasionally they still happen.  I will always forgive her, but I am not dumb enough to forget these things done to me in the name of Religion by her. That would be foolish. Instead, I keep them in remembrance to always be prayed up, knowing what the enemy is trying to use her for.  Peace.

: Catholica  Thu Oct 16, 2014 - 14:54:04

: kensington  Thu Oct 16, 2014 - 14:31:16
I do not and never did need the CC to recognize my marriage.  My husband does not need them to approve. 

Yes, actually, he did need the permission of his bishop.  Because the bishop has the power to bind and loose granted by God.  If you had married someone who was not a Catholic, or to a Catholic who received dispensation or to a Catholic in a Catholic Church, then you wouldn't need any permission and your marriage would be valid.  It can still be made valid though, but you have to go to the Church.  Otherwise, in the eyes of God, your husband and you are committing fornication.  And you are the ones having children out of wedlock (or had, depending).  But your ignorance of this order, if it is ignorance and not simply defiance, reduces your culpability for your sins regarding marriage. 

such arrogance! Where does God tell us we need the permission of the RC?  or your RC bishop? He  doesn't.  That's made up by the RC - and many blindly follow it instead of God's word.
The RCC would be the last place I'd look for approval to marry anyone.  Or approval for anything else.  Or guidance for anything.

"Yes, actually, he did need the permission of his bishop.  Because the bishop has the power to bind and loose granted by God.  If you had married someone who was not a Catholic, or to a Catholic who received dispensation or to a Catholic in a Catholic Church, then you wouldn't need any permission and your marriage would be valid.  It can still be made valid though, but you have to go to the Church.  Otherwise, in the eyes of God, your husband and you are committing fornication.  And you are the ones having children out of wedlock (or had, depending).  But your ignorance of this order, if it is ignorance and not simply defiance, reduces your culpability for your sins regarding marriage."

Please prove this by the Word of God...  not by any catechism that is the made up doctrine of man and has almost nothing to do with Loving God and being His child.  This is what is wrong with Catholicism over all and has been through the centuries.  Men who do not live Godly lives at all from the bottom to the top... all the way to and including the Pope sit in judgment of those who seek to honor God and live according to His word. 

It's laughable actually that anyone would even say what you did...  Catholics world wide are living in adulterous marriages, fornication abounds in "living together" situations, drunks, and even homosexuals cross themselves when they bless their food and they think that means they have "arrived" and these same hypocrites, deem a marriage of two believers walking with God daily for their whole marriage as "committing fornication".   

I believe God is sadden by such things.  Calling my children bastards and implying that I must be ignorant for believing in God but not being catholic.  That is just twisted.  My marriage is more valid than most catholics I have ever met. They walk as hypocrites to their own religion and also have the nerve to spew such blatant lies.  They do not even realize that in their blindness to their religion, they offend and send more believers away than they win. 

My husband has heard the things you have said before... and of course his sister has tried to imply such things also.. and been invited to leave our home. But, he also went to a priest that he knew while serving as layleader, concerning these things you and she say, and he was told... "These people hinder the Gospel of Jesus Christ".   She does, you do, every single arrogant catholic that tries to shovel that manure does. 

Kensington said: "I do not and never did need the CC to recognize my marriage.  My husband does not need them to approve."

Amen! I went back to the Catholic church after being away from it for many years, only to leave once again after being told that my marriage isn't valid because my wife and I weren't married in the Catholic church as we were both cradle Catholics and this time I will not be looking back. Being told that we are fornicating because we refuse to live as brother and sister. No where in the Bible does it say one must be married in the Catholic church, or that sex is reserved only for those who are married in the Catholic church.

I have attended a Lutheran church a couple times now and really enjoy the services and best of all, our marriage is valid even if we weren't married in a Lutheran church.

: lonegreywolf20  Thu Oct 16, 2014 - 16:55:01
Kensington said: "I do not and never did need the CC to recognize my marriage.  My husband does not need them to approve."

Amen! I went back to the Catholic church after being away from it for many years, only to leave once again after being told that my marriage isn't valid because my wife and I weren't married in the Catholic church as we were both cradle Catholics and this time I will not be looking back.

I have attended a Lutheran church a couple times now and really enjoy the services and best of all, our marriage is valid even if we weren't married in a Lutheran church.

Unblievable. If we are legally married according to the country we live in,  then we are married full stop. It doesnt matter whether that took place in a church, a field, a hotel, a garden or anywhere else, as long as it was legal. After all God is everywhere.   

We all have that power to bind and lose.

lonegreywolf20,

    My husband was baptized as an infant by his mother's choice...  But, she never lived a godly life in her home nor was she a faithful catholic. No prayers, no Bible, no mass does he remember growing up.  For anyone today to say he is bound to her choice for him, thought she has never lived it out is ridiculous.  She too has left the Catholic church.  She got saved at our church years ago and is now a Methodist/Assembly of God. She attends both denoms. Has for 20 years. His other sister too, got saved and left the CC years ago.  She is a godly woman, a true blessing to all. 

" My husband was baptized as an infant by his mother's choice..."

This is what happened with me as well. I went through the sacraments up to confirmation because that is what my family wanted and what I thought I had to do in order to make them happy. My whole family is still Catholic.

"But, she never lived a godly life in her home nor was she a faithful catholic. No prayers, no Bible, no mass does he remember growing up."

Same with me. I went to mass, but I went with my grandparents as my grandfather was an usher for the church and became captain of the ushers. My grandmother was active in a women's group for the church. They didn't read their Bible though and only prayed at holiday dinners.

I too do not believe that I should be held to being a Catholic because of a choice that was made for me by my family.

I was baptised as an anglican, but I dont go to anglican churches and was baptised by full immersion when I was old enough to make my own decision.

 

: kensingtonWe do not seek approval of the CC.  He left that and renounced it.

: lonegreywolf20Kensington said: "I do not and never did need the CC to recognize my marriage.  My husband does not need them to approve."

Amen! I went back to the Catholic church after being away from it for many years, only to leave once again after being told that my marriage isn't valid because my wife and I weren't married in the Catholic church as we were both cradle Catholics and this time I will not be looking back. Being told that we are fornicating because we refuse to live as brother and sister. No where in the Bible does it say one must be married in the Catholic church, or that sex is reserved only for those who are married in the Catholic church.

You join the Catholic Church by a formal process.

You can leave the Catholic Church by a formal process. If you choose not to do that then as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, you are still a member and bound by its rules.

: winsome  Fri Oct 17, 2014 - 07:56:49

: kensingtonWe do not seek approval of the CC.  He left that and renounced it.

: lonegreywolf20Kensington said: "I do not and never did need the CC to recognize my marriage.  My husband does not need them to approve."

Amen! I went back to the Catholic church after being away from it for many years, only to leave once again after being told that my marriage isn't valid because my wife and I weren't married in the Catholic church as we were both cradle Catholics and this time I will not be looking back. Being told that we are fornicating because we refuse to live as brother and sister. No where in the Bible does it say one must be married in the Catholic church, or that sex is reserved only for those who are married in the Catholic church.

You join the Catholic Church by a formal process.

You can leave the Catholic Church by a formal process. If you choose not to do that then as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, you are still a member and bound by its rules.

Does the CC have signatures from all of those 'baptized' babies/little kids showing they joined? That wouldn't even matter to me but it should to those who do consider themselves to be Catholic.  The CC keeps those names on the 'rolls'  to pad their numbers.  Whenever someone posts the # of Catholics they claim to have I just cut the # in half and figure they just might have that 'half #'.  Even then you have to deduct for all the dead Catholics...

That we are still members and bound by their  'rules' is just something they've made up and drilled into you (Catholics) over and over - and you believe them. 
Sort of a version of OSAS isn't it? OCAC?  Do you believe in OSAS? There's no scripture supporting the  CC let alone OCAC.

Another great video, looking at the writings of Paul as a Realization of how he sees the faith as a convert.  Surprisingly applicable to this subject.

Scott Hahn on the Realization as Catholic Converts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUAn7o9hLFU#)

winsome said, "You join the Catholic Church by a formal process.

You can leave the Catholic Church by a formal process. If you choose not to do that then as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, you are still a member and bound by its rules."

That is no longer true. There is no longer a formal process to leave the church. The Catholic church has decided that you can no longer decide to no longer be Catholic, and that once Catholic always Catholic in their eyes.

I renounced the Catholic church to God and I believe he accepted my renouncement.

Here is the related document about no longer being about to formally defect from the Catholic church.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_en.html (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_en.html)

Well, there is freedom of Religion in the United states.  And you don't need permission. The Catholic church is in violation of the 1st Amendment of the United States.

My husband did NOT join the church.  He was baptized by his mother and father, forced to go to go through the process of 1st Communion and Confirmation... and when he reached an age of choice, he left.  He chose to exercise his 1st Amendment right and leave the church he did not join by his own volition.  No church can deny him his 1st amendment right of "Freedom of Religion".  No government and no religion. Sorry...  That's how the law goes.

He is not a Catholic.  He will never be a Catholic.  We do still have freedom of religion in American, right? 

: lonewolfwinsome said, "You join the Catholic Church by a formal process.

You can leave the Catholic Church by a formal process. If you choose not to do that then as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, you are still a member and bound by its rules."

That is no longer true. There is no longer a formal process to leave the church. The Catholic church has decided that you can no longer decide to no longer be Catholic, and that once Catholic always Catholic in their eyes.

I renounced the Catholic church to God and I believe he accepted my renouncement.

Here is the related document about no longer being about to formally defect from the Catholic church.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_en.html

Hi lonegreywolf,

Interesting, but not quite what you claim. It would appear to be specifically directed to Marriage (which admittedly is what is being doiscussed here)..

Actually, defecting from the church is still recognized.  Even if it's not done by formal process.

"Although the act of "formal defection" from the Catholic Church has thus been abolished, public or "notorious" (in the canonical sense)[13] defection from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church is of course possible, as is expressly recognized in the Code of Canon Law.[14] Even defection that is not known publicly is subject to the automatic spiritual penalty of excommunication laid down in canon 1364 of the Code of Canon Law."

It appears even the church recognizes that my husband has left.

winsome said, "Interesting, but not quite what you claim. It would appear to be specifically directed to Marriage (which admittedly is what is being doiscussed here).."

My mistake, I was told by a priest when I tried to defect that there is no way to defect anymore and pointed me to that document.

Either way, I no longer consider myself Catholic. If others want to be Catholic, that is there choice, but as for my wife and I, we no longer consider ourselves Catholic.

winsome said, "Interesting, but not quite what you claim. It would appear to be specifically directed to Marriage (which admittedly is what is being doiscussed here).."

My mistake, I was told by a priest when I tried to defect that there is no way to defect anymore and pointed me to that document.

Either way, I no longer consider myself Catholic. If others want to be Catholic, that is there choice, but as for my wife and I,we no longer consider ourselves Catholic.

Therein lies the rub...  because what winsome and Catholica are trying to say is that you do not have a choice.  You cannot undo being a Catholic, they are saying that the Catholic Church has the right to take away your first amendment right of Freedom of Religion.  It's quite funny, but that is what they are trying to say.

kensington said, "My husband did NOT join the church.  He was baptized by his mother and father, forced to go to go through the process of 1st Communion and Confirmation... and when he reached an age of choice, he left."

Again, sounds like me. I finally made the choice not only because of the marriage issue, but also because of the contraception issue. I will be getting a vasectomy in the near future as my wife and I will have our second child come February. With her multiple sclerosis continuing to progress and her disability ion relation to the illness progressing, we are making the choice based on her health which is at risk if she were to get pregnant again. This second pregnancy has been very hard on her, even though it can cause the MS to go into remission for the duration of the pregnancy, that hasn't happened with this pregnancy. After she gives birth, the likely hood of her having another relapse is extremely high.

The Catholic church believes that in cases of where medically a pregnancy is not a good idea, you must abstain. We take issue with that since sex is not only for procreation, nor does it say anywhere in the Bible to abstain from sex the rest of your life (unless not physically capable of having sex, which neither my wife or I are not). It says only for a time, and to come back together. The Catholic doctrine of abstaining for medical reasons even if it's for the rest of your life doesn't coincide with scripture.

kensington said, "Therein lies the rub...  because what winsome and Catholica are trying to say is that you do not have a choice.  You cannot undo being a Catholic, they are saying that the Catholic Church has the right to take away your first amendment right of Freedom of Religion.  It's quite funny, but that is what they are trying to say."

Which is rubbish. We all have a choice. You can choose a denomination or no denomination without God saying that your are now sinning because you aren't in the Catholic church. I can renounce my affiliation with the Catholic church if I so choose where I am no longer Catholic.

Any church that believes it has the power to say to someone they are once and always one particular denomination is overstepping their bounds and quite frankly on God's toes.

Well, Lonegreywolf20...   as you well know, many of the teachings of the CC do not coincide with scripture.  Not even close. 

I believe that you have to pray and trust God, make the choices that are best for you and your wife based on your situation.  Give it to God, not the church to make your choices.  If your burden is all you can carry, you are the one who knows. 

You know your limits.  Not some council sitting around in robes, molesting boys, and taking money from the masses.  The sins of the CC go very deep.  And the mistreatment of their members is of the least of their worries.  God will judge the church first, and I have no doubt, a bunch of Catholic Hierarchy will be standing there when he does. 

God Bless.

: lonegreywolf20  Fri Oct 17, 2014 - 15:32:45
My mistake, I was told by a priest when I tried to defect that there is no way to defect anymore and pointed me to that document.

no surprise he directed you to incorrect support docs.  Most support scripture I get from Catholics has little or nothing to do with the topic.  Most often it's 1 verse taken out of context.

When I was growing up it was OCAC - no way out.  That's what I/we hear most often from Catholics today also.  You are Catholic whether you like it or not  -  you're Catholic by force...  guess they use that to justify their numbers.  Don't know who they think they're fooling tho - except Catholics.  They aren't fooling anyone who has been saved.

: kensington  Fri Oct 17, 2014 - 15:27:58
... defection from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church is of course possible, as is expressly recognized in the Code of Canon Law.[14] Even defection that is not known publicly is subject to the automatic spiritual penalty of excommunication laid down in canon 1364 of the Code of Canon Law."

Christ does  away with the OT Law and the RC makes their own to replace it? I guess they don't think God knew what He was doing.

Skeeter, I do believe that most of what the CC does is fashioned after the Old Testament.  God gave grace and released us from the Old Testament Law and they have put in back into place for their members.  It really does have shades of the OT... along with Idolatry.  If you ask me.  My husband left the religion a long time ago, but he can go down each practice and denounce it with the word of God.  He has taught me and our kids so much. 

kensington.

What does it matter to you what the Catholic Church thinks? You obviously have no intention of taking any notice of it.

The SDA consider I am bound for hell if I don't observe the Saturday Sabbath.  That's doesn't concern me. I will dispute it with them but I don't throw a hissy fit about it and start ranting about the 1st amendment.

If you aren't bothered then why bother?

And that' my final comment on the matter.

Winsome I was conversing with others who posted in this topic either directly or indirectly to my comments or comments made to me.  The only hissy fit I see here is yours.  I don't even think I spoke directly to you.  So why does it bother you?  Pot calling the kettle black perhaps? 

Why would someone become a catholic?  I would also add why would some become a Protestant? What we need hear is a change of vision. A paradigm shift in the way we see the church. No denoms and no hierarchical orders, but a  people . A people who love and live for Christ. Will this perspective ever come to fruit. Probably not until Jesus comes. There is hope though for a few, but it will take a radical move upon the one who sees the church as it is in Babylon. One must fearlessly walk away from it to walk with Christ alone. Almost as it was when Abraham was told to leave the idolatrous land he was in to journey out to find the great city who's builder and maker is God.

Woe there, Mike we cant do that I am attached to my down home church. What would my friends say. What my family think? What would my pastor think?.  Where would I find fellowship?

What we need to see is how Babylon effects the church Protestant and Catholic orthodox and you name it.
The day will come when Babylon will be judged. Rev 18 calls the lords people to come out or her. What does this call mean to the church today?    How is my church in Babylon. How am I in Babylon? One would have to give considerable thought to this since we do not know the day or the hour of his return?  Think on it. Do we believe or do we just pretend? I have often wondered.

: kensington  Fri Oct 17, 2014 - 15:38:32
winsome said, "Interesting, but not quite what you claim. It would appear to be specifically directed to Marriage (which admittedly is what is being doiscussed here).."

My mistake, I was told by a priest when I tried to defect that there is no way to defect anymore and pointed me to that document.

Either way, I no longer consider myself Catholic. If others want to be Catholic, that is there choice, but as for my wife and I,we no longer consider ourselves Catholic.

Therein lies the rub...  because what winsome and Catholica are trying to say is that you do not have a choice.  You cannot undo being a Catholic, they are saying that the Catholic Church has the right to take away your first amendment right of Freedom of Religion.  It's quite funny, but that is what they are trying to say.

Neither Winsome nor I have said any such thing, nor does the Catholic Church teach or practice that. 

Or maybe you can quote a post and call us out.  Otherwise you are just more evidence to all that being such a vehement opponent of the Church, that your vehemence is based completely on unreality and so are a poor witness to trying to stop people from entering the true faith.

The people in the video are better witnesses for the faith than your flimsy anti-witness against it.

When you speak of my husband, you said he was a Catholic, AFTER I have mentioned his testimony more than once stating that he got saved and LEFT the Catholic Church.  Both of you have implied he needed permission to marry me, you said our children are illegitimate (according to the faith that YOU believe). Did you not?  Did you not say that we are fornicating in our 28+ year marriage?  Are you not stating that according to the LAWS of the Catholic Church which says these things and you believe them completely? 

You have said he is still catholic?  How can that be, when he says he is not?  You are trying to bind him to the rules of the Catholic church which he does not believe nor does it have authority over him. 

If he cannot stop being a Catholic by their rule, according to you, and he has stopped being one, but yet you still call him catholic, what do you think you have said?  Add it up.

Who decides if he is a Catholic, him or the church rule?  And if you believe he has a choice, why do you call him a Catholic?

: kensington  Mon Oct 20, 2014 - 11:58:28

: Catholica  Mon Oct 20, 2014 - 09:18:34

: kensington  Fri Oct 17, 2014 - 15:38:32
winsome said, "Interesting, but not quite what you claim. It would appear to be specifically directed to Marriage (which admittedly is what is being doiscussed here).."

My mistake, I was told by a priest when I tried to defect that there is no way to defect anymore and pointed me to that document.

Either way, I no longer consider myself Catholic. If others want to be Catholic, that is there choice, but as for my wife and I,we no longer consider ourselves Catholic.

Therein lies the rub...  because what winsome and Catholica are trying to say is that you do not have a choice.  You cannot undo being a Catholic, they are saying that the Catholic Church has the right to take away your first amendment right of Freedom of Religion.  It's quite funny, but that is what they are trying to say.

Neither Winsome nor I have said any such thing, nor does the Catholic Church teach or practice that. 

Or maybe you can quote a post and call us out.  Otherwise you are just more evidence to all that being such a vehement opponent of the Church, that your vehemence is based completely on unreality and so are a poor witness to trying to stop people from entering the true faith.

The people in the video are better witnesses for the faith than your flimsy anti-witness against it.

When you speak of my husband, you said he was a Catholic, AFTER I have mentioned his testimony more than once stating that he got saved and LEFT the Catholic Church.  Both of you have implied he needed permission to marry me, you said our children are illegitimate (according to the faith that YOU believe). Did you not?  Did you not say that we are fornicating in our 28+ year marriage?  Are you not stating that according to the LAWS of the Catholic Church which says these things and you believe them completely? 

You have said he is still catholic?  How can that be, when he says he is not?  You are trying to bind him to the rules of the Catholic church which he does not believe nor does it have authority over him. 

If he cannot stop being a Catholic by their rule, according to you, and he has stopped being one, but yet you still call him catholic, what do you think you have said?  Add it up.

Who decides if he is a Catholic, him or the church rule?  And if you believe he has a choice, why do you call him a Catholic?

I fail to see how what you wrote shows that his freedom of religion is violated.  Is he not practicing the religion of his choice right now?  Does his freedom to practice whatever religion he wants trump our right to practice our religion?

It is simply true that a person cannot undo being a Catholic.  That doesn't mean they can't stop attending church, found their own church, renounce the Catholic faith, renounce God, whatever.  This has nothing to do with a person's "freedom of religion".  Any person is free to pursue their conscience and practice whatever form of religion they feel is best, according to the laws of our country.

I think I understand the attraction of Catholicism.  One can visit virtually any  Catholic church and the traditions and formalities will be essentially the same.   By contrast you might visit a Protestant church where they're running around and waving flags while you might go to another where you think you just walked into a funeral home.   

I would prefer to practice Messianic Judaism over Catholicism if there is going to be a continuation of a Law system.  I feel like I'd might as well stay with the one already in place;  but the Book of Hebrews shoots down both systems as wrong.   There is no more condemnation under the Law but there is Grace.   There is no more earthly priesthood.   That is a false fabrication.   Christ is right now our Great High Priest.   Jews who are waiting for Hebrews to be fulfilled in the future are misled and believing a false assumption.   Sometimes a church can be the most dangerous place to be as you can be led astray by all sorts of false teachings within the four walls.   Godly discernment will keep a believer out of a legalistic religious system and keep them focused on their personal relationship with Jesus Christ.   We can go directly to the throne through Jesus Christ and need no man or legalistic system to provide the means.   

: notreligus  Mon Oct 20, 2014 - 15:59:48
I think I understand the attraction of Catholicism.  One can visit virtually any  Catholic church and the traditions and formalities will be essentially the same.   By contrast you might visit a Protestant church where they're running around and waving flags while you might go to another where you think you just walked into a funeral home.   

I would prefer to practice Messianic Judaism over Catholicism if there is going to be a continuation of a Law system.  I feel like I'd might as well stay with the one already in place;  but the Book of Hebrews shoots down both systems as wrong.   There is no more condemnation under the Law but there is Grace.   There is no more earthly priesthood.   That is a false fabrication.   Christ is right now our Great High Priest.   Jews who are waiting for Hebrews to be fulfilled in the future are misled and believing a false assumption.   Sometimes a church can be the most dangerous place to be as you can be led astray by all sorts of false teachings within the four walls.   Godly discernment will keep a believer out of a legalistic religious system and keep them focused on their personal relationship with Jesus Christ.   We can go directly to the throne through Jesus Christ and need no man or legalistic system to provide the means.

I love my brother~amen David.

Why would someone become a catholic?  I would also add why would some become a Protestant? What we need hear is a change of vision. A paradigm shift in the way we see the church. No denoms and no hierarchical orders, but a  people . A people who love and live for Christ. Will this perspective ever come to fruit. Probably not until Jesus comes. There is hope though for a few, but it will take a radical move upon the one who sees the church as it is in Babylon. One must fearlessly walk away from it to walk with Christ alone. Almost as it was when Abraham was told to leave the idolatrous land he was in to journey out to find the great city who's builder and maker is God.

Woe there, Mike we cant do that I am attached to my down home church. What would my friends say. What my family think? What would my pastor think?.  Where would I find fellowship?

What we need to see is how Babylon effects the church Protestant and Catholic orthodox and you name it.
The day will come when Babylon will be judged. Rev 18 calls the lords people to come out or her. What does this call mean to the church today?    How is my church in Babylon. How am I in Babylon? One would have to give considerable thought to this since we do not know the day or the hour of his return?  Think on it. Do we believe or do we just pretend? I have often wondered.


Is there not one here that relates to what I have said.    I was in bondage to the traditional church and saw the double mindedness and false doctrines, the completive drives and membership counting. The more in the pew the better the paycheck. Anyone seen these things. Then you look to the RCC and all the legalism and vain show of religion, the papacy and their worldly political ties.  Come on is their here one who can see it.

It is not easy to walk away from it, but I know that you can and for many they must. Once given light we are accountable to it. You can never return to darkness again. Now I do outreach ministry under no banner except Jesus.

"Is there not one here that relates to what I have said.    I was in bondage to the traditional church and saw the double mindedness and false doctrines, the completive drives and membership counting. The more in the pew the better the paycheck. Anyone seen these things. Then you look to the RCC and all the legalism and vain show of religion, the papacy and their worldly political ties.  Come on is their here one who can see it.

It is not easy to walk away from it, but I know that you can and for many they must. Once given light we are accountable to it. You can never return to darkness again. Now I do outreach ministry under no banner except Jesus."

You sir, have just spoken my husband's testimony.  He saw the whole system for what it was. He saw the religiousness of the whole thing, the false doctrines and hypocrisy of the priesthood and even those who were members when he was.  The teens he knew in high school went to mass each week and sinned each other day. The adults in his life did the same thing. Pushing on him how they are the "true church" but no one was living a life that lined up with the word.

Catholica, thanks for clarifying that his freedom of religion is not trumped by the rules of Catholicism.  Except that you came again and said, you can't undo being a Catholic.  That is what we are trying to tell you... YOU CAN UNDO BEING A CATHOLIC if being one was not your choice.  No one can force anyone to be something they do not believe. To undo it, all he had to do was get saved, walk away, get baptized by his own choice into the family of God. He does not believe in infant baptism, and he renounced his own.  He did undo his being a Catholic.  God has no roll in Heaven of who is a Catholic and who is not, He has ONLY, the Book of Life,  and my husband's name is recorded in it.  At no time in eternity will he be referred to as Catholic... only as "thy good and faithful servant".  Peace.

Kensington , my dear , methinks you come here simply to indulge in a little floccinaucinihilipilification .     ::frown::

What a pity !  ::shrug::

: kensington  Mon Oct 20, 2014 - 19:27:52
Catholica, thanks for clarifying that his freedom of religion is not trumped by the rules of Catholicism.  Except that you came again and said, you can't undo being a Catholic.  That is what we are trying to tell you... YOU CAN UNDO BEING A CATHOLIC if being one was not your choice.

There is no conflict.  There are just two "perspectives" of what it means to be Catholic:

1. From a purely human perspective, in which one calls himself Catholic and practices the Catholic faith.
2. A spiritual perspective, in which one has been spiritually adopted into the body of Christ by God through baptism according to the order he set forth on Earth through the Catholic Church.

One can stop being a Catholic from the human perspective, which is what your husband has done.  One cannot stop being a Catholic from a spiritual perspective.  So while you speak of "being Catholic" from a human perspective, I speak of "being Catholic" from a spiritual perspective.  A person's "Catholicity" may change from a human point of view, but God's does not.  And the spiritual perspective is that which matters when it comes to salvation.  That is the belief of the Church, which Jesus founded, and that is the practice of the Catholic religion.

Thus while a person's "right to practice religion" is from a human perspective, a person's actual standing before God is only with regard to the standing of his soul, not what the person calls himself.  If a Christian is a very disobedient Christian who (for example) repudiates the true Christian faith, then it doesn't matter if that person calls himself Christian and even does seem to be doing good in the eyes of men, he remains a Christian but his soul is in danger before God.  For example, apostates who were baptized remain part of the body of Christ in the eyes of God, but their soul is dead and they might go to hell if they don't repent.

But I don't see why you care so much that the Catholic Church still would teach that your husband is Catholic and that I believe it.  We are just practicing our religion after all, and you are obviously a proponent of religious freedom.  You don't have to agree with me (though it is good to believe in the truth and agree with it and live it) but my right to proclaim what I believe isn't trumped by your husband's right to not believe it, nor is your husband's right to practice any religion he wants trumped by my right to practice mine, which includes the practice of proclaiming what the Catholic faith teaches. 

: kensington  Mon Oct 20, 2014 - 19:27:52
No one can force anyone to be something they do not believe.

That is the essence of free will which the Church proclaims and has proclaimed since the time of Christ.   But if they do not believe or practice what they must believe or do to be saved, then it would be unloving to tell them that they are ok before God.

I should have known that is where you would go with this...

To imply that my husband is not saved.   

: kensington  Tue Oct 21, 2014 - 14:36:22
I should have known that is where you would go with this...

To imply that my husband is not saved.

I would say that your husband was saved when he was baptized, but just like all of us, was and is fully capable of losing that salvation, and is in my belief in a very precarious situation.  But I still call him a Christian and a Catholic for that matter.

kensington said, "To imply that my husband is not saved."

No worries kensington, your husband would be in the same boat that I am. That according to the Catholic church, our salvation is at risk because we have renounced the church and no longer consider ourselves Catholic, or any of the other things that are required of Catholics, at least according to Catholic man made rules.

Just remember, the Bible states otherwise. We have believed, and made Jesus our Lord and our savior and are sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption.

: lonegreywolf20  Tue Oct 21, 2014 - 16:47:32

No worries kensington, your husband would be in the same boat that I am. That according to the Catholic church, our salvation is at risk because we have renounced the church and no longer consider ourselves Catholic, or any of the other things that are required of Catholics, at least according to Catholic man made rules.

Just remember, the Bible states otherwise. We have believed, and made Jesus our Lord and our savior and are sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption.

Amen and Amen to that!

No worries kensington, your husband would be in the same boat that I am. That according to the Catholic church, our salvation is at risk because we have renounced the church and no longer consider ourselves Catholic, or any of the other things that are required of Catholics, at least according to Catholic man made rules.

Just remember, the Bible states otherwise. We have believed, and made Jesus our Lord and our savior and are sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption.

Yes, I prayed about this all day, and the Lord reminds me that I know my husband is saved, filled with the Holy Spirit, a godly Bible believing man. No one can take that from him. 

If we remember to read what the LORD says about salvation, and not listen to the voices of men who teach different than the word does, we are on solid ground.  We must have no doubt about where our salvation lies and who purchased it for us.  Jesus, the Holy One of Israel paid the price for us to belong to Him and those whom the Father have given Him, He will not in any way lose.  Words can't describe how wonderful it is when the Lord speaks to you about something like this.  Every time it happens, I am in Awe.  I love God. He is the BEST. 

: kensington  Tue Oct 21, 2014 - 22:35:33
If we remember to read what the LORD says about salvation, and not listen to the voices of men who teach different than the word does, we are on solid ground.  We must have no doubt about where our salvation lies and who purchased it for us.  Jesus, the Holy One of Israel paid the price for us to belong to Him and those whom the Father have given Him, He will not in any way lose.  Words can't describe how wonderful it is when the Lord speaks to you about something like this.  Every time it happens, I am in Awe.  I love God. He is the BEST.

This is important to remember.  They will continue to make comments like this (and like Paulus posted).
I have to remind myself that I  once believed a lot like them.  And there were a number of years I didn't know what to believe (other than I believed in God and in Christ as my Savior- just the head knowledge).  Head knowledge isn't enough - He wants our hearts.  That  changed when He touched my heart and changed it.  That makes the difference.  It won't happen until there is nothing and no one between you and Him - and He knows when that is.  He isn't fooled by lip service.   Nothing they say causes me to doubt that.  It always reminds me how blessed I am,  to again thank Him and to be grateful I no longer believe what they do.

This is important to remember.  They will continue to make comments like this (and like Paulus posted).
I have to remind myself that I  once believed a lot like them.  And there were a number of years I didn't know what to believe (other than I believed in God and in Christ as my Savior- just the head knowledge).  Head knowledge isn't enough - He wants our hearts.  That  changed when He touched my heart and changed it.  That makes the difference.  It won't happen until there is nothing and no one between you and Him - and He knows when that is.  He isn't fooled by lip service.   Nothing they say causes me to doubt that.  It always reminds me how blessed I am,  to again thank Him and to be grateful I no longer believe what they do.

And Amen  Real love and faith in Christ is in the heart and crosses all barriers.  Denoms and hierarchies are not our salvation but Christ is always with me.  For me to live is Christ.   

Another testimony!

toseeJesus.com - Anna's Story (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5fB26ogF3I#ws)

This girl is searching for truth which is Jesus, not external worship. When we are young like this girl we are subject to many draws that make us feel near to Him. Religious things such as forms and ritual can makes us feel we are finding Him there. Truly though we need Christ in the heart more than external forms of worship

When I think of the apostles like Paul, I do not see someone who is about external things but one who is deeply devoted in the spirit.  I see that when He said "For me to live is Christ and to die is gain." There is nothing else to live for but Christ. The world offers no life neither will forms and ritual. I cannot see Paul as one who was drawn to external religion.

Mike if you were filled with the spirit, you wouldn't get your undies in a bundle about what other people do and how they worship God.  You would be too concerned with loving God than to spit on your neighbor about how they worship God.  Which is essentially what you continually come to this Catholic forum to do.

I find great sources of joy and love for God in the Catholic religion, with all it's rituals.  Those rituals don't stop me from loving God, and enhance my personal relationship with God in fact.

You are one great big case of judging a book by it's cover (and hating that the cover is beautiful)

Mike if you were filled with the spirit, you wouldn't get your undies in a bundle about what other people do and how they worship God.  You would be too concerned with loving God than to spit on your neighbor about how they worship God.  Which is essentially what you continually come to this Catholic forum to do.

I find great sources of joy and love for God in the Catholic religion, with all it's rituals.  Those rituals don't stop me from loving God, and enhance my personal relationship with God in fact.

You are one great big case of judging a book by it's cover (and hating that the cover is beautiful)


Just stating as I see it. What is external is external and what is of the spirit is spirit   Jesus said it. Why do you despise me for saying the truth .

Why would anyone become Catholic?

That's a good question, one that I have no answer to.

: Red Baker  Wed Oct 22, 2014 - 15:17:32

Why would anyone become Catholic?

That's a good question, one that I have no answer to.

Red, you should watch the video in the original post then!

: mclees8  Wed Oct 22, 2014 - 15:03:51
Mike if you were filled with the spirit, you wouldn't get your undies in a bundle about what other people do and how they worship God.  You would be too concerned with loving God than to spit on your neighbor about how they worship God.  Which is essentially what you continually come to this Catholic forum to do.

I find great sources of joy and love for God in the Catholic religion, with all it's rituals.  Those rituals don't stop me from loving God, and enhance my personal relationship with God in fact.

You are one great big case of judging a book by it's cover (and hating that the cover is beautiful)


Just stating as I see it. What is external is external and what is of the spirit is spirit   Jesus said it. Why do you despise me for saying the truth .

I don't despise the truth.  Opinions are another matter.

: Catholica  Wed Oct 22, 2014 - 13:49:17
Mike if you were filled with the spirit, you wouldn't get your undies in a bundle about what other people do and how they worship God. You would be too concerned with loving God than to spit on your neighbor about how they worship God.  Which is essentially what you continually come to this Catholic forum to do.

I find great sources of joy and love for God in the Catholic religion, with all it's rituals.  Those rituals don't stop me from loving God, and enhance my personal relationship with God in fact.

You are one great big case of judging a book by it's cover (and hating that the cover is beautiful)

red above -  sounds like Catholics to me...

blue above -  why is something external needed to enhance your relationship?  I need nothing but Him.

green above - he knows what's between the cover.   A number of us here do.  BTDT.  Nothing beautiful about it.

Mike if you were filled with the spirit, you wouldn't get your undies in a bundle about what other people do and how they worship God.  You would be too concerned with loving God than to spit on your neighbor about how they worship God.  Which is essentially what you continually come to this Catholic forum to do.

I find great sources of joy and love for God in the Catholic religion, with all it's rituals.  Those rituals don't stop me from loving God, and enhance my personal relationship with God in fact.

You are one great big case of judging a book by it's cover (and hating that the cover is beautiful)


Just stating as I see it. What is external is external and what is of the spirit is spirit   Jesus said it. Why do you despise me for saying the truth .




I don't despise you for saying the truth.  And when I see the truth in your post, I will applaud it.



Then it is noted on this day you have heard the truth and seen it.

I am shocked at how often I see Catholics trying to make Catholics, rather than to see people saved. Make disciples.  Like the word says to do.

: kensington  Wed Oct 22, 2014 - 20:38:12
I am shocked at how often I see Catholics trying to make Catholics, rather than to see people saved. Make disciples.  Like the word says to do.

I'm not shocked by it.  It's very obvious from what we read on here, what they teach etc.  Remember, they don't believe in being born again.  They think baby baptism saves them - and then they have to continually keep being saved - over and over.  They are under the RC law.

Getting others to become Catholic IS their priority.  Not Jesus.  He has to share with Mary, all the dead saints, the pope, the RC.

What I read on forums,  in the CCC or hear from Catholics IRL just shows me how far the RC is from the truth - including what they believe about tradition.   

A  God changed heart isn't satisfied by religion.

Skeeter says : " Getting others to become Catholic IS their priority.  Not Jesus.  He has to share with Mary, all the dead saints, the pope, the RC .
What I read on forums,  in the CCC or hear from Catholics IRL just shows me how far the RC is from the truth - including what they believe about tradition.   "

Your ignorance of the Church is abysmal .

You really need to spend some time informing yourself about the Church .

I can see only hatred , bigotry and prejudice in your posts and in the posts of one or two other anti-Catholics who frequent this Catholic Forum .

There is no love , and that's sad .

: kensington  Wed Oct 22, 2014 - 20:38:12
I am shocked at how often I see Catholics trying to make Catholics, rather than to see people saved. Make disciples.  Like the word says to do.

The two go hand in hand. The most sure way to be saved is not to choose to believe in whatever we so desire and to hope beyond hope that the way we interpret the Bible is correct, but rather to rest in the Truth that Jesus established and preserved through the Catholic Church and to receive all the help that Jesus knew we needed when He established the sacraments, and to receive Him who comes to us most intimately through the Most Holy Eucharist.

: mclees8  Wed Oct 22, 2014 - 17:43:57
Then it is noted on this day you have heard the truth and seen it.

All I have heard this day from you, Mike, is pure opinion that has no basis in any revelation from God, and an echo of the iconoclast heresy.

: Catholica  Thu Oct 23, 2014 - 11:10:19

: mclees8  Wed Oct 22, 2014 - 17:43:57
Then it is noted on this day you have heard the truth and seen it.

All I have heard this day from you, Mike, is pure opinion that has no basis in any revelation from God, and an echo of the iconoclast heresy.

I looked back at a few of his posts - the ones I read all seem to line up with scripture (the BIBLE).

Sorry to read that you think the Bible has no basis in any revelation from God.  Is that what the RC now teaches?

Exodus 20:3-5

3 "You shall have no other gods before Me."

4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;  5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,  6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

Then it is noted on this day you have heard the truth and seen it.




All I have heard this day from you, Mike, is pure opinion that has no basis in any revelation from God, and an echo of the iconoclast heresy.


Well I guess I can accept the Iconoclast part,  but there is no heresy based on all that the Lord taught of the Holy Spirit making our relationship personal and not religious shows. This film is typical of promoting Catholicism but outward religion does not promote Christ. It is the Holy Spirit in us that promotes Christ. It is the Holy spirit that compels us to seek His righteousness.

The apostles should always be our first and foremost examples of personal faith. I am not some heretic promoting lies but the truth.

: skeeterI looked back at a few of his posts - the ones I read all seem to line up with scripture (the BIBLE).

Sorry to read that you think the Bible has no basis in any revelation from God.  Is that what the RC now teaches?

Exodus 20:3-5

3 "You shall have no other gods before Me."

4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;  5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,  6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

Here we go again!

The Law of the Siniai Covenant was given to the Israelites not to the Gentiles.

We are not under that Law.
   

Exodus 20 : 3,4 :-

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;  5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,  6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

Then a few chapters later , in chapter 25 , God is telling Moses : " 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. 20 The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. "

Also in Numbers 21 we read : "  The Lord said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived. "

It seems that God can't make his mind up .

It would appear that God is saying : " Don't make images " but then he is telling Moses to make images .

Is God contradicting himself ?

Not really .

The answer to the apparent dilemma is in the command " you shall not bow down to them nor serve them " .

God actually orders the making of images , but forbids the worship of them .

Exodus 20 : 3,4 :-

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;  5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,  6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

Then a few chapters later , in chapter 25 , God is telling Moses : " 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. 20 The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. "

Also in Numbers 21 we read : "  The Lord said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived. "

It seems that God can't make his mind up .

It would appear that God is saying : " Don't make images " but then he is telling Moses to make images .

Is God contradicting himself ?

Not really .

The answer to the apparent dilemma is in the command " you shall not bow down to them nor serve them " .

God actually orders the making of images , but forbids the worship of them .


Have or have seen any Catholic bow and pray on their knees before an image of Mary?  If you have did you ever correct them?

: mcleesHave or have seen any Catholic bow and pray on there knees before an image of Mary?  If you have did you ever correct them?

They are not worshipping the image.

Have or have seen any Catholic bow and pray on there knees before an image of Mary?  If you have did you ever correct them?



They are not worshipping the image.


s
[color So they do.   I thought we were talking about bowing before images

I wouldn't knock Catholicism too bad. It has brought more people to Christ than any other form of religion.. And like I said in another post, without Catholicism Christianity would haver never succeeded.

But I can't do without my personal one on one relationship with Christ. And  I can't stomach the thought of a middle man in between or the hierarchy chain of command with in the Catholic Church.

Safe to say that I am not catholic or will I ever be but I love them all the same and we share Christ.

Mclees asks quite rightly : " Have or have seen any Catholic bow and pray on their knees before an image of Mary?  If you have did you ever correct them? "

Yes , I have seen it and I do it myself .

I am not praying to the image of Mary .

I am praying to Mary who is represented by the image .

When my father had died , my mother used to give a kiss to a photograph she had of herself and my dad for their Golden Wedding .

She wasn't expressing love for the photograph .

She was expressing her love for my dad whose image was on the photograph .

: mclees8So they do.   I thought we were talking about bowing before images

Bowing is not worship.

Moreover The Law of the Siniai Covenant was given to the Israelites not to the Gentiles.

We are not under that Law.

: winsome  Fri Oct 24, 2014 - 08:12:05
Bowing is not worship.

Actually it is. 

The word shachah  שָׁחָה  is translated "worship" almost a hundred times in the KJV. Its literal meaning is to bow:

I.to bow down
    A.  (Qal) to bow down
    B.  (Hiphil) to depress (fig)
    C.  (Hithpael)
        i.  to bow down, prostrate oneself
            a.  before superior in homage
            b.  before God in worship
            c.  before false gods
            d.  before angel

: Davew
Actually it is.

The word shachah  שָׁחָה  is translated "worship" almost a hundred times in the KJV. Its literal meaning is to bow:

I.to bow down
    A.  (Qal) to bow down
    B.  (Hiphil) to depress (fig)
    C.  (Hithpael)
        i.  to bow down, prostrate oneself
            a.  before superior in homage
            b.  before God in worship
            c.  before false gods
            d.  before angel

Genesis 23:7
"Abraham rose up, and bowed down to the people of the land, to wit the children of Heth."

1Kings 1:16
Bathsheba bowed and did obeisance to the king, and the king said, "What do you desire?"

1 Kings 1:23
And they told the king, "Here is Nathan the prophet." And when he came in before the king, he bowed before the king, with his face to the ground.

1 Kings 2:19
So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king's mother; and she sat on his right.


Were these people worshipping or giving honour?

Of course that depends on what you mean by worship.

: DaveW  Fri Oct 24, 2014 - 08:19:57

: winsome  Fri Oct 24, 2014 - 08:12:05
Bowing is not worship.

Actually it is. 

The word shachah  שָׁחָה  is translated "worship" almost a hundred times in the KJV. Its literal meaning is to bow:

I.to bow down
    A.  (Qal) to bow down
    B.  (Hiphil) to depress (fig)
    C.  (Hithpael)
        i.  to bow down, prostrate oneself
            a.  before superior in homage
            b.  before God in worship
            c.  before false gods
            d.  before angel

Bowing can be worship, but it is not always worship.  And in the case of Catholic practice, it is not worship, as worship is reserved for God alone.  And anyone who says otherwise is like Eli looking upon Hannah. (1 Samuel 1) Eli thought that Hannah was committing sin (drunkenness) while in fact she was simply praying.  Or like the possible mistake some might have made to see Joshua and all Israel prostrate themselves before the ark of the covenant, that created inanimate object with the gilded angels atop it, who might have seen such prostration as idolatry if they didn't know Joshua's heart.

External appearances often lead to misconceptions and rash judgements.

The heart of the Catholic knows that the thing they are bowing before is an inanimate object that has no power.  Those who practiced idol worship of statues in ancient times did NOT, NOR was there a spiritual reality in the communion of saints for there to be a good spiritual reason for their practice.  We KNOW as Catholics that there are saints in heaven offering our prayers to God, because we see it happening in Revelation 5:8.  It has been revealed by God and so we have a justification for our actions. 

We also know that God wants there to be mutual intercession made between members in the body of Christ, me for others and others for me, as we read it so in 1 Timothy 2:1-4.  We also know that the body of Christ is ONE vine (John 15) and that DEATH cannot separate us from Christ (Romans 8:38), that God is God of the LIVING and that the people who have died in Christ continue LIVING (Luke 20:38).  And LIVING is not the same as simply BEING; LIVING involves building up the kingdom which is a good work (Ephesians 2:10).

Skeeter so obviously didn't read mclees8's posts, and claimed that he did, that it is embarrassing.

Mike's posts said nothing at all about the use of images.  He is Mr. "Vestments bad" man.

: Catholica  Fri Oct 24, 2014 - 08:51:21

: DaveW  Fri Oct 24, 2014 - 08:19:57

: winsome  Fri Oct 24, 2014 - 08:12:05
Bowing is not worship.

Actually it is. 

The word shachah  שָׁחָה  is translated "worship" almost a hundred times in the KJV. Its literal meaning is to bow:

I.to bow down
    A.  (Qal) to bow down
    B.  (Hiphil) to depress (fig)
    C.  (Hithpael)
        i.  to bow down, prostrate oneself
            a.  before superior in homage
            b.  before God in worship
            c.  before false gods
            d.  before angel

Bowing can be worship, but it is not always worship.  And in the case of Catholic practice, it is not worship, as worship is reserved for God alone.  And anyone who says otherwise is like Eli looking upon Hannah. (1 Samuel 1) Eli thought that Hannah was committing sin (drunkenness) while in fact she was simply praying.  Or like the possible mistake some might have made to see Joshua and all Israel prostrate themselves before the ark of the covenant, that created inanimate object with the gilded angels atop it, who might have seen such prostration as idolatry if they didn't know Joshua's heart.

External appearances often lead to misconceptions and rash judgements.

The heart of the Catholic knows that the thing they are bowing before is an inanimate object that has no power.  Those who practiced idol worship of statues in ancient times did NOT, NOR was there a spiritual reality in the communion of saints for there to be a good spiritual reason for their practice.  We KNOW as Catholics that there are saints in heaven offering our prayers to God, because we see it happening in Revelation 5:8.  It has been revealed by God and so we have a justification for our actions. 

We also know that God wants there to be mutual intercession made between members in the body of Christ, me for others and others for me, as we read it so in 1 Timothy 2:1-4.  We also know that the body of Christ is ONE vine (John 15) and that DEATH cannot separate us from Christ (Romans 8:38), that God is God of the LIVING and that the people who have died in Christ continue LIVING (Luke 20:38).  And LIVING is not the same as simply BEING; LIVING involves building up the kingdom which is a good work (Ephesians 2:10).

Come on Catholica,

You make puppet, paint it in specific colors so it represents someone, assign certain powers to the representation behind the image, you put it in a prominent place in the church, go on your knees before it and pray to it.
How is this not idolatry?

Mclees asks quite rightly : " Have or have seen any Catholic bow and pray on their knees before an image of Mary?  If you have did you ever correct them? "

Yes , I have seen it and I do it myself .

I am not praying to the image of Mary .

I am praying to Mary who is represented by the image .

When my father had died , my mother used to give a kiss to a photograph she had of herself and my dad for their Golden Wedding .

She wasn't expressing love for the photograph .

She was expressing her love for my dad whose image was on the photograph .

I believe these things have brought confusion into the Lords Church.  How far back in the history of the church were things used as representations for the aid of praying?

: lonegreywolf20  Tue Oct 21, 2014 - 16:47:32
kensington said, "To imply that my husband is not saved."

No worries kensington, your husband would be in the same boat that I am. That according to the Catholic church, our salvation is at risk because we have renounced the church and no longer consider ourselves Catholic, or any of the other things that are required of Catholics, at least according to Catholic man made rules.

Just remember, the Bible states otherwise. We have believed, and made Jesus our Lord and our savior and are sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption.

Your story is a sad one, to me, lonegreywolf.  The Church in your situation is simply upholding what Christ said.  He gave his Church the power to bind and loose, which is the authority to make rules to organize a group, binding what is required of that group, and loosing what is not.  That is biblical, see Matthew 18.  You were a member of that group and thus were subject to that authority.  Everything in God's order is with regard to authority and hierarchy.  God is above all and has supreme authority.  That authority he granted to his Church through the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose.  The Church exercises that authority in a limited way.  So goes for the authority of a husband with regard to his wife, and with the husband and wife with regard to their children.  God is the God of order, and this order makes for a stable society which is the Church.

The heresy that you have now embraced, which is Lutheranism, was spawned out for good reasons and bad.  The good reason was the abuse of indulgences in Luther's local church (not indulgences themselves if you read Luther's document).  But it became a rejection of authority in favor of Luther's own authority.  Even Luther came to realize that it was a failure to suggest that everyone could read the Bible for himself and come to his own conclusions.  Essentially now you are part of the movement which came from "pope" Luther.

And look at the disaster the Lutheran Church is in now.  Some of them actively promote homosexual unions, promote female clergy (clearly anti-biblical) and have a pretend Eucharist which they have no authority to consecrate.  And that is what you have traded the Eucharist, which the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, truly and sacramentally present, for.  You've traded the most intimate possible relationship possible with God for a heresy because you don't want to go through the simple process of having your marriage blessed in a Catholic Church.  That is all you would need to do since you and your wife are cradle Catholics.  What a tragedy!

Sure the Lutheran Church is not going to sniff at your union.  They don't see it as a spiritual union at all, but just a matter of state.  They give as much respect to your union as the one they grant to two homosexuals.

You do realize that Lutheranism wasn't created until after 1517, and that it was a clean break from anything that was ever believed ever in the history of Christianity.  And that the other so-called "Reformers" all read the Bible and wanted to "reform" the Church in different ways.  Luther and Calvin did not get along, and Luther hated Zwingli. 

"What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?" ~ Mark 8:36
"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me." ~ Luke 10:16

Wake up, lonegreywolf, Lutheranism is a false religion founded by a man who couldn't even agree with the other rebels at the time over the most fundamental aspects of Christianity, and even that movement is drifting almost unstoppably into becoming just like the world.

: AVZ  Fri Oct 24, 2014 - 09:12:03

: Catholica  Fri Oct 24, 2014 - 08:51:21

: DaveW  Fri Oct 24, 2014 - 08:19:57

: winsome  Fri Oct 24, 2014 - 08:12:05
Bowing is not worship.

Actually it is. 

The word shachah  שָׁחָה  is translated "worship" almost a hundred times in the KJV. Its literal meaning is to bow:

I.to bow down
    A.  (Qal) to bow down
    B.  (Hiphil) to depress (fig)
    C.  (Hithpael)
        i.  to bow down, prostrate oneself
            a.  before superior in homage
            b.  before God in worship
            c.  before false gods
            d.  before angel

Bowing can be worship, but it is not always worship.  And in the case of Catholic practice, it is not worship, as worship is reserved for God alone.  And anyone who says otherwise is like Eli looking upon Hannah. (1 Samuel 1) Eli thought that Hannah was committing sin (drunkenness) while in fact she was simply praying.  Or like the possible mistake some might have made to see Joshua and all Israel prostrate themselves before the ark of the covenant, that created inanimate object with the gilded angels atop it, who might have seen such prostration as idolatry if they didn't know Joshua's heart.

External appearances often lead to misconceptions and rash judgements.

The heart of the Catholic knows that the thing they are bowing before is an inanimate object that has no power.  Those who practiced idol worship of statues in ancient times did NOT, NOR was there a spiritual reality in the communion of saints for there to be a good spiritual reason for their practice.  We KNOW as Catholics that there are saints in heaven offering our prayers to God, because we see it happening in Revelation 5:8.  It has been revealed by God and so we have a justification for our actions. 

We also know that God wants there to be mutual intercession made between members in the body of Christ, me for others and others for me, as we read it so in 1 Timothy 2:1-4.  We also know that the body of Christ is ONE vine (John 15) and that DEATH cannot separate us from Christ (Romans 8:38), that God is God of the LIVING and that the people who have died in Christ continue LIVING (Luke 20:38).  And LIVING is not the same as simply BEING; LIVING involves building up the kingdom which is a good work (Ephesians 2:10).

Come on Catholica,

You make puppet, paint it in specific colors so it represents someone, assign certain powers to the representation behind the image, you put it in a prominent place in the church, go on your knees before it and pray to it.
How is this not idolatry?

It is not idolatry because we are not praying to the representation, but to a real person with real powers which actually exist because God has granted them as they are in Him, and those abilities exist only because of that, and because that is the order and economy of salvation which God himself has established.

In simple terms, it is not idolatry because 1) we don't ascribe power to images but to the work of God himself and 2) because God is the creator of the communion of saints which is a real thing.

Come on Catholica,

You make puppet, paint it in specific colors so it represents someone, assign certain powers to the representation behind the image, you put it in a prominent place in the church, go on your knees before it and pray to it.
How is this not idolatry?




It is not idolatry because we are not praying to the representation, but to a real person with real powers which actually exist because God has granted them as they are in Him, and those abilities exist only because of that, and because that is the order and economy of salvation which God himself has established.

In simple terms, it is not idolatry because 1) we don't ascribe power to images but to the work of God himself and 2) because God is the creator of the communion of saints which is a real thing.


We will hear every excuse under the sun why they believe its not idolatry. None the less it has sparked controversy and confusion for the church. Is it taught to all Catholics that they are not praying to statues, yet that is exactly what they are doing? I asked about how far back this practice began. No answer as yet, but for the most part it began during the Byzantine era in the sixth century and there was controversy even then.

: mclees8  Fri Oct 24, 2014 - 10:11:01

Come on Catholica,

You make puppet, paint it in specific colors so it represents someone, assign certain powers to the representation behind the image, you put it in a prominent place in the church, go on your knees before it and pray to it.
How is this not idolatry?




It is not idolatry because we are not praying to the representation, but to a real person with real powers which actually exist because God has granted them as they are in Him, and those abilities exist only because of that, and because that is the order and economy of salvation which God himself has established.

In simple terms, it is not idolatry because 1) we don't ascribe power to images but to the work of God himself and 2) because God is the creator of the communion of saints which is a real thing.


We will hear every excuse under the sun why they believe its not idolatry. None the less it has sparked controversy and confusion for the church. Is it taught to all Catholics that they are not praying to statues, yet that is exactly what they are doing? I asked about how far back this practice began. No answer as yet, but for the most part it began during the Byzantine era in the sixth century and there was controversy even then.

These are not excuses, these are explanations.   

Catholics are praying to saints, not statues.  Asking the saints for intercession to God.  As I have explained.

You asked how far back the practice began.  I ask how far back did the practice of being a "lone wolf" Christian began.  Not that you will answer, Mr. lone wolf, because you have absolutely no standing whatsoever.  It is pure hypocrisy, therefore, for you to suggest that when a particular practice began has any significance whatsoever.

The practice of praying to saints started in the first century.  There are prayers to the saints inscribed on the tombs, inscriptions which date to the first or second century.  There are icons from the first century as well, including ones that are attributed to being written by the hand of St. Luke the evangelist. 

And the Bible itself shows that Jesus himself is an image of the living God.  We know what God looks like now, and that is why the economy of images changed after the arrival of Christ.  There is no longer confusion between God and the images people used to depict gods (a la, the golden calf).

: Catholica  Fri Oct 24, 2014 - 09:28:52

It is not idolatry because we are not praying to the representation, but to a real person with real powers which actually exist because God has granted them as they are in Him, and those abilities exist only because of that, and because that is the order and economy of salvation which God himself has established.

In simple terms, it is not idolatry because 1) we don't ascribe power to images but to the work of God himself and 2) because God is the creator of the communion of saints which is a real thing.

Unfortunately that is not true.
Try taking away the Maria statue in a Catholic household. People go nuts because if the statue is not there...then Maria isn't.
So Catholics definitely attribute powers to the status itself.

Also see the hype of Catholics when yet another statue starts crying somewhere in the world?
Airline tickets are sold out rather quickly.

How about those pieces of saints the Catholic church places into their altars?
Again...it is assigning powers to the attribute.

And then we have yet to start about parts and pieces of so-called saints such as locks of hair, medallions, pieces of cloth...etc

: AVZ  Fri Oct 24, 2014 - 10:35:09

: Catholica  Fri Oct 24, 2014 - 09:28:52

It is not idolatry because we are not praying to the representation, but to a real person with real powers which actually exist because God has granted them as they are in Him, and those abilities exist only because of that, and because that is the order and economy of salvation which God himself has established.

In simple terms, it is not idolatry because 1) we don't ascribe power to images but to the work of God himself and 2) because God is the creator of the communion of saints which is a real thing.

Unfortunately that is not true.
Try taking away the Maria statue in a Catholic household. People go nuts because if the statue is not there...then Maria isn't.
So Catholics definitely attribute powers to the status itself.

Which is a non-sequitur. And not true.  Catholics pray the Memorare anywhere they are, no statue required.  "Mary is not there if that statue isn't." you say.   rofl That's so laughable.  Catholics would just be upset that someone took a piece of art that reminds them of the Blessed Mother whom they love.

: AVZ  Tue Jun 25, 1974 - 13:21:30
Also see the hype of Catholics when yet another statue starts crying somewhere in the world?
Airline tickets are sold out rather quickly.

Yes, because it is a miracle, and miracles are from God.

: AVZ  Tue Jun 25, 1974 - 13:21:30
How about those pieces of saints the Catholic church places into their altars?
Again...it is assigning powers to the attribute.

And then we have yet to start about parts and pieces of so-called saints such as locks of hair, medallions, pieces of cloth...etc

God has ordained to work through his saints and their bodies.  There was a dead man who was raised to life touching the bones of Elisha. 2 Kings 13:21 There were people healed by garments touched to the body of St. Paul. Acts 19:12.

Relics are entirely different than statues.  They were part of the living body of Saints who were sanctified, or something that was used by a saint or touched to their body.  God continues to work through his saints after death, body AND soul.

We will hear every excuse under the sun why they believe its not idolatry. None the less it has sparked controversy and confusion for the church. Is it taught to all Catholics that they are not praying to statues, yet that is exactly what they are doing? I asked about how far back this practice began. No answer as yet, but for the most part it began during the Byzantine era in the sixth century and there was controversy even then.




These are not excuses, these are explanations.   

Catholics are praying to saints, not statues.  Asking the saints for intercession to God.  As I have explained.

You asked how far back the practice began.  I ask how far back did the practice of being a "lone wolf" Christian began.  Not that you will answer, Mr. lone wolf, because you have absolutely no standing whatsoever.  It is pure hypocrisy, therefore, for you to suggest that when a particular practice began has any significance whatsoever.

The practice of praying to saints started in the first century.  There are prayers to the saints inscribed on the tombs, inscriptions which date to the first or second century.  There are icons from the first century as well, including ones that are attributed to being written by the hand of St. Luke the evangelist. 

And the Bible itself shows that Jesus himself is an image of the living God.  We know what God looks like now, and that is why the economy of images changed after the arrival of Christ.  There is no longer confusion between God and the images people used to depict gods (a la, the golden calf).



Cath could you produce these things as tangible evidence. Not saying that its not true but still I would like to see them.  I have more to say here but I have to leave for a couple of hrs.

Exodus 20 : 3,4 :-

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;  5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,  6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

Then a few chapters later , in chapter 25 , God is telling Moses : " 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. 20 The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. "

Also in Numbers 21 we read : "  The Lord said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived. "

It seems that God can't make his mind up .

It would appear that God is saying : " Don't make images " but then he is telling Moses to make images .

Is God contradicting himself ?

Not really .

The answer to the apparent dilemma is in the command " you shall not bow down to them nor serve them " .

God actually orders the making of images , but forbids the worship of them .

Mclees asks quite rightly : " Have or have seen any Catholic bow and pray on their knees before an image of Mary?  If you have did you ever correct them? "

Yes , I have seen it and I do it myself .

I am not praying to the image of Mary .

I am praying to Mary who is represented by the image .

When my father had died , my mother used to give a kiss to a photograph she had of herself and my dad for their Golden Wedding .

She wasn't expressing love for the photograph .

She was expressing her love for my dad whose image was on the photograph .

: mclees8  Fri Oct 24, 2014 - 11:09:55
We will hear every excuse under the sun why they believe its not idolatry. None the less it has sparked controversy and confusion for the church. Is it taught to all Catholics that they are not praying to statues, yet that is exactly what they are doing? I asked about how far back this practice began. No answer as yet, but for the most part it began during the Byzantine era in the sixth century and there was controversy even then.




These are not excuses, these are explanations.   

Catholics are praying to saints, not statues.  Asking the saints for intercession to God.  As I have explained.

You asked how far back the practice began.  I ask how far back did the practice of being a "lone wolf" Christian began.  Not that you will answer, Mr. lone wolf, because you have absolutely no standing whatsoever.  It is pure hypocrisy, therefore, for you to suggest that when a particular practice began has any significance whatsoever.

The practice of praying to saints started in the first century.  There are prayers to the saints inscribed on the tombs, inscriptions which date to the first or second century.  There are icons from the first century as well, including ones that are attributed to being written by the hand of St. Luke the evangelist. 

And the Bible itself shows that Jesus himself is an image of the living God.  We know what God looks like now, and that is why the economy of images changed after the arrival of Christ.  There is no longer confusion between God and the images people used to depict gods (a la, the golden calf).



Cath could you produce these things as tangible evidence. Not saying that its not true but still I would like to see them.  I have more to say here but I have to leave for a couple of hrs.

Here is a page all about the Roman Catacombs.
http://www.catacombe.roma.it/en/index.php (http://www.catacombe.roma.it/en/index.php)

Information about what is written on the tombs along the Appian way:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/GRAFFITI.HTM (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/GRAFFITI.HTM)

"A special and fortunate case in this regard is the so-called Memoria Apostolorum in the archaeological complex of the funerary area of St Sebastian on the Appian Way, where in hundreds of Greek and Latin graffiti the intercession of St Peter and St Paul is invoked or ritual meals eaten in their honour are recalled: "Paul and Peter, intercede for Victor", "Peter and Paul, remember us". It can be said that these epigraphs, apparently repetitive, are among the strongest evidence in support of the theory—advanced by some scholars—of the partial and temporary translation of the apostolic relics from their original sites on the Appian Way in the years of persecution under Valerian."

(http://www.catholicbridge.com/images/catacomb_intercession.jpg)

Photo: Catacomb of St. Sabastiano: Fragments of a wall plaster from the triclia with
numerous graffiti that ask for the prayers of the martyred apostles, Peter and Paul.


Icons held to be written by St. Luke.
http://www.wherewewalked.info/Luke/lukeicons.htm (http://www.wherewewalked.info/Luke/lukeicons.htm)

Early Christian Frescoes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christian_art_and_architecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christian_art_and_architecture)

On that "bowing" thing....   I think the Catholics missed a point.

God did not instruct Moses to make and idol.  He was making the Ark of the Covenant.  It was not for the people, it was for God's purpose.  Everything under heaven is for God's purpose.  He would not pray to or bow to the Ark, and the people didn't bow to the Ark.  It was not and idol or engraved image as God instructed about in the Commandments.  Not the same.

God's instruction in the Ten Commandments was not to make any.  NONE... it had nothing to do with the Ark to carry the commandments.  Read Exodus, those images were put there pointing inward towards where the presence of God sat on the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies above the Ark.  They were set as worship to God. 

You guys missed it by a long shot if that is your justification for making and bowing to statues.

: kensingtonOn that "bowing" thing....   I think the Catholics missed a point.

God did not instruct Moses to make and idol.  He was making the Ark of the Covenant.  It was not for the people, it was for God's purpose.  Everything under heaven is for God's purpose.  He would not pray to or bow to the Ark, and the people didn't bow to the Ark.  It was not and idol or engraved image as God instructed about in the Commandments.  Not the same.

God's instruction in the Ten Commandments was not to make any.  NONE... it had nothing to do with the Ark to carry the commandments.  Read Exodus, those images were put there pointing inward towards where the presence of God sat on the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies above the Ark.  They were set as worship to God.

You guys missed it by a long shot if that is your justification for making and bowing to statues.

{Sigh!} Once again

The 10 Commandments were given to the Israelites not the Gentiles.

They were part of the Siniai covenant. We belong to the New Covenant.

Exodus 20 : 3,4 :-

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;  5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,  6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

Then a few chapters later , in chapter 25 , God is telling Moses : " 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. 20 The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. "

Also in Numbers 21 we read : "  The Lord said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived. "

It seems that God can't make his mind up .

It would appear that God is saying : " Don't make images " but then he is telling Moses to make images .

Is God contradicting himself ?

Not really .

The answer to the apparent dilemma is in the command " you shall not bow down to them nor serve them " .

God actually orders the making of images , but forbids the worship of them .

Mclees asks quite rightly : " Have or have seen any Catholic bow and pray on their knees before an image of Mary?  If you have did you ever correct them? "

Yes , I have seen it and I do it myself .

I am not praying to the image of Mary .

I am praying to Mary who is represented by the image .

When my father had died , my mother used to give a kiss to a photograph she had of herself and my dad for their Golden Wedding .

She wasn't expressing love for the photograph .

She was expressing her love for my dad whose image was on the photograph .

{Sigh!} Once again

The 10 Commandments were given to the Israelites not the Gentiles.

They were part of the Siniai covenant. We belong to the New Covenant.


God is the same yesterday, today and forever,  You cannot use the scriptures of God telling Moses to built the Ark of the Covenant to justify having images without looking at what the images God instructed were for.  They were pointed to HIM ... they were not for man, or man's purpose.  They were Cherubim "FACING" each other, with the space between them being where the Presence of God sat in the Holy of Holies. 

It does not justify images for man Paulas... you can say God could not make up his mind all day long.  The two are different.  How presumptuous of man to assume that he can duplicate what God did for himself. 

Sigh all you want winsome, the 10 commandments are for all of us, Gentiles are grafted into the covenant by Jesus.  We are not allowed to murder, are we?  Are we allowed to be adulterers?  What about lying and stealing, or coveting?  Are those OK because they were the Old Covenant and we are the new?  No.. and you can't have images either. 

It doesn't matter what you think you are doing when you bow down to them Paulas, you are still bowing before them.  NO NO said God.

You say you used them to help you worship and to remind you of them and such.  But, GOD said... to walk by FAITH, not sight.

Either way you twist it, Old Testament, New Testament...  idols, statues, bowing, reminders...  God said not to do it.  Men corrupt God's word for their purposes.  It's plain to see that the CC did so in this situation.   There is a reason for EVERY SINGLE thing that was on the Ark of the Covenant, and in the Tabernacle/Tent/Inner Courts, Outer courts, and Holy of Holies.  And someone did not study it. 

: kensingtonSigh all you want winsome, the 10 commandments are for all of us, Gentiles are grafted into the covenant by Jesus.  We are not allowed to murder, are we?  Are we allowed to be adulterers?  What about lying and stealing, or coveting?  Are those OK because they were the Old Covenant and we are the new?  No.. and you can't have images either. 

No, the Ten Commadments are not for us. They were given to the Israelites at Mount Siniai.

We are not grafted into the Old Covenant by Jesus. We are in a New Covenant.

Murder, lying, stealing, coveting are all forbidden in the New Covenant.

There is nothing in the New Covenant that forbids the making of images.

On that "bowing" thing....   I think the Catholics missed a point.

God did not instruct Moses to make and idol.  He was making the Ark of the Covenant.  It was not for the people, it was for God's purpose.  Everything under heaven is for God's purpose.  He would not pray to or bow to the Ark, and the people didn't bow to the Ark.  It was not and idol or engraved image as God instructed about in the Commandments.  Not the same.

God's instruction in the Ten Commandments was not to make any.  NONE... it had nothing to do with the Ark to carry the commandments.  Read Exodus, those images were put there pointing inward towards where the presence of God sat on the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies above the Ark.  They were set as worship to God.

You guys missed it by a long shot if that is your justification for making and bowing to statues.




{Sigh!} Once again

The 10 Commandments were given to the Israelites not the Gentiles.

They were part of the Siniai covenant. We belong to the New Covenant.



So you say we can make idols and bow to them because you say the Ten Commandments was only for the Old testament.

There are many laws that were only for Israel. but Gods moral laws are for all time. Even the ten commandments.  If you don't want to believe that its your choice even if its a bad one.

: mclees8So you say we can make idols and bow to them because you say the Ten Commandments was only for the Old testament.

No I didn't say that. Idolatry is forbidden in the New Covenant

: mclees8There are many laws that were only for Israel. but Gods moral laws are for all time. Even the ten commandments.  If you don't want to believe that its your choice.

I agree that God's eternal moral laws are for all time, But making images is not a moral issue.

The Old Covenant laws were a mixture of God's moral laws, social laws, ceremonial laws.

Do you keep all the Old Covenant laws? 

Sigh all you want winsome, the 10 commandments are for all of us, Gentiles are grafted into the covenant by Jesus.  We are not allowed to murder, are we?  Are we allowed to be adulterers?  What about lying and stealing, or coveting?  Are those OK because they were the Old Covenant and we are the new?  No.. and you can't have images either. 



[b]No, the Ten Commadments are not for us. They were given to the Israelites at Mount Siniai.

We are not grafted into the Old Covenant by Jesus. We are in a New Covenant.[/b]

Murder, lying, stealing, coveting are all forbidden in the New Covenant.

There is nothing in the New Covenant that forbids the making of images.



Not so. Idolatry is mentioned several times in our New Testament.  It speaks of idolatry across the board as in all forms of idolatry. Don't go away I will post them for you. 

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. 1st Cor 5:11

  Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written   1st Cor 10:7

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:   Rev 21:8

There is more if you like.

: mclees8  Fri Oct 24, 2014 - 16:15:27
Sigh all you want winsome, the 10 commandments are for all of us, Gentiles are grafted into the covenant by Jesus.  We are not allowed to murder, are we?  Are we allowed to be adulterers?  What about lying and stealing, or coveting?  Are those OK because they were the Old Covenant and we are the new?  No.. and you can't have images either. 



[b]No, the Ten Commadments are not for us. They were given to the Israelites at Mount Siniai.

We are not grafted into the Old Covenant by Jesus. We are in a New Covenant.[/b]

Murder, lying, stealing, coveting are all forbidden in the New Covenant.

There is nothing in the New Covenant that forbids the making of images.



Not so. Idolatry is mentioned several times in our New Testament.  It speaks of idolatry across the board as in all forms of idolatry. Don't go away I will post them for you. 

winsome already posted that idolatry is forbidden in the New Covenant.  What he is saying is that the making of images is not forbidden in the New Covenant.  So you might not want to waste your time quoting verses against idolatry; we already agree on that, and what's more, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches against it.

The making of graven images is part of Idolatry.  1+1=2.  Making statues + Bowing before them= Idolatry.   

Elementary.

: kensingtonThe making of graven images is part of Idolatry.  1+1=2.  Making statues + Bowing before them= Idolatry. 

The making of images can be part of idolatry.

But you can worship other things than images. For example you could worship a tree or a rock.

You can also make images and not worship them.

Bowing can be part of worship. But bowing is not in itself worship

Bowing is just showing respect. In many cultures bowing is a standard act of obeisance.

obeisance 
   noun deferential respect. a gesture expressing this, such as a bow.
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)

bow2 
   verb
1   bend the head or upper body as a sign of respect, greeting, or shame.
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)


I've given examples from scripture in a previous post (post #90) but here is one again:
"he [Nathan] bowed himself before the king with his face to the ground" (1Kg 1:23)

Was Nathan, God's prophet, worshipping the king? Of course not! He was showing respect.

Moreover bowing before a statues is not directed to the statue itself but to the person represented by the statue. We show respect to that person.

Worship is not about gestures, though we may use gestures in worship. Worship is something that comes from the heart.

God judges the heart not you.

Not so. Idolatry is mentioned several times in our New Testament.  It speaks of idolatry across the board as in all forms of idolatry. Don't go away I will post them for you. 




winsome already posted that idolatry is forbidden in the New Covenant.  What he is saying is that the making of images is not forbidden in the New Covenant.  So you might not want to waste your time quoting verses against idolatry; we already agree on that, and what's more, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches against it.

Sounds more like grasping at loupe holes to me. You are just looking for reasons to make it alright. I am glad I will not be the judge of that. Still the charge of bringing  controversy and confusion still stands.

So you say we can make idols and bow to them because you say the Ten Commandments was only for the Old testament.



No I didn't say that. Idolatry is forbidden in the New Covenant




Quote from: mclees8

There are many laws that were only for Israel. but Gods moral laws are for all time. Even the ten commandments.  If you don't want to believe that its your choice.



I agree that God's eternal moral laws are for all time, But making images is not a moral issue.

The Old Covenant laws were a mixture of God's moral laws, social laws, ceremonial laws.

Do you keep all the Old Covenant laws? 


You guys really need to have a huddle on your comments. 1st winsome said the ten commandments was only For Israel"  This was to say it was all is good for the gentiles.
Then he said that idolatry is forbidden in the New Covenant which is in accordance with the ten commandments. HMMMM

The Ten commandments stated the making of graven images as Idolatry, but then Catholica says we cant bow and pray to images  but its OK to make them because it not stated in our New Covenant, but then it is Stated in the Ten commandments which I think you live by but Winsome is a little wishy washy  about.  HMMMMM

Then By Paulus own testimony she has herself along with many bowed to images of Mary and prayed. No offense Paulus but you may see it like kissing a picture but I doubt that is way the collective thinks.

Is there then controversy and confusion?

Mclees says : "  Then By Paulus own testimony she has herself along with many bowed to images of Mary and prayed. No offense Paulus but you may see it like kissing a picture but I doubt that is way the collective thinks.

Is there then controversy and confusion? "

Yes there is confusion .

You have got my gender wrong .

I am male .  ::tippinghat::

Seriously though , I think the Catholics on this Catholic Forum who say that they do not worship images should be regarded as being truthful .

I am not lying .

When I kneel and pray before a statue of Mary I AM NOT WORSHIPING THE STATUE . I am praying to Mary who is represented by the statue .

I know what I am doing .

I am not lying .

I do not worship statues .

Can you read that ?

I DO NOT WORSHIP STATUES .

Have you got that ? 

I DO NOT WORSHIP STATUES !!!

 

:  mclees8You guys really need to have a huddle on your comments.
You guys really need to have a huddle on your comments. 1st winsome said the ten commandments was only For Israel"  This was to say it was all is good for the gentiles.
Then he said that idolatry is forbidden in the New Covenant which is in accordance with the ten commandments. HMMMM

The Ten commandments stated the making of graven images as Idolatry, but then Catholica says we cant bow and pray to images  but its OK to make them because it not stated in our New Covenant, but then it is Stated in the Ten commandments which I think you live by but Winsome is a little wishy washy  about.  HMMMMM

Is there then controversy and confusion?

Mclees,

You have got yourself confused to the point of incoherence!

1st winsome said the ten commandments was only For Israel"

I said the "Ten Commandments were given to the Israelites"

This was to say it was all is good for the gentiles.

That's not a coherent sentence

Then he said that idolatry is forbidden in the New Covenant which is in accordance with the ten commandments. HMMMM

No I didn't say that; I said "Idolatry is forbidden in the New Covenant". I didn't add "which is in accordance with the ten commandments."

Some things that are forbidden (or commanded) in the Old Covenant are also forbidden (or commanded) in the New Covenant.

Some things that are forbidden (or commanded) in the Old Covenant are not forbidden (or commanded) in the New Covenant.

What is confusing about that?

The Ten commandments stated the making of graven images as Idolatry

No, the Ten Commandments doesn't state that the making of graven images is Idolatry.

The Ten Commandments forbids the making of images. It then goes on to forbid the worship of images. It is the worship of images that is idolatry.

Read the text:
4 "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
5  you shall not bow down to them or serve them;

Two separate commands.

Is there then controversy and confusion?

Only in your own mind

I had  a Paragraph typed out and pasted,  but then I realized its not even worth it to respond to what you said Catholica beyond what I posted below.

Catholica, I could care less what the Catholic Church says let alone what a Catholic has to say. The Catholic Church is not my authority, Christ alone is. The Catholic Church is no longer the church whom I identify with and I have renounced all ties to it to God and my family. I am no longer Catholic even though the Catholic Church may believe that I am, but they are free to believe, even if that belief is false.

First Paulus I want to apologize to you sir   ::smile::

I do think you are being defensive. You said you liken your kneeling before an image of Mary, for you is like kissing a picture. You don't worship the picture but it is an expression of love, and for you that is fine. My point was the general population of Catholics may and probably don't have that same thinking. What does the catholic church let them believe. It is already obvious that there must not be a clear picture given based on your own personal thinking which you have state hear.  No I don't think you are lying.

Mclees you say : " First Paulus I want to apologize to you sir   ::smile::

I do think you are being defensive. You said you liken your kneeling before an image of Mary, for you is like kissing a picture. You don't worship the picture but it is an expression of love, and for you that is fine. My point was the general population of Catholics may and probably don't have that same thinking. What does the catholic church let them believe. It is already obvious that there must not be a clear picture given based on your own personal thinking which you have state hear.  No I don't think you are lying. "

Thank you ,sir .  ::tippinghat::

I have known thousands of Catholics during my life .

With the simple faith most of them had or have , I do not know of any one of them who did not realise that in kneeling before a statue of Jesus they were not worshiping the statue but their Lord represented by that statue .

How many Catholics do you know who say that they are worshiping statues when they kneel before them ?

Give people credit and recognise their authenticity .

I will add that since being a child I have knelt before statues of Jesus , Mary and the saints . As a child I knew what I was doing .

Kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament though was a different kettle of fish altogether . That was kneeling before Jesus without a doubt .

I refer you to the thread
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/catholics-do-not-worship-idols/ (http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/catholics-do-not-worship-idols/)

You know, the images in the Old testament were just representatives of the "God" they thought was behind the image.  They had many images, and many God behind those images they bowed to.  They still bowed to them and prayed. It's all Idolatry.  The Catholic Church is in denial, Idolatry Denial.

If need to bow before an image to pray, praying by sight and not faith, that is idolatry.  You need that visual reminder to believe.  God said not to do that.  We are told to go into our "Closets" and pray, to cut out the world and all things distracting from God.  Those images shouldn't be in a private place where you can God meet for time together.  They shouldn't even be needed, if you have faith as a mustard seed.

I have a beautiful picture of my mother, it reminds me of her.  I do not speak to it, or kiss it. She isn't in that picture, she isn't here at all. She is waiting the resurrection. I'll speak to her when I see her again. Until then, I'll pray to God. Only God, no images needed.  It's called faith.  Knowing the unseen.  Simple faith as a mustard seed. 

I'm really sorry the Catholic church has taught that you need these things for praying and worshipping.  It's a false teaching for sure. Sadly.  So many Catholics missing out on a true prayer and worship relationship with God while they are chasing images for reminders of something that is unseen to begin with. 

Statues and Icons .  ::clappingoverhead::

Let's keep on using them .  ::announcment:: And there's no need to apologise for using them .  ::amen!::

That Catholic Show - Statues and Icons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv_hJmMocY8#ws)

It is the worship of images that is idolatry.
Read the text:
4 "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
5  you shall not bow down to them or serve them;
Two separate commands.

These two commandments are closely related and I doubt that the Numbers of the two were in the original manuscripts. They could be as one.   That is my opinion.  Lets look a verse four   What do you think is being implied when it says "or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath"  Does heaven here mean the kingdom of God. Is Mary in heaven? 
It says make no image of anything in heaven or earth, nor shall you bow to them. Please don't pick heir. This is what it says


I have stated is there not controversy and confusion because of the use of icons and images
Only in your own mind

You so loosely stated "only in my  mind  I looked up the times when the use of these statues and the praying. This was after the fact of My first comment.  I have a peace of the article on Byzantine Iconclasm from Wicki  It was during the Byzantine era that these images started and caused much debate

The Byzantine term for the debate over religious imagery, "iconomachy" means "struggle over images" or "image struggle".
Iconoclasm has generally been motivated theologically by an Old Covenant interpretation of the Ten Commandments, which forbade the making and worshipping of "graven images", see also Biblical law in Christianity. The two periods of iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire during the 8th and 9th centuries made use of this theological theme in discussions over the propriety of images of holy figures, including Christ, the Virgin (or Theotokos) and saints. It was a debate triggered by changes in Orthodox worship, which were themselves generated by the major social and political upheavals of the seventh century for the Byzantine Empire.

So even then these things struck controversy and confusion. Even on this board our discussion is heaped in controversy and confusion is it not.  It is excuse after excuse that you defend these things and not one biblical. I do not intend to go any further with this. As I said before what you defend is what you choose to believe even if it is a bad one. 

When you bow before a statue, any statue... Mary.. whoever...  and you close your eyes to pray, just try keeping that image out of your mind.  You can't do it.  It will come back to you, as you pray that image is in your mind, you are praying to it, it is worship.

God is a spirit, a presence.  You pray to Him by faith.

It takes no faith to pray with or to a statue, to use idolatry as your means to worship.  I don't care if you apologize or not.  But, it's against God's word.
My faith is made stronger by not using images to worship and pray. My faith is stronger by believing in God, and being in His presence.

Those statues, etc. are "Graven images" and you "shall not" bow to them.  According to God Almighty. 

 The Second Council of Nicaea (A.D. 787) condemned iconoclasm, which held that the use of images constituted idolatry .

That's fine with me .

I know from experience that my use of statues and icons is not idolatry .

I rejoice that my use of them brings me closer to God .

I thank God that he has given us created things to draw us into closer union with Himself , the Creator .

As usual kensington ignores everything that has been shown to her and just repeats her opinions.


Her only response is to repeat what has already been refuted.


And then she accuses Catholics of being in denial!

As usual kensington ignores everything that has been shown to her and just repeats her opinions.


Her only response is to repeat what has already been refuted.


And then she accuses Catholics of being in denial!


Not just an accusation but a fact

Not fact mclees. I think you have a great confusion in your mind between facts and opinions.

I  think it is  a stretch to group all Catholic who  kneel and pray in front of a statue and say it is the same as worshipping it. I see people all of the time holding their bibles up in the air, clutching them close to their chest , shaking it all about, ect...while praying. With the statue line of reasoning , I guess one could conclude that people who hold their bible while praying are worshipping the bible and not God. The bible represents an image of or is symbolic of God, does it not?

Statues were always a big part of Greek and Roman cultures and not necessarily for worshipping. It is no surprise that statues became assimilated into their Christianity beginnings. You can take a man out of his culture, but you can't take the culture out of a man.

But then again,  I think it all depends on the individual context of prayer and worship

IMO

Exactly - context context context


Shock, Horror!


Here is a man worshipping the Queen of England

(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k152/winsome99/investiture.jpg)

Or possibly not?

: winsome  Sun Oct 26, 2014 - 10:46:34
Exactly - context context context


Shock, Horror!


Here is a man worshipping the Queen of England

(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k152/winsome99/investiture.jpg)

Or possibly not?

rofl

Not fact mclees. I think you have a great confusion in your mind between facts and opinions.

Isn't that another Opinion?

The Second Council of Nicaea (A.D. 787) condemned iconoclasm, which held that the use of images constituted idolatry .

That's fine with me .

I know from experience that my use of statues and icons is not idolatry .

I rejoice that my use of them brings me closer to God .

I thank God that he has given us created things to draw us into closer union with Himself , the Creator .


If Niceal rejected them as idolatry  then how come you still use them?   ::shrug::

Isn't that another Opinion?

Yes, but my opinion is better than your opinion! ::smile::

The Second Council of Nicaea (A.D. 787) condemned iconoclasm, which held that the use of images constituted idolatry .

That's fine with me .

I know from experience that my use of statues and icons is not idolatry .

I rejoice that my use of them brings me closer to God .

I thank God that he has given us created things to draw us into closer union with Himself , the Creator .


So then, YOU must know better than GOD what He is talking about??   

I think God knows better then you what He is talking about.

Another post form kensington which does not merit a reply .

They are so tedious and boring .  ::sleepingsoundly::

Isn't that another Opinion?

Yes, but my opinion is better than your opinion!  ::smile::


Of that I am perfectly sure  and the rest of your crew also   ::whistle::

I think God knows better then you what He is talking about.



That is absolutely right .   Just who hear is upholding what God says.  What god are you talking of?  You say iconoclasm was thrown out so you guys can say God says its OK now to making images and bowing to them.   Who then is being god hear.    Was it not said the they would change the laws of God

: mclees
That is absolutely right .   Just who hear is upholding what God says.  What god are you talking of?  You say iconoclasm was thrown out so you guys can say God says its OK now to making images and bowing to them.   Who then is being god hear.    Was it not said the they would change the laws of God

And what law of God are you claiming the Catholic Church has changed?

From where I sit, the Catholic Church changes any law they want, any scripture, any command or admonishment... 

Kensington said: From where I sit, the Catholic Church changes any law they want, any scripture, any command or admonishment...

And the Catholic Church has such power, and was given it by God Incarnate Jesus Christ. Such a concept that is covered nicely  by the "binding and loosing" directive. And it is that same Catholic Church that correctly interprets the Holy Scriptures and has done so since the beginning - so there!

I'm just going to sit and laugh at that one Caatholica.  God did not give anyone the power to change anything He set forth in his word.  That is not what "binding and loosing" is about.  Where do you get this stuff?

: Paulus  Sat Oct 25, 2014 - 14:11:46

I have known thousands of Catholics during my life .

With the simple faith most of them had or have , I do not know of any one of them who did not realise that in kneeling before a statue of Jesus they were not worshiping the statue but their Lord represented by that statue .

How many Catholics do you know who say that they are worshiping statues when they kneel before them ?

Give people credit and recognise their authenticity .

I will add that since being a child I have knelt before statues of Jesus , Mary and the saints . As a child I knew what I was doing .

Kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament though was a different kettle of fish altogether . That was kneeling before Jesus without a doubt .

so when you knelt before a statue of Jesus you were worshiping Jesus

AND when you knelt before a statue of Mary (or a saint) WHO were you worshiping?

was it suddenly NOT  the person the statue represented?

that last part is very interesting...  when you knelt before a statue of Jesus and worshiped Him - you doubted it was Jesus?

: kensington
From where I sit, the Catholic Church changes any law they want, any scripture, any command or admonishment... 

Which of God's laws has the Catholic Church changed that is relevent to this discussion?

: skeeterso when you knelt before a statue of Jesus you were worshiping Jesus

AND when you knelt before a statue of Mary (or a saint) WHO were you worshiping?

was it suddenly NOT  the person the statue represented?

If we stand or kneel before a staue of Mary (or a saint) we are not worhipping anyone.

We do not worship Mary or other Saints in heaven

skeeter says : " that last part is very interesting...  when you knelt before a statue of Jesus and worshiped Him - you doubted it was Jesus? "

Sorry , but you have got it wrong .

In that last part which you find very interesting , if you read it again , you will find that I am not kneeling before a statue of Jesus .

I am actually kneeling before Jesus whom I worship .

That is absolutely right .   Just who hear is upholding what God says.  What god are you talking of?  You say iconoclasm was thrown out so you guys can say God says its OK now to making images and bowing to them.   Who then is being god hear.    Was it not said the they would change the laws of God



And what law of God are you claiming the Catholic Church has changed?


First I want to ask you as I have already done in the other thread.   Do you believe that the ten Commandments is for all believers today . Yes or no?     You answer that and I will answer yours.

: mcleesFirst I want to ask you as I have already done in the other thread.   Do you believe that the ten Commandments is for all believers today . Yes or no?     You answer that and I will answer yours.

No "first do what I want"!

I asked you a question Mclees. Answer it and we can proceed to your question.

And what law of God are you claiming the Catholic Church has changed?


First I want to ask you as I have already done in the other thread.   Do you believe that the ten Commandments is for all believers today . Yes or no?     You answer that and I will answer yours.



No "first do what I want"!

I asked you a question Mclees. Answer it and we can proceed to your question



Alright  What constitutes change. First one has to believe that something has been changed.

What your church council did was to say that the making of images such as the images of Mary or even Jesus declared that these things for the purposes of the Catholic church did not constitute a breach of the Ten commandments.  This is because of the authority they say they have is of God enables them to make up their own rules as to what is a breach or not a breach.  Therefore they can change Gods law and say they have changed nothing.


Now for my question could you please answer.

: kensington  Sun Oct 26, 2014 - 22:43:12

: Ladonia  Sun Oct 26, 2014 - 22:08:36
Kensington said: From where I sit, the Catholic Church changes any law they want, any scripture, any command or admonishment...

And the Catholic Church has such power, and was given it by God Incarnate Jesus Christ. Such a concept that is covered nicely  by the "binding and loosing" directive. And it is that same Catholic Church that correctly interprets the Holy Scriptures and has done so since the beginning - so there!

I'm just going to sit and laugh at that one Caatholica.  God did not give anyone the power to change anything He set forth in his word.  That is not what "binding and loosing" is about.  Where do you get this stuff?

You were writing to Ladonia, not me.

Please tell us what binding and loosing is actually about.

: McleesAlright  What constitutes change. First one has to believe that something has been changed.

What your church council did was to say that the making of images such as the images of Mary or even Jesus declared that these things for the purposes of the Catholic church did not constitute a breach of the Ten commandments.  This is because of the authority they say they have is of God enables them to make up their own rules as to what is a breach or not a breach.  Therefore they can change Gods law and say they have changed nothing.


Now for my question could you please answer.

The Catholic Church did not change any rules.
The Catholic Church did not change God's laws.

What I have been consistently arguing is that the Ten Commandments as a legal code of the Old Covenant has never applied to Gentiles.

See below for more on this and a reply to your question.

: mcleesDo you believe the Ten Commandments is valid to day for all believers Yes or no?

I know you would like a simple, yes or no answer but it not that simple.

As a legal code for the Sinai Covenant the Ten Commandments are not valid for Gentile believers today because:
a) they were never valid for Gentiles
b) the Sinai Covenant has been abolished

The Ten Commandments are almost all moral commands and those moral commands were valid before the Sinai Covenant was instituted because they are eternal moral laws. For example God condemned Cain's murder of Abel (Gen 4), and murder was also forbidden in the Covenant with Noah (Gen 9:6). God incorporated those moral law into the Law that he gave to the Israelites.

The Ten Commandments have value today as a summary God's eternal moral laws, as long as we appreciate that they are not 100% God's moral laws, and we do not try to insist that those under the New Covenant have to obey the parts that are not moral laws: e.g. making images (and keeping the Saturday Sabbath).

All the moral laws in the Ten Commandments are to be found in the New Testament as laws under the New Covenant. But there are no commands against the making of images (or Saturday Sabbath keeping).

So who it that's making the decisions that divides what is Sinai Covenant  only for old Testament Israel and what is moral law for all time.  You , your Council, God ? Who is calling these shots Winsome?

Would you say its wrong if I made an effigy of someone and bowed to it as to pray is against God.

Who is defining these things  as to what is for Israel and what is for gentiles Winsome? Are you making up the rules as we go? 

: McleesSo who it that's making the decisions that divides what is Sinai Covenant  only for old Testament Israel and what is moral law for all time.  You , your Council, God ? Who is calling these shots Winsome?

You still don't understand do you?

ALL the 613 Laws of the Old Covenant are for the Israelites only.

ALL of the Ten Commandments as a legal code are for the Israelites only .

We have a NEW Covenant with new laws. We have to follow those laws. They are the ones binding on us. They are gievn in the New Testament.

You are obsessed with the Ten Commandments. They are not a legal code for us.

Fix your eyes on Jesus.

Listen to what Jesus tells us to do or not do.

: Mclees
Would you say its wrong if I made an effigy of someone and bowed to it as to pray is against God.

I don't know what is in your heart Mclees. I know what is in my heart. I know what the Catholic Church teaches and doesn't teach.

: McleesWho is defining these things  as to what is for Israel and what is for gentiles Winsome? Are you making up the rules as we go?

God is defining what is for Israel only and what is for all because it's God who gives the Covenants.

We can see this clearly in Dt. 5:1-9
1 And Moses summoned all Israel, and said to them, "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your hearing this day, and you shall learn them and be careful to do them.
2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3 Not with our fathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive this day.
4 The Lord spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire,
5 while I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up into the mountain. He said:
6 "'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
7 "'You shall have no other gods before me.........

22 "These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them to me.......

27 Go near, and hear all that the Lord our God will say; and speak to us all that the Lord our God will speak to you; and we will hear and do it.'

This very clearly shows that the Ten Commandments were given the Israelites at Horeb (Sinai) as part of the Covenant Law. The Covenant was made between God and the Israelites with Moses as Covenant Mediator. The Gentiles were not a party to it.

Paul says:
Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (Eph 2:12)
Gentiles were strangers to the covenants.


Read your Bible. It tells you there.

: winsome  Mon Oct 27, 2014 - 09:46:48
All the moral laws in the Ten Commandments are to be found in the New Testament as laws under the New Covenant. But there are no commands against the making of images (or Saturday Sabbath keeping).

idolater

I.  a worshipper of false gods, a idolater

A. used of any one even Christian, participant in any way in the worship of the heathen, esp.  one who attends their sacrificial feasts and eats of the remains of offered victims.


Isn't that last one interesting...


1 Corinthians 6

9  Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived.  Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,



Is there a command in the NT  to keep Sunday as the Sabbath? if so, please post it.


Is there a command in the NT  to pray to anyone other than God (thru Jesus)?  if so, please post it.

: skeeter
idolater

I.  a worshipper of false gods, a idolater

A. used of any one even Christian, participant in any way in the worship of the heathen, esp.  one who attends their sacrificial feasts and eats of the remains of offered victims.


Isn't that last one interesting...


1 Corinthians 6

9  Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived.  Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

Yes we know what idolatry is. Do you have a point to make?

: skeeter
Is there a command in the NT  to keep Sunday as the Sabbath? if so, please post it.

We don't keep the Sunday as Sabbath. The Sabbath is Saturday. Unless by sabbath you just mean rest. Then we rest on Sunday. But the Sabbath is Saturday.

: skeeter
Is there a command in the NT  to pray to anyone other than God (thru Jesus)?  if so, please post it.

Not commmanded, but someone who does:

Paul to Felix
Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words. (Acts 24:4 - KJV)


Paul to the centurion & soldiers
Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health (Acts 27:34 - KJV)


Are we going into the whole issue of the meaningy of pray?

Oh no, not Again!

You are obsessed with the Ten Commandments. They are not a legal code for us.


I would like you to define this for me . What are you implying here?  That gentiles do no have to obey the Ten Commandments Tell me what you mean by legal code

: mcleesI would like you to define this for me . What are you implying here?  That gentiles do no have to obey the Ten Commandments Tell me what you mean by legal code

A legal code is a code of law. They are the laws under which you are judged and convicted.

Covenants are binding agreements. In the case of a suzerainty covenant (Lord and vassals) they will be enforced by the suzerain Lord according to the provisions of the Covenant. In this case the Lord is God and the vassals are the Israelites.

In the case of the Sinai Covenant, God laid out the terms of the covenant and the Israelites agreed to them.
See Ex 24:1-8
Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, "All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do." (Vs 3)

The 10 Commandments are part of those words and ordinances. They were given to the Israelites alone.

We are not a part of that Covenant. The 10 Commandments as a part of the Covenant, as part of it laws, its legal code, was given to the Israelites only.

And please don't start – "does that mean we can murder then....." We've been through all that.

: winsome  Mon Oct 27, 2014 - 12:47:32

: skeeter
idolater

I.  a worshipper of false gods, a idolater

A. used of any one even Christian, participant in any way in the worship of the heathen, esp.  one who attends their sacrificial feasts and eats of the remains of offered victims.


Isn't that last one interesting...


1 Corinthians 6

9  Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived.  Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

Yes we know what idolatry is. Do you have a point to make?

: skeeter
Is there a command in the NT  to keep Sunday as the Sabbath? if so, please post it.

We don't keep the Sunday as Sabbath. The Sabbath is Saturday. Unless by sabbath you just mean rest. Then we rest on Sunday. But the Sabbath is Saturday.

: skeeter
Is there a command in the NT  to pray to anyone other than God (thru Jesus)?  if so, please post it.

Not commmanded, but someone who does:

Paul to Felix
Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words. (Acts 24:4 - KJV)


Paul to the centurion & soldiers
Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health (Acts 27:34 - KJV)


Are we going into the whole issue of the meaningy of pray?

Oh no, not Again!

yes, there is a point on idolatry.  no comment on the black bolded line?


Aren't you required to go to Mass on Sunday... or the Sabbath?  oh, maybe you aren't RC!  Maybe someone who IS RC can answer then...



re:  verses you posted about prayer -  is that how you pray to God?

'pray' has several meanings -

I.   to call to one's side, call for, summon

II.  to address, speak to, (call to, call upon), which may be done in the way of exhortation, entreaty, comfort, instruction, etc.

    A. to admonish, exhort
    B. to beg, entreat, beseech
          i.  to strive to appease by entreaty

     C. to console, to encourage and strengthen by consolation, to comfort
           i. to receive consolation, be comforted

      D. to encourage, strengthen

      E. exhorting and comforting and encouraging

       F. to instruct, teach


which  fits when you pray to God?  summon? instruct? admonish?

: skeeteryes, there is a point on idolatry.  no comment on the black bolded line?

I haven't a clue what point you are making there. I can't read your mind..
Perhaps you could elucidate

: skeeterAren't you required to go to Mass on Sunday... or the Sabbath?  oh, maybe you aren't RC!  Maybe someone who IS RC can answer then...

To go to Mass on Sunday, yes. And again what point are you making?

: skeeter
re:  verses you posted about prayer -  is that how you pray to God?

'pray' has several meanings -

I.   to call to one's side, call for, summon

II.  to address, speak to, (call to, call upon), which may be done in the way of exhortation, entreaty, comfort, instruction, etc.

    A. to admonish, exhort
    B. to beg, entreat, beseech
          i.  to strive to appease by entreaty

     C. to console, to encourage and strengthen by consolation, to comfort
           i. to receive consolation, be comforted

      D. to encourage, strengthen

      E. exhorting and comforting and encouraging

       F. to instruct, teach


which  fits when you pray to God?  summon? instruct? admonish?

What fits when we pray to a Saint? Beg, entreat, beseech, ask earnestly?

That is the sense that Paul uses it in the examples I gave.

That is the way we use it in praying to a Saint.

I would like you to define this for me . What are you implying here?  That gentiles do no have to obey the Ten Commandments Tell me what you mean by legal code



A legal code is a code of law. They are the laws under which you are judged and convicted.

Covenants are binding agreements. In the case of a suzerainty covenant (Lord and vassals) they will be enforced by the suzerain Lord according to the provisions of the Covenant. In this case the Lord is God and the vassals are the Israelites.

In the case of the Sinai Covenant, God laid out the terms of the covenant and the Israelites agreed to them.
See Ex 24:1-8
Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, "All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do." (Vs 3)

The 10 Commandments are part of those words and ordinances. They were given to the Israelites alone.

We are not a part of that Covenant. The 10 Commandments as a part of the Covenant, as part of it laws, its legal code, was given to the Israelites only.

And please don't start – "does that mean we can murder then....." We've been through all that.



So I can safely say then that you are saying that the Ten Commandments does not by legal code effect the New Covenant church. Which is for you the catholic church, Is that correct

: mcleesSo I can safely say then that you are saying that the Ten Commandments does not by legal code effect the New Covenant church. Which is for you the catholic church, Is that correct

No, I didn't say that.

Why do you feel a need to constantly reformulate what I say into something different?

Do you consider yourself in the New Covenant or in the Old one?

So I can safely say then that you are saying that the Ten Commandments does not by legal code effect the New Covenant church. Which is for you the catholic church, Is that correct



No, I didn't say that.

Why do you feel a need to constantly reformulate what I say into something different?

Then please tell me in plain terms what you are saying.  You said the ten Commandments was given to Israel. no to the Gentiles.     Now you say that is not what you said.  Please simplify and make plain what you are saying.  If we are still under the Ten commandments then say it.

: mcleesThen please tell me in plain terms what you are saying.  You said the ten Commandments was given to Israel. no to the Gentiles.     Now you say that is not what you said.  Please simplify and make plain what you are saying.  If we are still under the Ten commandments then say it.

I don't know how much plainer I can say it.

As I said earlier:

ALL the 613 Laws of the Old Covenant are for the Israelites only.

ALL of the Ten Commandments as a legal code are for the Israelites only .

We have a NEW Covenant with new laws. We have to follow those laws. They are the ones binding on us. They are given in the New Testament.

You are obsessed with the Ten Commandments. They are not a legal code for us.

Fix your eyes on Jesus.

Listen to what Jesus tells us to do or not do.


What about that is difficult to understand?

Then please tell me in plain terms what you are saying.  You said the ten Commandments was given to Israel. no to the Gentiles.     Now you say that is not what you said.  Please simplify and make plain what you are saying.  If we are still under the Ten commandments then say it.



I don't know how much plainer I can say it.

As I said earlier:

ALL the 613 Laws of the Old Covenant are for the Israelites only.

ALL of the Ten Commandments as a legal code are for the Israelites only .

We have a NEW Covenant with new laws. We have to follow those laws. They are the ones binding on us. They are given in the New Testament.

You are obsessed with the Ten Commandments. They are not a legal code for us.

Fix your eyes on Jesus.

Listen to what Jesus tells us to do or not do.


What about that is difficult to understand?


There is nothing hard to understand. What we have here is someone who is defining things. Its a lot like a flim flam.   Who is it Winsome. You  One thing is for sure this defining did not come from any one in the Old Testament. So who is doing the defining?  Where are you taking all this from. is it you or someone else?

You say all we need to do is focus on Jesus and the New Covenant. That's fine Now we also have Idolatry mentioned several times in the New Testament, but we have no direct definition. It speaks to all forms of idolatry. It does not say that we don't observe the Lords definitions that are already stated in our Old Testament. So if I want to find a clearer definition, one place I can look to is guess where?  God wrote it on a tablet  of stone. Further more we can get many other laws and examples from our Old Testament that helps us understand idolatry today.   So who is doing your defining Winsome

: winsome  Mon Oct 27, 2014 - 16:05:31
I don't know how much plainer I can say it.

As I said earlier:

ALL the 613 Laws of the Old Covenant are for the Israelites only.

ALL of the Ten Commandments as a legal code are for the Israelites only .

We have a NEW Covenant with new laws. We have to follow those laws. They are the ones binding on us. They are given in the New Testament.

You are obsessed with the Ten Commandments. They are not a legal code for us.

I don't know that all of the 613 were for the Israelites only.

How about going to church on Sunday?  keeping the Sabbath - that only for them? and while you're at it what does the Bible mean by 'keeping'?

Fix your eyes on Jesus.

Listen to what Jesus tells us to do or not do.

What about the CC? the pope, Mary and the saints? ::pondering::

 

: mcleesThere is nothing hard to understand. What we have here is someone who is defining things. Its a lot like a flim flam.   Who is it Winsome. You  One thing is for sure this defining did not come from any one in the Old Testament. So who is doing the defining?  Where are you taking all this from. is it you or someone else?

You say all we need to do is focus on Jesus and the New Covenant. That's fine Now we also have Idolatry mentioned several times in the New Testament, but we have no direct definition. It speaks to all forms of idolatry. It does not say that we don't observe the Lords definitions that are already stated in our Old Testament. So if I want to find a clearer definition, one place I can look to is guess where?  God wrote it on a tablet  of stone. Further more we can get many other laws and examples from our Old Testament that helps us understand idolatry today.   So who is doing your defining Winsome

Mclees, you are going round in circles.

You ask - who is doing the defining. You asked that before and I answered it – see post#156.

You ask about idolatry. I covered that in post #114 & 118

You just seem to ignore what I write.

I was going to prepare a longer explanation on this. But I see no point as you will just ignore it.

God bless

winsome

There is nothing hard to understand. What we have here is someone who is defining things. Its a lot like a flim flam.   Who is it Winsome. You  One thing is for sure this defining did not come from any one in the Old Testament. So who is doing the defining?  Where are you taking all this from. is it you or someone else?

You say all we need to do is focus on Jesus and the New Covenant. That's fine Now we also have Idolatry mentioned several times in the New Testament, but we have no direct definition. It speaks to all forms of idolatry. It does not say that we don't observe the Lords definitions that are already stated in our Old Testament. So if I want to find a clearer definition, one place I can look to is guess where?  God wrote it on a tablet  of stone. Further more we can get many other laws and examples from our Old Testament that helps us understand idolatry today.   So who is doing your defining Winsome




Mclees, you are going round in circles.

You ask - who is doing the defining. You asked that before and I answered it – see post#156.

You ask about idolatry. I covered that in post #114 & 118

You just seem to ignore what I write.

I was going to prepare a longer explanation on this. But I see no point as you will just ignore it.

God bless

winsome

I am asking who is defining Idolatry for you According to you the Ten commandments is only for the Israel and not for the  Gentiles.  So I say then Catholics are not subject to the Ten Commandment. So you then say No that is not what I said  What this is, is  a bunch of what I cannot say. You speak of the thing called legal code. I no nothing of a legal code and no one else does either. Who said the Ten Commandments was not legal code for Gentiles.  Listen to what I am saying.  Who come up with the legal code thing. It was you Winsome  wasn't it ?  It's all winsome flim flam isn't it. There is no legal code except in your own head.  Truth is All of the Ten commandments  applies to Israel and the church today. Isn't that true Winsome? The legal code thing is bunk.

If I were to pole every Catholic I could find on the street they have no clue about any of these things you spout about here. Isn't hat so Winsome.

And just for  kicker here is what Your catechism says.

2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."   

No legal code, No  half and half stuff about what's moral and what is not.    It says total observances. Even commandments 4&5   

Its what I have said right along   Your councils make up the rules as they go so they can ignore The Lords commandments. That is the truth of it

 

: mcleesYou speak of the thing called legal code. I no nothing of a legal code and no one else does either. Who said the Ten Commandments was not legal code for Gentiles.  Listen to what I am saying.  Who come up with the legal code thing. It was you Winsome  wasn't it ?  It's all winsome flim flam isn't it. There is no legal code except in your own head.  Truth is All of the Ten commandments  applies to Israel and the church today. Isn't that true Winsome? The legal code thing is bunk.

Mclees are you seriously telling me you do not what a law is?

How can you read the B ible, especially Paul's letters if you do not know what the Law is, or what the Law of Moses is?

Remember the law of Moses my servant, which I enjoined him on Horeb, The statutes and ordinances for all Israel. (Mal 3:22)

When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses (Lk 1:22)

He said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled." (Lk 24:44)

f a man can receive circumcision on a sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because I made a whole person well on a sabbath? (Jn 7:23)

You must know, my brothers, that through him forgiveness of sins is being proclaimed to you, (and) in regard to everything from which you could not be justified° under the law of Moses, (Acts 13:38)

It is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." (1Cor 9:9)


The Old Law (Law of Moses) was not a single law but a whole collection of laws. That is what a legal code is

code
3. a systematic collection of laws or statutes: the penal code.
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)

Under Law (Code) Wikipedia says:
The legal code was a common feature of the legal systems of the ancient Middle East. The Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100-2050 BC), then the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BC), are amongst the earliest and best preserved legal codes, originating in the Fertile Crescent.
The Hebrew Written Torah and Oral Torah (c. 1330 BCE) comprise the whole body of Jewish legal code and constitute the earliest and best preserved ethical code at the same time. Adopted to every field of actual day-to-day life since thousands of years, Jewish Halakha is the oldest collective body of religious laws, laws and jurisdictions still in use.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says under Law Code (Alternate title legal code)
 

law code, also called Legal Code,

a more or less systematic and comprehensive written statement of laws. Law codes were compiled by the most ancient peoples.

Under Hebraic Law it says:
Hebraic law, body of ancient Hebrew law codes found in various places in the Old Testament and similar to earlier law codes of ancient Middle Eastern monarchs—such as the Code of Hammurabi, an 18th–17th-century-bc Babylonian king, and the Code of Lipit-Ishtar, a 20th-century-bc king of the Mesopotamian city of Eshnunna.

And continues
The laws of the Hebrews were conceived in the same manner. Two types of law are noted in the Hebrew law codes: (1) casuistic, or case, law, which contains a conditional statement and a type of punishment to be meted out; and (2) apodictic law, i.e., regulations in the form of divine commands (e.g., the Ten Commandments). The following Hebraic law codes are incorporated in the Old Testament: (1) the Book of the Covenant, or the Covenant Code; (2) the Deuteronomic Code; and (3) the Priestly Code.


The Book of the Covenant, one of the oldest collections of law in the Old Testament, is found in Exodus 20:22–23:33. Similar to the Code of Hammurabi, the Covenant Code is divided into the following sections: (1) a prologue; (2) laws on the worship of Yahweh; (3) laws dealing with persons; (4) property laws; (5) laws concerned with the continuance of the Covenant; and (6) an epilogue, with warnings and promises. In both the Code of Hammurabi and the Covenant Code, the lex talionis (the law of retribution)—namely, the "eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" law—is found.

well winsome... just imagine if someone who knows nothing about the bible, moses or Christ happens to lurk here... they'll leave in frustration for sure.

there is so much 'flowery' wording used, seldom used words, big words - and even latin -  and then the mountainous words of the CCC - where the basic info is buried deep in who knows what.   There are so many twists and turns to it that most  Catholics have a problem figuring out what it REALLY says (the purpose of it I suppose). 
the KJV is a breeze compared to the CCC - and some of the posts here.

I think some use certain words in hopes that others think they are a scholar, or to disguise that they really don't know what they are saying.  Just the adjectives often used are enough to confound many posts.

Add to that the bad spelling, words left out (incomplete/broken thoughts), run on sentences, no punctuation, and the whole runon post in a lump (unbroken by any spacing) -  and the list goes on...

skeeter,

If you can't cope then don't come to this forum.

: winsome  Tue Oct 28, 2014 - 15:01:58
skeeter,

If you can't cope then don't come to this forum.

I can - tho I do skip a number of posts...  I guess you blew right over the part about those lurking.

Then again, you're the one complaining about mclees posts - right?  So maybe it isn't that you really don't understand ... or understand why mclees doesn't understand your posts?

What it all boils down to is that Catholics will TELL you they observe the 10 Commandments, unless you catch them breaking them, and then... they have another explanation as to what a Commandment really is and who it is for. 

They replace any relationship they might have with the Lord with devotion to everyone and everything except Jesus.  They speak in circles and accuse you of going around.  They dodge the truth and accuse you of accusing them of lying.

It's all some big slight of hand for a Catholic to live the life of a religious martyr rather than to actually walk with Jesus Christ in open relationship. 

If you hear them speak of who they are... "I am a Catholic"... not, "I am a Christian".  Like being the one is higher than being the other.  There is no higher calling than to be a Christian.  No religion on earth is mentioned as the Bride of Christ.  None of them.  Probably because being a "Christian" is not about being a religion.   Just sayin...

: kensington  Tue Oct 28, 2014 - 22:57:00
What it all boils down to is that Catholics will TELL you they observe the 10 Commandments, unless you catch them breaking them, and then... they have another explanation as to what a Commandment really is and who it is for. 

They replace any relationship they might have with the Lord with devotion to everyone and everything except Jesus.  They speak in circles and accuse you of going around.  They dodge the truth and accuse you of accusing them of lying.

yes, I've been reading on  a few other RC forums and they do the same there.  Some go so far outside of reality in dodging.  Who do they think they're fooling with those tactics?
They continually say 'you've got to keep the commandments or you aren't saved' -  then on here today?  they need to get on the same page.

If you hear them speak of who they are... "I am a Catholic"... not, "I am a Christian".  Like being the one is higher than being the other.  There is no higher calling than to be a Christian.  No religion on earth is mentioned as the Bride of Christ.  None of them.  Probably because being a "Christian" is not about being a religion.   Just sayin...

being Catholic is their priority, their identity is thru the RC.   They don't understand about Christianity not being a religion.  Being religious is very important to them. 

My sister did the 'Catholic Christian' thing for about a yr - then she dropped the Catholic.

skeeter says : " being Catholic is their priority, their identity is thru the RC."

My identity as a Catholic is through my being a member of the Catholic Church , the Church founded by Jesus ,

Just as for you your identity is through your Protestantism .

But it is also true to say that my identity is through Jesus .

The Church is the Body of Christ , so being part of the Body of Christ , the Church , is how I get my identity .

The two go together .

My identity through the Church , the Body of Christ , and my identity through Jesus are two sides of the same coin .

Reflecting on the readings during morning Mass at Casa Santa Marta last Tuesday Pope Francis said "a Christian is a person who knows how to wait for Jesus and cultivates a solid hope in Salvation." 

In the Gospel of Luke and in St Paul's letter to the Ephesians, the Pope said the people of God are united in Christ, Thanks to Him they have a name that goes beyond every enmity. quoting from Luke, he said: "blessed are the servants who await their master's return from a wedding with lighted lamps". In the scene that follows, he continued, Jesus has the servants recline at table and proceeds to wait on them.

The first service the Master performs for Christians, is to give them an "identity". Without Christ, the Pope said, we have no identity.  He explained, St Paul  tells the pagans to remember that without Christ, they were alienated from the community of Israel.  What Christ came to do, was to give us citizenship, a belonging to the people, a name and a surname. So from being enemies without peace,  he said,  Christ has turned us into one by his blood, breaking down the walls that divide.

"We all know that when we are not in peace with others, there is a wall. There is a wall that divides us. But Jesus offers us his service to break down this wall so we can meet. If we are divided, we are not friends: we are enemies. But he has reconciled us all in God. He has reconciled us as friends, as enemies, as strangers, as sons and daughters."

From simply being people in the street, people who were not even guests, Pope Francis said, to being "fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God". This is what God created with his coming.

But what are His conditions? Pope Francis said: "they are to await Him, like servants awaiting their master."

"He who does not await Jesus, who closes his door to Jesus, does not allow him to go forward with his work of peace, of community, of citizenship.

And he does more: he gives us a name. He renders us children of God. We need to adopt an attitude that contains Christian hope. A Christian is a man or a woman of hope. He or she knows the Lord will come. We do not know when, we do not know at what time, but He will come and He must not find us divided. He must find us as He rendered us with His service: friends living in peace." 

At this point, Pope Francis concluded, there is another question a Christian must ask himself: how do I await Jesus? And first: "shall I wait for Him or not?"

"Do I have faith in this hope that He will come? Is my heart open to hear Him knocking on the door, to hear Him entering the door?  A Christian is a man or a woman who knows how to await Jesus. He or she is a person of hope. A pagan – and so often we Christians behave like pagans – forgets Jesus, thinks only of himself, does not await Jesus. The selfish pagan behaves if he himself was a god: 'I make do on my own'. And he does not end up well, he ends up without a name, without closeness, without citizenship".

 Mclees are you seriously telling me you do not what a law is?

How can you read the B ible, especially Paul's letters if you do not know what the Law is, or what the Law of Moses is?

Remember the law of Moses my servant, which I enjoined him on Horeb, The statutes and ordinances for all Israel. (Mal 3:22)

When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses (Lk 1:22)

He said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled." (Lk 24:44)

f a man can receive circumcision on a sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because I made a whole person well on a sabbath? (Jn 7:23)

You must know, my brothers, that through him forgiveness of sins is being proclaimed to you, (and) in regard to everything from which you could not be justified° under the law of Moses, (Acts 13:38)

It is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." (1Cor 9:9)


The Old Law (Law of Moses) was not a single law but a whole collection of laws. That is what a legal code is

code
3. a systematic collection of laws or statutes: the penal code.
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)

Under Law (Code) Wikipedia says:
The legal code was a common feature of the legal systems of the ancient Middle East. The Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100-2050 BC), then the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BC), are amongst the earliest and best preserved legal codes, originating in the Fertile Crescent.
The Hebrew Written Torah and Oral Torah (c. 1330 BCE) comprise the whole body of Jewish legal code and constitute the earliest and best preserved ethical code at the same time. Adopted to every field of actual day-to-day life since thousands of years, Jewish Halakha is the oldest collective body of religious laws, laws and jurisdictions still in use.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says under Law Code (Alternate title legal code)
 

law code, also called Legal Code,

a more or less systematic and comprehensive written statement of laws. Law codes were compiled by the most ancient peoples.

Under Hebraic Law it says:
Hebraic law, body of ancient Hebrew law codes found in various places in the Old Testament and similar to earlier law codes of ancient Middle Eastern monarchs—such as the Code of Hammurabi, an 18th–17th-century-bc Babylonian king, and the Code of Lipit-Ishtar, a 20th-century-bc king of the Mesopotamian city of Eshnunna.

And continues
The laws of the Hebrews were conceived in the same manner. Two types of law are noted in the Hebrew law codes: (1) casuistic, or case, law, which contains a conditional statement and a type of punishment to be meted out; and (2) apodictic law, i.e., regulations in the form of divine commands (e.g., the Ten Commandments). The following Hebraic law codes are incorporated in the Old Testament: (1) the Book of the Covenant, or the Covenant Code; (2) the Deuteronomic Code; and (3) the Priestly Code.


The Book of the Covenant, one of the oldest collections of law in the Old Testament, is found in Exodus 20:22–23:33. Similar to the Code of Hammurabi, the Covenant Code is divided into the following sections: (1) a prologue; (2) laws on the worship of Yahweh; (3) laws dealing with persons; (4) property laws; (5) laws concerned with the continuance of the Covenant; and (6) an epilogue, with warnings and promises. In both the Code of Hammurabi and the Covenant Code, the lex talionis (the law of retribution)—namely, the "eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" law—is found.

Catholic Catechism
justified man is still bound to keep them;28 the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostle
2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the s, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."29

I am not stupid just not familiar with you two dollar language. Getting this out of you was like pulling teeth. Now that you have made it plain I wished you would have kept it simple. Legal code then was simply a term for law which in this case was given to Isreal. There was no need to use the term legal code for The Laws of Moses).  I am just a simple guy that likes everyday language. So now we are getting somewhere.  So you are associating the Ten commanments as legal code (Laws) only given to Israel and not given to the gentiles. I understood that as what you were saying.  I am saying and in very plain terms that the Ten commandments is not counted as laws just given to Israel but given for every believer then and now and for all time. Also this is supported by you own Catechism Which I have already posted so this matter is settled.

One of the laws !

Leviticus 20:10 .

"'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbour--both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. "

Anyone on here who keeps that commandment ?

One of the laws !

Leviticus 20:10 .

"'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbour--both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. "

Anyone on here who keeps that commandment ?


Our laws today would forbid that ( we must obey the legal code of the present time. I suppose you are trying to justify the making of images and bowing to them.  The ten Commandments says thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery.   These laws of God are valid for His church today as well as then.

: mcleesI am not stupid just not familiar with you two dollar language. Getting this out of you was like pulling teeth. Now that you have made it plain I wished you would have kept it simple. Legal code then was simply a term for law which in this case was given to Isreal. There was no need to use the term legal code for The Laws of Moses).  I am just a simple guy that likes everyday language. So now we are getting somewhere.  So you are associating the Ten commanments as legal code (Laws) only given to Israel and not given to the gentiles. I understood that as what you were saying.  I am saying and in very plain terms that the Ten commandments is not counted as laws just given to Israel but given for every believer then and now and for all time. Also this is supported by you own Catechism Which I have already posted so this matter is settled.

You have pulled that quote out of context - out of the context in the Catechism, out of the context of 2,000 years of Catholic teaching. It's no wonder you do not understand.

But that is typical. It's like you pull a quote from scripture out of context and make it look as though its saying something it isn't.

I would explain but it could take pages and you still wouldn't understand.

: Paulus  Wed Oct 29, 2014 - 08:37:35
One of the laws !

Leviticus 20:10 .

"'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbour--both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. "

Anyone on here who keeps that commandment ?

It should be back in the laws of every state and country.

: Paulus  Wed Oct 29, 2014 - 02:53:35
skeeter says : " being Catholic is their priority, their identity is thru the RC."

Just as for you your identity is through your Protestantism .

I'm not protestant.  My identity is thru Jesus Christ.

: winsome  Wed Oct 29, 2014 - 10:12:59

: mcleesI am not stupid just not familiar with you two dollar language. Getting this out of you was like pulling teeth. Now that you have made it plain I wished you would have kept it simple. Legal code then was simply a term for law which in this case was given to Isreal. There was no need to use the term legal code for The Laws of Moses).  I am just a simple guy that likes everyday language. So now we are getting somewhere.  So you are associating the Ten commanments as legal code (Laws) only given to Israel and not given to the gentiles. I understood that as what you were saying.  I am saying and in very plain terms that the Ten commandments is not counted as laws just given to Israel but given for every believer then and now and for all time. Also this is supported by you own Catechism Which I have already posted so this matter is settled.

You have pulled that quote out of context - out of the context in the Catechism, out of the context of 2,000 years of Catholic teaching. It's no wonder you do not understand.

But that is typical. It's like you pull a quote from scripture out of context and make it look as though its saying something it isn't.

what quote?

that's typical of Catholics, not non Catholics.

I am not stupid just not familiar with you two dollar language. Getting this out of you was like pulling teeth. Now that you have made it plain I wished you would have kept it simple. Legal code then was simply a term for law which in this case was given to Isreal. There was no need to use the term legal code for The Laws of Moses).  I am just a simple guy that likes everyday language. So now we are getting somewhere.  So you are associating the Ten commanments as legal code (Laws) only given to Israel and not given to the gentiles. I understood that as what you were saying.  I am saying and in very plain terms that the Ten commandments is not counted as laws just given to Israel but given for every believer then and now and for all time. Also this is supported by you own Catechism Which I have already posted so this matter is settled.



You have pulled that quote out of context - out of the context in the Catechism, out of the context of 2,000 years of Catholic teaching. It's no wonder you do not understand

Now I just wonder how you think I could have done that?    ::pondering:: ::doh::

 

: mcleesYou have pulled that quote out of context - out of the context in the Catechism, out of the context of 2,000 years of Catholic teaching. It's no wonder you do not understand

Now I just wonder how you think I could have done that?  ::pondering:: ::doh::

I will explain

From the beginning God made certain moral laws that are applicable to all men in all times. We call them eternal moral laws.

Mankind knew these laws from the beginning because they were made known to him by his conscience. Thus Cain knew that he had done wrong when he murdered Abel. We believe that man can know something about God and his moral laws from our nature and our consciences.

As the psalmist says:
The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. (Ps 19:1-2)

Paul says:
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him (Rom 1:20-21)

And
When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them (Rom 2:14-15)

Thus God's eternal moral law already exists before man is created and is embedded in our hearts.

When God called the Israelites of Egypt he had to build them into a nation, a kingdom. He did this by means of a Covenant where he bound them to a set of laws, a code of law. This Covenant was accompanied by blessings for keeping the covenant and curses for breaking it. This was standard for Ancient Near East Covenants (ANE Covenants).

All these laws were written down and can be found particularly in Exodus and Leviticus or in Deuteronomy. The Book of the Law (which contained the Ten Commandments) was put on the outside of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ten Commandments were also written on stone, by God, and placed inside the Ark.

The Ten Commandments are a summary of the most important part of the Law. In the Sinai Covenant they summarise the Covenant Law, the breaking of which can trigger the Covenant curses. Since the Gentiles were never a part of the Sinai Covenant they had no part in the Covenant blessings or curses when the Israelites kept or broke them. The Ten Commandments were not applicable to them, or us, as a legal code.

However as a summary of God's eternal moral laws they are applicable to us – although not all are moral laws. At least one is not - the Sabbath command. It does have a moral component in that we are obliged to give time to God. But that is not the main purpose of the Sabbath for the Israelites.

Mclees, You asked me earlier:
Do you believe the Ten Commandments is valid to day for all believers Yes or no?

To which I answered:
As a legal code for the Sinai Covenant the Ten Commandments are not valid for Gentile believers today because:
a) they were never valid for Gentiles
b) the Sinai Covenant has been abolished

Do you understand what I mean now?

This differentiation between the Ten Commandments as Law for the Israelites under the Sinai Covenant, and the Ten Commandments as a summary (for the most part) of God's eternal moral laws is important. If you don't understand that, then stop reading as the rest is a waste of your time.




The Catholic Church teaches that the Old Covenant is revoked/ abrogated/ abolished or whatever word you like to us. The Bible also teaches that. I've given loads of scriptures for that and I'll give them again if you need it. But here I am concentrating on what the Catholic Church teaches.

From the Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent)
But, lest the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, may imagine that the precepts of the Decalogue are no longer obligatory, it should be taught that when God gave the Law to Moses, He did not so much establish a new code, as render more luminous that divine light b which the depraved morals and long­ continued perversity of man had at that time almost obscured. It is most certain that we are not bound to obey the Commandments because they were delivered by Moses, but because they are implanted in the hearts of all, and have been explained and confirmed by Christ our Lord.

Note the two parts I have emboldened.
Firstly it declares the Mosaic Law is abrogated. In other words as a legal code it is no longer valid.

Secondly it says we obey them, not because they were delivered by Moses. In other words we do not obey them because they are the Law of Moses. Again we considering them as part of the legal code of the Sinai Covenant

Thirdly we obey them because they are implanted in the hearts of all. In other words we obey them because they are a summary of the eternal moral law, implanted in our hearts (i.e. the natural law)


Pope Pius XII says in Mystici Corporis (1943)
29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ......... onthe gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom."

Again he is saying that the Old Law is abolished.

Now let us turn to the Catechism before the quote you gave (para 2068) because that is important for the context of 2068.

There is a Section called The Moral Law. Within that there are several sections

The Natural Moral Law (paras 1954 to 1960)
1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men.....

It then moves on to The Old Law (1961 to 1964)
1962 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. The precepts of the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbour and prescribe what is essential to it. the Decalogue is a light offered to the conscience of every man to make God's call and ways known to him and to protect him against evil:

The next section is The New Law or the Law of the Gospel (para 1965 to1974)
1968 The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law.......

You see the context of this is all about the Decalogue as moral precepts. In that context they are still valid for us – at least those parts which are moral law.

In the section on  the Ten Commandments, in para 2063, it quotes St. Ireneaeus (Against Heresies)
The Lord prescribed love towards God and taught justice towards neighbor, so that man would be neither unjust, nor unworthy of God. Thus, through the Decalogue, God prepared man to become his friend and to live in harmony with his neighbor.... the words of the Decalogue remain likewise for us Christians. Far from being abolished, they have received amplification and development from the fact of the coming of the Lord in the flesh.

Irenaeus is here referring to the moral precepts of the Decalogue that remain for us Christians. Immediately following that quote Irenaeus continues:

The laws of bondage, however, were one by one promulgated to the people by Moses, suited for their instruction or for their punishment, as Moses himself declared: And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments. These things, therefore, which were given for bondage, and for a sign to them, He cancelled by the new covenant of liberty. But He has increased and widened those laws which are natural, and noble, and common to all,...

Irenaeus declares that the laws which are natural and common to all (the natural law) Jesus has widened.

So when we come to para 2068 we have to understand that the context is the Ten Commandments as a summary of the eternal moral Law. It is in that context that we have to obey it.

But not all of the Ten Commandments are moral laws. The Sabbath command is not.Going back to the Catechism of the Council of Trent it says about the Third Commandment, under the title "How The Third Differs From The Other Commandments":
This Commandment about the observance of the Sabbath, on the other hand, considered as to the time appointed for its fulfilment, is not fixed and unalterable, but susceptible of change, and belongs not to the moral, but the ceremonial law.


That is why in the current Catechism under the Sabbath Command:
2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all." Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.

The Catechism tells us we have to obey the Decalogue's moral commandments because they are part of God's moral law, inscribed on our hearts.


But the Church also teaches that as a legal code the Old Law is abrogated.

Now back to the issue of image. The command against the making of images in the First Commandment is not a moral; issue. It's what we do with those images that becomes immoral or not. After all, we all make an image when we take a photograph, a video or make a photocopy, update facebook or a web site. We see and use many images in our daily lives images. Are all these actions breaking the First Commandments? Seriously?

You have pulled that quote out of context - out of the context in the Catechism, out of the context of 2,000 years of Catholic teaching. It's no wonder you do not understand

Now I just wonder how you think I could have done that?  ::pondering:: ::doh::




I will explain

From the beginning God made certain moral laws that are applicable to all men in all times. We call them eternal moral laws.

Mankind knew these laws from the beginning because they were made known to him by his conscience. Thus Cain knew that he had done wrong when he murdered Abel. We believe that man can know something about God and his moral laws from our nature and our consciences.

As the psalmist says:
The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. (Ps 19:1-2)

Paul says:
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him (Rom 1:20-21)

And
When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them (Rom 2:14-15)

Thus God's eternal moral law already exists before man is created and is embedded in our hearts.

When God called the Israelites of Egypt he had to build them into a nation, a kingdom. He did this by means of a Covenant where he bound them to a set of laws, a code of law. This Covenant was accompanied by blessings for keeping the covenant and curses for breaking it. This was standard for Ancient Near East Covenants (ANE Covenants).

All these laws were written down and can be found particularly in Exodus and Leviticus or in Deuteronomy. The Book of the Law (which contained the Ten Commandments) was put on the outside of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ten Commandments were also written on stone, by God, and placed inside the Ark.

The Ten Commandments are a summary of the most important part of the Law. In the Sinai Covenant they summarise the Covenant Law, the breaking of which can trigger the Covenant curses. Since the Gentiles were never a part of the Sinai Covenant they had no part in the Covenant blessings or curses when the Israelites kept or broke them. The Ten Commandments were not applicable to them, or us, as a legal code.

However as a summary of God's eternal moral laws they are applicable to us – although not all are moral laws. At least one is not - the Sabbath command. It does have a moral component in that we are obliged to give time to God. But that is not the main purpose of the Sabbath for the Israelites.

Mclees, You asked me earlier:
Do you believe the Ten Commandments is valid to day for all believers Yes or no?

To which I answered:
As a legal code for the Sinai Covenant the Ten Commandments are not valid for Gentile believers today because:
a) they were never valid for Gentiles
b) the Sinai Covenant has been abolished

Do you understand what I mean now?

This differentiation between the Ten Commandments as Law for the Israelites under the Sinai Covenant, and the Ten Commandments as a summary (for the most part) of God's eternal moral laws is important. If you don't understand that, then stop reading as the rest is a waste of your time.




The Catholic Church teaches that the Old Covenant is revoked/ abrogated/ abolished or whatever word you like to us. The Bible also teaches that. I've given loads of scriptures for that and I'll give them again if you need it. But here I am concentrating on what the Catholic Church teaches.

From the Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent)
But, lest the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, may imagine that the precepts of the Decalogue are no longer obligatory, it should be taught that when God gave the Law to Moses, He did not so much establish a new code, as render more luminous that divine light b which the depraved morals and long­ continued perversity of man had at that time almost obscured. It is most certain that we are not bound to obey the Commandments because they were delivered by Moses, but because they are implanted in the hearts of all, and have been explained and confirmed by Christ our Lord.

Note the two parts I have emboldened.
Firstly it declares the Mosaic Law is abrogated. In other words as a legal code it is no longer valid.

Secondly it says we obey them, not because they were delivered by Moses. In other words we do not obey them because they are the Law of Moses. Again we considering them as part of the legal code of the Sinai Covenant

Thirdly we obey them because they are implanted in the hearts of all. In other words we obey them because they are a summary of the eternal moral law, implanted in our hearts (i.e. the natural law)


Pope Pius XII says in Mystici Corporis (1943)
29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ......... onthe gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom."

Again he is saying that the Old Law is abolished.

Now let us turn to the Catechism before the quote you gave (para 2068) because that is important for the context of 2068.

There is a Section called The Moral Law. Within that there are several sections

The Natural Moral Law (paras 1954 to 1960)
1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men.....

It then moves on to The Old Law (1961 to 1964)
1962 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. The precepts of the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbour and prescribe what is essential to it. the Decalogue is a light offered to the conscience of every man to make God's call and ways known to him and to protect him against evil:

The next section is The New Law or the Law of the Gospel (para 1965 to1974)
1968 The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law.......

You see the context of this is all about the Decalogue as moral precepts. In that context they are still valid for us – at least those parts which are moral law.

In the section on  the Ten Commandments, in para 2063, it quotes St. Ireneaeus (Against Heresies)
The Lord prescribed love towards God and taught justice towards neighbor, so that man would be neither unjust, nor unworthy of God. Thus, through the Decalogue, God prepared man to become his friend and to live in harmony with his neighbor.... the words of the Decalogue remain likewise for us Christians. Far from being abolished, they have received amplification and development from the fact of the coming of the Lord in the flesh.

Irenaeus is here referring to the moral precepts of the Decalogue that remain for us Christians. Immediately following that quote Irenaeus continues:

The laws of bondage, however, were one by one promulgated to the people by Moses, suited for their instruction or for their punishment, as Moses himself declared: And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments. These things, therefore, which were given for bondage, and for a sign to them, He cancelled by the new covenant of liberty. But He has increased and widened those laws which are natural, and noble, and common to all,...

Irenaeus declares that the laws which are natural and common to all (the natural law) Jesus has widened.

So when we come to para 2068 we have to understand that the context is the Ten Commandments as a summary of the eternal moral Law. It is in that context that we have to obey it.

But not all of the Ten Commandments are moral laws. The Sabbath command is not.Going back to the Catechism of the Council of Trent it says about the Third Commandment, under the title "How The Third Differs From The Other Commandments":
This Commandment about the observance of the Sabbath, on the other hand, considered as to the time appointed for its fulfilment, is not fixed and unalterable, but susceptible of change, and belongs not to the moral, but the ceremonial law.


That is why in the current Catechism under the Sabbath Command:
2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all." Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.

The Catechism tells us we have to obey the Decalogue's moral commandments because they are part of God's moral law, inscribed on our hearts.


But the Church also teaches that as a legal code the Old Law is abrogated.

Now back to the issue of image. The command against the making of images in the First Commandment is not a moral; issue. It's what we do with those images that becomes immoral or not. After all, we all make an image when we take a photograph, a video or make a photocopy, update facebook or a web site. We see and use many images in our daily lives images. Are all these actions breaking the First Commandments? Seriously?


Well at last.   Now I know who was doing the defining.   I have much to say now. I pray it won't have to be as lengthy as this.  There is no distortion in anything I said.    I will explain    I will post tomorrow

Now back to the issue of image. The command against the making of images in the First Commandment is not a moral; issue. It's what we do with those images that becomes immoral or not. After all, we all make an image when we take a photograph, a video or make a photocopy, update facebook or a web site. We see and use many images in our daily lives images. Are all these actions breaking the First Commandments? Seriously?

So WHO decided that what God said was not what God meant?  That even thought he said not to "make for yourselves graven images" he actually meant that Catholics could?  How can one half of what God commanded be a command and the other half isn't? 

Or is this one of those situations like Jesus spoke of concerning Divorce and Moses?  He allowed them to divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.   Did the people cry out for images so much, that the CC decided you can have them, just don't bow to them or pray to them... which the people went on to do anyway.  I have to wonder.

I really can't fault todays' Catholic too much, all they have done really is to fall for false teachings concerning the word of God. Sadly.

: kensingtonSo WHO decided that what God said was not what God meant?  That even thought he said not to "make for yourselves graven images" he actually meant that Catholics could?  How can one half of what God commanded be a command and the other half isn't? 

Oh what fun. let's go round the loop again shall we, just as though we haven't been round it several times already?

Dt. 5:1-9
1 And Moses summoned all Israel, and said to them, "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your hearing this day, and you shall learn them and be careful to do them.
2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3 Not with our fathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive this day.
4 The Lord spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire,
5 while I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up into the mountain. He said:
6 "'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
7 "'You shall have no other gods before me.........

22 "These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them to me.......

27 Go near, and hear all that the Lord our God will say; and speak to us all that the Lord our God will speak to you; and we will hear and do it.'

This very clearly shows that the Ten Commandments were given the Israelites at Horeb (Sinai) as part of the Covenant Law. The Covenant was made between God and the Israelites with Moses as Covenant Mediator. The Gentiles were not a party to it.

Paul says:
Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (Eph 2:12)
Gentiles were strangers to the covenants.



Now your turn kensington (prompt - does that mean we can murder and steal as well?)

You say that the command was not for you...  But, yet... you still explain away the second half to give yourselves permission to have images and idols to worship and pray to, by saying it was not the image making that was wrong, it was the bowing to them.

Which is it?  Why do you continue to go in this circle?  Why do believe you can have it both ways. 

God said no idols, but he didn't mean you.  God said no bowing to them, so you call it something else when you bow. 

: winsome  Thu Oct 30, 2014 - 17:03:09

: kensingtonSo WHO decided that what God said was not what God meant?  That even thought he said not to "make for yourselves graven images" he actually meant that Catholics could?  How can one half of what God commanded be a command and the other half isn't? 

Oh what fun. let's go round the loop again shall we, just as though we haven't been round it several times already?

Dt. 5:1-9
1 And Moses summoned all Israel, and said to them, "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your hearing this day, and you shall learn them and be careful to do them.
2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3 Not with our fathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive this day.
4 The Lord spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire,
5 while I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up into the mountain. He said:
6 "'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
7 "'You shall have no other gods before me.........

22 "These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them to me.......

27 Go near, and hear all that the Lord our God will say; and speak to us all that the Lord our God will speak to you; and we will hear and do it.'

This very clearly shows that the Ten Commandments were given the Israelites at Horeb (Sinai) as part of the Covenant Law. The Covenant was made between God and the Israelites with Moses as Covenant Mediator. The Gentiles were not a party to it.

Paul says:
Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (Eph 2:12)
Gentiles were strangers to the covenants.



Now your turn kensington (prompt - does that mean we can murder and steal as well?)

why is it a problem for you?  you could ignore the post or do what you do... keep pasting the same post over and over and over...  it's not like you're actually responding to each of her posts.  cut and paste... cut and paste...

how many times now have you pasted that in for a pretend reply?

: kensington
You say that the command was not for you...  But, yet... you still explain away the second half to give yourselves permission to have images and idols to worship and pray to, by saying it was not the image making that was wrong, it was the bowing to them.

Which is it?  Why do you continue to go in this circle?  Why do believe you can have it both ways.

I didn't say " it was not the image making that was wrong, it was the bowing to them."

There are two seperate things here:

1. We do not bow, or worship, or anything, to the image but to the person represented by the image. We honour them.

2. Bowing in iself is not worship.

: kensingtonGod said no idols, but he didn't mean you.  God said no bowing to them, so you call it something else when you bow. 

We don't have idols.

Idols are images that are worshipped

idol
n    noun
1    an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship.
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)

We do not worship images.

: skeeterwhy is it a problem for you?  you could ignore the post or do what you do... keep pasting the same post over and over and over...  it's not like you're actually responding to each of her posts.  cut and paste... cut and paste...

how many times now have you pasted that in for a pretend reply?

If people took any notice of it the first time I posted it I wouldn't have to repeat it.

It was kensigton that started round the whole loop yet again not me.

kensington, skeeter,

did you watch the videos that Paulus posted in the OP of "Catholics Do Not worship Idols"?

: winsome  Fri Oct 31, 2014 - 05:12:42

: kensington
You say that the command was not for you...  But, yet... you still explain away the second half to give yourselves permission to have images and idols to worship and pray to, by saying it was not the image making that was wrong, it was the bowing to them.

Which is it?  Why do you continue to go in this circle?  Why do believe you can have it both ways.

I didn't say " it was not the image making that was wrong, it was the bowing to them."

There are two seperate things here:

1. We do not bow, or worship, or anything, to the image but to the person represented by the image. We honour them.

2. Bowing in iself is not worship.

: kensingtonGod said no idols, but he didn't mean you.  God said no bowing to them, so you call it something else when you bow. 

We don't have idols.

Idols are images that are worshipped

idol
n    noun
1    an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship.
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)

We do not worship images.

cut and paste... cut and paste... Kensington probably fell asleep after the first 2 lines...

evidently you just  don't understand that commandment... what does the NT say about idols and worship?  keep it simple. from the NT .... don't have to cut and paste a book here.

: winsome  Fri Oct 31, 2014 - 05:17:50
kensington, skeeter,

did you watch the videos that Paulus posted in the OP of "Catholics Do Not worship Idols"?

not I....

: skeeterwhat does the NT say about idols and worship?  keep it simple. from the NT .... don't have to cut and paste a book here.

Catholics do not worship idols.

Is that simple enough for you?

Answering to winsome

I think I know pretty much what you are wanting me or us to understand. I am going to use my own plain language here OK. Hear are a couple definitions to start

de•i•fy
verb \ˈdē-ə-ˌfī, ˈdā-\
: to treat (someone or something) like a god or goddess
de•i•fiedde•i•fy•ing

 
Full Definition of DEIFY
transitive verb
1
a :  to make a god of
b :  to take as an object of worship
2
:  to glorify as of supreme worth


Idolatry
British Dictionary definitions for idolatry Expand
idolatry
/aɪˈdɒlətrɪ/
noun
1.
the worship of idols
2.
great devotion or reverence

idolatry in the Bible 

image-worship or divine honour paid to any created object. Paul describes the origin of idolatry in Rom. 1:21-25: men forsook God, and sank into ignorance and moral corruption (1:28). The forms of idolatry are, (1.) Fetishism, or the worship of trees, rivers, hills, stones, etc. (2.) Nature worship, the worship of the sun, moon, and stars, as the supposed powers of nature. (3.) Hero worship, the worship of deceased ancestors, or of heroes. In Scripture, idolatry is regarded as of heathen origin, and as being imported among the Hebrews through contact with heathen nations. The first allusion to idolatry is in the account of Rachel stealing her father's teraphim (Gen. 31:19), which were the relics of the worship of other gods by Laban's progenitors "on the other side of the river in old time" (Josh. 24:2). During their long residence in Egypt the Hebrews fell into idolatry, and it was long before they were delivered from it (Josh. 24:14; Ezek. 20:7). Many a token of God's displeasure fell upon them because of this sin. The idolatry learned in Egypt was probably rooted out from among the people during the forty years' wanderings; but when the Jews entered Palestine, they came into contact with the monuments and associations of the idolatry of the old Canaanitish races, and showed a constant tendency to depart from the living God and follow the idolatrous practices of those heathen nations. It was their great national sin, which was only effectually rebuked by the Babylonian exile. That exile finally purified the Jews of all idolatrous tendencies. The first and second commandments are directed against idolatry of every form. Individuals and communities were equally amenable to the rigorous code. The individual offender was devoted to destruction (Ex. 22:20). His nearest relatives were not only bound to denounce him and deliver him up to punishment (Deut. 13:20-10), but their hands were to strike the first blow when, on the evidence of two witnesses at least, he was stoned (Deut. 17:2-7). To attempt to seduce others to false worship was a crime of equal enormity (13:6-10). An idolatrous nation shared the same fate. No facts are more strongly declared in the Old Testament than that the extermination of the Canaanites was the punishment of their idolatry (Ex. 34:15, 16; Deut. 7; 12:29-31; 20:17), and that the calamities of the Israelites were due to the same cause (Jer. 2:17). "A city guilty of idolatry was looked upon as a cancer in the state; it was considered to be in rebellion, and treated according to the laws of war. Its inhabitants and all their cattle were put to death." Jehovah was the theocratic King of Israel, the civil Head of the commonwealth, and therefore to an Israelite idolatry was a state offence (1 Sam. 15:23), high treason. On taking possession of the land, the Jews were commanded to destroy all traces of every kind of the existing idolatry of the Canaanites (Ex. 23:24, 32; 34:13; Deut. 7:5, 25; 12:1-3). In the New Testament the term idolatry is used to designate covetousness (Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13; Col. 3:5; Eph. 5:5).

Concerning the references to Old Testament Idolatry, even the Ten commandments to replicate them today any way would carry the same weight because it is great greivious sin which takes from Gods glory as well as the glory of Christ When Moses came off the mountain and saw them worshiping the golden calf, half of Israel died for it. How much more should we take note of any form of idolatry. So what is idolatry? It is anything we worship aside from God Himself. All who are without Christ or have rejected Him are those who love the world and all that is self more than God. This also speaks to all relgions outside of Christ.
It is even more grevious than any of the moral commandments.  This is not just opinion but revealed by the Holy Spirit.

Now the world at large for the most part cares nothing about the Ten commandments. Only by a certain assent maybe. Yes the laws were Given to Israel at  Saini. The Mosaic laws were for Israel, but the Ten commandments were special. God wrote them on stone. I don't really care for all the Catholic language to much. It only confuses things for me. I think of what does the tablets of stone mean. We have sayings like something to be written in stone. It implies final and for all time. So God wrote His ten commandments on stone and they were placed in the Ark as you say and to this day no one has ever found them. God will never allow that. Nothing of His message for us will ever be defiled. Gods moral commandments are for all men and for all time. Now no man has ever lived up them yet it will be a beacon of Gods will forever.

As you have been saying we can't keep the law because of being  law but as Gods people we strive for them out of our hearts that we should Obey them. As It was written in Ezekiel 36:26

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them 

Psalm 119:11  Thy word O Lord have I hid in my heart that I may not sin against thee.   

Even though we are no more under the law ( Mosaic law) we must not think of Gods laws as anything to be trifled with.  We cannot cut up the ten Commandments. We look to them as the moral code for all believers, not just one part this and one that. They are all moral law every one  of them, and must be seen seriously. We know that no one is able to keep them perfectly but they are Gods will that we must not trifle with them as to fudge around them for our own purposes and ideals but that is exactly what you councils do while encouraging  Catholics to also do. We cannot make up excuses as to what they mean. Its no accident that God deals with idols first. Nothing will minimize or stand beside Him. No, not even icons of saints or Mary.  You say bowing and praying to her image is not praying and bowing to her image. Go head you just keep saying that. There's an old saying though, when in doubt leave out. It would be better for you when it comes to making excuses that trifle with God's word to not do it. Only the Holy Spirit reveals and convicts of sin but if you ignore Him your hearts will harden. Let those who hear listen. 

I used to lie and steel and coveted things when I was in the world, but now I am saved and live by the Holy Spirit in me and when I cross lines He convicts me that I should not do them.
Jesus said, And when he 9  the Holy Ghost) is come, he will reproveb the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; 10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; 11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. 

Jesus said it was expedient that I go away because if I do not go away the Comforter would be able to come. John 16:7

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.   John 16:13,14
Why did Jesus half to away?
1)   He had to be crucified for our Sins

2)   Jesus was God but could not remain in the flesh but had to go back to the Father so that we should worship Him in the Spirit. Just as Steven said "I see Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father."  If you cannot understand this than you cannot be Born again of the spirit  The world without Christ is idolatrous. It only loves itself . Jesus could not be God while in the world. The world will raise up its own God and beware of great deception
5 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.   

Why not make an image of Mary and idolize and deify her. They have already done it.

And they changed the laws of God

I asked who was defining these things about legal code and all that, and when were they defined. It is a human trait to justify. I feel we have a good example of it here. There was a struggle over what the Ten commandments said concerning idols and the making of images and bowing to them. In the end the council upheld their use and made excuses and twisted definitions.

I also noted that there was much talk about the heart but not one mention of the Holy Spirit. No not in any posted comments by Popes or Ireainious  or anywhere in the definitions provided by Winsome. Where was the Holy Spirit who alone enables us to live by the commandments of God and turn away from the world.

We must read again Eze 36: 26

Kensington said: So WHO decided that what God said was not what God meant?

Why it is the church God set up here on earth through his son Jesus Christ. It states very clearly in the Holy Scriptures, but you reject that salient fact.  So NOTHING that church ever says or does is accepted by you.

: mcleesI think I know pretty much what you are wanting me or us to understand. I am going to use my own plain language here OK. Hear are a couple definitions to start
de•i•fy
verb \ˈdē-ə-ˌfī, ˈdā-\
: to treat (someone or something) like a god or goddess
de•i•fiedde•i•fy•ing

 
Full Definition of DEIFY
transitive verb
1
a :  to make a god of
b :  to take as an object of worship
2
:  to glorify as of supreme worth


Idolatry
British Dictionary definitions for idolatry Expand
idolatry
/aɪˈdɒlətrɪ/
noun
1.
the worship of idols
2.
great devotion or reverence

idolatry in the Bible 

image-worship or divine honour paid to any created object. Paul describes the origin of idolatry in Rom. 1:21-25: men forsook God, and sank into ignorance and moral corruption (1:28). The forms of idolatry are, (1.) Fetishism, or the worship of trees, rivers, hills, stones, etc. (2.) Nature worship, the worship of the sun, moon, and stars, as the supposed powers of nature. (3.) Hero worship, the worship of deceased ancestors, or of heroes. In Scripture, idolatry is regarded as of heathen origin, and as being imported among the Hebrews through contact with heathen nations. The first allusion to idolatry is in the account of Rachel stealing her father's teraphim (Gen. 31:19), which were the relics of the worship of other gods by Laban's progenitors "on the other side of the river in old time" (Josh. 24:2). During their long residence in Egypt the Hebrews fell into idolatry, and it was long before they were delivered from it (Josh. 24:14; Ezek. 20:7). Many a token of God's displeasure fell upon them because of this sin. The idolatry learned in Egypt was probably rooted out from among the people during the forty years' wanderings; but when the Jews entered Palestine, they came into contact with the monuments and associations of the idolatry of the old Canaanitish races, and showed a constant tendency to depart from the living God and follow the idolatrous practices of those heathen nations. It was their great national sin, which was only effectually rebuked by the Babylonian exile. That exile finally purified the Jews of all idolatrous tendencies. The first and second commandments are directed against idolatry of every form. Individuals and communities were equally amenable to the rigorous code. The individual offender was devoted to destruction (Ex. 22:20). His nearest relatives were not only bound to denounce him and deliver him up to punishment (Deut. 13:20-10), but their hands were to strike the first blow when, on the evidence of two witnesses at least, he was stoned (Deut. 17:2-7). To attempt to seduce others to false worship was a crime of equal enormity (13:6-10). An idolatrous nation shared the same fate. No facts are more strongly declared in the Old Testament than that the extermination of the Canaanites was the punishment of their idolatry (Ex. 34:15, 16; Deut. 7; 12:29-31; 20:17), and that the calamities of the Israelites were due to the same cause (Jer. 2:17). "A city guilty of idolatry was looked upon as a cancer in the state; it was considered to be in rebellion, and treated according to the laws of war. Its inhabitants and all their cattle were put to death." Jehovah was the theocratic King of Israel, the civil Head of the commonwealth, and therefore to an Israelite idolatry was a state offence (1 Sam. 15:23), high treason. On taking possession of the land, the Jews were commanded to destroy all traces of every kind of the existing idolatry of the Canaanites (Ex. 23:24, 32; 34:13; Deut. 7:5, 25; 12:1-3). In the New Testament the term idolatry is used to designate covetousness (Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13; Col. 3:5; Eph. 5:5).

WOW! And skeeter accuses me of cut and paste. But at least I only cut and paste from previous posts that he has ignored.

When you cut and paste great tracts from web sites you are supposed to acknowledge the source.

: mclees
Concerning the references to Old Testament Idolatry, even the Ten commandments to replicate them today any way would carry the same weight because it is great greivious sin which takes from Gods glory as well as the glory of Christ When Moses came off the mountain and saw them worshiping the golden calf, half of Israel died for it. How much more should we take note of any form of idolatry. So what is idolatry? It is anything we worship aside from God Himself. All who are without Christ or have rejected Him are those who love the world and all that is self more than God. This also speaks to all relgions outside of Christ.
It is even more grevious than any of the moral commandments.  This is not just opinion but revealed by the Holy Spirit.

But we do not worship idols

: mclees
Now the world at large for the most part cares nothing about the Ten commandments. Only by a certain assent maybe. Yes the laws were Given to Israel at  Saini. The Mosaic laws were for Israel, but the Ten commandments were special. God wrote them on stone. I don't really care for all the Catholic language to much. It only confuses things for me. I think of what does the tablets of stone mean. We have sayings like something to be written in stone. It implies final and for all time. So God wrote His ten commandments on stone and they were placed in the Ark as you say and to this day no one has ever found them. God will never allow that. Nothing of His message for us will ever be defiled. Gods moral commandments are for all men and for all time. Now no man has ever lived up them yet it will be a beacon of Gods will forever.

You say: "Gods moral commandments are for all men and for all time"

Agreed. That is exactly what I have been saying

: mclees
As you have been saying we can't keep the law because of being  law but as Gods people we strive for them out of our hearts that we should Obey them. As It was written in Ezekiel 36:26
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them 
Psalm 119:11  Thy word O Lord have I hid in my heart that I may not sin against thee.   
Even though we are no more under the law ( Mosaic law) we must not think of Gods laws as anything to be trifled with.

We do not trifle with God's law. I note you admit we are not under the Mosaic Law

: mcleesWe cannot cut up the ten Commandments.

Well that is just your opinion

: mclees
We look to them as the moral code for all believers, not just one part this and one that. They are all moral law every one  of them, and must be seen seriously. We know that no one is able to keep them perfectly but they are Gods will that we must not trifle with them as to fudge around them for our own purposes and ideals but that is exactly what you councils do while encouraging  Catholics to also do. We cannot make up excuses as to what they mean. Its no accident that God deals with idols first. Nothing will minimize or stand beside Him. No, not even icons of saints or Mary.  You say bowing and praying to her image is not praying and bowing to her image. Go head you just keep saying that. There's an old saying though, when in doubt leave out. It would be better for you when it comes to making excuses that trifle with God's word to not do it. Only the Holy Spirit reveals and convicts of sin but if you ignore Him your hearts will harden. Let those who hear listen. 
I used to lie and steel and coveted things when I was in the world, but now I am saved and live by the Holy Spirit in me and when I cross lines He convicts me that I should not do them.
Jesus said, And when he 9  the Holy Ghost) is come, he will reproveb the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; 10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; 11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. 

More opinions

: mclees

Jesus said it was expedient that I go away because if I do not go away the Comforter would be able to come. John 16:7

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.   John 16:13,14
Why did Jesus half to away?
1)   He had to be crucified for our Sins

2)   Jesus was God but could not remain in the flesh but had to go back to the Father so that we should worship Him in the Spirit. Just as Steven said "I see Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father."  If you cannot understand this than you cannot be Born again of the spirit  The world without Christ is idolatrous. It only loves itself . Jesus could not be God while in the world. The world will raise up its own God and beware of great deception
5 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.   

Agreed, but what has that to do with anything I said?

: mclees

Why not make an image of Mary and idolize and deify her. They have already done it.

No we haven't

: mclees
And they changed the laws of God

No we haven't

: mclees
I asked who was defining these things about legal code and all that, and when were they defined. It is a human trait to justify. I feel we have a good example of it here. There was a struggle over what the Ten commandments said concerning idols and the making of images and bowing to them. In the end the council upheld their use and made excuses and twisted definitions.

No twisted definitions. You are wrong.

 I'll keep this simple for skeeter!



One of the problems that Protestants have with images is that they have split the first Commandment into two and thus distorted the command.

First, two definitions from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary:
Idol: an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship..

Worship: the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.

The First Commandment.
Dt 5:7 You shall have no other gods before me.
Dt 5:8-9 You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them;

Dt 5:7 lays out the command.
Dt 5:8-9 expands that into what it means to have another god before the one true God.

But Protestants erroneously split the command into two and create misunderstanding over what the command is prohibiting.

It's prohibiting having another god before the one true God by worshipping an image as a another god.

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that there is only on true God.

The Creed which we say every Sunday at Mass starts "I believe in one God..."

Images & Statues not condemned by the Bible. God commands them to be made in certain circumstances:
Ex 25:18-20
1Chr 28:18-19
Ez 41:17-18
Num 21:8-9
But they were not to be worshipped



God commanded the bronze serpent to be made. When the Israelites looked at it, as God commanded, then God healed them of the serpents bite. When they looked at the serpent they were really looking to God for healing. (Num 21:6-9)

Later they started worshipping the bronze serpent so Hezekiah destroyed it. (2Kg 1:18).


That's when things went wrong.


Catholics do not worship statues.

: winsome  Fri Oct 31, 2014 - 13:42:19
I'll keep this simple for skeeter!



One of the problems that Protestants have with images is that they have split the first Commandment into two and thus distorted the command.

First, two definitions from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary:
Idol: an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship..

Worship: the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.

The First Commandment.
Dt 5:7 You shall have no other gods before me.
Dt 5:8-9 You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them;

Dt 5:7 lays out the command.
Dt 5:8-9 expands that into what it means to have another god before the one true God.

But Protestants erroneously split the command into two and create misunderstanding over what the command is prohibiting.

It's prohibiting having another god before the one true God by worshipping an image as a another god.

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that there is only on true God.

The Creed which we say every Sunday at Mass starts "I believe in one God..."

Images & Statues not condemned by the Bible. God commands them to be made in certain circumstances:
Ex 25:18-20
1Chr 28:18-19
Ez 41:17-18
Num 21:8-9
But they were not to be worshipped



God commanded the bronze serpent to be made. When the Israelites looked at it, as God commanded, then God healed them of the serpents bite. When they looked at the serpent they were really looking to God for healing. (Num 21:6-9)

Later they started worshipping the bronze serpent so Hezekiah destroyed it. (2Kg 1:18).


That's when things went wrong.


Catholics do not worship statues.

don't blame me for you convoluted posts and misinformation! (red above)

why are  you blaming protestants for doing what the RC did?  The RC  dropped the  'idol'  commandment #2 and then split #10 into 2 (9 and 10).  (blue above)

I looked up how the RC lists them.  pulled up a page that says from the CCC.  lists 3 columns - 1 is how they are in EX,   2 is how they list in Deut and 3  is how the RC lists them.

The 2nd commandment (graven image/idols)  for EX and Deut  lists as it should BUT  in the RC column - it's blank!!!  on down it then lists #2  as - 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain'.  That's # 3 in Ex and Deut.

the url has  'vatican.va/archive/ccc' in it.   If we're allowed to post urls,  I'll post the  whole url.

here's a list from another RC site:

1. I am the LORD your God. You shall worship the Lord your God and Him
    only shall you serve.
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.
4. Honor your father and your mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods


btw - since when do people tell God what He can do?  Is that what the RC teaches? God made the rules and He made them for man.

I'll keep this simple for skeeter!


Rude much?  Maybe there is a St. You can pray to about that?  You know patron St of "help me with my attitude"? 

: kensington  Sat Nov 01, 2014 - 01:19:24
I'll keep this simple for skeeter!


Rude much?  Maybe there is a St. You can pray to about that?  You know patron St of "help me with my attitude"?

of course, but it didn't surprise me.  even what he then posted as simple was a convoluted mess.  They do that on purpose - they do it on other  forums too.

I think it's a tactic they use.  It doesn't work on someone who is saved and knows God's word.

 

: skeeterwhy are  you blaming protestants for doing what the RC did?  The RC  dropped the  'idol'  commandment #2 and then split #10 into 2 (9 and 10).  (blue above)

I looked up how the RC lists them.  pulled up a page that says from the CCC.  lists 3 columns - 1 is how they are in EX,   2 is how they list in Deut and 3  is how the RC lists them

The 2nd commandment (graven image/idols)  for EX and Deut  lists as it should BUT  in the RC column - it's blank!!!  on down it then lists #2  as - 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain'.  That's # 3 in Ex and Deut.

the url has  'vatican.va/archive/ccc' in it.   If we're allowed to post urls,  I'll post the  whole url.

No it hasn't dropped anything.

If you look in the Catechism it is all there.

If you look in the detail in the Catechism you will find four paragraphs on "IV. "You Shall Not Make For Yourself a Graven Image . . ."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7F.HTM


The full first commandment is given on page 453 of my catechism and on the Vatican web site:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7B.HTM
Article 1
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.
It is written: "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve."

What you are looking at the Col 3 is, as it says, a traditional catechetical formula which is a shortened version to make it easily memorable.

Protestants do this as well. If you go into an old protestant church (perhaps a modern on as well) you will see a list on Commandments on a board. They just give the first sentence or a brief summary. You don't see written up:

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.

You just see: Keep Holy the Sabbath Day (or something like that)

As I said before the problem has arisen from the Protestants splitting the first commandment into two and making the second part into something it was not meant to be.

: skeeterI think it's a tactic they use.  It doesn't work on someone who is saved and knows God's word.

You might claim to know God's word but looking back over the last couple of pages neither you nor kensington have posted any of God's word; just your opinions.

Really?  The only time you have posted the word of God is to twist it.  You say constantly that the CC has not changed the word of God.

But, Ladonia clearly stated that the Church has the right to change the word of God.  Where did God say that?  Do you all even belong to the same CC?  You contradict each other all the time. Maybe  you haven't noticed?

And I am right, starting with the change of Christians worshipping on Sunday. I mean really, the Scriptures are clear on the matter, so I don't know why anyone, especially a Catholic would dispute this. We are actually fulfilling the Scriptures that God gave His church here on earth. Hey, if we are wrong about this we Catholics and our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters are in big trouble with God our Father.

What do you mean?  You did not change the Sabbath.  The Jews still keep the Sabbath, and so do Messianic Jews.  Where did the word of God say to change the Sabbath to Sunday?  Or tell man that he could change it?  Verse please?

The Catholic Church did not change the Sabbath. The Sabbath remains the Saturday.

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

: winsome  Sat Nov 01, 2014 - 05:33:52

: skeeterwhy are  you blaming protestants for doing what the RC did?  The RC  dropped the  'idol'  commandment #2 and then split #10 into 2 (9 and 10).  (blue above)

I looked up how the RC lists them.  pulled up a page that says from the CCC.  lists 3 columns - 1 is how they are in EX,   2 is how they list in Deut and 3  is how the RC lists them

The 2nd commandment (graven image/idols)  for EX and Deut  lists as it should BUT  in the RC column - it's blank!!!  on down it then lists #2  as - 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain'.  That's # 3 in Ex and Deut.

the url has  'vatican.va/archive/ccc' in it.   If we're allowed to post urls,  I'll post the  whole url.

No it hasn't dropped anything.

If you look in the Catechism it is all there.

If you look in the detail in the Catechism you will find four paragraphs on "IV. "You Shall Not Make For Yourself a Graven Image . . ."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7F.HTM


The full first commandment is given on page 453 of my catechism and on the Vatican web site:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7B.HTM
Article 1
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.
It is written: "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve."

What you are looking at the Col 3 is, as it says, a traditional catechetical formula which is a shortened version to make it easily memorable.

Protestants do this as well. If you go into an old protestant church (perhaps a modern on as well) you will see a list on Commandments on a board. They just give the first sentence or a brief summary. You don't see written up:

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.

You just see: Keep Holy the Sabbath Day (or something like that)

As I said before the problem has arisen from the Protestants splitting the first commandment into two and making the second part into something it was not meant to be.

Oh,  the CCC instead of scripture... how silly of me to forget that!!

how about Exodus or Deuteronomy?  They both read -  vs 7 is #1 and vs 8 is #2:

7 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

8 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;  9 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.  For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 10 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.'


In scripture (the Bible) the CC's  9 and 10 are 1 commandment - the 10th.

21 'You shall not covet your neighbor's wife; and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.'

: skeeter


Oh,  the CCC instead of scripture... how silly of me to forget that!!

how about Exodus or Deuteronomy?  They both read -  vs 7 is #1 and vs 8 is #2:

7 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

8 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;  9 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.  For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 10 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.'

If you actually read my post, and read the post it was responding to you, would make such a dumb response.

The accusation was that the Catholic Church dropped the part about graven images from it's version of the Commandments. I therefore needed to quote from the Catechism to show that the accusation was untrue.

Please read the posts before coming out with your knee-jerk negativity

: skeeter
In scripture (the Bible) the CC's  9 and 10 are 1 commandment - the 10th.

Wrong
Dt 5:21 "'Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife;

and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbors.'

Two commandments - the 9th and 10th.

You still haven't explained why Protestants split the first commandment into two and thus distort it and make it something it wasn't meant to be..

: winsome  Sat Nov 01, 2014 - 14:59:57
The Catholic Church did not change the Sabbath. The Sabbath remains the Saturday.

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Just exactly what do you think the word replace means? If Sunday replaces the Sabbath, then the Sabbath is no more. What ever it takes to remain in denial I suppose.

The Synod of Laodicea - 343-381 A.D. - furnishes a decree which is quoted by many:
"Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday [Sabbatum is always used for the Sabbath and is translated Saturday in the English edition of Hefele], but shall work on that day; but the Lord's-day they shall especially honor, and as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing they shall be shut out from Christ. (Canon 29, Hefele, Vol. 2, p. 316.)

The following is from the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Sunday- fulfillment of the sabbath
2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:[107]
Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.[108]

2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."[109] Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.

A day of grace and rest from work
2184 Just as God "rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done,"[121] human life has a rhythm of work and rest. The institution of the Lord's Day helps everyone enjoy adequate rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives.[122]

2185 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord's Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body.[123] Family needs or important social service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest. The faithful should see to it that legitimate excuses do not lead to habits prejudicial to religion, family life, and health.
The charity of truth seeks holy leisure- the necessity of charity accepts just work.[124]

2186 Those Christians who have leisure should be mindful of their brethren who have the same needs and the same rights, yet cannot rest from work because of poverty and misery. Sunday is traditionally consecrated by Christian piety to good works and humble service of the sick, the infirm, and the elderly. Christians will also sanctify Sunday by devoting time and care to their families and relatives, often difficult to do on other days of the week. Sunday is a time for reflection, silence, cultivation of the mind, and meditation which furthers the growth of the Christian interior life.

2187 Sanctifying Sundays and holy days requires a common effort. Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord's Day. Traditional activities (sport, restaurants, etc.), and social necessities (public services, etc.), require some people to work on Sundays, but everyone should still take care to set aside sufficient time for leisure. With temperance and charity the faithful will see to it that they avoid the excesses and violence sometimes associated with popular leisure activities. In spite of economic constraints, public authorities should ensure citizens a time intended for rest and divine worship. Employers have a similar obligation toward their employees.

2188 In respecting religious liberty and the common good of all, Christians should seek recognition of Sundays and the Church's holy days as legal holidays. They have to give everyone a public example of prayer, respect, and joy and defend their traditions as a precious contribution to the spiritual life of society. If a country's legislation or other reasons require work on Sunday, the day should nevertheless be lived as the day of our deliverance which lets us share in this "festal gathering," this "assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven."[125]

IN BRIEF
2189 "Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Deut 5:12). "The seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord" (Ex 31:15).

2190 The sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ.

2191 The Church celebrates the day of Christ's Resurrection on the "eighth day," Sunday, which is rightly called the Lord's Day (cf. SC 106).

2192 "Sunday . . . is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church" (CIC, can. 1246 # 1). "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass" (CIC, can. 1247).

2193 "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound . . . to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord's Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body" (CIC, can. 1247).

2194 The institution of Sunday helps all "to be allowed sufficient rest and leisure to cultivate their amilial, cultural, social, and religious lives" (GS 67 # 3).

2195 Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord's Day.


The following quotes are from the APOSTOLIC LETTER DIES DOMINI by John Paul II

Chap. 1
8.............The People of God are called to enter into this same rest by persevering in Christ's example of filial obedience (cf. Heb 4:3-16). In order to grasp fully the meaning of Sunday, therefore, we must re-read the great story of creation and deepen our understanding of the theology of the "Sabbath".

13. The Sabbath precept, which in the first Covenant prepares for the Sunday of the new and eternal Covenant, is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan. This is why, unlike many other precepts, it is set not within the context of strictly cultic stipulations but within the Decalogue, the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of the moral life inscribed on the human heart.

14. In the first place, therefore, Sunday is the day of rest because it is the day "blessed" by God and "made holy" by him, set apart from the other days to be, among all of them, "the Lord's Day".

18..............In the light of this mystery, the meaning of the Old Testament precept concerning the Lord's Day is recovered, perfected and fully revealed in the glory which shines on the face of the Risen Christ (cf. 2 Cor 4:6). We move from the "Sabbath" to the "first day after the Sabbath", from the seventh day to the first day: the dies Domini becomes the dies Christi!

Chap.2
23. It was this newness which the catechesis of the first centuries stressed as it sought to show the prominence of Sunday relative to the Jewish Sabbath. It was on the Sabbath that the Jewish people had to gather in the synagogue and to rest in the way prescribed by the Law. The Apostles, and in particular Saint Paul, continued initially to attend the synagogue so that there they might proclaim Jesus Christ, commenting upon "the words of the prophets which are read every Sabbath" (Acts 13:27). Some communities observed the Sabbath while also celebrating Sunday. Soon, however, the two days began to be distinguished ever more clearly, in reaction chiefly to the insistence of those Christians whose origins in Judaism made them inclined to maintain the obligation of the old Law.


Chap.4
59....................More than a "replacement" for the Sabbath, therefore, Sunday is its fulfilment, and in a certain sense its extension and full expression in the ordered unfolding of the history of salvation, which reaches its culmination in Christ.


62. It is the duty of Christians therefore to remember that, although the practices of the Jewish Sabbath are gone, surpassed as they are by the "fulfilment" which Sunday brings, the underlying reasons for keeping "the Lord's Day" holy — inscribed solemnly in the Ten Commandments — remain valid, though they need to be reinterpreted in the light of the theology and spirituality of Sunday: "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. Six days you shall labour, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. Then you shall do no work, you, or your son, or your daughter, or your servant, or your maid, or your ox, or your ass, or any of your beasts, or the foreigner within your gates, that your servant and maid may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God commanded that you keep the Sabbath day" (Dt 5:12-15). Here the Sabbath observance is closely linked with the liberation which God accomplished for his people.


63. Christ came to accomplish a new "exodus", to restore freedom to the oppressed. He performed many healings on the Sabbath (cf. Mt 12:9-14 and parallels), certainly not to violate the Lord's Day, but to reveal its full meaning: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mk 2:27). Opposing the excessively legalistic interpretation of some of his contemporaries, and developing the true meaning of the biblical Sabbath, Jesus, as "Lord of the Sabbath" (Mk 2:28), restores to the Sabbath observance its liberating character, carefully safeguarding the rights of God and the rights of man. This is why Christians, called as they are to proclaim the liberation won by the blood of Christ, felt that they had the authority to transfer the meaning of the Sabbath to the day of the Resurrection. The Passover of Christ has in fact liberated man from a slavery more radical than any weighing upon an oppressed people — the slavery of sin, which alienates man from God, and alienates man from himself and from others, constantly sowing within history the seeds of evil and violence.

Amo

I've been all though your Sabbath nonesense before. This is not the time or place to rehash that all again, expecially when I see you totally ignore the errors I pointed out to you before.

Keep it for your SDA Forum

: winsome  Sat Nov 01, 2014 - 16:37:47
Amo

I've been all though your Sabbath nonesense before. This is not the time or place to rehash that all again, expecially when I see you totally ignore the errors I pointed out to you before.

Keep it for your SDA Forum

I didn't bring it up. When you decided to twist the truth in relation to it though, I decided to contest your lie. Replacing one thing with another, is the same as changing it. Changing or replacing a light bulb mean the same thing. You take the old one out, and put the new one in. The old one is gone. Likewise, Catholics do not observe the seventh day Sabbath, but the first day of the week which they call the Lord's day. They teach others to do the same.

Amo

I've been all though your Sabbath nonesense before. This is not the time or place to rehash that all again, expecially when I see you totally ignore the errors I pointed out to you before.

Keep it for your SDA Forum

Ummm your Catholic brother brought it up and took credit for changing it on behalf of the CC.  Maybe you need to read the posts you are replying to with a kneejerk reaction?  Just sayin.

: winsome  Sat Nov 01, 2014 - 15:47:46

: skeeter


Oh,  the CCC instead of scripture... how silly of me to forget that!!

how about Exodus or Deuteronomy?  They both read -  vs 7 is #1 and vs 8 is #2:

7 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

8 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;  9 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.  For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 10 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.'

If you actually read my post, and read the post it was responding to you, would make such a dumb response.

I wasn't the one making a dumb response.

btw, would you re-read YOUR post above in red as it should be read with the punctuation you used - then post what it means?

The accusation was that the Catholic Church dropped the part about graven images from it's version of the Commandments. I therefore needed to quote from the Catechism to show that the accusation was untrue.

Please read the posts before coming out with your knee-jerk negativity

no, it was really that the RC  took away the 2nd commandment and lumped it in with #1.  Then when they 'shorten' it (for memorization...) they can leave off the graven image part and pretend it doesn't exist.

if the RC went by God's word you wouldn't have had to go check the CCC.

: skeeter
In scripture (the Bible) the CC's  9 and 10 are 1 commandment - the 10th.
   

: winsome  Sat Nov 01, 2014 - 15:47:46Wrong  Dt 5:21 "'Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife;

and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbors.'

Two commandments - the 9th and 10th.

Not wrong.  A semicolon doesn't end a sentence.  Note the semicolon after the word WIFE in vs 21 (in red above).  The semicolon is there in the Catholic Bible also.  It's all part of verse 21.  There's nothing in the Bible (ex or deut) to direct someone to split vs 21 into 2 commandments.

Deut 5:21 -    'You shall not covet your neighbor's wife; and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.'

: winsome  Sat Nov 01, 2014 - 15:47:46You still haven't explained why Protestants split the first commandment into two and thus distort it and make it something it wasn't meant to be.. 

It doesn't distort it and wasn't meant to be 1 commandment.
vs 7 (deut 5) is the first 'you shall...'  it ends with a period.  It states not to have other gods before Him.

vs 8  starts with the 2nd 'you shall (not)...'  it's about graven images and defines it somewhat.  then it says not to bow down to them or serve them.  Then He gives us the reason we shouldn't  and the consequences if one does and if one doesn't.

Then vs 11 goes into another 'you shall not'... take God's name in vain.

so with vs 11 being #3 and counting down to vs 21 on coveting, that equals 10.


#1 = no other gods
#2 =  not to make carved/graven images/ likenesses



so, why does the RC split commandment 10 into 2?

: winsome  Sat Nov 01, 2014 - 14:59:57
The Catholic Church did not change the Sabbath. The Sabbath remains the Saturday.

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

says who - besides the  RC/CCC?  Can you post a Bible verse? (bk, chptr,vs)

'ceremonial observance ' ??  that's a new one to me.

: KensingtonUmmm your Catholic brother brought it up and took credit for changing it on behalf of the CC.  Maybe you need to read the posts you are replying to with a kneejerk reaction?  Just sayin.

Wrong again.

Ladonia did not say the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath. This is what he actually said

: LadoniaAnd I am right, starting with the change of Christians worshipping on Sunday. I mean really, the Scriptures are clear on the matter, so I don't know why anyone, especially a Catholic would dispute this. We are actually fulfilling the Scriptures that God gave His church here on earth. Hey, if we are wrong about this we Catholics and our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters are in big trouble with God our Father.

We changed the day of worship not the Sabbath.

It was you who made the jump to the Sabbath

: KensingtonWhat do you mean?  You did not change the Sabbath.  The Jews still keep the Sabbath, and so do Messianic Jews.  Where did the word of God say to change the Sabbath to Sunday?  Or tell man that he could change it?  Verse please?

Kensington said: Really?  The only time you have posted the word of God is to twist it.

I don't think you are in any position to talk about twisting the word of God.

Skeeter said: if the RC went by God's word you wouldn't have had to go check the CCC.

And WHO decides  if the RCC is going against the word of God? Certainly not you or any other adherents of the thousands of other Christian sects out there.

 

: skeeterI wasn't the one making a dumb response.

btw, would you re-read YOUR post above in red as it should be read with the punctuation you used - then post what it means?

When you are reduced to quibbling about a punctuation error you have lost the plot.

: skeeterno, it was really that the RC  took away the 2nd commandment and lumped it in with #1.  Then when they 'shorten' it (for memorization...) they can leave off the graven image part and pretend it doesn't exist.

if the RC went by God's word you wouldn't have had to go check the CCC

Wrong again. The Catholic Church followed the Jews who treat Ex 20:3-6 & Dt 5:7-10 as one Commandment.

2. Prohibition of Improper Worship This category is derived from Ex. 20:3-6, beginning, "You shall not have other gods..." It encompasses within it the prohibition against the worship of other gods as well as the prohibition of improper forms of worship of the one true G-d, such as worshiping G-d through an idol.
(http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm)

See also:
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Jewish_Holidays/Shavuot/In_the_Community/Torah_Reading_and_Haftarah/The_Ten_Commandments.shtml

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/command.htm

http://judaism.wikia.com/wiki/Ten_Commandments
etc.

Note also that where these Jewish sites use the short catechetical form of just giving "You shall have no other gods but me". But as with Catholics they go straight to "You shall not take the name of the Lord your G-d in vain" as the next commandment.

The Reformers received the full & proper first commandment from the Catholic Church but then proceed to alter it. It's worth noting that the first to break away was Martin Luther who started the Lutherans, who still use the Catholic numbering.

 

: skeeter
Not wrong.  A semicolon doesn't end a sentence.  Note the semicolon after the word WIFE in vs 21 (in red above).  The semicolon is there in the Catholic Bible also.  It's all part of verse 21.  There's nothing in the Bible (ex or deut) to direct someone to split vs 21 into 2 commandments.

Punctuation is a modern invention. There were no full stops, commas or semi-colons in the original Hebrew. They were put in by the translators according to their interpretation of the text.


Here is the literal translation of Deut 5:17-21 without any punctuations.
Not you shall murder and not you shall commit adultery and not you shall steal and not you shall answer in associate of you testimony of futility and not you shall covet woman of associate of you and not you shall lust house of associate of you field of him and servant of him and maidservant of him bull of him and donkey of him and anything to associate of you


If you divide it up starting each "and not" as a new commandment you get:
Not you shall murder
and not you shall commit adultery
and not you shall steal
and not you shall answer in associate of you testimony of futility
and not you shall covet woman of associate of you
and not you shall lust house of associate of you field of him and servant of him and maidservant of him bull of him and donkey of him and anything to associate of you

Then you can see that it's legitimate to treat coveting a neighbours wife and coveting his chattels as two different commandments.

: winsome  Sun Nov 02, 2014 - 06:52:24It's worth noting that the first to break away was Martin Luther

Since Luther cannot speak for himself, I will help him:

HERETICS NEEDFUL
Martin Luther Reformer

"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." [1Cor 11:19]

Heretics are useful. We don't realize how good it is for us to have opponents. If Cerinthus hadn't lived, John would never have written what we have of his. Cerinthus attacked the person of Christ, and this compelled John to write and declare, 'In the beginning was the Word' [John 1:1]. John made the distinction of the three persons [of the Trinity] so clear that it couldn't be made clearer.

So, too, Eck provoked me. He made me wide awake. I wished from the bottom of my heart that he would return to the way [of salvation], and therefore I wanted to strike out against him with my fist in the hope that he might be converted. But if he was always to remain as he had been, I wished him the papacy. He would have deserved it. He took all kinds of work upon himself, although he was in part paid for this, for he received income of seven hundred gulden from the parish in Ingolstadt alone. He would have been an inexpensive pope. They had nobody else who might have done it. He gave me my first ideas, and without him I would never have got this far.

Accordingly our opponents are very useful to us, although they think they do us harm.

Martin Luther
"Heretics Perform Unwitting but Useful Service"
Table Talk Winter of 1542-1543
Luther's Works Vol. 54, pp. 444-445

: winsome  Sun Nov 02, 2014 - 06:52:24

: skeeterI wasn't the one making a dumb response.

btw, would you re-read YOUR post above in red as it should be read with the punctuation you used - then post what it means?

: winsome  Sun Nov 02, 2014 - 06:52:24When you are reduced to quibbling about a punctuation error you have lost the plot. 

I'd say if you're ignoring the punctuation, you've lost the plot.
As happened in 2 of your posts I read last  night.  It can often change the meaning of a sentence. 

vs 21 is all about coveting anything that belongs to your neighbor.

I notice that in 'quoting'  you left off  vs 21 (the 10th commandment) as in Ex and Deut.  with it's punctuation.  And the sentence you posted with punctuation that  changed it's meaning.  Sometimes it can make a sentence meaningless.

here's vs 21 of Deut 5 in the GNV (prev I posted it from the NKJV I think) -

21 'You shall not covet your neighbor's wife; and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.'

: skeeterno, it was really that the RC  took away the 2nd commandment and lumped it in with #1.  Then when they 'shorten' it (for memorization...) they can leave off the graven image part and pretend it doesn't exist.

if the RC went by God's word you wouldn't have had to go check the CCC 

: winsome  Sun Nov 02, 2014 - 06:52:24
Wrong again. The Catholic Church followed the Jews who treat Ex 20:3-6 & Dt 5:7-10 as one Commandment.

here's a great shocker.  I'm not Jewish.  Are you?
Tho, I do often find great wisdom from Jewish people.  I often listen to studies by 2 different Rabbis.  One is a Christian and one is not.

fyi (again) - I don't click on urls/links  in posts.

: winsome  Sun Nov 02, 2014 - 06:23:38

: KensingtonUmmm your Catholic brother brought it up and took credit for changing it on behalf of the CC.  Maybe you need to read the posts you are replying to with a kneejerk reaction?  Just sayin.

Wrong again.

Ladonia did not say the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath. This is what he actually said

: LadoniaAnd I am right, starting with the change of Christians worshipping on Sunday. I mean really, the Scriptures are clear on the matter, so I don't know why anyone, especially a Catholic would dispute this. We are actually fulfilling the Scriptures that God gave His church here on earth. Hey, if we are wrong about this we Catholics and our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters are in big trouble with God our Father.

We changed the day of worship not the Sabbath.

It was you who made the jump to the Sabbath

: KensingtonWhat do you mean?  You did not change the Sabbath.  The Jews still keep the Sabbath, and so do Messianic Jews.  Where did the word of God say to change the Sabbath to Sunday?  Or tell man that he could change it?  Verse please?

so the RC  added a 'day of worship'  and made it a mortal sin to miss that man made 'day of worship'.

better to follow the CC than God's commandment?

 

: skeeterI notice that in 'quoting'  you left off  vs 21 (the 10th commandment) as in Ex and Deut.  with it's punctuation.  And the sentence you posted with punctuation that  changed it's meaning.  Sometimes it can make a sentence meaningless.

here's vs 21 of Deut 5 in the GNV (prev I posted it from the NKJV I think) -

21 'You shall not covet your neighbor's wife; and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.'

Skeeter,

As you ignored my post, here it is again:

Punctuation is a modern invention. There were no full stops, commas or semi-colons in the original Hebrew. They were put in by the translators according to their interpretation of the text.


Here is the literal translation of Deut 5:17-21 without any punctuations.
Not you shall murder and not you shall commit adultery and not you shall steal and not you shall answer in associate of you testimony of futility and not you shall covet woman of associate of you and not you shall lust house of associate of you field of him and servant of him and maidservant of him bull of him and donkey of him and anything to associate of you
 
 
If you divide it up starting each "and not" as a new commandment you get:
Not you shall murder
and not you shall commit adultery
and not you shall steal
and not you shall answer in associate of you testimony of futility
and not you shall covet woman of associate of you
and not you shall lust house of associate of you field of him and servant of him and maidservant of him bull of him and donkey of him and anything to associate of you
 
Then you can see that it's legitimate to treat coveting a neighbours wife and coveting his chattels as two different commandments.
 

: skeeter
here's a great shocker.  I'm not Jewish.  Are you?
Tho, I do often find great wisdom from Jewish people.  I often listen to studies by 2 different Rabbis.  One is a Christian and one is not.

So skeeter,

God gave the commandments and the Law to the Jewish people over 1,000 years before Christ. For over 1,000 years then, you believe they divided up Ex 20:3-6 & Dt 5:7-10 incorrectly and God did nothing to correct them. And then for another 1500 years the Catholic Church made the same mistake.

What is your theory? God waited  2,500 years and sent the Martin Luther to get it right?

But no. Martin Luther didn't get it right either. So God had to send more Reformers to correct the original mistake.

Get real skeeter.
 

: skeeter
fyi (again) - I don't click on urls/links  in posts.

OK, I'll waste server space:


2. Prohibition of Improper Worship This category is derived from Ex. 20:3-6, beginning, "You shall not have other gods..." It encompasses within it the prohibition against the worship of other gods as well as the prohibition of improper forms of worship of the one true G-d, such as worshiping G-d through an idol.
  (http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm)

Same as Catholics.

Second Commandment (Exodus 20:3-6): You shall have no other gods beside Me. You shall not make for yourself any graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them, for I, the Lord Your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Jewish_Holidays/Shavuot/In_the_Community/Torah_Reading_and_Haftarah/The_Ten_Commandments.shtml

Same as Catholics.

2) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/command.html

Same as Catholic catechetical formula.


2. You shall have no other gods but me.
http://judaism.wikia.com/wiki/Ten_Commandments

Same as Catholic catechetical formula.

First Commandment (Exodus 20:2): I am the Lord Your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Second Commandment (Exodus 20:3-6): You shall have no other gods beside Me. You shall not make for yourself any graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them, for I, the Lord Your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth


[color=teal]Winsome a page or so back I noted that the ten Commandments were written on stone by God which signifies they were final and for all time, and that  being all ten were all wrote on the same tablets of stone.  I believe you agreed in post 201.

Now what parts would you say were only for Old Testament Israel, and what parts were for gentiles.
Just placate me on this OK  Is it the first  2 legal code for BC Israel (Sinai Covenant) and the last 8 moral code for A D gentiles?  Is that the correct division?[/color]

: mcleesWinsome a page or so back I noted that the ten Commandments were written on stone by God which signifies they were final and for all time, and that  being all ten were all wrote on the same tablets of stone.  I believe you agreed.

NO! I did not agree that. 


What I agreed to in that part of your post was:

: winsomeYou say: "Gods moral commandments are for all men and for all time"

Agreed. That is exactly what I have been saying

: mcleesNow what parts would you say were only for Old Testament Israel, and what parts were for gentiles.
Just placate me on this OK  Is it the first  2 legal code for BC Israel (Sinai Covenant) and the last 8 moral code for A D gentiles?  Is that the correct division?

Mclees I have been though all this- see post#171

Quote from: mclees

Winsome a page or so back I noted that the ten Commandments were written on stone by God which signifies they were final and for all time, and that  being all ten were all wrote on the same tablets of stone.  I believe you agreed.


NO! I did not agree that. 


What I agreed to in that part of your post was:


Quote from: winsome

You say: "Gods moral commandments are for all men and for all time"

Agreed. That is exactly what I have been saying





Quote from: mclees

Now what parts would you say were only for Old Testament Israel, and what parts were for gentiles.
Just placate me on this OK  Is it the first  2 legal code for BC Israel (Sinai Covenant) and the last 8 moral code for A D gentiles?  Is that the correct division?



Mclees I have been though all this- see post#171

[color=teal]I went back and re-read 171.  That does not get me the answer I am asking for. I am asking is my assessment about commandments 1&2 and commandments 8- 10 a correct essessment of your beliefs?[/color]

I went back and re-read 171.  That does not get me the answer I am asking for. I am asking is my assessment about commandments 1&2 and commandments 8- 10 a correct essessment of your beliefs?

I don't understand why you are splitting commandments 1 & 2 from 8-10.

Also whose numbering are you working from?

A very interesting story about a Calvinist who found her reason to become Catholic despite many hardships.

From http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/11/my-plea (http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/11/my-plea)

The day my soul became Catholic was the day I found out that as a divorced and remarried woman I could not receive Communion. Tears of sorrow and joy flowed. Sorrow because I had by then grasped the truth of transubstantiation, only to find I couldn't consume, and joy because at last we found the ground of real authority—his Church, the one he founded, the one tasked to keep all he taught her Apostles.

I came to Catholicism from Calvinism. That's a tough row to hoe if there ever was one. It was that prescient and beautiful encyclical Humanae Vitae which softened my heart to the Catholic Church. After that, I couldn't get enough. I wanted to hear what the Church believed in her own words. And so I kept reading—Theology of the Body, Familiaris Consortio, Mulieris Dignitatem, and Church documents significant to those of us coming from the Reformed tradition.

Because I had been divorced, and because another family member recently left his marriage after forty-three years, our children had many doubts and questions about marriage. One day around the dinner table one of the kids voiced their anxiety, stating in our presence that "you never know" if both mom and dad will be there for you as you grow up.

This clued us in to how deeply they had been affected by our choices and the culture that made them possible. As Christian parents we were keen to bring up our children in a Church unwavering on marriage. The Catholic Church offered a rich and beautiful doctrine of marriage in all its fullness, especially as a picture of Christ's marriage to his bride, the Church. This vision was slowly leading us to consider the Church's other claims.

But there's more to coming to the Catholic faith than theological reading. As any convert can attest, there are many ups-and-downs during the journey: Struggling with doctrine followed by insights from magisterial passages coupled with Scripture, feeling still and alone followed by being overwhelmed by the presence of the saints before us, crying out to God for His presence and having Him answer in the Blessed Sacrament. Many times I woke up in the middle of the night thinking: How can I be considering Catholicism? But then in the morning at daily mass praying the liturgy, I experience the profound presence of God, even though I do not take the Eucharist.

Since I cannot now receive the Eucharist, it is through spiritual communion that I am kept spiritually fed by the Lord. This act of willing reception is not, as some may think, second-class communion. Far from it. To believe so is to diminish one of the ways Christ feeds his people, as Hans Urs von Balthasar warns in his book, Prayer:

    For spiritual communion is by no means merely an act of longing for the reception of the Lord under the sacramental signs; much deeper, and more properly, it is the act of prayer of a living and understanding faith, by which it enters into living communication and communion with Christ, the eternal and living Truth.

Balthasar wants to impress upon the reader the objective reality of spiritual communion. It is not the absence of something but the presence of him. I don't get to pine or indulge in self-pity during the distribution of the Eucharist. And God forbid I should become angry with my priest or the Church for not giving me Communion. As Archbishop Charles J. Chaput put it during the 2014 Erasmus lecture, "none of us are welcome on our own terms, in the Church we're welcome on Jesus' terms. That's what it means to be a Christian, you submit yourself to Jesus and His teaching. You don't recreate your own body of spirituality."

Before you feel sorry for me, remember that the Church didn't do this to me. I did this to myself when I disobeyed my God by walking away from my first marriage. Was I young and immature? Yes. Were there circumstances that drove me to such drastic measures? Sure. And yes, I am currently pursuing a Decree of Nullity, trusting God for a just decision. Whatever the outcome, I can not, and will not walk away from the Church for standing firmly on the teachings of Christ.

Some people may be shocked at the idea of submitting to a church that tells me because I'm divorced and remarried I can't take Communion. But unless it can be shown otherwise, any tampering with Communion for the divorced and remarried will corrupt the doctrine of marriage, and—by diminishing the image of the Church as bride of Christ—debase the Church.

I have run to her for shelter. I now pray—for my sake, for my children's—that the Church will not waver.

Luma Simms is the author of Gospel Amnesia. Follow her @lumasimms.

I went back and re-read 171.  That does not get me the answer I am asking for. I am asking is my assessment about commandments 1&2 and commandments 8- 10 a correct essessment of your beliefs?

I don't understand why you are splitting commandments 1 & 2 from 8-10.

Also whose numbering are you working from?


Second Commandment (Exodus 20:3-6): You shall have no other gods beside Me. You shall not make for yourself any graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them, for I, the Lord Your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Jewish_Holidays/Shavuot/In_the_Community/Torah_Reading_and_Haftarah/The_Ten_Commandments.shtml

     Same as Catholics.

Second Commandment (Exodus 20:3-6): You shall have no other gods beside Me. You shall not make for yourself any graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them, for I, the Lord Your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Jewish_Holidays/Shavuot/In_the_Community/Torah_Reading_and_Haftarah/The_Ten_Commandments.shtml (http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Jewish_Holidays/Shavuot/In_the_Community/Torah_Reading_and_Haftarah/The_Ten_Commandments.shtml)

     Same as Catholics.

The Commandment is the same as Catholics but the Jewish numbering is slightly different.

The above is the 1st commandment for Catholics.

I still don't understand what your point or question is.

: winsome  Mon Nov 03, 2014 - 09:44:28
Second Commandment (Exodus 20:3-6): You shall have no other gods beside Me. You shall not make for yourself any graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them, for I, the Lord Your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Jewish_Holidays/Shavuot/In_the_Community/Torah_Reading_and_Haftarah/The_Ten_Commandments.shtml (http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Jewish_Holidays/Shavuot/In_the_Community/Torah_Reading_and_Haftarah/The_Ten_Commandments.shtml)

     Same as Catholics.

The Commandment is the same as Catholics but the Jewish numbering is slightly different.

The above is the 1st commandment for Catholics.

I still don't understand what your point or question is.

Then it ISN'T  the 'same as Catholics' - is it?

: skeeterThen it ISN'T  the 'same as Catholics' - is it?

The actual COMMANDMENT is the same.

I went back and re-read 171.  That does not get me the answer I am asking for. I am asking is my assessment about commandments 1&2 and commandments 8- 10 a correct essessment of your beliefs?

I don't understand why you are splitting commandments 1 & 2 from 8-10.

Also whose numbering are you working from?


     Same as Catholics.

The Commandment is the same as Catholics but the Jewish numbering is slightly different.

The above is the 1st commandment for Catholics.

[color=teal]Now the world at large for the most part cares nothing about the Ten commandments. Only by a certain assent maybe. Yes the laws were Given to Israel at  Saini. The Mosaic laws were for Israel, but the Ten commandments were special. God wrote them on stone. I don't really care for all the Catholic language to much. It only confuses things for me. I think of what does the tablets of stone mean. We have sayings like something to be written in stone. It implies final and for all time. So God wrote His ten commandments on stone and they were placed in the Ark as you say and to this day no one has ever found them. God will never allow that. Nothing of His message for us will ever be defiled. Gods moral commandments are for all men and for all time. Now no man has ever lived up them yet it will be a beacon of Gods will forever[/color][/color].

You say: "Gods moral commandments are for all men and for all time"

Agreed. That is exactly what I have been saying


So you are saying then that all the ten Commandments are Gods moral laws for all men then and forever? 



We look to them as the moral code for all believers, not just one part this and one that. They are all moral law every one  of them, and must be seen seriously. We know that no one is able to keep them perfectly but they are Gods will that we must not trifle with them as to fudge around them for our own purposes and ideals but that is exactly what you councils do while encouraging  Catholics to also do. We cannot make up excuses as to what they mean. Its no accident that God deals with idols first. Nothing will minimize or stand beside Him. No, not even icons of saints or Mary.  You say bowing and praying to her image is not praying and bowing to her image. Go head you just keep saying that. There's an old saying though, when in doubt leave out. It would be better for you when it comes to making excuses that trifle with God's word to not do it. Only the Holy Spirit reveals and convicts of sin but if you ignore Him your hearts will harden. Let those who hear listen. 

More opinions

Here you say that's just opinion
So I am now asking are all the ten commandments moral law for all of us then and now?

Mclees,

I'm saying what I keep saying. The Ten Commandments were given to the Israelites as part of their Covenant Law. It's their legal code.

They are, mostly, but not completely, an codification of God's eternal moral law. Not all the Ten Commandments are moral law. Not all moral law is in the Ten Commandments.

God's eternal moral laws (e.g. do not murder) are applicable to all people through all time.

You will find them expressed in the New Covenant and it's the New Covenant that we are in to not the Old Covenant.

I went all though this in post #187

Let me put this another way in secular terms

I live in England and I'm subject to the English Law. That will include many of God's eternal moral laws (e.g. do not murder).

If I move to France I will be subject to French Law. That will include many of God's eternal moral laws (e.g. do not murder)

That does not mean that God's moral law, English law and French Law are all the same thing.

They are, mostly, but not completely, an codification of God's eternal moral law. Not all the Ten Commandments are moral law. Not all moral law is in the Ten Commandments.


I hear a lot of fancy justification, but could you tell me which parts are moral law and what part is not by the number. Was the numbers as I already stated?  Who determined the division. You don't half to bother we already know who did the dividing.

While I was reading this there is a verse that jumps into my mind.

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.  Is 55:8, 9

Who is so high minded, to think they can fudge and divide The Ten Commandments so they can justify their own doings

This scripture from Isaiah is not just for the Old testament but speaks of the eternal Lord. How is it that you justify and divide Gods Laws according to your own wisdom so you can justify your own purposes. Who is doing the defining?   Is it not your magisterial that does these things, and did they not give themselves the power to do them according to the dictates of their own justification.

Gods ten commandments are moral and absolute without division. Why are the first two commandment first before all the rest. because they speak of Idolatry which is a most vial and wicked sin against God. How then can you separate then to call them something else so you can justify you own idolatry?

 They are, mostly, but not completely, an codification of God's eternal moral law. Not all the Ten Commandments are moral law. Not all moral law is in the Ten Commandments.


I hear a lot of fancy justification, but could you tell me which parts are moral law and what part is not by the number. Was the numbers as I already stated?  Who determined the division. You don't half to bother we already know who did the dividing.


It's very easy. The moral law is scattered throughout the New Testament.

Does Jesus tell us not the make images in the New Testament? Answer - No

Does Jesus tell us the keep the Saturday Sabbath in the New Testament? Answer – No

All we need to keep is given us in the New Testament.

Gods ten commandments are moral and absolute without division.

No they are not.


Why are the first two commandment first before all the rest. because they speak of Idolatry which is a most vial and wicked sin against God. How then can you separate then to call them something else so you can justify you own idolatry?

Firstly only one commandment speaks of idolatry. And just so we don't have any confusion over numbering that is Ex 20:3-6 (Dt 5:7-10). It's the Protestants who separated out this into two commandments, thus causing a lot of confusion. I've been all though this with skeeter – see posts #202, #206, #223, #224,  #228, #229

 Gods ten commandments are moral and absolute without division.

No they are not.


So it is obvious that you say they are divided. I ask which ones then are moral and which ones are not by their number. The Ten commandments are our moral guide for all time. Jesus said I did not come to take away from the law but to fulfill it.  We may not be under the Mosaic law which I have known all the time by the way. But Gods Ten Commandments are our moral guide. Don' t tell me it was the wicked Protestants that divided it. You are the one who is upholding the division . You and your magisterial. Read your own words.  What is the division by number please?

: mclees8  Tue Nov 04, 2014 - 10:55:19
Gods ten commandments are moral and absolute without division.

No they are not.


So it is obvious that you say they are divided. I ask which ones then are moral and which ones are not by their number. The Ten commandments are our moral guide for all time. Jesus said I did not come to take away from the law but to fulfill it.  We may not be under the Mosaic law which I have known all the time by the way. But Gods Ten Commandments are our moral guide. Don' t tell me it was the wicked Protestants that divided it. You are the one who is upholding the division . You and your magisterial. Read your own words.  What is the division by number please?

Here is a simple explanation for you Mike.

God's moral law is eternal; it existed from the beginning.  God's moral law was reflected in the Ten Commandments, which he gave in time to the nation of Israel.  That is, you can see the moral law in the Ten Commandments, but they are not exactly the same thing.

For a simple analogy, compare grapes to grape juice cocktail.  The grapes came before grape juice cocktail, and grape juice cocktail is based on grapes, and is one way to use grapes, but is not the same as grapes, because it has grapes plus other stuff in it.  It is a handy way to get grapes but is not the same as grapes itself.  Similarly the Laws of the New Testament are like wine to grapes.  Wine is another grape product, but is not the same as grapes, though it is based on grapes.  Wine is not the same as grape juice cocktail either.

Now the Ten Commandments are a convenient way to understand the moral law because the commandments themselves reflect very closely the moral law.  However they are not the same as the moral law.  Part of the Ten Commandments was formulated for Israel in the way they were because the nation of Israel was coming out of Egypt.  In Egypt they worshiped all kinds of "gods" and "idols" (cult images they were called).  In Egypt they also worked all week long with no rest (Exodus 5:5).

The "letter of the law" was observed by the Jews, but not the spirit of the law.  They found ways around obeying the laws they had while still living up to the letter of the law.

The spirit of the law concerning idols can be summed up in "you shall have no gods before me".  God alone is deserving of worship and no other entity can be worshiped as a god.  For the Israelites, to break them of their Egyptian practices, God in addition forbid the making of images along with the worship of images: two things that were common in Israel.  They were God's hedge around the actual moral law, the moral law which has as its foundation the worship of God alone.

However Christianity did not come from a place of the worship of images, nor does it now, Catholic or not.  There was no need to break Christians from these practices of ancient Egypt where the actual object of worship was a false god made into a molten or graven image.  Christians have always worshiped God and God alone.  And so there was no need for there to be any kind of hedge around that law, at least, not in the Bible.  That is, there was no need to forbid the making of "images of any thing" because this practice was no longer a problem that took away from the worship of the true God.

The Church was put in charge of creating hedges around the law from time to time.  For example, the Catholic Church found that some nuns were actually worshiping images of Mary and refused to stop so the Church excommunicated them.  If the same were to come into general practice, then the Church would probably modify Canon law to put a hedge around that as well in the form of forbidding images.  But it has never gotten that bad.  What Catholics do is true to who God is in the economy of salvation, and isn't the same as what the Egyptians taught the Jews to do in Egypt.

The other law that God specified directly in the Old Testament was Sabbath keeping.  The spirit of that law was one of weekly rest, and one of weekly worship.  God used the creation story to dictate the day of rest with reference to the creation story.  In the New Covenant we are also observing the spirit of that law, of weekly rest and worship.  Only now, we do so with reference to the new creation on the eighth day, that of the resurrection of Jesus.  Thus a new Law has come about in the New Covenant, and it is also finds its foundation on that same moral law but is guided also by the new reality of Jesus, his resurrection and the fact that now we have seen the image of God.

In short, because of the incarnation and the resurrection, the implementation of the weekly rest has changed to Sunday and the making of images and use for prayer aids is no longer forbidden. 

: Catholica  Tue Nov 04, 2014 - 11:49:34

Here is a simple explanation for you Mike.

God's moral law is eternal; it existed from the beginning.  God's moral law was reflected in the Ten Commandments, which he gave in time to the nation of Israel.  That is, you can see the moral law in the Ten Commandments, but they are not exactly the same thing.

For a simple analogy, compare grapes to grape juice cocktail.  The grapes came before grape juice cocktail, and grape juice cocktail is based on grapes, and is one way to use grapes, but is not the same as grapes, because it has grapes plus other stuff in it.  It is a handy way to get grapes but is not the same as grapes itself.  Similarly the Laws of the New Testament are like wine to grapes.  Wine is another grape product, but is not the same as grapes, though it is based on grapes.  Wine is not the same as grape juice cocktail either.
...

what's the source of your post #244?

: skeeter  Tue Nov 04, 2014 - 14:54:28

: Catholica  Tue Nov 04, 2014 - 11:49:34

Here is a simple explanation for you Mike.

God's moral law is eternal; it existed from the beginning.  God's moral law was reflected in the Ten Commandments, which he gave in time to the nation of Israel.  That is, you can see the moral law in the Ten Commandments, but they are not exactly the same thing.

For a simple analogy, compare grapes to grape juice cocktail.  The grapes came before grape juice cocktail, and grape juice cocktail is based on grapes, and is one way to use grapes, but is not the same as grapes, because it has grapes plus other stuff in it.  It is a handy way to get grapes but is not the same as grapes itself.  Similarly the Laws of the New Testament are like wine to grapes.  Wine is another grape product, but is not the same as grapes, though it is based on grapes.  Wine is not the same as grape juice cocktail either.
...

what's the source of your post #244?

My understanding of the revelation of God, which includes the Bible.

Cath no offense but your eyes are short sighted. You are not seeing the true depth of it all. This thing reaches as far a Babylon. You know that That Babylon was Idolatrous as a city in the old testament, but it is representative of the world and its idolatry. All the world which knows not Christ and is independent of Him is idolatrous, loving the world more with its ambitions and love for money and the material life
It loves its gold and silver and all that glorifies self.

The problem is the nature of apostasy. Did not Israel fall into apostasy countless times until Christ. the nature of apostasy is to fall away from God and His perfect will for us to once again embrace the world and its idolatry. See How she sits as a Queen Revelation This is the apostasy of the great whore  of Babylon and its Idolatries.

This Idolatry is  vial in the eyes of God. It is why God addresses it first in the Ten commandments. Gods eyes are not short but knows the beginning from the end. He knows the world and its ways yet in its mist there isa remnant and they are His true bride. He will bring them out at the harvest.

: mclees8  Tue Nov 04, 2014 - 16:20:09
Cath no offense but your eyes are short sighted. You are not seeing the true depth of it all. This thing reaches as far a Babylon. You know that That Babylon was Idolatrous as a city in the old testament, but it is representative of the world and its idolatry. All the world which knows not Christ and is independent of Him is idolatrous, loving the world more with its ambitions and love for money and the material life
It loves its gold and silver and all that glorifies self.

The problem is the nature of apostasy. Did not Israel fall into apostasy countless times until Christ. the nature of apostasy is to fall away from God and His perfect will for us to once again embrace the world and its idolatry. See How she sits as a Queen Revelation This is the apostasy of the great whore  of Babylon and its Idolatries.

This Idolatry is  vial in the eyes of God. It is why God addresses it first in the Ten commandments. Gods eyes are not short but knows the beginning from the end. He knows the world and its ways yet in its mist there isa remnant and they are His true bride. He will bring them out at the harvest.

Mike,

You act like you are trying to understand, but you are not.

Proverbs 18:1-2

Cath no offense but your eyes are short sighted. You are not seeing the true depth of it all. This thing reaches as far a Babylon. You know that That Babylon was Idolatrous as a city in the old testament, but it is representative of the world and its idolatry. All the world which knows not Christ and is independent of Him is idolatrous, loving the world more with its ambitions and love for money and the material life
It loves its gold and silver and all that glorifies self.

The problem is the nature of apostasy. Did not Israel fall into apostasy countless times until Christ. the nature of apostasy is to fall away from God and His perfect will for us to once again embrace the world and its idolatry. See How she sits as a Queen Revelation This is the apostasy of the great whore  of Babylon and its Idolatries.

This Idolatry is  vial in the eyes of God. It is why God addresses it first in the Ten commandments. Gods eyes are not short but knows the beginning from the end. He knows the world and its ways yet in its mist there isa remnant and they are His true bride. He will bring them out at the harvest.





Mike,

You act like you are trying to understand, but you are not. 


Proverbs 18:1-2.       Your proverb is nice but it does not encompass the depth of knowledge that comes from God.

If you judge me then you must believe you have true understanding. It is God who reveals. did he reveal more light to you. Perhaps you could share  is it a dark secret.

None the less I have spoken the truth. the whole depth of it in a nut shell.

: Catholica  Tue Nov 04, 2014 - 15:53:00

: skeeter  Tue Nov 04, 2014 - 14:54:28

: Catholica  Tue Nov 04, 2014 - 11:49:34

Here is a simple explanation for you Mike.

God's moral law is eternal; it existed from the beginning.  God's moral law was reflected in the Ten Commandments, which he gave in time to the nation of Israel.  That is, you can see the moral law in the Ten Commandments, but they are not exactly the same thing.

For a simple analogy, compare grapes to grape juice cocktail.  The grapes came before grape juice cocktail, and grape juice cocktail is based on grapes, and is one way to use grapes, but is not the same as grapes, because it has grapes plus other stuff in it.  It is a handy way to get grapes but is not the same as grapes itself.  Similarly the Laws of the New Testament are like wine to grapes.  Wine is another grape product, but is not the same as grapes, though it is based on grapes.  Wine is not the same as grape juice cocktail either.
...

what's the source of your post #244?

My understanding of the revelation of God, which includes the Bible.

that's not what the question was... even if it's your understanding and belief - what's the source of it?

: Catholica  Tue Nov 04, 2014 - 16:37:57

: mclees8  Tue Nov 04, 2014 - 16:20:09
Cath no offense but your eyes are short sighted. You are not seeing the true depth of it all. This thing reaches as far a Babylon. You know that That Babylon was Idolatrous as a city in the old testament, but it is representative of the world and its idolatry. All the world which knows not Christ and is independent of Him is idolatrous, loving the world more with its ambitions and love for money and the material life
It loves its gold and silver and all that glorifies self.

The problem is the nature of apostasy. Did not Israel fall into apostasy countless times until Christ. the nature of apostasy is to fall away from God and His perfect will for us to once again embrace the world and its idolatry. See How she sits as a Queen Revelation This is the apostasy of the great whore  of Babylon and its Idolatries.

This Idolatry is  vial in the eyes of God. It is why God addresses it first in the Ten commandments. Gods eyes are not short but knows the beginning from the end. He knows the world and its ways yet in its mist there isa remnant and they are His true bride. He will bring them out at the harvest.

Mike,

You act like you are trying to understand, but you are not.

Proverbs 18:1-2

very interesting verses... are you trying to say something to mclees?

Proverbs 18 (NKJV)

1 A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire; He rages against all wise judgment.
2 A fool has no delight in understanding, But in expressing his own heart.

: skeeter  Wed Nov 05, 2014 - 01:57:19

: Catholica  Tue Nov 04, 2014 - 15:53:00

: skeeter  Tue Nov 04, 2014 - 14:54:28

: Catholica  Tue Nov 04, 2014 - 11:49:34

Here is a simple explanation for you Mike.

God's moral law is eternal; it existed from the beginning.  God's moral law was reflected in the Ten Commandments, which he gave in time to the nation of Israel.  That is, you can see the moral law in the Ten Commandments, but they are not exactly the same thing.

For a simple analogy, compare grapes to grape juice cocktail.  The grapes came before grape juice cocktail, and grape juice cocktail is based on grapes, and is one way to use grapes, but is not the same as grapes, because it has grapes plus other stuff in it.  It is a handy way to get grapes but is not the same as grapes itself.  Similarly the Laws of the New Testament are like wine to grapes.  Wine is another grape product, but is not the same as grapes, though it is based on grapes.  Wine is not the same as grape juice cocktail either.
...

what's the source of your post #244?

My understanding of the revelation of God, which includes the Bible.

that's not what the question was... even if it's your understanding and belief - what's the source of it?

I already wrote what it was.  The revelation of God, which includes the Bible.

: skeeter  Wed Nov 05, 2014 - 03:04:29

: Catholica  Tue Nov 04, 2014 - 16:37:57

: mclees8  Tue Nov 04, 2014 - 16:20:09
Cath no offense but your eyes are short sighted. You are not seeing the true depth of it all. This thing reaches as far a Babylon. You know that That Babylon was Idolatrous as a city in the old testament, but it is representative of the world and its idolatry. All the world which knows not Christ and is independent of Him is idolatrous, loving the world more with its ambitions and love for money and the material life
It loves its gold and silver and all that glorifies self.

The problem is the nature of apostasy. Did not Israel fall into apostasy countless times until Christ. the nature of apostasy is to fall away from God and His perfect will for us to once again embrace the world and its idolatry. See How she sits as a Queen Revelation This is the apostasy of the great whore  of Babylon and its Idolatries.

This Idolatry is  vial in the eyes of God. It is why God addresses it first in the Ten commandments. Gods eyes are not short but knows the beginning from the end. He knows the world and its ways yet in its mist there isa remnant and they are His true bride. He will bring them out at the harvest.

Mike,

You act like you are trying to understand, but you are not.

Proverbs 18:1-2

very interesting verses... are you trying to say something to mclees?

Proverbs 18 (NKJV)

1 A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire; He rages against all wise judgment.
2 A fool has no delight in understanding, But in expressing his own heart.

I prefer this translation:

Proverbs 18 (NIV)

1 An unfriendly person pursues selfish ends
    and against all sound judgment starts quarrels.

2 Fools find no pleasure in understanding
    but delight in airing their own opinions.

You can apply them to yourself as well if you'd like.

Quote from: mclees8 on Yesterday at 03:20:09 PM

Cath no offense but your eyes are short sighted. You are not seeing the true depth of it all. This thing reaches as far a Babylon. You know that That Babylon was Idolatrous as a city in the old testament, but it is representative of the world and its idolatry. All the world which knows not Christ and is independent of Him is idolatrous, loving the world more with its ambitions and love for money and the material life
It loves its gold and silver and all that glorifies self.

The problem is the nature of apostasy. Did not Israel fall into apostasy countless times until Christ. the nature of apostasy is to fall away from God and His perfect will for us to once again embrace the world and its idolatry. See How she sits as a Queen Revelation This is the apostasy of the great whore  of Babylon and its Idolatries.

This Idolatry is  vial in the eyes of God. It is why God addresses it first in the Ten commandments. Gods eyes are not short but knows the beginning from the end. He knows the world and its ways yet in its mist there isa remnant and they are His true bride. He will bring them out at the harvest.





Mike,

You act like you are trying to understand, but you are not.

Proverbs 18:1-2


very interesting verses... are you trying to say something to mclees?

Proverbs 18 (NKJV)

1 A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire; He rages against all wise judgment.
2 A fool has no delight in understanding, But in expressing his own heart.



I prefer this translation:

Proverbs 18 (NIV)

1 An unfriendly person pursues selfish ends
    and against all sound judgment starts quarrels.

2 Fools find no pleasure in understanding
    but delight in airing their own opinions.

Cath are you miss judging me. I address you with respect.  I was not starting a quarrel but sharing what I know. I am not airing opinions but sound discernment of the scripture . If they go against your beliefs its no reason for accusing falsely.

You never reposted that your understanding was more light than I shared  with you.  If your truth is greater than mine and you say I am false than please do so.  I have great confidence in what I shared because my understandding comes from Gods word and His revelation.   

: Catholica  Wed Nov 05, 2014 - 16:51:39

: skeeter  Wed Nov 05, 2014 - 01:57:19

: Catholica  Tue Nov 04, 2014 - 15:53:00

: skeeter  Tue Nov 04, 2014 - 14:54:28

: Catholica  Tue Nov 04, 2014 - 11:49:34

Here is a simple explanation for you Mike.

God's moral law is eternal; it existed from the beginning.  God's moral law was reflected in the Ten Commandments, which he gave in time to the nation of Israel.  That is, you can see the moral law in the Ten Commandments, but they are not exactly the same thing.

For a simple analogy, compare grapes to grape juice cocktail.  The grapes came before grape juice cocktail, and grape juice cocktail is based on grapes, and is one way to use grapes, but is not the same as grapes, because it has grapes plus other stuff in it.  It is a handy way to get grapes but is not the same as grapes itself.  Similarly the Laws of the New Testament are like wine to grapes.  Wine is another grape product, but is not the same as grapes, though it is based on grapes.  Wine is not the same as grape juice cocktail either.
...

what's the source of your post #244?

My understanding of the revelation of God, which includes the Bible.

that's not what the question was... even if it's your understanding and belief - what's the source of it?

I already wrote what it was.  The revelation of God, which includes the Bible.

If you don't have a credible source, just say so.

: Catholica  Wed Nov 05, 2014 - 16:54:06

Mike,

You act like you are trying to understand, but you are not.

Proverbs 18:1-2

very interesting verses... are you trying to say something to mclees?

Proverbs 18 (NKJV)

1 A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire; He rages against all wise judgment.
2 A fool has no delight in understanding, But in expressing his own heart.[/quote]

I prefer this translation:

Proverbs 18 (NIV)

1 An unfriendly person pursues selfish ends
    and against all sound judgment starts quarrels.

2 Fools find no pleasure in understanding
    but delight in airing their own opinions.

You can apply them to yourself as well if you'd like.

actually, with this post (above) and recent posts to McClees I think you've clearly applied them to yourself.