I am still puzzling with Debby's question about the Sacrament of Reconcilliation?

I want to know your opinion is regarding the "truth" of God's forgiveness.

Is there any forgiveness of sins, for a baptised Christian . . . outside of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation?

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 21, 2003

Answers

Response to Is there "any" forgiveness of sins outside of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation?

Yes . . . or No.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 21, 2003.

Response to Is there "any" forgiveness of sins outside of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation?

Catholic Encyclopedia article on The Sacrament of Penance:

"Venial sins by which we are not deprived of the grace of God and into which we very frequently fall are rightly and usefully declared in confession; but mention of them may, without any fault, be omitted and they can be expiated by many other remedies" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 3). Thus, an act of contrition suffices to obtain forgiveness of venial sin, and the same effect is produced by the worthy reception of sacraments other than penance, e.g., by Holy Communion.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 21, 2003.

Response to Is there "any" forgiveness of sins outside of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation?

yes, sins can be removed outside of confession:

1) baptism, cleansing of all sins until baptism and original sin

2) forgiveness by desire, a person is intending to go to confession and has a contrite heart but dies before they can get there.

3)venial sins forgiven by communion.

4) forgiveness in general absolution (such as a group of soldiers before a battle) but the soldiers must intend to go to confession afterwards.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 21, 2003.

Response to Is there "any" forgiveness of sins outside of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation?

paul

but how does your point 1) interact with the Sacrament of Confirmation.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 22, 2003.

Response to Is there "any" forgiveness of sins outside of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation?

explain a little what you mean by your question ian, i'll be glad to address it.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 22, 2003.

No man can enter the kingdom of Heaven unless he is born again. No man, priest or pope has the power to forgive our sins. We are not saved by our works. We are only saved if we are born again in Jesus Christ. Read your bibles. Trust only the KJV. Nowhere in the bible will you find any of Catholism's fallicies. Nowhere in the bible will you find purgatory, communion, confession, celibicy for priests, nuns or the blessed virgin mary and how you must pray to her...Yes Mary was blessed amongst women, but she had other children besides Jesus. She is a special woman, but nowhere in the bible does it say we must pray to her. Please brothers, before it is too late, and judgement day comes before you. Repent now and be born again in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

-- Darlene (mama2kira@yahoo.com), May 24, 2003.

Dear Darlene,

Catholics were born again for 1500 years before your manmade tradition ever existed. The Bible clearly describes Jesus giving men the power to forgive our sins (John 20:22-23). No, we are not saved by our works. Catholics don't believe that we are. Catholics do read the Bible. Why wouldn't we? The Bible was given by God to our Church, no other. However, Catholics also have access to correct, authoritative interpretation, so we don't end up dividing into thousands of conflicting denominations over faulty interpretation of scripture. Purgatory, Communion, and Confession are clearly described in the Bible. Perhaps you just don't recognize such passages, having no reliable way of knowing what scripture means. Priestly celibacy and nuns are not doctrinal issues. They are simply current institutions within the Church. Why would they be in the Bible? It is not true that we "must" pray to Mary. However it only makes sense to ask other Christians to pray for us. Don't you? And please don't say Mary is dead, because the Bible says she is alive (John 11:26). Christians have known for 20 centuries that Mary had no other children. Your belief that she did is a modern tradition of men, which the Bible tells us to avoid. The fullness of God's truth and the fullness of grace both await you in the Church Jesus Christ founded for you. You won't find it in a manmade denominational tradition which has existed only a few hundred years, which denies many of the truths of original Christianity, and which cannot even decide within itself what is true and what is not. Look around you. The beliefs of other Protestant sects are just as different from your beliefs as Catholic beliefs are. And yet, each Protestant sect claims it has the truth, and even worse, claims that its "truths" come from the Bible. They don't. They come from personal interpretation of the Bible. The truths of the Bible existed in the Catholic Church even before the Bible was written. That's how those truths got into the Bible in the first place. Come back to your roots, to the one Church Jesus founded for all men, where truth is genuine, complete, and unchanging after 2,000 years.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 24, 2003.

I almost went to the bother of responding to Darlene's drivel, the normal drivel that some non-Catholic 'Christians' spout-forth about Catholicism. However, when I read; 'Nowhere in the bible do you find...communion', I was rendered speechless!

-- S (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 24, 2003.

S,

im with you. dont you mean non catholic 'christians' with a little c since she doesnt even recognize the communion the Jesus comanded of us?

heh, im tired of responding to people who post all this stuff in the wrong places instead of reading the threads which already show them to be wrong.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 26, 2003.

Dear Paul, In response to your statement to Darlene, I am quite confused. I do believe that communion is right, it mentions it in the Bible. And I beleive what you said about Mary not being "dead." She is dead, but her soul lives like everyone. (i looked up your verse. it was helpful) However she is dead, like I said, but she is waiting the ressurection. And just to point it out really quick, you may already know, she was not sinless. She did not always believe that Jesus was the Christ, either. In Mark 3:21 it talks about how his family tried to take control of him. and they said "He is out of his mind." She was NOT a virgin all her life. If so, why then does it talk about Jesus' mother's and BROTHERS trying to get to him in Mark 3:32? And in Matthew 13:55 it talks about his other brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. Explain how that happened. I don't think Mary was a virgin when she had those children too! It also talks about his sister there too. Just confused, JRo

-- JRo (donotsend@blank.net), May 29, 2003.

p.s. your church has changed alot! Mine was formed on the day of penacost! i go to the church of christ. we did not break off of your catholic church. We do not have instruments, however we do not think they are a sin to have them in church. We are a nondenominational church, thank you very much. 1 . Prayers for the dead . …………-------------------……300 A.D. 2. Making the sign of the cross ………………………… …300 A.D. 3. Veneration of angels & dead saints …………---------…….375 A.D. 4. Use of images in worship………………………………… . 375 A.D. 5. The Mass as a daily celebration……………………………… 394 A.D. 6 Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied a Council of Ephesus……………. .---------------------------------- ------- 431 A.D. 7 Extreme Unction (Last Rites)……………………………… ..526 A.D. 8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory 1…………………………… .593 A.D.. 9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints ……………………………… .600 A.D. 10. Worship of cross, images & relics ……………………… … 786 A.D. 11 Canonization of dead saints ………………………………… ..995 A.D. 12. Celibacy of priesthood …………………………………… …1079 A.D. 13. The Rosary ……………………………………………… … 1090 A.D. 14. Indulgences ……………………………………………… …..1190 A.D. 15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III …………………………… 1215 A.D. 16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest …………………… 1215 A.D. 17. Adoration of the wafer (Host)…………………………… .. 1220 A.D. 18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion …………………..1414 A.D. 19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma……………………………..1439 A.D. 20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed …………….1439 A.D. 21 Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent…………………………………………----------------… 1545 A.D. 22. Apocryphal books added to Bible ………------------……….1546 A.D. 23. Immaculate Conception of Mary……………………………….1854 A.D. 24, Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council ……………… 1870 A.D. 25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) ……………………………---------------------------------- -……1950 A.D. 26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church……………………… 1965 A.D.

-- JRo (jordanroo@hotmail.com), May 29, 2003.

JRo,

What date do you place on the practice of substituting grape juice for wine?

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 29, 2003.

Dear JRo,

There is no historical record of any Christian Church on earth between Pentecost and the 11th century, except the Holy Catholic Church. In the 11th century the Orthodox Churches split off from the Catholic Church. Your Protestant tradition didn't begin for another 500 years after that! But your own denomination, the so- called "Church of Christ", didn't appear for another 300 years after the Protestant Rebellion. You are right in saying that it didn't break off directly from the Catholic Church. On the contrary, it was the end result of a long series of divisions. It finally came into existence in 1836 when a Presbyterian minister and a Reformed Baptist minister who was an ex-Presbyterian merged their congregations and first coined the name "Church of Christ". Is your church ashamed of its history? If not, why would they feed you such misinformation?? It sounds like they realize that Protestantism is false, and are trying to distance themselves from it by lying to you. But the "Church of Christ" is thoroughly Protestant!

Of course the REAL Church of Christ - the one He personally founded - dates back to the Apostles, and to Jesus Himself. History reveals that THAT Church of Christ was calling itself the Holy Catholic Church before the end of the first century, reflecting its divinely ordained mission to make disciples of all people. That's what "catholic" means. Like many Protestants, you don't seem aware of the tremendous difference between the Church formally DEFINING a doctrine in a Church Council, and the Church forming a new doctrine. The Church does not form new doctrines. But sometimes, when a doctrine that has been held from apostolic times later comes under attack by heretical forces, the Church responds by formally and precisely DEFINING that doctrine, in order to ensure the purity of Christian truth for future generations. The dates you listed are dates of such formal definitions. However, the doctrines you listed were universal doctrines of the Christian Church until the 16th century when widespread heresy began to appear as a result of the introduction of the false doctrine of sola scriptura, coupled with the untenable human tradition of private interpretation. By the time your "Church of Christ" was founded, there were already over 6,000 other denominations. Today there are over 20,000.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 29, 2003.

Paul, I'm sorry. Maybe I forgot to mention that we are a non-denominational church. We did NOT break off the Catholic church during the reformation or whatever. We follow the Bible completely. We do not add stuff that is not mentioned in the Bible or take it away. And back then, the catholic church was not the only church. We have not changed over time, like most other churches and denominations have. We do not have bishops or popes to lord over us. We have elders at our church that shepherd us and lead us. We do not think they have any type of "power" to forgive sins or of that sort. We have a preacher, but we do not "worship" him or anything. ( i don't think that's what you do, however) Alot of the practices or traditions you guys follow don't seem to be mentioned in the Bible. Like praying to Mary. There is only one way to the Father and that is through Christ. Mary is dead and cannot do anything to help you. Unless you back up yourself with scripture saying that Mary is to be prayed to, I cannot believe you. JRo

-- JRo (blank@nothing.net), May 30, 2003.

wow jorden,i never looked at it that way. i'm catholic but i don't understand why they do all the stuff they do. when i talk to my parents and other catholics they can't even explain it. i've been looking for a church that wasn't changed so much throughtout time so much. we need to talk some more. sarrah

-- Sarah (Sbay84@yahoo.com), May 30, 2003.

One question often asked about the ‘churches of Christ’ is; “have there always been congregations meeting like ourselves before the time of Thomas and Alexander Campbell?” The answer is Yes, as this survey will seek to show.

Sources used in this history include those at the University Library, Cambridge (over six million books) and the British Library, London (over thirteen million books). The New Testament Church is not new, it started on the day of Pentecost nearly two thousand years ago. It has continued since wherever faithful brethren meet.

One possible objection to this survey is the question, “how could people without our learning and knowledge come to our understanding?” The answer has to be that it is not our understanding but the plain teaching of scripture that these Christians came to understand, and obey. They lived in societies which had far greater spiritual values than the materialism of today. Divorce, evolution, denominations, one or multiple cups, the instrument and so on were not problems to them as they are to us. Likewise they rejected the traditions of Catholicism which left them with the Bible as their only guide. It was to Christ and His Word to which they submitted. To suggest that Christianity died out in the second and third centuries only to be restored in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is simply too horrible to contemplate.

This survey is an account of those Christians who throughout time chose to serve the Lord and not to follow after the traditions of man. Through the writers and historians of the Catholic church we can read of the charges made against these Christians and the penalties meted out to them. This account is not a history of the church in general, nor a defence of the New Testament church, other excellent books are easily available and are listed for this in the endnotes. This survey should therefore be regarded as an addition to other widely available works.

The New Testament of our Lord makes it quite clear that the church would soon fall into apostasy, the responsibility for keeping the church pure would be for individual congregations and Christians using the Word of God.

The charges made against Christians through time can be paraphrased as follows;

1/ Rejection of infant baptism, their defence was that infants are without sin and that a person through their own choice should decide whether they wish to be baptised and wash away their sins, proclaiming the message of God’s grace and the free will of man.

2/ Rejection of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, their defence was that the Lord’s supper was not a sacrifice but a memorial to be taken on the first day of the week.

3/ Rejection of the Old Testament and certain New Testament passages, their defence was that they held all the scriptures sacred, but the Word of God needed to be rightly divided, the formal Priesthood of the Old Testament did not apply in the Christian era was one example.

4/ Rejection of church buildings and altars, their defence was that any place was a suitable place of Worship.

5/ Rejection of idols and images, their defence was that this practice was contrary to the Word of God.

6/ Rejection of sprinkling or pouring as a mode of baptism, their defence was that immersion was commanded in the Word of God.

7/ Rejection of a separate priesthood and clergy, their defence was that all were equal in Christ, proclaiming the 'Universal Priesthood of Believers.

8/ Rejection of prayers for the dead, holy days and good works (without faith, Ephesians 2:8-10 ), their defence was that these were contrary to the Word of God.

9/ Rejection of celibacy, the defence was that this was contrary to the Word of God.

10/ Rejection of the hierarchy of Bishops, the defence was that congregations were autonomous, being overseen by a plurality of Elders (Bishops).

11/ Another accusation made time and time again was the crime of heresy of Manichaeism, which goes back to a heretic named Manes or Mani who died around 276. This charge has always been strongly denied, evidence suggests that this was a contrived charge to gain quick conviction. One problem the authorities have always had with true believers who use the scriptures as a justification was that their defence could be seen publicly, therefore charges of Gnosticism and Manichaeism were often bought to gain a fast conviction, usually followed by death by burning.

12/Rejection of praying to Mary. The scriptures that proclaim that she is anything more than a Godly women and is to be worshiped or be prayed to is not found in the Bible, the Holy Word of God.

Did early ‘churches of Christ’ use the instrument for music in their assembly? No, they did not. The instrument problem is a recent one and does not affect the time period we are looking at, having only become common place since the late 1800s.

Such were the complaints made and such was the defence (a return to scripture as the authority for the church and the Christian). Their defence by scripture was rejected by the authorities and banned. The traditions of the Catholic church would set the standard and many thousands died because they refused to obey the Pope.

The writer believes the Bible to be the very Word of God revealed and made available for all mankind. The writer has rejected modern (and not so modern) evolutionary theories believing in the Genesis account of six day creation less than 10,000 years ago. This reflects in the time periods and conclusions made of pre-Roman Celtic and Scandinavian Europe.

Neither statements can change the ultimate conclusions reached as these are dependent on known history since the time of Christ and the Bible.

For many people today when presented with the numerous Christian denominations are totally confused, and rightly so. Calvinism and Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, Anglicans and Baptists, and many, many more, in fact hundreds of ‘Christian’ denominations claim to hold to Biblical truth, yet their doctrines (as their opponents will happily point out) contradict sound Bible teaching. Yet in the beginning there was one church based on the teaching of Christ through His apostles, as written and handed down through the Bible. So how has this confusion come about and when did it happen? This survey will attempt to show how this has happened, the struggle of Christians who were faithful in opposing this, and lastly to show that it is possible still to Worship God in the manner that He expects.

In fact in view of all of this confusion the writer believes that the only way to get back to the truth is to use the Bible, in seeking answers about the Christian Faith. It would take a lifetime to check each and every denomination and to work out the history of their particular doctrines, it is far easier and safer to go to the Bible direct and to ignore the teachings and traditions of men.

In the Bible the inspired writers claim that Jesus is none other than the Christ, God Himself. The New Testament teaches that salvation is through Christ, so all mankind needs and is obliged to check these statements found in Holy Scripture. And we must reach the right conclusion, for if the Bible is right and we get it wrong we will spend eternity outside of Heaven and outside of the fellowship of God. Clearly the most important task of any responsible person is to check the claims made in the Bible and to act accordingly.

The people who are written about wore no name other than ‘Christian’. For convenience in this study we will use the same term and refer to the congregations who met together to Worship the Lord as ‘churches of Christ’. This description was given in Paul’s letter to the Romans in chapter sixteen verse sixteen. The term ‘church of Christ’ is a common designation made in the English language referring to those churches who are ‘in Christ’.

The 'church of Christ' is none other than Christians who make up the body of Christ, His spiritual Kingdom on Earth.

-- JRo (blank@nothing.net), May 30, 2003.

JRo, you said: "We did NOT break off the Catholic church during the reformation or whatever."

If a branch falls off a tree, and as it hits the ground, a leaf falls off the branch, then technically the leaf didn't fall off the tree - but there was definitely a connection.

Certainly your church didn't break away from the Catholic Church during the Reformation. It broke away from a Protestant church which had broken away from *another* Protestant church, and so forth -- till we get to the one that had broken off from the Catholic Church during the Reformation.

Every Protestant Church, regardless of its denominational status, had its origins in Martin Luther's original act of rebellion. You may not want to believe that, but it's in every history book.

-- Theist Gal :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), May 30, 2003.

''. . . the writer believes that the only way to get back to the truth___ is to use the Bible, in seeking answers about the Christian Faith.___ It would take a lifetime to check each and every denomination and to work out the history____ of their particular doctrines, (???) it is far easier and safer to go to the Bible direct and to ignore the teachings and traditions of men.''

Reply: Our friend JRo has ignored a long- acknowledged fact. The Bible he finds ''easyier and safer'' could have been an altogether different Bible; a book with falsehoods and errors included; along with the story of Jesus Chrsit.

It could've been. But God, the author, placed the Bible in the hands of His saints & evangelists. He inspired them with His own grace and revelation. His Truth. That's why the (full, not busted) Bible is irrefutable and true.

The saints and evangelists were the first Catholics. The Church jesus christ founded on Peter, was our Holy Catholic Church.

JRo, a Bible would only be God's Word if God's own people gave it to you. God's own Church!

As everybody knows, the written Word existed mainly in the churches for more than a millennium; and was hand-written by Catholic churchmen. No other editions were in use; until the first schisms separated east from west. Even at that, the eastern faiths were handed the canon of their bible by ROME.

No protestant editions were extant until around the start of the 16th century. They were nevertheless not produced by translating the original languages from any other sources than the Catholic Church. She kept the first manuscripts, and the copies of those which had been destroyed by time. Your Bible, JRo, has Catholic Church fingerprints in it.

Therefore, you are a Catholic insofar as you read a Bible. But NOT a faithful Catholic; since you interpret the Bible with only your human capacity. You throw out the Church's interpretation, and adopt the ones of men.

Which is ironic because you said in there; we ought to ignore the teachings and traditions of men. Now; would it ''take a lifetime to check each and every denomination and to work out the history____ of their particular doctrines,--???

No. We know that history. It's very plain to see. They all stem from heresies. Only one Church comes founded by Jesus Christ on Peter and the apostles. For two thousand years now, the Holy Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 30, 2003.

JRo,

>> We follow the Bible completely. We do not add stuff that is not mentioned in the Bible or take it away.

The Bible says that the Lord's Supper consists of bread and wine. Yet you use bread and grape juice. This is not following the Bible completely. By whose authority do you change what the Bible tells us all to do?

There are a lot of inaccuracies in your list of changes made by the Catholic Church. But it is certainly true that the Catholic Church has made changes over the years, by the authority given to St. Peter and his successors, the Popes. This authority is documented in the Bible, Matthew 16:18-19. What verse gives you the authority to substitute grape juice for wine just because you feel like it?

You know, some of the neighborhood kids don't like grape juice; they would prefer milk and Twinkies for the Lord's Supper. Are you willing to accomodate them? If not, it doesn't matter; they can always follow your example and start their own church, the "Church of Twinkies" instead of your "Church of Welch's Grape Juice". And if you think that they would be wrong to do so, maybe you should ask yourself how what you are doing is any different.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 30, 2003.

Dear JRo,

The only way to be non-denominational is to believe nothing. A body of belief defines a denomination. Your church has a defined body of belief, even if it is defined on nothing more authoritative than your elders' personal interpretations of the scriptures; therefore you are a denomination. Many denominations call themselves "non- denominational", but all that means is that they haven't chosen a specific name for their denomination, and haven't alligned themselves with any other denomination that has chosen a name.

Every Protestant denomination claims, as you do, that they follow the Bible completely. So, why are there more then 20,000 conflicting denominations, and why is yours more likely to be right than any of the others? The Bible says the Church is the foundation of truth. Do you accept the Word of God on this point, or reject it in favor of your tradition, attempting to force the Bible to be what the Bible clearly says it is not? The Bible says that Jesus gave selected men the power to forgive other men's sins (John 20:22-23). Do you believe the whole Bible, or reject this part? The Bible records Jesus as saying "This is My Body", and confirming that statement by declaring "My flesh is real food, my blood real drink". Do you accept these words of God Himself, or follow your tradition instead? Also, you claim that all beliefs must be found in the Bible. Why do you believe that, since no such statement appears in the Bible? You claim your approach to Christian living is completely biblical, yet base it entirely on an unbiblical tradition of men that never existed in Christianity before the 16th century.

You say that "back then" the Catholic Church was not the only Church. Evidence please? I don't require a lot. Just one line of text from any pre-11th century source that mentions any other Christian church will do. We do not have "elders" who lord it over us, forcing upon us their private interpretations of scripture; but we do have divinely appointed bishops and a remarkably holy Pope, who shepherd and lead us in unified, authoritative interpretation of the scriptures which were given by God to the Church.

You say there is only one way to the Father. I agree. You got the idea from a Catholic book. Does this mean I can't ask anyone else to pray for me? If I ask another Christian to pray for me, am I going to God through someone other than Jesus? Obviously not! If you read the Bible, you would realize that Jesus Himself said Mary is not dead (John 11:26). Unless you can back up your demands for scripture from scripture, I can't see any reason why I should bow to such a tradition of men. Col 2:8 is a divine warning to Protestants. You would do well to heed it.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 30, 2003.