Ask a Catholic about Catholisism

[SSquared]

Hmm, strange. I've always thought the first day of the week in America is Sunday.

Quote[/b] ]Finally, Peter's name is mentioned in the new testment more times than ALL OF THE OTHER APOSTLES COMBINED. Numbers mean alot in the Bible, and Peter is mentioned near 250 times.

250 is maybe 100 too many. Also, you must not be including Paul, who is mentioned more often than Peter.

Quote[/b] ]The Priest, as implied above, is in the person of Christ. We are telling our sins to God, not just Priest. At the same time, and more importanly, God, through the Priest, can consoul the repentant and help them overcome their weakenesses that they could not overcome alone. Who needs to pay a concilor? That's why God gave us Priests....to help us come to Him!

The Priest is Christ. God has given us the Holy Spirit to console and help us overcome weaknesses. Once Christ died, the curtain into the Holy of Holies was torn. Christ took over and is now our High Priest. We can come directly TO Him.

As far as the Easter and Resurrection Sunday thing, it's all a very interesting topic. An interesting thing to keep in mind is there are many types of Sabbath's. Not just Saturday. I think the new moon was a Sabbath. Some of the feasts begin as a Sabbath. The Year of Jubliee begins on a Sabbath. There were several 'special' Sabbaths. What this means is the day after the Sabbath is not necessarily Sunday.

 

[daszo24]

Quote[/b] (mrpopdrinker @ Oct. 07 2003,8:48)]All I really know about that they hold to is stigmata which is demonic in nature.

Where does the Bible say that the stigmata is demonic?  Is it intrinsically evil to be able to participate, to a degree, in the sufferings of Christ?  Would it be such a bad thing to be able to relate to the sufferings of Christ?

If so, then Saint Francis must have been a demon worshiper.  He must have patronized satan so much that he recieved the Stigmata.

 

[Thaddius]

Pop, this might help you understand why it was not a Monday. Also, the first day of the week on my calander is Sunday....

Quote[/b] ]A Passover on Wednesday is the only day of the week that works with all Biblical accounts of the crucifixion. Yeshua was in the grave "three days and three nights" Matthew 12:40. From Wednesday just before sunset to Saturday just before sunset is three days and three nights. The fact that the day following Yeshua's crucifixion was a Sabbath (Mark 15:42, Luke 23:52-54, & John 19:31) does not prove He was crucified on a Friday. It is a fact of the Law of Moses that the day following Passover is the first day of the feast of unleavened bread and is a Sabbath day of rest like the 7th day weekly Sabbath no matter what day of the week it happens to fall on. (See Leviticus 23:4-8, Numbers 28:16-18, and take special notice of John 19:31 again. The Sabbath immediately following Yeshua's crucifixion was no ordinary Sabbath.)

Understanding that it was a Wednesday Passover and crucifixion also solves apparent conflicts in the Gospel records. In Luke 23:55,56 it says that the women (Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James) went and prepared anointing spices and oils BEFORE the Sabbath. In Mark 16:1 it says that they bought them AFTER the Sabbath! The answer lies is in the fact that there are two different Sabbaths being referred to here. The women both bought and prepared the spices on the same day. The day of the week was Friday. When Mark says they bought the spices AFTER the Sabbath, the Sabbath he is referring to was the special Thursday Sabbath ...the first day of unleavened bread that followed the day of Passover. When Luke says they prepared the spices and then rested the Sabbath, the Sabbath he is referring to is Saturday ...the weekly Sabbath.

There is also proof found in Matthew 28:1 that there were two Sabbaths. Most Bible translations render this word "Sabbath" in the singular because translators, believing the traditional Friday crucifixion scenario, couldn't make any sense of the fact that the Greek manuscripts all render this word in the plural. This fact can be verified by anyone with a Greek interlinear translation or Greek lexicon. Matthew 28:1 therefore should read, "Now after the SABBATHS as the first day of the week began to dawn...".

Therefore, for all the records to add up it must be concluded that Yeshua was crucified on a Wednesday.

Cory

 

[daszo24]

Quote[/b] ]250 is maybe 100 too many.  Also, you must not be including Paul, who is mentioned more often than Peter.

Alright, I looked it up in my concordance, and Peter is listed approx. 200 times, including his original name Simon, when it referred to Peter (not counting Simon Peter as 2).  You are correct, I am not including Paul, only the original 12.  It is interesting to note that people whom God had great plans for had a name change: Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, Simon to Peter, and Saul to Paul, among a few others.  While Saul admonsished Peter for some of his actions, Paul always submitted to Peter's decision regarding the direction that the Chruch would go.

Quote[/b] ]The Priest is Christ.  God has given us the Holy Spirit to console and help us overcome weaknesses.  Once Christ died, the curtain into the Holy of Holies was torn.  Christ took over and is now our High Priest.  We can come directly TO Him.

Christ is absolutely THE priest.  He is the One who stands between heaven and earth.  However, if Jesus and the rest of the Trinity is in heaven, how can heaven and earth be united?  How can we recieve God's grace if He is 'up there' and we are down here?  He most certainly filled the gap between heaven and earth, but how does He maintain it?  I mean, I know God can do anything, but how can He "be with (us) always" when He isn't here?  Or is He?

At the Last Supper, Jesus gave the Apostles a special commision: "Do this in rememberance of Me."  In short, he gave the Apostles, those who God Himself chose to carry on His Church, to be His represenatives on earth.  To change bread and wine into His Body and Blood (I know it will be argued that this is just a symbol, but work with me here for awhile), to forgive sins, and other extra-ordinary things could only be done by extra-ordinary power.  At the last supper, in commanding his disciples to "do this in memory of Me," he gave them extra-ordinary power--the Power of God.  God loved men so much that not only did He make us sons and heirs, but He has called some men to be imitators of Him in the fullest sense.  It is through Priests that Christ can act, and that is why it is so terrible that some priests, though the vast minority, have abused this vocation and acted no better than the basest of men.  Now you don't have to agree with this, but this is where Catholics are comming from when we speak of priests.  God Himself acts through their actions.  Jesus said that He would not remove one iota from the Old Testament, but that he would fulfill it.  Did He remove something Old Law?  Did he degrade it?  Absolutely not--Jesus has lifted certain men, who he has chosen and continues to choose, to become priest just like Him and it is through these priests that Heaven and Earth stay united together.  I know this can seem strange, but God loves us so much that He allows us to participate in the salvation of all mankind.

 

[Kidan]

Please give me a reference where Paul submits to Peter?  

Quote[/b] ]Christ is absolutely THE priest.  He is the One who stands between heaven and earth.  However, if Jesus and the rest of the Trinity is in heaven, how can heaven and earth be united?  How can we recieve God's grace if He is 'up there' and we are down here?  He most certainly filled the gap between heaven and earth, but how does He maintain it?  I mean, I know God can do anything, but how can He "be with (us) always" when He isn't here?  Or is He?

That's where the comforter steps in.  The Holy Ghost is here on Earth with us, comforting us, giving us grace, convicting us, and guiding us.  Christ is at the right hand of the father, interceding on our behalf when we pray for forgiveness.  Besides your comment is basically nullifing the entire concept of omnipresence.

Quote[/b] ]...God loved men so much that not only did He make us sons and heirs, but He has called some men to be imitators of Him in the fullest sense.  It is through Priests that Christ can act, and that is why it is so terrible that some priests,...

yet this undermines the thought that all believers are all priests.  The full transubstation is actually a Egytpian pagan worship (Anubis I believe), there is nowhere where Christ indicated that the bread is actual flesh, for if it became actual flesh and actual blood, then they would have been breaking the Law by consuming it.  don't forget, foremost is the fact that Christ obeyed the full Law, and by consuming actual blood, He and His disciples would be breaking that law.  Also God has called us ALL to be imitators of Him.  As a Christian we are to walk as Christ walked and try to live a perfect and blameless life (which again would be impossible with the consumption of actual blood).  While yes, Christ can and does act through the ordained, it is NOT JUST the ordained.  Christ acts through all Christians by the love we show one another and the world.  We are all High Priests alongside Christ. That is the point of being an Heir with Christ.  The sons of Levi were the priests of the Old Covenant, the Sons of God are the priests of the New Covenant, and ALL Christians are the Sons of God.

 

[timor]

daszo beat me to it, pop - please explain why stigmata, perhaps most notable and claimed by Catholics by Padre Peo, is demonic

futhermore, I have listed other miracles....eucharistic transubstantiation (google Lanciano), incorruptible saints, healing springs, etc.

 

[Big J]

Quote[/b] (mrpopdrinker @ Oct. 07 2003,5:05)]First off it is not easter sunday it is ressurection monday.

Hmmm...do you have a pasage? I was always under the impression he rose Sunday...

 

[Big J]

Quote[/b] (daszo24 @ Oct. 08 2003,11:50)]

Quote[/b] (mrpopdrinker @ Oct. 07 2003,8:48)]All I really know about that they hold to is stigmata which is demonic in nature.

Where does the Bible say that the stigmata is demonic?  Is it intrinsically evil to be able to participate, to a degree, in the sufferings of Christ?  Would it be such a bad thing to be able to relate to the sufferings of Christ?

If so, then Saint Francis must have been a demon worshiper.  He must have patronized satan so much that he recieved the Stigmata.

Stigmata is a man cutting him (or her) self.

Nothing more.

 

[Big J]

Quote[/b] (daszo24 @ Oct. 08 2003,12:26)]While Saul admonsished Peter for some of his actions, Paul always submitted to Peter's decision regarding the direction that the Chruch would go.

(I know it will be argued that this is just a symbol, but work with me here for awhile)

Paul did not submit to Peter's decisions. Paul saw himself as obviously the voice of Jesus...compare how many books of Paul are in the bible versus how many books by peter.

Second, do you like being a cannibal? I mean, if it turns into Jesus, you are eating him...that makes you a cannibal. And a vampire. Plus, wouldn't it be kind of nasty tasting after 2000 years?

Boy...I'd be burned at the stake for that one...

 

[daszo24]

As for the Priesthood, I knew that you (plural) would not agree, but that's where we, as Catholics are comming from.  Besides, why do you have a pastor as a head of a Church?  Why not a lay person?  Why have anyone heading a church at all?  We're all equal (by the standards you are giving) and all have exactly the same position.  There should be no leadership in the Church whatsoever, otherwise we are loosing our God given equality, right?

As for omnipresence, is God, as He was on earth, right next to me right now?  Should I worship the air next to me?  Of course not, and I know you agree with that.  However, God IS in heaven in His totality.  God is everywhere, but not everywhere to the same degree, otherwise I would be as obligated to worship God in the tree in my front yard as I would be to worship Him in person in heaven.

Quote[/b] ]There is nowhere where Christ indicated that the bread is actual flesh, for if it became actual flesh and actual blood, then they would have been breaking the Law by consuming it.  don't forget, foremost is the fact that Christ obeyed the full Law, and by consuming actual blood, He and His disciples would be breaking that law.  Also God has called us ALL to be imitators of Him.  As a Christian we are to walk as Christ walked and try to live a perfect and blameless life (which again would be impossible with the consumption of actual blood).

Have you read John chapter 6?

The beginning of John 6 narrates the multiplication of loaves.  The next day, the people come again in John 6 seeking for more free food and miracles.  In verse 29 Jesus says that the people must believe in Him.  They ask Him how they can know that He is for sure from God for they wish to believe.  They make a connection between when Moses gave thier fathers bread and when Jesus, just the day before, multiplied bread in front of their eyes.  Jesus says that not only can he give physical bread, but he can give bread that "comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world."

He goes on to say (v 35) "I am the bread of life, He who comes to me shall not hunger...nor thirst."  This got them talking (v 41) about how this can be.  Can a man really be bread?  So in verse 51, Jesus explains what on earth He means: " I am the living bread, which came down form heave; if any one eats of theis bread, he will live for ever; AND THE BREAD WHICH I SHALL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD IS MY FLESH."

WHAT?

!!  Is this Jesus guy crazy??  Did He just say what I think He said?  The Jews were thinking hte same thing: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?(!)"  So Jesus clarifies it further as to make sure there's no confusion (verse 53): Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life within you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will will raise him up on the last day.   For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.  He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in Him.

Alright, now this Jesus guy is REALLY off his rocker.  He's gone way too far.  We're not cannables, and the Old Law FORBIDS the consumption of flesh and blood!  They Jews said (verse 60) "this is a hard saying, who can listen to it?"  These Jews knew EXACTLY what Jesus meant, he wanted them to eat his flesh and drink his blood.  Who could even hear this??!  This was disgusting!  And here they thought he was a prophet!

Now at this point, everyone thinks Jesus is crazy.  However, since God is perfect, and Jesus is God, Jesus could never have lost his sanity even for an instance.  Right here Jesus has the chance to say "you're misunderstanding me, I don't REALLY mean that you have to eat my flesh and blood to have eternal life."  However, in verse 61, Jesus says to his disciples "Do you take offense at this?  What if you were to see the Son of man ascending to where he was before? (would they believe then?  Obviously Jesus did this later on)...The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."  Jesus here verifies that they understood him correctly, he was speaking litterally.

However, these were people of litte faith and John 6:66 says what happens to them: "After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him."  Now that a great number of Jesus' followers left Him, He's ready to risk it all for this EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL teaching:  Jesus asks his disciples "Will you also go away?"  But Peter (asserting his leadership) says, "Lord, to whom shall we go?  You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed and come to believe that you are the Holy One of God."  This teaching was over Peter's head, but he knew that Jesus was God and that this must have been true.

It was during the last supper, then, that Jesus blessed the bread and said "This is my Body...this is my Blood."  Was Jesus speaking figuratively?  No.  He gave the Apostles his very own Flesh and Blood that He shed on the cross.  Were the appostles being cannables and were they breaking the old law?  No.  Remember that it is God who gave them the Law.  Jesus is God and therefore had the ability to fulfill it.  He did not degrade the law--it was still extremely immoral to eat another man--but Jesus is the Paschal Lamb.  Just as the high priests of the Old Testament ate part of the lamb (consumation of the sacrifice was necessary for a sacrifice to be completed), so too the Apostles, the new priests, consumed the flesh and blood of the "Lamb who was slain."

Now what does Paul have to say about this?  In 1 Corinthians 11: 23 he begins to speak of the Jesus' Body and Blood given to the apostles by Christ as the Last Supper.  In verse 27 he says "whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the BODY and BLOOD of the Lord...For everyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement upon himself."  St. Paul obviously mentions that the bread and cup of the Lord is the Blood and Flesh of Christ Himself.  Also, there would not be 'judgement' upon those who did not discern a symbol.  Clearly, Paul is talking about the reality of Christ's Body, not merely a symbol.

So, the priesthood, through apostolic succession, has come through the Catholic Church throughout the ages and has continued to bring us Jesus Himself: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.  This is why Jesus will be with us till the end of the age...not just in presence, but in physical reality.  That is why whenever I recieve the Holy Eucharist I can only say with St. Thomas "My Lord and my God!"

Jesus is speaking in these passages of John 6 very litterally.  He means what He says otherwise He would clarify it.  There are only two responses two this: One can say "this is a hard saying, who can listen to it?"  Or one say "Lord, you have the words of eternal life and we have come to believe, and have come to know."

 

[daszo24]

Quote[/b] (Big J @ Oct. 08 2003,3:23)]Second, do you like being a cannibal?  I mean, if it turns into Jesus, you are eating him...that makes you a cannibal.  And a vampire.  Plus, wouldn't it be kind of nasty tasting after 2000 years?

Boy...I'd be burned at the stake for that one...

I only do what Jesus says

 If Jesus says "eat me" I say, "OK"

Seriously though, the Priest consecrates hosts every Mass and by the power of God (and only the power of God) a miracle happens (this only happens 300,000 times a day): the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine at all; they turn completely into the Body and Blood of Christ while retaining all 'accidents' that they previously had.  Accidents are what the senses can percieve: taste, smell, etc.

I know all non-Catholics think I'm off the wall...but think about it...what if this WERE REALLY TRUE?  What might you be missing out on?

BTW: I'll get the Peter/Paul relationship to you guys a in a bit.  I have to do some more school

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Big J @ Oct. 08 2003,3:14)]

Quote[/b] (mrpopdrinker @ Oct. 07 2003,5:05)]First off it is not easter sunday it is ressurection monday.

Hmmm...do you have a pasage? I was always under the impression he rose Sunday...

Maybe some Christians are beginning to change their tune to make Christ's prophecy of staying in the earth for 3 days and 3 nights (like Johan in the whale) come true.

 

[daszo24]

Quote[/b] (Big J @ Oct. 08 2003,3:18)]

Quote[/b] (daszo24 @ Oct. 08 2003,11:50)]

Quote[/b] (mrpopdrinker @ Oct. 07 2003,8:48)]All I really know about that they hold to is stigmata which is demonic in nature.

Where does the Bible say that the stigmata is demonic?  Is it intrinsically evil to be able to participate, to a degree, in the sufferings of Christ?  Would it be such a bad thing to be able to relate to the sufferings of Christ?

If so, then Saint Francis must have been a demon worshiper.  He must have patronized satan so much that he recieved the Stigmata.

Stigmata is a man cutting him (or her) self.

Nothing more.

Then what about St. Catherine of Siena's stigmata? No one but herself could see it.

 

[daszo24]

In regards to Peter's supremacy over the Apostles and the early Church, let's re-look at the aforementioned Mathew Chapter 16.

Peter proclaims that Jesus is the Messiah and Jesus then says (verse 18) "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of deaths shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven." Here Jesus is saying to Peter that whatever he says will have an effect. If he said that circumcision were necessary for all Christians, then it would be so.

As mentioned earlier, Peter always represented the Apostles--he gave the official word...he spoke for the whole group. Now let's fast forward to the Act of the Apostles. Paul was running into alot of controversy with the Jews concerning whether circumcision was necessary or not for salvation. In order to finalize the issue, he went to Jerusalem to get Peter's say on the issue (Acts 15). Verse 7 begins the narration of the events of the council of Jerusalem, the first concil of the Church: "Peter rose and said to them 'Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, THAT BY MY MOUTH THE GENTILES SHOULD HEAR THE GOSPEL AND BELIEVE." Peter was not being prideful or bold here, he was merely re-stating the postion of authority that Jesus had bestowed upon him. He said that it is not necessary for one to be circumcised to be able to be saved. Verse 12 then says "And all the assembly kept silence." Everyone submitted thier wills to Peter's words. This was no longer and issue. Paul then went with his helpers to continue to evangalize the gentiles.

If Paul had equal or greater authority than Peter, he would not have needed to go to Jerusalem. However, he needed Peter's authority on the issue and did not disagree with him, no matter the decision.

It was stated that Paul is greater because he wrote more books. This is irrelevent. Peter's job was too direct the Church in the early days (he was the first Pope) where as it was Pauls vocation to be a missionary among the Gentiles.

 

[4t0p]

Quote[/b] (daszo24 @ Oct. 08 2003,2:45)]I know all non-Catholics think I'm off the wall...but think about it...what if this WERE REALLY TRUE?  What might you be missing out on?

That is a very disheartening statement. It is true inherently in the Catholic belief system. To call Catholic beliefs a sham or whatever is actual quite mean and inherently not Christian your asking people like myself to deny our belief in Jesus Christ only to change it to be like yours ...

MrPopDrinker your posts struck me as being blatant anti-Catholicism, you are entitled to your belief as we all are, but I think people miss the point a lot that Christianity is Christianity, we DO believe in the same God and we all believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our Savior, I don't understand why Christian message boards that I look in on are always bothering the Catholic belief system ... perhaps someone could take some time to reasonably explain why brothers in Christ are so insistent that some of us (seemingly the Catholics only) are so wrong in what we do ... I mean we only based our sect of Christianity on the teachings of Jesus as perceived by men which,correct me if I'm wrong, is exactly what all the protestant sects did, unless I'm wrong that is and Martin Luther wasn't just a man interpreting God's will.

 

[mrpopdrinker]

Quote[/b] (timor @ Oct. 08 2003,2:57)]daszo beat me to it, pop - please explain why stigmata, perhaps most notable and claimed by Catholics by Padre Peo, is demonic

futhermore, I have listed other miracles....eucharistic transubstantiation (google Lanciano), incorruptible saints, healing springs, etc.

Well I could easily counter your points with where does it say it is from God. The bible I believe talks about not hurting yourself for it is dishounorable. So tasting the pain of christ is not from YHVH. If I ever started bleeding out of my hands and feet I would start a very big and very large exorcism. There are alot of points but I am too tired to read them all.

 

[Big J]

Quote[/b] (daszo24 @ Oct. 08 2003,5:28)]"Stigmata is a man cutting him (or her) self.
Nothing more."

Then what about St. Catherine of Siena's stigmata?  No one but herself could see it.

Um...OK...I'm not really familiar with St. Catherine of Siena.

So forgive me if this is a stupid question...if only she could see it...how did anyone know it was there?

By that token, could I not claim that I have stigmata...but only I could see it?

The funniest part of Stigmata is that the wounds were on the hands when people thought it was on the hands, and on the wrists when people thought it was on his wrists. Also...there is the question of how his feet were nailed to the cross...and low and behold...those that have all the wounds have them on their feet at different locations. And that is even considering whether or not his feet were even nailed in that sense to the cross.

 

[Big J]

Quote[/b] (4t0p @ Oct. 08 2003,6:05)]

Quote[/b] (daszo24 @ Oct. 08 2003,2:45)]I know all non-Catholics think I'm off the wall...but think about it...what if this WERE REALLY TRUE?  What might you be missing out on?

That is a very disheartening statement. It is true inherently in the Catholic belief system.  To call Catholic beliefs a sham or whatever is actual quite mean and inherently not Christian your asking people like myself to deny our belief in Jesus Christ only to change it to be like yours ...

MrPopDrinker your posts struck me as being blatant anti-Catholicism, you are entitled to your belief as we all are, but I think people miss the point a lot that Christianity is Christianity, we DO believe in the same God and we all believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our Savior, I don't understand why Christian message boards that I look in on are always bothering the Catholic belief system ... perhaps someone could take some time to reasonably explain why brothers in Christ are so insistent that some of us (seemingly the Catholics only) are so wrong in what we do ... I mean we only based our sect of Christianity on the teachings of Jesus as perceived by men which,correct me if I'm wrong, is exactly what all the protestant sects did, unless I'm wrong that is and Martin Luther wasn't just a man interpreting God's will.

C'mon now. You guys burned "Prots" at the stake because they refused to recant the herasey that the lil' wafers didn't literally turn into Jesus, but just did so symbolically.

The popes were stupid. They should have learned their lesson from the first split...between Rome and the Eastern Rite. Looking Eastward...everybody respects the Greek Orthodox Church, but they do not view the Patriarch there as being "superior" to them.

No, the Popes in their arrogance refused to recognize the rise of nationalism...and the German Princes seized on Luther's ideas and used it to break free of the power (and follow the money trail) and need to send large sums of money to Rome. Same with the Anglican Church...it was more than just a lack of a divorce decree for Henry VIII.

Then some people felt that the breaks from Rome weren't enough...so they sought (for example in England) to "purify" the new national churches...and low an behold the Congregationalists (modern name of the Puritans, IIRC) was born.

On the flip side...Much (not saying all) of what the Catholic Church does can be proven by the Bible.

 

[CCGR]

Quote[/b] (4t0p @ Oct. 08 2003,6:05)]

Quote[/b] (daszo24 @ Oct. 08 2003,2:45)]I know all non-Catholics think I'm off the wall...but think about it...what if this WERE REALLY TRUE?  What might you be missing out on?

That is a very disheartening statement. It is true inherently in the Catholic belief system.  To call Catholic beliefs a sham or whatever is actual quite mean and inherently not Christian your asking people like myself to deny our belief in Jesus Christ only to change it to be like yours ...

MrPopDrinker your posts struck me as being blatant anti-Catholicism, you are entitled to your belief as we all are, but I think people miss the point a lot that Christianity is Christianity, we DO believe in the same God and we all believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our Savior, I don't understand why Christian message boards that I look in on are always bothering the Catholic belief system ... perhaps someone could take some time to reasonably explain why brothers in Christ are so insistent that some of us (seemingly the Catholics only) are so wrong in what we do ... I mean we only based our sect of Christianity on the teachings of Jesus as perceived by men which,correct me if I'm wrong, is exactly what all the protestant sects did, unless I'm wrong that is and Martin Luther wasn't just a man interpreting God's will.

I apologize if I seem bitter toward catholicism. I do realize that salvation is based on the individual and not what denomination you go to. However if a person goes to mass everery Sunday and hear the same gospels but no message of salvation how are they to know they need to confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and make him Lord of their lives? Now my family is Catholic so they are my test base here.

My grandparents don't crack open the Bible because they are told that they may misinterperate it. I thought the Bible was written for everyone not a select few who need to be saved. God does not discriminate.

The church puts man-made doctrine above the Bible. Many Catholics believe in purgatory. Not even once is this mentioned in the Bible. There is no second chance no matter how much you pay the curch to offer masses for the deceased.

We believe in a personal relationship with God we don't need the priest to tell him our sins, we go straight through him. The same goes with mediators. 1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; We don't ask Mary to run errands for us, straight to Jesus. We don't give power to the deceased, they are dead and gone. Hopefully we'll reuinite with them later.

I guess the main difference between us is our stance on the Bible. It's God's word and does not need any addendums. If you believe in something not listed in that, that's up to you but doesn't mean I'll buy into it.

When it comes to Christianity my church has a great motto

Agree on the Majors (Jesus died, rose, accept as savior)
Be tolerant on the minors (baptism, Bible versions)
In all things LOVE

 

[daszo24]

And so now men have broken away the one Church that Jesus originally established to make more than 35,000 churches.

Concerning the stigmata, these saints knew as well as us that mutilating yourself was wrong. And since they were holy people, why would God permit them to experience an attack from Satan? If didn't know that it was from God, they would have done something about it as well (exercism, or whatever else). These people weren't idiots. I mean if I woke up one morning and my hands started bleeding, I think I would know something is wrong if I wasn't sure if it was from God or not.

As for the stigmata being in the hands and not the wrists, pictures of Jesus ALWAYS show the nails in the hands. Does that mean that they're historically accurate? No. Did Adam and Eve eat an apple? No. Did Saint Paul fall off of a Horse? No. These are all things that are depicted in our minds as to what really happened. Thus, it is the same thing with the stigmata: God wouldn't give a person a stigmata in the wrist if the person believed that Jesus was nailed in the hands. We know for certain that Jesus had 5 wounds; 2 in his hands, 2 in his feet, and 1 in his side.

In regards to Saint Catherine of Siena (whose finger is incorrupt...I've seen it) she was an absolutely amazing woman who lived primarily in Italy in the mid 1400s. During the latter part of her life she lived off Jesus in the Eucharist; she ate nothing else and was normal and healthy. As far as her invisible stigmata, she asked the Lord that it be invisible so that other people would not think she was crazy or anything special; she could suffer without anyone but God knowing about it. She had an extremely close brother whom she told about it. She also told a few priests who were close to her about it. Whenever someone touched her hand, they could tell that she was in immense pain because of it.

So if this is from God, why would He do this to some one? Because these souls loved Jesus so much that they wanted to be united with Him in all that He was. This included being united with Him in His suffering throughout the whole passion and His death on the cross.