Hello All,

Can someone explain to me the significance of not eating meat of Friday’s during Lent? I believe that pre-Vatican II it was considered a mortal (correct me if I’m wrong) sin to eat meat on any Friday. I follow the practice but have always wondered why we as Catholics do this and if it is a sin not to.

Enlighten me

-- Big Dave (big.dave@earthlink.net), March 04, 2005

Answers

Is it a sin to buy meat on Friday if you don't eat it until Saturday? ;-)

-- Davis (davis242@gmail.com), March 04, 2005.

I'm a vegitarian, so what do I know...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 04, 2005.

1. Big Dave, abstinence from meat is a penitential act that we perform in commemoration of Jesus's suffering and death for our salvation on a Friday. Abstinence from meat is binding on all Fridays during Lent (plus Good Friday, which is technically no longer in Lent, but in the Paschal Triduum).

In the 1960s, after Vatican II (but not called for by Vatican II), Pope Paul VI altered the abstinence-from-meat regulations, just as other popes had altered them further in the past. Outside of Lent, the abstinence-from-meat rule still exists wherever, around the world, a national/regional bishops' conference has not allowed for some other penitential act as a substitute. It comes as a shock to many U.S. Catholics that they still have a serious obligation to abstain from meat outside of Lent unless they choose to perform a different penitential act instead.

2. David, in case that was not a joke, the answer is that it is NEVER a sin to BUY meat on Friday (even Good Friday).

3. Zarove, since you are neither Catholic nor a meat-eater, you should not have wasted your time or ours by posting.

-- (OK@lets.go), March 04, 2005.

To abstain from meat on Friday, the day on which the son of god gave his life for our salvation;

Is a GROUP act of self-denial. The CHURCH calls all the faithful to take part in this holy act. It's truly HOLY, because the saints are in communion with Christ.

He denied Himself totally to suffer and die; and His people keep every Friday in Lent set apart for their own, holy act of self-denial. You could call giving up meat ''carrying our cross'' following Jesus on the way to Calvary, the first Good Friday.

If someone wilfully refuses to make that act of self- denial with the saints (Christ's faithful followers) he cuts himself free of the Church by his unwillingness. That is sinful because it repudiates the authority of the Catholic Church. What's more, by negligence it shows God he isn't faithful at all.

That's the basis in fact for calling it a sin; not the eating of that meat. Meat is meaningless without our self-denial. Jesus demands this of His people, Dave. He said, ''If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow me.'' (Luke 9 :23) We obey His instructions as One People during Lent, in this small way. Give up a hamburger! A slice of roast beef! Just on Friday-- the day Jesus gave up His life for us.

Here we prove to all the unbelieving world we can be holy. His Church! It's so easy; and we eat FISH, we don't have to go hungry. Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.

I don't think Zarove's post was out of line.

What do you do if you are a vegetarian (as in lacto-ovo)?

What do you do if you are a vegan?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 04, 2005.

See Catholic Encyclopedia.

No cows, no dairy, no fowls, no eggs. No mammals.

Fruits, Vegetables, fish, shrimp, lobster, crab, reptiles, amphibians allowed.

-- (fish@fridays.lent), March 04, 2005.

Are you really giving up anything by not eating meat on Friday's during lent? What really is the point. I've done some research on this and I understand that it signifies a sacrifice, just like Jesus died on the cross for us, however, what kind of sacrifice is giving up meat. Why does it have to be meat? And where in the bible does it say that you have to do this...specifically meat? No where as far as I know.

For those that are Vegitarians or any other form...What are they giving up? Nothing. So what's the point. Back then, Meat was almost a luxury. Not all could have meat because it was expensive for most people. Now days, Seafood is more expenisive than meat. By substituting a Lobster$$$ for a steak$, are you really making a sacrifice.

Again, what's the point....how could this be a SIN? It does not go against the 10 commandments.

John

-- John (Anonymous@who.com), March 04, 2005.

Egg and dairy products don't matter. Neither, of course, seafoods. All just fine. All the bread and cheese you like; and nothing wrong with wine. On Good Friday we fast.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.

Again, what's the point....how could this be a SIN? It does not go against the 10 commandments. --John
-- John (Anonymous@who.com), March 04, 2005.

Would you read this, John?

To abstain from meat on Friday, the day on which the Son of God gave his life for our salvation; Is a GROUP act of self-denial. The CHURCH calls all the faithful to take part in this holy act. It's truly HOLY, because the saints are in communion with Christ. He denied Himself totally to suffer and die; and His people keep every Friday in Lent set apart for their own, holy act of self- denial. You could call giving up meat ''carrying our cross'' following Jesus on the way to Calvary, the first Good Friday. If someone wilfully refuses to make that act of self- denial with the saints (Christ's faithful followers) he cuts himself free of the Church by his unwillingness. That is sinful because it repudiates the authority of the Catholic Church. What's more, by negligence it shows God he isn't faithful at all. That's the basis in fact for calling it a sin; not the eating of that meat. Meat is meaningless without our self-denial. Jesus demands this of His people, Dave. He said, ''If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow me.'' (Luke 9 :23) We obey His instructions as One People during Lent, in this small way. Give up a hamburger! A slice of roast beef! Just on Friday-- the day Jesus gave up His life for us.

Dear John: It didn't have to be shown in the Bible. The Bible teaches us to worship in Christ's CHURCH, and his Church has authority from above to give us her own holy teachings.

-----------------Sorry to inflict this a second time on others in this thread. Apparently it got by John previously. Forgive this interruption?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.

John..back "when" was meat a luxury? Lets go back to the 1700's..the main meal of the day was at noon or sometime a few hours after..rich people had plenty of meat, so yes, they made a personal sacrifice not to eat meat. For poorer folks, they may not have had a huge pot roast on the table, but perhaps had one scrappy lamb bone to throw in a stew pot, or a few chicken legs left over from two days ago..they did without this in their stewpot and ate a very bland veggie stew instead if they didn't live near a place where fish was available to them.

"meat" isn't limited to beef..it includes poultry, goats, sheep and venison as well as rabbits, squirrels, game birds, etc.

When I was growing up, we lived on the coast and I truly dreaded Fridays since my Grandmother wasn't too creative. EVERY single Friday we had codfish cakes and beans..yuck. My best friend's Mom cooked onion soup with cheese..we all wanted to eat at our Russian friends' house..her Mom cooked hot noodles with real butter and tons of veggies to go with them..we were kids and really not into sacrificing on Fridays'..Lent was different though.

Somebody else said that it's not so much what you eat or don't eat as it is to help you remember how much Jesus suffered for you..even a Vegan can give up their favorite veggie on Fridays during Lent..the idea is the same. If one approaches abstaing from meat with the thought of "well, I'll just tubby up on giant lobster" they miss the entire point, and you're correct John, there would be no self-sacrifice. But it's OK, God knows everyone's heart..we all just concern ourselves with our own actions and try to be pleasing to God.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 04, 2005.

Dear Lesley, I had never heard that cute phrase before ("tubby up"). I like it better than "pig out."

Dear "fish@fridays.lent",
Sorry, but you were mistaken to say "no dairy, no eggs." You recommended reading the "Catholic Encyclopedia" (CE) on this subject. This is one of very few things on which the CE cannot be relied, because the Church's discipline has changed. Pope Paul VI's 1966 document specifically says, "The law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat." Thus, we are PERMITTED, even on Good Friday, to eat eggs, milk, cheese, butter, and "condiments made of animal fat" (though I don't know what this last phrase would include).

I recommend that anyone who is really serious about learning the Church's teaching on fast and abstinence should read the pope's document, Paenitemini.

-- (OK@lets.go), March 04, 2005.

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. [1 Tim 4:1-5]

-- (anon@anon.com), March 04, 2005.

Your spirit may be saying it, anon. But not the Holy Spirit. Save this horse manure for your meeting house. You are corrupting the meaning of the Word of God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

*Cough*cough* man-made traditions of protestantism. (which fall away from the truth taught by God and establish each individual man as the determining factor in divine truth)

They forbid people to marry

*cough*cough* Cathars (forbid any sort of sexual relations between anyone)

and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

*cough*cough* mormans (who arent giving up certain foods as a temporary sacrifice for God but as a religious practice which leads to salvation.)

For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. [1 Tim 4:1-5]

*cough*cough* the communion of Christs church (the catholic church)

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 04, 2005.

Wow!

Eugene says this: Your spirit may be saying it, anon. But not the Holy Spirit. Save this horse manure for your meeting house. You are corrupting the meaning of the Word of God.

He says that in response to this post of mine:

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. [1 Tim 4:1-5]

I mean--Wow! Does he really think God's Word is horse menure??

-- (anon@anon.com), March 04, 2005.

Really paul h??

You think that that one paragraph spoke to all those different religions?

Hmm..

And you didn't consider the fact that the Roman Catholic Church forbids priests from marrying?

And the church also forbids its people from eating certain foods on certain days. Couldn't that the last sentence be just telling you why its wrong to do that?

For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 04, 2005.

Anon: Please think for one minute: Do you expect us to accept YOUR version of the truth as GOD'S own message? You are placing YOURSELF on the same level as His, just because you looked in a Bible? I read it myself, you know. I see things very clearly in the Word of God, since I belong to the Church of the holy apostles. I was taught correctly BY THEM. You are taught by self-ordained ministers.

I call your dumb interpretations horse manure. Cause you don't KNOW BEANS.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.

The Church does not forbid marriage. If you had any clue as to the reasons this passage was written you wouldn't make the ludicrous error of trying to tie this passage to priestly celibacy. The Church makes rules for its priesthood which include voluntary celibacy, just as the Apostle Paul practiced it and recommended it. The Church doesn't force anyone to become a priest. A man enters the priesthood because he is personally called to voluntarily embrace everything the priesthood entails, including celibacy. Likewise there is no specific food which the Church forbids. Catholics can eat any food they choose. The Church however does provide some minimal guidelines to assist us in fasting, an important means of spiritual strength and spiritual growth which the Apostles practiced, and which Jesus specifically recommended.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 05, 2005.

But I didn't interpret anything Eugene,

I simply posted Scripture.

You are arguing with Scripture--not me.

Take it up with God.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 05, 2005.

Can a man become a priest and marry though? No. So this i9s indeed an example of your church forbidding some people to marry.

Are you allowed to eat meat on Fridays during Lent? I hear that you are no0t. That is forcing people to obstain from certain foods-- whether you see it or not.

Fasting should be done quietlky--without anyone knowing what you are doing, so how can the church regulate that?

Matthew 6:16-18

“When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 05, 2005.

Fasting should be done quietly -- without anyone knowing what you are doing, so how can the church regulate that?

Catholics DO fast "quietly." No one but a given Catholic (and God) knows whether or not he is fasting. The mere fact that the Church names TWO days of obligatory fasting each year (Ash Wednesday and Good Friday) does not result in Catholics fasting less than "quietly."

Tiny "anon," just like the devil in the desert with Jesus, misuses scripture passages against Catholics. She uses verses selectively, ignoring those that give the Church the power to "regulate" fasting and abstinence (for example, Jesus giving the Church's leaders the power to "bind and loose").

A prayer for Lent

Heavenly Father, forgive "anon," if she knows not what she is doing.

-- (OK@lets.go), March 05, 2005.

Bind and loose had to do with their authority to declare and record God's Word....which is now established forever....

-- (anon@anon.com), March 05, 2005.

Yes--fasting on Ash Wednesday is very quiet. No one hardly even notices the black ash smudge on your heads and would never even know you were also obstaining from meat--which, by-the-way--hardly seems like fasting when you can still eat.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 05, 2005.

They may not notice the ash on adults (or are too polite to say anything), but with children it is a different matter entirely if they go to public school. Mostly they get remarks about a dirty face.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 05, 2005.

Obviously, I wasn't serious when I said it was hardly noticable! lol!!

-- (anon@anon.com), March 05, 2005.

>"Can a man become a priest and marry though? No. So this is indeed an example of your church forbidding some people to marry."

A: The passage says nothing about establishing marital norms for the ordained clergy in accord with the recommendations of Paul. The passage addresses one issue and one issue only - the teaching that marriage itself was evil, as professed by some heretical sects of the time.

>Are you allowed to eat meat on Fridays during Lent? I hear that you are no0t. That is forcing people to obstain from certain foods-- whether you see it or not."

A: And Jesus specifically atated that we are to fast. Fasting means abstaining from food, does it not? Please describe how and when you fast.

>"Bind and loose had to do with their authority to declare and record God's Word....which is now established forever...."

A: Binding and loosing refers to exactly what Jesus said it refers to - "WHATSOEVER". He specifically used the most general, nondescriptive word He could use, toindicate that the Church has complete authority to make binding declarations on any and all doctrinal and moral matters, without limitation. That's what "whatsoever" means. To listen to the Church is to listen to Christ. Oh wait, He said that too!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 05, 2005.

I fast when I am in need of being closer to God for the purpose of deep prayer.....every time experience hunger, it reminds me to get on my knees. I am in a constant state of prayer during that time--and I eat absolutely nothing. I do drink water. And I do this when I choose and no none knows about it. I may do it for an entire day--or just through half a day, it depends and is totally personal and between God and myself.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 05, 2005.

And again, Paul--

We disagree as to just *who* that church is.....

-- (anon@anon.com), March 05, 2005.

Only because you lack knowledge of history. History plainly identifies the Holy Catholic Church as the Church of the Apostles, revealed by its writings in every century since, the undeniable fact of its succession of leadership dating directly back to the Apostles. These facts won't go away. You can ignore them. But you cannot deny them without revealing your ignorance of history.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 05, 2005.

What does that have to do with the Roman Catholic religion though? The Roman Catholic religion is just one part of the many divisions and outshoots.., that have been popping up evewn since Paul's day. The Eastern Orthodox is another.

The true apostolic church only exists unchanged in the Scriptures....and people who are born-again by those Scriptures--are the only true church of Jesus Christ.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 05, 2005.

No one has ever been born again ''by scriptures''. Stop your dreaming and return to the Holy Church of your blessed ancestors.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2005.

1 Peter 1:23-25

For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

For, “All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever.” And this is the word that was preached to you.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 05, 2005.

you see, anon, this is what happens when you apply ignorant self interpretation of the scriptures. if you had read enough of the bible you so idolitrously worship, you would know that JESUS is the Word Made Flesh. we are born again in HIM, not the scriptures. and when we are born again in Him it is through the sacraments which HE instilled, particularly when He told us that we must be born of the water through baptism.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 05, 2005.

The pathetic part here is how a heretic wants the Word of God to become his private affair. He has to be ''saved'' on account of his Bible! And GOD has no choice!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 06, 2005.

Jesus is the Word of God--His Word is living and has the power to convict and wash-new even the hardest of hearts. Jesus' physical self is not here right now, but He is with us in Spirit--and that Spirit guides us through the Scriptures, which are the Word of God. Ya see, you really can't separate Jesus from the Word. It is the Word of God that convicts us, through which we are born again by. How? It is by hearing it preached.....or by reading it.....those preaching it, have to be taking it from the Scriptures.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 06, 2005.

More important, those preaching it must have access to authoritative interpretation. Otherwise what they are preaching is simply their own ideas, not the Word of God at all; and the predictable result is the current epidemic of denominationalism, a direct violation of the stated will of God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 06, 2005.

I never said that people are born-again by interpretations, Paul.

They are born again by the very Word of God. It has to come straight from the Scriptures as recorded by the prophets and apostles themselves--the very word they preached.

I was literally changed in a moment by being in the Scriptures themselves, reading and hearing the words of Jesus as recorded by John in his gospel. Interpretation and understanding the Scriptures further, isn't even possible until one is born again by the gospel of Jesus Christ.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 06, 2005.

Anon: "Yes--fasting on Ash Wednesday is very quiet. No one hardly even notices the black ash smudge on your heads and would never even know you were also obstaining from meat--which, by-the-way--hardly seems like fasting when you can still eat."

There is a difference between the terms "fasting" and "abstaining." Abstaining from meat should not "seem like fasting," because it is not fasting.

The purpose of abstaining from meat [animal flesh] on Fridays is to recall that Our Lord sacrificed His flesh on Good Friday for us on the Cross of Calvary.

Anon2

-- Anon2 (Anon2@too.too), March 06, 2005.

The usual balderdash out of faithie: ''I was literally changed in a moment by being in the Scriptures themselves, reading and hearing the words of Jesus as recorded by John in his gospel.'' Changed to what? --You misinterpret the gospel of John completely.

''Interpretation and understanding the Scriptures further, isn't even possible until one is born again by the gospel of Jesus Christ.'' -----------Then that proves you weren't ''born'' at all; since you find it impossible to understand the gospels. Furthermore, there is no such condition either for being born again (by the gospel) or for understanding anything. This is all flim- flam.

Back to the top: Pray, tell us-- what is ''changed literally''--? Did you change from sinner to saint? from dense to brilliant? From Jewish to Irish? LITERALLY? In just a ------------moment?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 06, 2005.

faith, anon, et al... you say that you must be born again in the word. BUT...

the Word, the Word Made Flesh, Jesus the Lord, has told us that those who are not born again in the water (baptism) and the spirit (confirmation) do not have life within them. i think i'll take the words of the Christ over the false interpretations of faith and anon.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 07, 2005.

paul,

You are inserting your own tradition to the meaning of Jesus' words.

Being born-again is the baptism that saves. When you are born again, you are washed clean by Him. Your old self dies--and is raised new in Him. This is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that jesus brough and John the baptist forshadowed with the water.

This is spiritual for now--but in the last days--it becomes realized in the flesh as well--when all believers are raised from the dead like Jesus was.

Confimation is not found in the Scriptures.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 07, 2005.

Paul says Baptism is in the Church, the ''bath of regeneration;--that's not a man-made tradition, it's the Word of God. There is NO way to be ''born again'' outside the Church and baptism. Particularly not by being a Bible-reader.

Confirmation is in scripture. Read Acts 2 :1-4 --On Pentecost the Holy Spirit came upon the first members of the Church in the Upper Room; in the form of tongues of fire. They were there ***confirmed in the faith*** of the Catholic Church. It was immediately apparent, because they went forth to convert 3,000 souls on that same afternoon. Today the Church confirms Christ's faithful in the sacramental rite. We are given the Holy Spirit and made confirmed Christian soldiers. We receive from God the Holy Spirit the great increase of sanctifying grace which unites us intimately with God, who dwells in our souls and imparts on them a sacramental character. This is an everlasting mark upon our souls identifying His faithful soldiers. We are ready to defend the faith from that day-- even as the apostles and disciples were on Pentecost. Which YOU are finding out HERE in our Catholic forum.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 07, 2005.

--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 07, 2005.

Being born-again is the baptism that saves. When you are born again, you are washed clean by Him. Your old self dies--and is raised new in Him. This is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that jesus brough and John the baptist forshadowed with the water. This is spiritual for now--but in the last days--it becomes realized in the flesh as well--when all believers are raised from the dead like Jesus was.

all this is your personal hogwash. you can dance around it all day, but Jesus CLEARLY stated that when we are born again it is through water in baptism. He never mentioned a single thing about that merely being a foreshadowing by john the baptist but rather notes that baptism is absolutely essential to salvation. and you accuse ME of fitting my personal interpretations in. dont be silly anon, basic english will tell you that you are incorrect here.

Confimation is not found in the Scriptures.

no comment, as eugene has already pointed out what you apparently missed.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 07, 2005.

John 1:26-27

“I baptize with water,” John replied, “but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”

John 1:29-34

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”

Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God.”

-- (anon@anon.com), March 07, 2005.

1 Peter 1:19-25

....but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

For, “All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever.” And this is the word that was preached to you.

The Scriptures say we are born-again by the word of God.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 07, 2005.

Is this really a reference to water baptism?

John 3:5-8

Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

It seems to me that if any baptism is being referenced here, it's Jesus' baptism of the Holy Spirit., though the word baptism isn't mentioned.

Couldn't the reference to water here be talking about physical birth? In other words, isn't the point in this verse saying that we need to be not only born in the flesh=water--but we must be born *again* by the Holy Spirit?

-- (anon@anon.com), March 07, 2005.

Jesus was speaking to someone who was already born, telling him what HE must do to have eternal life. He told him what HE must do is to be born of water and the spirit. What would be the point of telling him he must EXIST (be born) in order to be saved?? Kind of self evident, isn't it? Being born of water and the spirit is what those who have already experienced natural birth must do in order to be born anew.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 07, 2005.

It seems to me that He was pressing the point that it isn't enough to be born physically--but that we must be born again!

Nicodemus questioned this whole idea about being born again and said:

“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!”

So Jesus clarified that the rebirth birth is not of water--but of the spirit.

One cannot be merely born into the world and expect to go to heaven when he dies. He must be born AGAIN! First by water--but again, by the spirit.

Even if by water is meant baptism--the baptism is of the Spirit--the spirit washes us clean...that is why water is used in the ceremony we perform. But the water doesn't clean us really. Our faith does.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 07, 2005.

Anon:
Your dubious faith is not the stuff of which souls are ''born again''.

You and David Koresh of the Branch Davidians in Waco TX; and Rev Bob Jones of the Kool-Aid suicide sect and Oral Rbts, who claimed to see a 900 foot apparition of Jesus; saying, ''Raise 30 million dollars from your flock, or you'll die in one year.'' --You and they are all ''Bible-saved'' wackos who think you were born again. There's no such doctrine taught in the Holy Bible! In fact you're all descended from faithful CATHOLICS. Unless your ancestors were Skandinavians or Orientals, they were members of Christ's Church; the Catholic Church of the apostles. THAT'S A FACT!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 07, 2005.

>"So Jesus clarified that the rebirth birth is not of water--but of the spirit"

A; He certainly did not! In John 3:3, Jesus used the expression "born again". In verse 4, Nicodemus says he doesn't understand what "born again means". So, in verse 5 Jesus explains to him what being "born again" means. He says that being "born again" means being born OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT. And He also says that this rebirth through water and the spirit is essential for salvation.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 08, 2005.

Eugene, virtually all Scandinavians (even Icelanders) were Catholics for several centuries. And possibly Anon's ancestors were south-of-Sahara Africans who were converted directly from paganism by protestant missionaries.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 08, 2005.

You are inserting your own tradition to the meaning of Jesus' words.

Being born-again is the baptism that saves. When you are born again, you are washed clean by Him. Your old self dies--and is raised new in Him. This is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that jesus brough and John the baptist forshadowed with the water.

This is spiritual for now--but in the last days--it becomes realized in the flesh as well--when all believers are raised from the dead like Jesus was.

Confimation is not found in the Scriptures.

anon,

How about a reality check? You seem to be lost in the delusional world of Sola Scriptura?

The efficacy of the Sacraments is derived from His Passion. It would necessarily follow that the Sacraments, including Baptism, were not instituted before His death AND that the proper form and understanding of matter was passed on by Apostolic Tradition prior to the Canon of Sacred Scripture.

It would seem that Apostolic Tradition and the successive nature of such would be quite hard to ignore to those who accept Baptism -yet some do?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 08, 2005.

Dear Steve:
I had in mind the ancient Vikings as Scandinavians. Some would dispute with us that they come from Catholic ancestry if they're descended from a Nordic race. I might be mistaken, it's unimportant. We can be sure most protestants of our age are from Catholic root stock.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.

RE: No Meat on Friday

For those interested -something I read recently on the subject:

JIMMY AKIN.ORG: Law - Changing The Law Of Abstinence

A reader writes:

Jimmy, what is the best way to explain to a fallen away Catholic who is troubled about why it is O.K. to now eat meat on Fridays when years ago you would go to hell for eating meat on Fridays.

I would point out several things:

1. Human law often interacts with divine law in a particular way whereby human law specifies particular actions that will help accomplish the goals laid out in divine law.
2. For example, divine law would require that, under normal circumstances, we behave in a way that we are not a danger to ourselves or others. This requirement applies across the situations we encounter in life, including driving an automobile.
3. To facilitate the goal of driving in a safe manner (as required by divine law), human law creates certain mandates to facilitate this goal, such as having everybody drive on the same side of the road.
4. Which side of the road it is varies from country to country. It doesn't matter which side is picked (in America it's the right side; in the UK, it's the left side) as long as everybody drives on that side when they are in that country.
5. If a country wanted, it could change which side of the road people drive on, say from the left to the right. Before the change it would be a sin to drive on the right side of the road because it would be dangerous in the extreme to do so, but after the change it would be a sin not to drive on the right side of the road.
6. Something similar to this applies to the case of penance. The Church teaches that all of the faithful are obligated-- and gravely obligated--to do penance for their sins by divine law.
7. It therefore has established certain specific requirements to help people fulfill divine law in this regard. These include the practice of fast and abstinence on various days of the year.
8. That one is fasting or abstaining on any particular day is not of itself important, the same way that driving on a particular side of the road is not of itself important. What is important is that the community is organized in such a way that the larger goals of divine law (behaving in a safe manner, doing penance for sins) are facilitated.
9. With changes of time and culture, the Church has recognized the need to adapt its penitential practice to varying needs. When everyone in Europe was Catholic and shared similar diets and economic conditions, having a law like mandatory Friday abstinence for everyone made more sense.
10. But today the Church includes people on every continent, who live in different cultures, with different diets and economic conditions.
11. As a result, the Church has allowed the bishops' conferences to make their own best judgment about how the Church's penitential practice should be applied in their country. If the bishops' conference feels that a variance from the universal norm is warranted for their people, they can request a variance from the Vatican.
12. The universal norm is still that Catholics are to abstain from meat on Fridays (all Fridays of the year), but the American bishops' conference judged that a more restricted program of abstinence (only Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, the the Fridays of Lent) would work best for Catholics here in America. They requested a variance from the universal norm and the Vatican granted it. Thus here in America there are a smaller number of days on which abstinence is required.
13. The situation with regard to abstinence is thus similar to the situation with driving laws. It doesn't matter of itself which days you do penance on or which side of the road you drive on. The important thing is that you obey the laws of the land that you are in.
14. If the law says to abstain from meat on some days and not others, that's what you are obliged to do. If the law says to drive on one side of the road and not the other, that's what you are obliged to do. It is a sin to violate those requirements.
15. If the law changes then your obligations change. But to knowingly and deliberately violate the law when it is in force is, by definition, a transgression.
16. A Catholic who knowingly and deliberately ate meat on a normal Friday before the law changed in the U.S. and who didn't have an excusing cause was knowingly and deliberately spitting on the requirement to do penance in the way the Church required and thus on the authority that Jesus gave the Church (the Church having been given the power to bind and loose by Christ himself). A person who eats meat on a normal Friday after the law changed is not doing this.
17. In the first case, a person is defying not only the obligation to do penance but also the authority of Jesus Christ himself as exercised through his Church. In the second case, a person is complying with the obligation to do penance (assuming he does penance when he is required to do so) and with the authority of Jesus Christ.
18. The change of circumstances totally changes the moral character of the act. While it's physical character (the eating of meat) may be the same, its moral character (defying one's grave obligations) is totally different.
19. In the same way, a person in the US who drove on the left side of the road at a time this was illegal would be gravely defying his obligations (to drive safely and to obey the law of the land), but if the law changed then though the physical character of his act (driving on the left) would be the same, the moral character of it would be completely different.

Hope this helps!

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 08, 2005.

Paul,

You said:

He certainly did not! In John 3:3, Jesus used the expression "born again". In verse 4, Nicodemus says he doesn't understand what "born again means". So, in verse 5 Jesus explains to him what being "born again" means. He says that being "born again" means being born OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT. And He also says that this rebirth through water and the spirit is essential for salvation.

But if you really stick with those verses and follow it through to its conclusion, you will see that the *Spirit* was the subject:

John 3:5-8

Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water *and* the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh [this is the water], but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

-- (anon@anon.com), March 08, 2005.

Anon,

Very good point(s) taken. Both baptisms seem to be required. A flesh one and a spritual one. It makes perfect sense. In Catholic religion, if only half of it is believed, why is performed at an early age....to infants who do not and are not yet capable of understanding the first baptism. Are children all pure with no sin...it is until Chlidren enter the stage where they understand what is good and evil. Then can they have the sense to accept and understand what step they are taking?

Can someone tell me where in the bible does it say that you must be baptized as an infant? Was Jesus himself baptized as an infant...or perhaps like Anon stated, he was only setting up the introduction of the holy spirit. God's holy spirit which re-borns the spirit itself and leads to salvation and eternal life when you believe that God so loved the world, that he gave his only son for the sacrifice of all mankind, so that we could be forgiven and always have an opportunity to be born again in his eyes?

John

-- John (Anonymous@who.com), March 08, 2005.

Here is Christ's analogy of the blind leading the blind and all going into the ditch. --Sick, sick, sick.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.

Or maybe leading to the rightuous path!!!....and leaving the narrow minded and ignorant behind to stray.....

John

-- John (Anonymous@who.com), March 08, 2005.

anon & John,

You seem so occupied with attempting to use the documents of His Church to attack the validity of His Church -very odd, if you stop and really think about it...

IF you study clearly the teachings of His Church you would know that you are in error and this latest straw man argument quite shallow. It is true that Christian initiation requires much more than what the Sacrament of Baptism alone provides...

YET, you seem to believe that the consolidated version of Baptism you espouse is maybe a super Baptism that accomplishes all required for Christian initiation and that His Church should adopt this man made and lacking model? Your corrupt version of His teachings on this subject has many many flaws due to the omissions inherent to it -think about it...

The Church teaches that Christian initiation requires Three Sacraments -Baptism, Confirmation, & Communion (Eucharist). Is this not good enough for your standards? Christ and His Church are quite satisfied with this...

I suggest that if you want to continue attacking His Church that you would at least learn something more substantial about Her. He provided and provides us much more than the readers digest version of scripture you labor over as if it was a tool for evil...

Here is some further information from the Catechism of the Catholic Church to get you started:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - III. How is the Sacrament of Baptism Celebrated?

Christian Initiation

1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion.

1230 This initiation has varied greatly through the centuries according to circumstances. In the first centuries of the Church, Christian initiation saw considerable development. A long period of catechumenate included a series of preparatory rites, which were liturgical landmarks along the path of catechumenal preparation and culminated in the celebration of the sacraments of Christian initiation.

1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post- baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. the catechism has its proper place here.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Article 2

1285 Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the "sacraments of Christian initiation," whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace. For "by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - II. The Signs and the Rite of Confirmation

1298 When Confirmation is celebrated separately from Baptism, as is the case in the Roman Rite, the Liturgy of Confirmation begins with the renewal of baptismal promises and the profession of faith by the confirmands. This clearly shows that Confirmation follows Baptism. When adults are baptized, they immediately receive Confirmation and participate in the Eucharist.

As you can see you are combining the Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of Confirmation -YET omitting First Communion when you attempt to describe "Christian initiation" and call it Baptism.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 09, 2005.

Was Jesus himself baptized as an infant.

Of course he wasn't because John the Baptist himself was only an infant.

-- duh (noname@nomail.com), March 09, 2005.

Daniel Hawkenberry,

I don't follow the catholic Catechism, sorry.

I follow Jesus through His Word--and it doesn't talk about such things as infant baptism followed by Confirmation.

It seems to me that the need to have Confirmation just proves the point that infant baptism is premature and doesn't involve faith. Therefore, something had to be done to ensure the child would stay on your planned path. At some point the faith has to be real for the child--it has to be their faith, otherwise, they do not really believe.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 09, 2005.

duh,

Since the efficacy of the Sacraments is derived from His Passion. It would necessarily follow that the Sacraments, including Baptism, were not instituted before His death AND that the proper form and understanding of matter was passed on by Apostolic Tradition prior to the Canon of Sacred Scripture.

duh?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 09, 2005.

Since the efficacy of the Sacraments is derived from His Passion. It would necessarily follow that the Sacraments, including Baptism, were not instituted before His death AND that the proper form and understanding of matter was passed on by Apostolic Tradition prior to the Canon of Sacred Scripture.

lol I agree with the above and was only trying to be humorous which I can see there are many far too serious people here.

-- duhagain (noname@noname.com), March 09, 2005.

LOL -serious -who me?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 09, 2005.

I don't follow the catholic Catechism, sorry.

faith01,

THEN your comments concerning what the Church teaches are not relevant as at best they are mere conjecture...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 09, 2005.

Dear Daniel:
You presume too much;

''Sacraments, including Baptism, were not instituted before His death--''

Is simply not so. The sacramental RITES weren't taught until after Christ's Passion Death & Resurrection. But sanctifying GRACE, for which He instituted a Church and her rites is eternal. Adam and Eve possessed it before the fall. Afterward their children were born lacking it.

Jesus Christ had to merit it for us on Calvary. Did He merit ''sacraments?'' No-- sacrament only means MYSTERY. -- A sacred mystery, like Baptism. He merited GRACE for you and me. This was effective all during His lifetime as it pleased Him. That's how He simply forgave sinners; by giving them from His own merits-- GRACE.

Sanctifying grace was infused in the Holy Virgin's soul at conception; well before Christ suffered. It came from HIM, in some mysterious way, in anticipation of his Passion and Death. Time is not a limit or a barrier for God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

eugene,

I do not presume anything. Maintain the context of my words. I do not speak of rites nor do I speak of whatever you suggest other than the efficacy giving context to what I wrote.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 09, 2005.

Well, thanks. That's unintelligible.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

eugene,

You are quite welcome.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 09, 2005.

THE DIDACHE or "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" is believed to have been written between 50-90AD--also crossed referenced in the works of Hermas, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.

-----------On Baptism

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;

7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;

7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.

------------ On the Eucharist

9:1 But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.

9:2 First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

9:3 And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

9:4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.

9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs.

Multiple Translations can be read at:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

Catholic Validation can be read at:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04779a.htm

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 10, 2005.

How does a baby choose to fast before his/her baptism?

-- (anon@anon.com), March 10, 2005.

"How does a baby choose to fast before his/her baptism? " Come on that's easy! simply put the bottle down for a few days!

Actually it is very good to have babies baptised as early as possible, For multiple reason but most of all through the parents commitment the Holy Spirit does reside with the child but even more so it helps to insure that the child Will be raised with Christian principles and teachings.

In the early days one who was baptised in public expressed a very Strong commitment of belief in who Jesus was and what he taught. Which could and did at times result in their death's.

So merely my own opinion- If someone was that willing to risk their life or the life of their child because they believed that Jesus truely was the Son of God, I think that is the type of commitment God wants each of us to have and as a result our Baptised children and ourselves are forgiven of original sin. And the Holy Spirit will remain with each of us throughout our lifes to further encourage our commitments to God.

You would be amazed at how many Catholics who during their late teens early 20's may pull away from Church until they marry and have their 1st child, and shortly afterwards have them baptised and continue to come back into the Church more and more as the Children continue to get older which contine deepening their Faith and further developing the Faith of the Child who most often repeat that process.

Compare this to other denominations who don't practice Baptism at birth and I believe the regeneration rate will drop sharply. In fact I will Bank on it!

Again merely my own opinions-- Of course it's possible I screwed up and I am actually correct!

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 11, 2005.

Babies don't fast. I THINK Michael G. had the joke and not any answer to offer. Let's wait and see; he'll quickly react to any comment.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.

"eugene,

I do not presume anything. Maintain the context of my words. I do not speak of rites nor do I speak of whatever you suggest other than the efficacy giving context to what I wrote. "

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org )March 09, 2005.

Thank you Daniel that made my response much easier.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 11, 2005.

Come again? Do you think that post makes sense?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.

Of course!

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 11, 2005.

You weave a nice scenario about baptism, Michael G.,

Hoever--it isn't biblical.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 11, 2005.

"You weave a nice scenario about baptism, Michael G., However--it isn't biblical."

It's like a Miracle to reveal the truth to you! 2200 pages and the Bible opened to the Exact page and Verse I went to get for you.

*COL.-2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, ***not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God***, who raised him from the dead.

13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Baptisms in the Bible:

Cornelius' *Household* , Lydia's *Household*, Jailer's *Household*, Crispus' *Household*, Stephanus' *Household*

Gee I wonder if any of these families or their servants had any Children? If they did Guess WHO else got Baptised afterall they ARE part of the household Right?

When were circumcisions to be done? Correct right after birth!

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 12, 2005.

...Romans 2:28

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

Galatians 5:2-6

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Based on that verse above--I'm wondering if infants were actually circumcised, or if that is a modern Jewish mistake, like infant baptism.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 12, 2005.

You have made the mistake. Bringing it here to a forum of Catholics is useless; we don't believe in mistakes drawn from private Bible interpretation.

People with your obsession, anon, think they are supposed to lead. You want respect here for your biblical opinions and we're sorry, we don't respect them.

We certainly respect the Holy Bible. But why from YOU? Satan quoted verses to Jesus Christ. He pretended to ''understand'' what they meant; and guess what?

Christ didn't explain those verses correctly to the devil. He just rejected them, and offered him the truth: --TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. --You can take our Church now or leave it. But don't come here to preach.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2005.

GE 17:9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. ***12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised,*** including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner--those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

I believe this will answer your question.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 12, 2005.

Thanks,

But remember that it is obsolete....it didn't mean anything in the end. Faith is what mattered.....

-- (anon@anon.com), March 12, 2005.

JER 31:31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, "declares the LORD. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

-----------That verse from Jeremiah which announces the impending New Covenant is Repeated in full in *Hebrews Chapter 8* Which declares Jesus the mediator of the N.C.--With this in John 3:5 Jesus declares the following.

JN 3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, ***no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.*** Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

------But 2 of the statements of Truth regarding the need for Baptism can be seen in Acts.

-----#1 In Chapter 9 when Saul (Paul) is blinded and then sent to Damascus, Where Jesus had instructed Ananias where to find Saul and what to do. when this occurs Ananias placed his hand on Saul and..

AC 9:17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord--Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here--has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again.*** He got up and was baptized***, and after taking some food, he regained his strength

------#2 Is very important to the topic Refer to Acts 10 AND 11-- Here Cornelius is instructed by an Angel to send for PETER---and the same time Peter is having a vision where he is tested and responds with "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."---- and the the voice corrected him saying "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."--- This set the stage that Peter WAS to go back with Cornelius's people and Proclaim the Word and Baptise them, Which he would have Rejected had this not occurred...

AC 10:27 Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people.*** He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.*** So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?

--------The meeting goes on with a large grouping of family, friends and servants where Peter tells the stories about Jesus and then...

AC 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then ****Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.*** Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

---------Peter then has to Explain his Actions

AC 11:1 The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them."...............

AC 11:15 "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning Then I remembered what the Lord had said: `John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"

------- Even if in your mind there is a .00000001% chance that Baptism is needed for Salvation, isn't better to do this for yourself AND your Children by performing this simple Ritual? (you don't even need to fast) Anyone can perform this for you or for your Children. The instructions were already provided in an earlier post.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 13, 2005.

The only thing that i find interesting is that anon and a few other contributors to this post board are the only ones actually using scripture to base their claims. The rest of you seem to be using teachings from your CHURCH and not the actual teachings of the BIBLE.

-- Jason (none@none.com), March 13, 2005.

but you know what disturbs me the most. When a person comes on here to peacfully discuss his religion with someone and recieves a quote like this

"Your dubious faith is not the stuff of which souls are ''born again''. You and David Koresh of the Branch Davidians in Waco TX; and Rev Bob Jones of the Kool-Aid suicide sect and Oral Rbts, who claimed to see a 900 foot apparition of Jesus"

nothing and i mean nothing gives you the right to compare him to mentally deranged person. When ever anon or anyone else on here makes a point that someone can't explain or have an answer to this is the kind of response that is given. Im sorry but on a religious discussion thats not acceptable to me.

-- Jason (none@none.com), March 13, 2005.

Jason, your sympathy for anon is misplaced. This supposed expert on the Bible solemnly tells us “I'm wondering if infants were actually circumcised, or if that is a modern Jewish mistake, like infant baptism”. Then when he is shown the obvious evidence from the Bible itself that Jews have circumcised babies since the time of Abraham, and evidence from the time of the Apostles that Catholics have been baptising babies for 2000 years, he then claims that far from being a “modern mistake” it is “obsolete”. This seems even MORE mentally deranged than someone claiming to have seen a 900 foot apparition of Jesus.

Anon didn't come here to "peacefully discuss his religion" (NOT that this is the place for him to do so anyway) but to persistently attack the Catholic religion on a Catholic site.

What would you do with someone who came to your meeting house and spent nine days telling you your religion is garbage? You'd kick him out quick smart, not patiently indulge his attacks like we have done.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 13, 2005.

your doing the exact same thing again. From what i understood there has been a debate going on for the past 9 days. No one is forcing you to sit down and argue back and fourth with him, and as far as i can see no one has told him to stop posting on here. And when i was saying that no one else was using scripture to support their claims i was talking in general not just over the topic that was at hand. But as an example you just explained to me that it has been practice for 2000 years, to prove you claim. If the only way that you determine how you should follow your religion is by what the church tells you and not by what is in scripture, then what is the point in having the bible in the first place? If anything that you are arguing for is only backed up by your teachings from the church and not the bible. I am not trying to argue with anyone i am just trying to point out a flaw if your reasoning. In addition, even if anon came on here to debate with you that still does not give you guys the right to compare him to those type of people, that would be equivilent to me comparing everyone on here to the priests that molest innocent children. Which would also not be right because that is only a very small percentage of the priest who have done that, which in the same way it is not fair to compare anon to those type of people.

-- Jason (none@none.com), March 13, 2005.

First, what is in the Bible is, without exception, part of the teaching of the Church. That's why the Church included those particular writings in its Bible in the first place. However, the Bible does not contain the fullness of the teaching Christ gave to His Church, nor was it ever intended to. That's why the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and the final arbiter of doctrinal questions - facts we know from both the Bible and Sacred Tradition.

Secondly, because the content of the Bible is part of the teaching of the Church, it can be correctly interpreted only by the Church. That should be abundantly clear from the present state of doctrinal chaos and internal division among those who attemp to interpret it outside of the authority of the Church. So, in the final analysis, the teaching of the Church is the only authority by which Christ allows us to know the truth - the teaching of the Church on issues where the Bible is silent; and the teaching of the Church on matters where its teaching is recorded in the pages of Scripture. It's all part of the same teaching - teaching which Christ gave to the Church solely in the form of oral Tradition, not in writing; some of which the Church subsequently did write down, and later compiled into a book.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 13, 2005.

So basically you’re telling me that traditions and teachings passed down by the church are more important than the bible? And if a lot of your traditions can not be found in the bible what is the point of the bible if it contradicts what the church teaches you to follow? In my opinion the reasoning that you are using is that the bible is not a center piece of your religion (or at least that is how it is coming across to me) but instead the most important part to religion is the teachings of the church which have been passed down and changed by men over many years, compared to the bible which has remained the same word of god over this time.

and if this is true and i am not misunderstanding you then i guess there is just a difference of opinion.

-- Jason (none@none.com), March 13, 2005.

Dear Jason:
I see you must be utterly without any theological preparation other than private studies of the Bible. That or guided in study by protestant ministers.

''[If Catholic] traditions can not be found in the Bible what is the point of the Bible if it contradicts what the Church teaches you to follow?''-----Two points you ought to know: One, Nothing within Scripture ''contradicts'' what the Catholic Church teaches. Every teaching in the Church comes infallibly from the apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ. Every teaching is protected from error by the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to his infant Church on the eve of His passion and death (John 16 :5 through :15)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2005.

From MEN only comes error; or heresy.

One vital truth hidden from you by self-ordained ministers--mere MEN, is that you must become a Bible Christian. You must NEVER obey anything except what you can find packed neatly in the Bible. That is a LIE.

Christ is our Holy Master. Master means ''teacher'', for your information. Only what Christ is definitely known to have taught is TRUE. We learn from his apostles; because they were there, learning all truth at the Master's feet.

This truth was passed on in His own CHURCH. The Church, in turn, used the gospel narratives of a handful of saints to produce the BIBLE.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2005.

>"So basically you're telling me that traditions and teachings passed down by the church are more important than the bible?"

A: No! I am telling you that the Tradition and teaching passed down by the Church INCLUDES the Bible. The writings which the Church gathered into a book for its own use are one of several ways the Church has passed down the teaching given to it orally by Christ. If the Church had not existed, none of this teaching would have existed, and therefore neither would the Bible have existed. No part of the teaching Christ imparted to the Church is any more or any less important than any other part, for it is all the Word of God. You do realise that Christ told the leaders of His Church "He who hears you hears Me"? And "Whatsoever YOU bind upon earth is bound in heaven"? I don't know of any passage that says "He who reads what you have written hears Me", or "Whatsoever you write upon earth is bound in heaven".

>"And if a lot of your traditions can not be found in the bible what is the point of the bible if it contradicts what the church teaches you to follow?"

A: The Bible CANNOT contradict Church teaching because, I repeat, it IS Church teaching! Everything that appears in the New Testament was taught by the Church FIRST. The Church compiled it into the Bible later - about 3 centuries later! Do you seriously think that in compiling the Bible, the bishops of the Catholic Church would have included writings which contradicted the teachings of the very Church for which and by which the Bible was being compiled??

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 13, 2005.

>"In my opinion the reasoning that you are using is that the bible is not a center piece of your religion (or at least that is how it is coming across to me) but instead the most important part to religion is the teachings of the church which have been passed down and changed by men over many years, compared to the bible which has remained the same word of god over this time."

A: The doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church does not and cannot change - ever. Not the parts of it that are recorded in the Bible, and not the parts that are missing from the Bible. It is all the Word of God, just as the Bible tells us it is; and the Word of God cannot change. Which is why the Catholic Church has 2,000 years of constant truth and remains one united Church after all that time, just as Christ commanded. Compare this to 450 years of division and fragmentation resulting in thousands of conflicting Protestant churches, all claiming to be based on the same Catholic book, and none of them agreeing with any other about what it means - a direct violation of the will of God as expressed by Jesus Christ - "That they all may be ONE"!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 13, 2005.

Paul M,

Since you have always been the voice of reason here, I have to side with Jason up to a certain point.

WHEN a Protestant enters into any of these threads with their understanding of the Bible/Religion, Too often they are attacked or seen as simply a divider (normally by a few not as a whole) based on their knowledge, Whether it is good or flawed knowledge.

I think that it is reasonable to expect that at times we as Catholics will need to show them/Him the understanding using their own methods (the Bible) to support the truth which we see in our Traditions, Doctrines.-- To be honest if I was coming in from the outside and I was told forget the Bible here is what we believe, accept or get out without any attempts to link my knowledge with the Churches Knowledge, after I seriously stirred things up I would get out. But in the meantime Who would benefit? Not God, Not Jesus, Not the Church, and surely not me

Personally I think the attacks reflect poorly on the Church, members and even this forum. I see that there are plenty of people here with Good knowledge of various parts of the Church and it's teaching, I also believe that we have people here who have good knowledge of Catholic and Protestant theology and Biblical knowledge to help make a more positive impact with these people.

Maybe by making better use of people skills and less with the attacks we would have more Protestant who understand that it is NOT Faith alone. And maybe the Catholics really do have the Fullness of the Truth.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 13, 2005.

Protestants don't really believe in faith alone as you all seem to see it. We realize that in faith, works will come. Without works-- there isn't likely any faith.

We just recognize that the Scriptures teach that works have no part in our salvation.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 13, 2005.

1 John 5:13-15

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us– whatever we ask–we know that we have what we asked of him.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 13, 2005.

John 20:30-31

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 13, 2005.

These Scriptures verses are for Paul, by-the-way.., who said that he doesn't know of any Scriptures that say anything about "He who reads anything that is written" or "whatsoever is written is bound" etc...

1Cor. 4:6-7

Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

-- (anon@anon.com), March 13, 2005.

Come on Michael, Anon in his very first post here ignored the subject of the thread and accused Catholics of being “hypocritical liars” who had “abandoned the faith” and that we “follow deceiving spirits” and that our “consciences have been seared”. He didn’t come here to peacefully ask a question about Catholic beliefs or practices, or even to give us an apologia for his own beliefs. It was attack, ridicule, and condemn Catholics from the word go. Some Catholics have returned fire to him, but he has also been given PLENTY of good solid reasoned answers to his outrageous accusations. No one has told him to “forget the Bible”. We’ve given him Biblical references to show him the truth, but what’s the use of that when he’s so profoundly ignorant of the Bible that he thought that Jews in Biblical times didn’t circumcise babies?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 13, 2005.

Luke 24:25-26

He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 13, 2005.

John 5:45-47

“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

Matt 24:15

“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel–let the reader understand–

John 21:24

This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

2 Thes 3:17

I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write.

After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

Col. 4:16-

After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

2 Cor 13:10

This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority–the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down

Rev. 1:1-3

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw–that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 13, 2005.

Steve?

Are you talking about this Scripture verse that I posted?

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. [1 Tim 4:1-5]

I posted it because it speaks against ordering people to obstain from certain foods--which, according to this Scripture is wrong because everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving..

How does this not apply to the topic of the thread?

-- (anon@anon.com), March 13, 2005.

Steve,

That is my point. Anon quoted a verse from the Bible 1-Tim 4-1-5, He do not inject any words of his own but was immediate met with attacks from.....

The point being is if someone had simply indicated to him that the verse was being mis-applied --Since #1, 1-Tim was Pauls letter regarding the problem in the Ephesian Church, in which they were Mixing Gnostics beliefs with Christian Beliefs which had become a big problem in the 1st and into the 2nd.century.

In Fact that verse itself deals with false asceticism, which the false spirits were teaching only spirit is good and all matter is evil which as a result all pleasure was a sin. They were forbidden to marry and The idea of abstaining from certain foods goes back, of course, to the Mosaic law. But since Christ freed us from the Law , we are no longer under its restrictions regarding certain kinds of food, "which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth."

Compared to us abstaining from meat on Fridays during Lent, a simple pleasure in order to remember the impending sorrows Jesus suffers for us shortly on Good Friday.

So maybe a slight change from attacks to sharing a little knowledge would enlighten many people all at once, it could be the better order of the day, by bringing or keeping things in their proper context.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 14, 2005.

Nice post Michael G..,

But I do want to point out that Scripture can usually be met with application for the immediate times it was written and also into the future for every generation.

I agree that Paul was dealing with issues at that time, and there is some element of the mosaic law being addressed. However--the verse starts off by indicating that it is a messagae also for the end days-- which are still to come and are even now, coming....

In the same way that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for hypocricy and following their tradition over the Word of God--and we can apply that message to present day situations where religious leaders might making the same mistake.....so too can we take from the verse I posted, some messages that apply to today.

You say that your instructing the Church to obstain from eating meat on certain days is different, yet I fail to see how? In fact, I see that the Roman Catholic Church is very much like the Jewish religion of Jesus' day. Even when we consider how the Jewish people had to continually re-offer up sacrifice to cover their sins--so too, is the theology behind the Mass.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 14, 2005.

Even when we consider how the Jewish people had to continually re- offer up sacrifice to cover their sins--so too, is the theology behind the Mass.

No offense, faith, if you dont understand the simple principle behind the roman catholic communion then you shouldnt make false conjecture about it. we don't offer up any repeated sacrifice to cover our sins. the sacrament of communion is a representation of the ETERNAL sacrifice of Christ, a sacrifice which lasts for all time to pay for the debt of sin for humanity.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 14, 2005.

But the Mass is called the "Sacrifice of the Mass".., not the "Re- offering." In fact, doesn't the priest literally call Jesus down onto the altar to be a victim again and again. Isn't He in the Host-- literally?

Why does His one time sacrifice need to be re-offered or repeated anyway?

Hebrews 7:26-28

Such a high priest [Jesus] meets our need–one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

Hebrews 9:25-28

Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 14, 2005.

Hebrews 10:1-14

Christ's Sacrifice Once for All

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming–not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered?

For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. Then I said, ‘Here I am–it is written about me in the scroll–

I have come to do your will, O God.’ ” First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time *one sacrifice* for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 14, 2005.

No offense, faith, if you dont understand the simple principle behind the roman catholic communion then you shouldnt make false conjecture about it. we don't offer up any repeated sacrifice to cover our sins. the sacrament of communion is a representation of the ETERNAL sacrifice of Christ, a sacrifice which lasts for all time to pay for the debt of sin for humanity.

Unless I misunderstood what you meant to say, you just spoke heresy.

It is no *representation* at all. It is an actual sacrifice each and every time Mass is said. It is offered up each and every time in Mass to atone for our sins.

Did I misunderstand you?

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), March 14, 2005.

faith01,

You are misinformed. You do not know what the Church teaches -as such, stop promulgating propaganda. If you are truly interested in understanding -ASK QUESTIONS.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 14, 2005.

Isabel,

Re-presentation is often confused with representation. I would assume this is the case...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 14, 2005.

isabel,

daniel is correct, i was aiming at Re-presentation not representation. my what a difference a hyphen makes eh? the gist i was getting at is that we cannot make a human sacrifice, it is the same sacrifice eternal present at the mass.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 14, 2005.

Hi Faith01,

Thank you for your response. 1st I'd like to let you know that even though I have been raised and educated in the Catholic faith. I have spent almost as much time studying and studying with many Protestant denominations, I can assure you that I fully understand and believe that the Bible Truely is the Living Word of God and is Very dynamic in how it can be understood and applied to the faithful who truely study it. And I'll be honest one of the best things to happen to Christians was the Printing Press which allowed these words to be put into the hands of everyone who truely wanted to come to know and understand God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Now what I can also attest to is the fact that Christ and the Holy Spirit are as present in the Protestant denominations as they are in the Catholic Churches. The interesting thing I have always noticed is that the Holy Spirit Does present himself to the Churches in the manner that they desire or expect. (i.e) in a Charismatic Church very pro-active, in a Bible based Church very active to support the Minister and the members, all the way to the other side Lutherans, Episcopalian, Catholic Churches where the Holy Spirit and Christ reveal themselves in a different manner. And as a result people on both sides look at the others and say theres no Holy Spirit over there, or Christ isn't over in those Churches.

Next Page

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 15, 2005.

PAGE 2

Now that I have defended the Protestants I hope you will understand and believe as Truthful what I am going to tell you about the Catholic Churches.(cutting away from any terminologies which tends to cause the misunderstanding) In each of the Sacraments the presence of Christ and or the Holy Spirit IS Very Real. During Communion there is a presence which literally leaves me in awe at times. So as I mentioned during each of these Baptism, Confirmation, Communion... Very Real.

As I mentioned earlier they present themselves according to the structure of the Church and it's members but it truely is very real. Not to mention since the Catholic Churches normally do 4-5 services on Sundays plus one on Saturday it would be counter productive to allow a Charismatic type service which suddenly continues on for 4 hours, Then you would see some seriously unhappy Catholics if the 7:00am service was getting out when the 11:00am service was to begin.

Next Page

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 15, 2005.

Page 3

I would hope that if people didn't understand something about the why's or how's of another denomination they would ask for a rational explantion in order to understand it because if we did we might find out some that some/many of these misunderstandings are exactly that misunderstandings of what is being said or done.

Faith01 I believe if you took the time to try and understand the Catholic church and it's teachings I believe you could gain some appreciation for it. The Catholic Church on the Whole (as with most others) is very good and is good for everyone, which does not mean it is suitable for everyones personality. Which is why we have these different branches of Christianity.

If you have questions please ask (with an open mind)-- As I mentioned earlier there are a lot of people here who can give you the information on the whats and why's, and if you don't agree or understand something feel free to ask some more questions. (Daniel is real good at pulling up stuff from the Catechism )

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 15, 2005.

I saw the question asked a few times early on - "How is eating meat on Friday a sin?" I don't know if it has already been answered, but try this: 3rd and 4th Commandments.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 15, 2005.

It's time for you to explain that, Father. Do us the favor, and may God bless you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

Michael G, in “cutting away terminologies which cause misunderstanding”, you omitted to cut away the term “a service”. Catholics find it offensive to see the Mass described as simply “a service”.

You’re right that Christ is present in a sense in protestant srvices, as He is in a sense to anyone who prays to Him. But His Real Presence only occurs in the Mass, which is the ONLY way He has given us to directly participate in His saving act of death and resurrection. He told us that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood we CANNOT have His life within us.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 15, 2005.

Michael G.

It might surprise you to know that I was born and raised in the Catholic Church. And while I admit that I really didn't pay a lot of attention as a child [just sort of rolled through the motions]--it wasn't until I was born-again by the Word in a Baptist Church that I ever even came to understand what was true and what was not. As a Catholic, unfortunately--I never opened a Bible.

I feel the real presence of Christ in Communion in the church I attend now--more than I ever did as a Catholic. Of course, perhaps if I attended a Mass now--I might see it different. Though, the physical presence of Christ in the Host itself--seems a pagan idea and surely isn't what I find revealed in Scriptures.

-- (faitho1@myway.com), March 15, 2005.

A literal physical presence in the Host which is broken and eaten after Christ is called back down onto the alter--looks to much like a re-cricifixion to me.

Christ is no longer a victim to be offered up again. His sacrifice was a once for all time sacrifice and now He sits at the right hans of the Father--waiting..He doesn't come back down to be sacrificed again like the Jews had to do all the time because their offerings were not sufficient enough. Jesus is fully sufficient and able to save all who come to Him by that one time sacrifice.

I know that it is denied that this is a Sacrifice of the Mass in the way I see it. But I have a hard time buying the explanations and I suspect that even the good Catholic people are just deceived.

The question is, "Does it really matter in the end?" Does it really matter unto salvation that you believe in the physical presence--if it isn't there, or, conversely, does it matter that I didn't believe in it, when it was there?

continued.....

All I know is that I am closer to God now and understand His Word like I never did before.

But I do credit my Catholic upbringing for my love for Jesus. Oddly enough--I was never influenced by Marian doctrines to see her as anything more that Jesus Mother here on earth. And even though I participated in Holy Communion--I never thought that we were literally eating Him. I saw it as a rememberance.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2005.

The fact that you never knew your Catholic faith and were only going through the motions is a reflection on you - or perhaps more fairly on those who taught you or failed to teach you. But it is certainly not a reflection on the faith itself which you didn't understand then and still don't understand now.

As for the question, "does it really matter in the end" whether we believe the truth or not? ... are you serious?? Jesus said it is the truth that sets us free. Free from the bonds of sin. Free from eternal damnation. Yes, it matters very much that we know and embrace the truth, for Jesus is the truth. Therefore anything untrue we accept moves us farther away from Jesus. And anything bound in heaven, that is to say anything professed by the one Church He founded for all men, is the truth. We know this because Jesus said so.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 15, 2005.

I didn't ask if it mattered if we believe the truth, Paul. Though I suppose that is really the question in the end.

I wonder what harm it does you to believe that Christ is literally present in the Host--if He is not? Could it be considered idolatry? Would it definately be a pagan thing then--if it weren't true?

And conversely, what harm does it do us if we believe in His presense spiritually, but don't believe we are literally eating Him physically but only spiritually?

I wonder which scenario is worse?

Also, the reason I turned a deaf ear to church was because it was to repetative and boring. I could go into a Mass today, and automatically know exactly what to say and when to say certain phrases, when to make the sign of the cross or tap my shoulder three times etc...like a robot. Perhaps that was the problem.

Certainly my extremely religious Irish Catholic family can not be blamed. My grandfather was a deacon on the board of our parish forever--and there reamains to this day--a plague in honor of Him.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2005.

One sad truth: Faith is the worst name you could come in here calling yourself. You partook of Christ's Body and Blood without distinguishing it at all; just a remembrance. (Read 1 Cor chapter 2) and FAITH was not with you. Then you played free-lancer going to the Baptists, another breach of faith. Now you come here, attempting to undermine the faith of the apostles.

I think it's important today to follow the good advice of John F. Gecik. Let our Dear Moderator send you packing and we all wish you well. Ciao, O ye of Little faith!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

"A literal physical presence in the Host which is broken and eaten after Christ is called back down onto the alter--looks to much like a re-cricifixion to me"

Christ isnt re-crucified, it is a continuation of His Sacrifice on the Cross at every place and for all time in an unbloody manner.

'This is My Flesh, this is My Blood'.

To say you believe in Christ isnt sufficent, you must also believe what He says.

-- abc (abc@d.e), March 15, 2005.

ABC,

But isn't this done because you think it has to be done to cover new sins we might commit? Why do you need to re-offer Him for sins? His one time sacrifice was sufficient for all sins, past, present and future. I can't help but think that somehow--this ritual denies the cross was good enough by itself.

And really, you have to undersatand His Words in light of the context of the entire passage in John 6.

John is making an analogy with *Eating and Drinking* equalling *Receiving and Believing*...if this was a literal saying, then wouldn't we have to understand the message that "If you eat and drink Me, you will never hunger or thirst again" literally as well?

Yet we all know that even when we eat and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus--we still hunger and thirst physically, right?

But if we see Jesus Body and Blood as a spiritual food and drink--and we never hunger and thirst spiritually speaking, isn't that a more harmonizing understanding?

Christ said, "This is the will of him that sent me, that everyone which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life"

Clearly this believing, [which he likens to eating Him] is a "once for all" act!

He doesn't say it must be done 20 times, a thousand times, once a day, or once a week.

The moment a person believes on Christ, he or she receives forgiveness of sins and everlasting life as a free gift of God's grace.

Clearly, a person who has received eternal life by once believing-- need never repeat the act. Otherwise... everlasting life is misnamed!!Because something that is everlasting, must last forever., and it need not be renewed or reinforced.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2005.

Dear abc,
There's unfortunately a point after which Christ's words must be remembered and obeyed. He says: ''Do not give to dogs what is holy, neither cast your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet and turn and tear you,'' (Matt 7:60). Spending more time on ''faith'' is just as bad as throwing something holy away.

You could be in a state of sanctifying grace, abc; and I assume so. Your offering of faith to heretical faith is a holy action, as everything good you do is, acting in sanctifying grace. Don't throw what's holy away. Let the Moderator ban the ungrateful one.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

Dear Eugene,

Advice heard and acted on.

Deo gratias

-- abc (abc@d.e), March 15, 2005.

Eugene,

I think you need to recognize that just because I question the Catholic religion--does not make me a heretic according to God--just according to you.

It is your claim that your church is the one and only true church of jesus Christ and that god has given you all authority. But that, in and of itself--doesn't make it so. You can never support your claims-- and worse, you can't stand good arguments., and always start insulting me, rather than give a good reason for your faith. You are a very bad example of a man of faith yourself.

I don't come here and insult anyone, so why must you reduce yourself to such *telling* tactics?

Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of Me" That is what I do in communion. So whose the heretic?

Luke 22:19

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2005.

Oh, just in the nick of time, hm... ABC?

I guess you have no good reply for my post.

No surprises here.

This isn't a discussion forum.., it's a board of some kind--or more like a wall--a brick wall.

That's okay, fortunately--not everyone here is unable to answer my questions.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2005.

John 6:35-40

Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

-- (anon@anon.com), March 15, 2005.

“what harm does it do us if we believe in His presense spiritually, but don't believe we are literally eating Him physically but only spiritually?”

St Paul says it does you the maximum possible harm, i.e. those who do not believe this will be damned: “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." 1Corinthians 11:27-29

From the time of the Apostles, the Church has continuously rejected the idea that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is only spiritual, not real. E.g.:

St. Justin Martyr, circa 150 AD: “We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true….For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and has both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and the Blood of that incarnated Jesus.”

Circa 110, St. Ignatius of Antioch, (a disciple of St John the Apostle), concerning heretics: “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.”

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, fourth century: “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the sense suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ.”

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 15, 2005.

''I am the living bread that has come down from heaven. if anyone _ _ _ EAT_ _ _ of this bread he shall live forever; (The Holy Eucharist); and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.'' --Go on to: ''Jesus took bread, and blessed and broke and gave it to His disciples and said, 'Take and _ _ _ EAT,_ _ _ this is my BODY. And taking a cup He gave thanks...'All of you DRINK of this, for this is the BLOOD of the new covenant,' '' The Holy Eucharist fulfilled at the Last Supper, and still is, for his true believers. John 6, :56, and Matt, 26:26- 27, the Word of God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath [present possession] everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers did eat manna in the wilderness and are dead. This is the bread that cometh down from heaven that man may eat thereof and not die.

What is Jesus asking them to believe??

Is he asking them to believe that he is a loaf of bread?

Or is he asking them to believe that he is who he claims to be...The One sent from heaven?

Let's look at the responses of some of the hearers...

"At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven."

They said, "Is this not Jesus, the Son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he say, 'I came down from heaven'?"

It is clear to me what they were having trouble believing.

This verse in John 6: I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever, and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:47-51)......is a prophetic look to the cross.

Where did Christ give His flesh? Not at the Last Supper, but on the cross!!

The Jews argued among thenselves....."How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

It was and still is against the law for a Jew to partake of blood. Surely then, Christ would not require Christian or Jew to drink His literal, physical blood.

That he was refering to believing in Him and illustrating it by the symbol of eating and drinking is clear....It is a consistent teaching that believing gives eternal life.., yet He says that only by eating Him can one have life.

This is an irreconcilable contradiction--unless of course, eating is a synonym for believing

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2005.

You're making a liar out of the Son of God.

He has power to accomplishe evrything He says. You have power only to speak like a fool. A fool always speaks as if he knows something. But never with AUTHORITY. Christ's words: ''iIf anyone _ _ _ EAT_ _ _ of this bread he shall live forever; (The Holy Eucharist); and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.''

Is he asking them to believe that he is a loaf of bread?---No, He is the Bread of life; as we see by faith in the Blessed Sacrament. You see, this is FAITH,. Not beating up on the actual words of Jesus Christ, as you do. You do violence to His truth.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

I don't beat up on the actual words Eugene. I understand the analogy.

Jesus responds to your confusion as He responded to the jews who made the same mistake in His day:

"The Spirit gives life!!!!!! The flesh counts for nothing............. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yet there are some of you who do not believe

Believe what????

They do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, who came down from heaven to die for the world!!!

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2005.

Faith,

I have tried to cut you some slack since you returned to this forum, after previously being banned. I suggest you read the rules of the forum and abide by them. This is a place to discuss and learn about Catholic beliefs, not a place to attack them. The last time you were here you ran through the whole predictable gamut of silly anti-Catholic "arguments" and were soundly refuted on every point. Now you are simply regurgitating the same inane nonsense from the same fundamentalist handbook. If you have nothing more to offer, please take your "arguments" elsewhere. You didn't convince anyone last time and you won't convince anyone this time. Thank-you.

Moderator

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 15, 2005.

Paul?

Please show me where I attacked your Church?

We allow you to come to the Ask Jesus forum and speak you beliefs without ever threatening you--ever!

Why is it that you can't just address the good points I raise?

You have never once refuted me or proven your case--or I'd certainly be back in the Catholic Church--don't you think?

Please copy and paste an example where I am attacking the Catholic Church. I do not believe I have done this--but if I am wrong, I will apologize. And why is it that Eugene can wrecklessly do nothing but attack visitors here who might believe differently--without ever be asked not to do so by any Moderator??

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2005.

Steve,

You quoted this:

Circa 110, St. Ignatius of Antioch, (a disciple of St John the Apostle), concerning heretics: “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.”

But I see this different than you do--obviously, because you seem to think the important thing is the Host itself, and that somehow the Last Supper is the place in which Jesus gave His flesh and blood.

But isn't the Eucharist a piece of Bread? And didn't Christ give His real flesh at the cross--which He symbolically refered to at the Last Supper--while very much alive and well?

Why isn't the bread an analogy to His flesh? Isn't what the Jews really rejected when they walked away, the fact that He is the Messiah who came from heaven to give His life for the World? Weren't they really rejecting that Jesus is God?

Or do you seriously believe that they were rejecting literally eating and drinking His flesh and Blood?

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2005.

Pardon me, Steve; you should elaborate as she asks-- I know there's nobody better than you to answer. Just ONE little thing, for ''faith''--

She says: ''that somehow the Last Supper is the place in which Jesus gave His flesh and blood?'' Not to be crucified, Dear. --To be eaten and to drink of; as He PROMISED in John 6, :56- - ''For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.'' A clear statement corroborated by St Paul in 1 Cor, 11 :23/:29.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

Yes--bread and wine--to ,be eaten and to drink in memory of the true sacrice about to occur.

1 Cor 11:23-26

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death [sacrifice at Calvary] until he comes.

I think His flesh is food indeed and His blood is drink indeed..,but they satisfy my soul--not my belly. Therefore, this must be a symbolic analogy. Eating and drinking His Body and Blood--symbolized with the Bread and Wine= Believing and Receiving Him and never being hungry or thirsty [spiritually speaking] again.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2005.

You still do violence to Our Lord's clear word: ''THIS'' is my body and ''TAKE AN EAT;'' Not think about. Not ''Eat this bread as if it were my Body!''

Get real; He spoke very plainly and the part that's missing here is YOUR FAITH.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

You seem to think that by Faith--God expected us to just blindly believe what doesn't make sense and ask no questions.

But God fully expected us to question things as He said, "Come and let us reason together."

To continually question whether my faith is strong because I don't buy what you say is a bit pompous of you. It presumes that you have all the truth. That, dear sir--has not been established.

My faith is in God's Word alone--and not any religion or hierarchy of men--save the apostles themselves--who left us their written instructions.

So...in the meantime, understand that I put all my faith in Jesus alone to save me because I believe everything He has said.. I just understand Him differently than you do. I go ahead and use my literary abilities in understanding an author's writing style and use of analogy and symbolism where called for.

Christ said, "This is the will of him that sent me, that everyone which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life"

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2005.

Your faith is deficient and worst, it has pride for its basis, not the apostles. As for faith; your faith in the BIBLE is what's blind. Our faith is in Jesus Christ; and if He says, ''This is my body,'' we believe Him. That is both faith in Him and in the Holy Bible. We don't argue with the Bible, you do.

My faith isn't blind because I believe He'll raise me on the Last Day. That would really be a stretch, but I believe Him. I must believe He sits now at the right hand of the Father-- without any proof but His Word. Is that blind? Again I say: Your faith is PRETEND faith. When it comes to letting HIM tell you the truth, you reject it. Just as those ex-disciples of His did. ''This is a hard saying!'' You are that kind of believer.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

Eugene, you don't really get it. I have 100% faith in what the apostles taught--and they recorded it all for us.

I also believe Jesus' words.

You say: I must believe He sits now at the right hand of the Father-- without any proof but His Word.

You don't think His Word is proof enough? It is by His Word that we know anything about God at all.

You ask me if that is blind? What?...to believe the Scriptures? Obviously I don't think so.

You say:

When it comes to letting HIM tell you the truth, you reject it. Just as those ex-disciples of His did. ''This is a hard saying!'' You are that kind of believer.

How so Eugene? I believe everything He tells me through His Word. Everything!

I don't believe everything you claim or everything the Catholic Church claims. But that isn't the same thing.

Right after those people declared that Jesus' teaching was hard, He said:

John 6:61-64

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2005.

OK; He said it-- The words He spoke were not believed. He said all of them were not seeing the spirit and life in His words, (which we know is the Sacrament) --therefore they rejected them completely. He also must know YOU won't believe Him: ''For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe,'' --YOU; ''and who would betray him;'' YOU. You betray him here today, making Him a Liar.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

So let me get this straight.

You think that the thing that people didn't believe--the thing they rejected, and which condemned them--was that they didn't want to literally eat his flesh and blood? Literally?

See--the way I understand that whole thing is that what they were rejecting was Jesus' claim to be Messiah. They were rejecting that He was God in the flesh--who came to die for the world. Hey, but coming from 'ole faithless--what did you expect?

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2005.

''See--The way I understand that whole thing,'' is ridiculous.

You KNOW the words ''Eat my flesh, drink my blood'' were the ''hard saying'' for those who had:

BEEN disciples! If they were disciples to begin with, why did it strike them hard to believe He is their Messiah? They were disciples of a poor Galilean without claims, --and THAT was the hard saying? PLEASE! I'll die laughing, faith! Ho-hoho! Stop, you're killing me! --STEVE!!!! Take this unbelievable Pretend Christian away, and do something with her!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

So that is it? Really? You actually think that the thing they walked away from was that they thought Jesus wanted them to literally eat His flesh and literally drink His blood??? They walked away because they didn't believe in that and were convinced that jesus meant it literally?? And after all, it was against their law??

Lol! Now who is rotflmao???

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2005.

“God expected us to just blindly believe what doesn't make sense” Now you’re catching on. That’s exactly what God wants us to believe, and what we preach as the Apostles did, “to the Jews an abomination, to the Greeks [i.e. Gentiles] madness.” To the merely human philosophy of the Gentiles, believing that eating what appears to be bread is eating Christ’s flesh, is madness. To the Jews it is “an abomination”, as Moses told them to eat human flesh is “an abomination”. This is what those Jews who deserted Jesus were rejecting. Do you seriously think that if Jesus had only meant to make a “symbolic analogy”, he would have been so cruel as to just LET those Jews walk away to their damnation because they took his words seriously?

And no, the Apostles did not “leave us their instructions”. Some 1st century Catholics (some of whom were Apostles and some not) wrote books and letters addressed to one person or a small group of people. They would no doubt be stunned to find that their books and letters had been collected centuries later and read by millions of others for 2000 years. They would be even more stunned, and horrified, had they known that 1500 years later a group of people would use their writings as a supposed basis to found a rival religion to the Church which they belonged to. St Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament, almost certainly never heard Jesus other than in his brief vision of the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus. Where do you think he obtained his vast knowledge of the Christian faith? The Church TOLD him it all, just as it tells us all today. You choose to block your ears.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 15, 2005.

No Steve,

The apostles themselves refered to each others letters as Scripture and as coming from the wisdom of God.

Do you really think that Jesus--who was a Jew--would request such a thing of these Jews as to do something against the Law like eating blood?

Jesus was frustrated that His hearers couldn't or wouldn't rise above the literal words and move into His true meaning. Jesus was teaching about His pending sacrifice as Messiah--to save them. It was a prophetic look to the cross.

What they rejected was that He was who He claimed to be--He claimed to be from heaven--and they knew very well what He was saying.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2005.

“The apostles themselves referred to each others letters as Scripture”. No they didn’t. You (or actually the anti-Catholic debating manual which you’re cutting and pasting this guff from) are no doubt referring to a verse from the 2nd letter of St Peter where it is implied that a passage from one of St Paul’s letters is “scripture”. Biblical scholars are near-unanimous that this letter was not written by St Peter, but long after his death.

“Do you really think that Jesus--who was a Jew--would request such a thing of these Jews as to do something against the Law like eating blood?” I sure do. Christ came to establish a new Law. He had no hesitation in breaking Jewish Law (e.g. working on the Sabbath) when it was called for by the New Law. And His Apostles similarly dispensed the Church from obligation to follow the Jewish Law. As Jesus said, you don’t put the “new wine” of his blood in the “old wineskins” of the Jewish Law, otherwise both old and new will be lost.

“Jesus was frustrated that His hearers couldn't or wouldn't rise above the literal words and move into His true meaning.” How terribly cruel of him to just let them go and not call out to them “Wait! Don’t Go! You’re misunderstanding me! It was only an analogy!” Anyone who behaved like that can hardly be the Loving Savior.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 15, 2005.

Faith comes back to stage another fiasco,

''Do you really think that Jesus--who was a Jew--would request SUCH A THING! of these Jews as to do something against the Law like eating blood?''

Oh, No, faith! He woudn't EVER say to anyone, ''Take this and drink from it, the cup of MY BLOOD, which will be shed for you,''--

DRINK IT. (Matt, 26:26- 27)

He was just fooling. Hm hm.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 16, 2005.

"Your faith is deficient and worst"

Pope Eugene, Who the H*ll are YOU to question anyones Faith? Or to Judge what is or is Not sufficient Faith? Do YOU know what God knows? Do YOU know what Knowledge God has Given Faith?

Clearly YOU have all of the answers as YOU decide, That is why it's standing room only on Sundays Right? And closing down all of the Churches and Schools are simply a rumor put out to confuse people Right?

Here Gene go back and read the reasons why Faith left for the Baptist Church. These are the reasons I have heard Time after Time after Time from former Catholics.

Guess where these people are now on Sundays? in CHURCH working on their Faith following and learning the words of Christ. Where are the majority of Catholics on Sundays these days? Well they are at home being filled with Sleep.

Eugene IF you really wanted to help the Catholic Church and develop the Faithful, Spend time in these other Churches and Find out what YOU can do.

Here is a simple quiz for you Gene,

MK 3:34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

Who Said this?

Jesus Christ the Catholic Jesus Christ the Protestant Jesus Christ the Muslim Jesus Christ the Jew

I'll give you a clue the answer starts with Jesus!

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 16, 2005.

Do you really think that Jesus--who was a Jew--would request SUCH A THING! of these Jews as to do something against the Law like eating blood?

faith, you are obviously not very educated in the jewish traditions of sacrifice. the rituals of sacrifice under Jewish law DEMANDS that the sacrificial lamb be eaten by the participating members of the church in order to be a valid sacrifice. so here's the question: have you in full understanding and exceptance eaten of the Lamb of God whose sacrifice takes away the sins of the world? or have you not ever accepted the fullness of that offering?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 16, 2005.

"Christ the Jew"

You mean "Christ the Israelite", right?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 16, 2005.

Michael, Lad:
You copied my post; [faith] "Your faith is deficient and worst"
Pope Eugene, Who the H*ll are YOU to question anyones faith? Or to judge what is or is Not sufficient faith? Do YOU know what God knows? Do YOU know what knowledge God has given Faith?''

REPLY-- Her faith is absolutely deficient and not capable of saving her in the present state of her soul. (Mortal sin, by calumnies and contempt for the Church of Jesus Christ and his holy apostles.)

What else would you like me to say, Michael? That I'm not the Pope? Of course; but I'm a faithful Catholic who needs no consultation with you to understand what's deficient in a heretical sect. Is this ''offensive'', so that heretical Catholic-bashers are going to be ''put off'' from converting?

Faith may never convert. It isn't because I hurt her pride. It's because she's FULL of pride, and can't respect the faith of the apostles; the catholic faith. --She worships instead her Bible. I worship God; and He revealed to us the Holy Gospel of his Son Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church. If telling you & her the truth seems too cruel of me Michael, pray for understanding. Your animosity toward me is useless; it poisons your own spiritual health. Give it up for Lent, won't you? I haven't attacked you. Leave me alone and I'll pray for you. Truly, that's what I'll do, and I'll pray for ''faith'' as well.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 16, 2005.