Ujujoan:

I love the Catholic church. I was born and bred in the Catholic Church. I can't imagine any other denimination. But, theres something I've never really come to fully appreciate about the church, the issue of Confession, Why confess to a priest?? I could live with the idea of counselling, but confession?? How can a fellow man determine punishment for me for a sin I comitted?? How can saying one decade of the rosary automatically atone for sin?? how the preists be objective in the disbursement of penance??

When you kneel down and pray to God for forgiveness, how do you know you are forgiven?
How do you know when to start and stop asking God for forgiveness?
How do you know how long you should pray for forgiveness?
Is there any visible sign that proves to you that you are forgiven?


I keep wondering why God killed Ananias and Sapphira for telling a [white] lie.
Both of them must have been expecting God to forgive them for this small [white] lie.
Did God not know they were sinners? Why did He not simply forgive them

Do we not commit much bigger sins that telling-white-lies; and still presume that we will be forgiven?

imhotep:

When you kneel down and pray to God for forgiveness, how do you know you are forgiven?

If God tells me he will, and I work by faith, why wont I know that if I pray with a contrite heart, I'll be forgiven?? Is it not a better idea than relying on a priest to tell you the number of hail mary(s) to say for your sins to be forgiven? Its not by my works, but by the Grace of God. No amount of penance can compensate for my sins!!! Only a broken and a contrite heart can.

Ujujoan:

If God tells me he will, and I work by faith, why wont I know that if I pray with a contrite heart, I'll be forgiven?? Is it not a better idea than relying on a priest to tell you the number of hail mary(s) to say for your sins to be forgiven? Its not by my works, but by the Grace of God. No amount of penance can compensate for my sins!!! Only a broken and a contrite heart can.

Good. Can you now explain why God killed Ananias and Sapphira for their telling of a simple [white] lie?

I love the Catholic church. I was born and bred in the Catholic Church. I can't imagine any other denimination. But, theres something I've never really come to fully appreciate about the church,  the issue of Confession,  Why confess to a priest?? I could live with the idea of counselling, but confession?? How can a fellow man determine punishment for me for a sin I comitted?? How can saying one decade of the rosary automatically atone for sin?? how the preists be objective in the disbursement of penance??

Religion with contentment is a gain. Try and understand that.
People are looking for the easy way out.
If I confess to a person, then they will judge me and they will know my sin, afterall only the Lord forgives.
Well did the Lord not ask us to confess our sins and pray for one another. That was the ministry of confession and intercession being given to us. He then went ahead and breathed the Holy Spirit upon the disciples and told them that whose sins they forgive are forgiven and whose sins they retain are retained. That is the reason why the Catholic church strongly believes in apostolic succession. Not any man can walk from the street and say confess your sins to me and I will pray for you. God gave a directive for us to do as he did. If Peter could heal the sick, what is so hard to believe that he was also allowed to forgive sins. It is not by Peter's might that the sick was healed but by God's. SO why should you believe that it is by the might of the Priest that he forgives. It is only by God's might.
When we rebuke, do the demons flee by our might or the might of God? Why is it so hard that it is the same thing with confession and forgiveness.
Why then do we not Baptise ourselves, or perform our own marriage rites according to us. Why can't we do all these things on our own?

Here are just a few examples of the continual evolution of pagan practices brought into the Roman Catholic Church, starting in 310 A.D.:

Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310
The lighting of candles in 320
The worship of saints about 375
The mass was adopted in 394
The worship of Mary began to develop about 432
Priests began to assume distinctive robes in 500
The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 593
Worship in Latin (since repealed) was mandated in 600
Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm foot in 606
Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary began in 650
The custom of kissing the Pope's foot was introduced in 709
The worship of images and relics was authorized in 788
The invention of holy water was about 850
The canonization of saints was formalized in 993
Feasts for the dead were introduced in 1003
The celibacy of the priesthood was declared in 1074
The dogma of Papal infallibility was announced in 1076
Prayer beads were introduced in 1090
The doctrine that there are seven sacraments was introduced in 1140
The sale of indulgences began in 1190
The wafer was substituted for the loaf in 1200
The dogma of transubstantiation was adopted in 1215
Confession was instituted in 1215
The adoration of the Wafer began in 1220
The Ave Maria was introduced in 1316
The cup was taken from the laity in 1415
Purgatory was officially decreed in 1439
Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture in 1546
The Apocrypha was received into the Canon in 1546
The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced in 1854
The doctrine of the papal infallibility was proclaimed in 1864
The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven in 1950

All these doctrines that evolved are a far cry from the “present truth” in which Peter says we were to be established, which is the “end of our faith” even “the salvation of our souls".

 

“Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.” 2 Peter 1:12

How did Rome miss all of this? Why claim you follow Peter as your “Rock” yet ignore his teachings?

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n2042.cfm

OLAADEGBU:

Here are just a few examples of the continual evolution of pagan practices brought into the Roman Catholic Church, starting in 310 A.D.:

Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310
The lighting of candles in 320
The worship of saints about 375
The mass was adopted in 394
The worship of Mary began to develop about 432
Priests began to assume distinctive robes in 500
The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 593
Worship in Latin (since repealed) was mandated in 600
Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm foot in 606
Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary began in 650
The custom of kissing the Pope's foot was introduced in 709
The worship of images and relics was authorized in 788
The invention of holy water was about 850
The canonization of saints was formalized in 993
Feasts for the dead were introduced in 1003
The celibacy of the priesthood was declared in 1074
The dogma of Papal infallibility was announced in 1076
Prayer beads were introduced in 1090
The doctrine that there are seven sacraments was introduced in 1140
The sale of indulgences began in 1190
The wafer was substituted for the loaf in 1200
The dogma of transubstantiation was adopted in 1215
Confession was instituted in 1215
The adoration of the Wafer began in 1220
The Ave Maria was introduced in 1316
The cup was taken from the laity in 1415
Purgatory was officially decreed in 1439
Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture in 1546
The Apocrypha was received into the Canon in 1546
The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced in 1854
The doctrine of the papal infallibility was proclaimed in 1864
The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven in 1950

All these doctrines that evolved are a far cry from the “present truth” in which Peter says we were to be established, which is the “end of our faith” even “the salvation of our souls".

How did Rome miss all of this? Why claim you follow Peter as your “Rock” yet ignore his teachings?

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n2042.cfm

One more 'pagan' practice => The bible was compiled and approved in 393 AD

@olaadegbu
You must reject the bible in order for your anti-catholicism to be consistent.
Go and compile/approve your own bible from your own sources.
Afterall, Jesus never wrote any book.

Oladegbu

How about you try that again. This time with the truth. Thanks.

Reading through what you wrote. I viewed a lot of lies. So try again. Thank you.

But while you make your revision

Why not add pagan practice of compiling the Bible in 393 A.D. Thanks.

One more 'pagan' practice => The bible was compiled and approved in 393 AD\

Haha I see you beat me to it.

~Lady~:

Haha I see you beat me to it.

Wow, it seems the same idea occurred to both of us at the same time. Interesting.

Wow, it seems the same idea occurred to both of us at the same time. Interesting.

Yup people forget that the Church existed before the Bible was compiled.
I would like to know what the early church used.

**Question in relation to the thread and not to start a senseless argument**


Catholics believe that Peter is 'the rock' on which Christ built the church and they are correct from scripture. Hence, the theory of Apostolic succession which I suppose means that Peter was the first pope and the authority of the church of Christ on earth is exclusive to only those that are ordained by this same successive authority. This is also (probably) the reason to their reference to the Pope as the 'vicar of Christ on earth'.

It is for this reason that many Catholics do not approve of and recognise the spiritul authority of 'self-ordained' M/WOGod outside the Catholic Church. Thats not to say that I am naive enough to think that all of them are truly from God.

On the other hand, Paul was not an apostle. He was a politician and a murderer before God sovreignly, supernaturally and spectularly arrested Him and made Him a spiritual authority over the various churches at Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc. Question is: why then does some section of the Catholic church outrightly condemn it's other brothers and sisters that are not in their denomination, particularly Pastors and Reverends?

_{p.s. dont answer this question with a question or a link or an irrelevant answer, thanks,}

A_K_O:

**Question in relation to the thread and not to start a senseless argument**


Catholics believe that Peter is 'the rock' on which Christ built the church and they are correct from scripture. Hence, the theory of Apostolic succession which I suppose means that Peter was the first pope and the authority of the church of Christ on earth is exclusive to only those that are ordained by this same successive authority. This is also (probably) the reason to their reference to the Pope as the 'vicar of Christ on earth'.

Very close to the truth about this.

A_K_O:

On the other hand, Paul was not an apostle. He was a politician and a murderer before God sovreignly, supernaturally and spectularly arrested Him and made Him a spiritual authority over the various churches at Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc.

Indeed the same Jesus called Peter, James, John and apostle Paul and all the others. Paul had to submit to the 12 and was later to write:

Galatians 2:9 =>
when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision;

-----> The early church had a hierarchy. It did not exist in a state of pneumatic anarchy.

A_K_O:

Question is: why then does some section of the Catholic church outrightly condemn it's other brothers and sisters that are not in their denomination, particularly Pastors and Reverends?

Largely because of the link [maybe some kind of apostolic succession ] between these people and Martin Luther.
The teachings of Martin Luther were well studied by the Council of Trent - and vehemently condemned. Have you heard about the Anathemas?

So, anybody who aligns with Martin Luther automatically inherits his condemnation/anathema. Clear enough?

Well I see Imhotep answered you beautifully A_K_O. I hope you understand.


and what does M/WOGod mean?

I 'understand'. I had said I didnt want to start an argument so I wouldnt say more than that.

~Lady~ Men and Women of God.

I 'understand'. I had said I didnt want to start an argument so I wouldnt say more than that.

~Lady~ Men and Women of God.

I'm glad you stuck true to your word.

Thanks for the clarification.

imhotep:

Good. Can you now explain why God killed Ananias and Sapphira for their telling of a simple [white] lie?

Ananias and Sappharia did not tell a white lie. What they did was pure embezzlement. Even when Peter asked them, they denied. Not only that, they broke a vow they made to God. The Christians agreed to sell their properties and help the poor but Ananias and his Wife broke that vow by trying to keep some of the money for themselves!! "The offence of Ananias and Sapphira showed contempt of God, vanity and ambition in the offenders, and utter disregard of the corruption which they were bringing into the society. Such sin, committed in despite of the light which they possessed, called for a special mark of divine indignation."

Am not trying to judge them or explein why God killed them. I just want you to know that they did NOT tell a 'simple white lie'!!!

~Lady~:

[/b]. It is not by Peter's might that the sick was healed but by God's. SO why should you believe that it is by the might of the Priest that he forgives. It is only by God's might.

So when you or any member of your family fall ill, cant you pray and believe that God will heal you?? Must you go to a priest?? Besides before you guys crucify me, I just want to understand how objective a preist can be in he's 'disburesemnt of penance'. I dont entirely disagree with the idea of confession, I'm just asking if the whole exercise ir really improtant,

Ujujoan:

So when you or any member of your family fall ill, can't you pray and believe that God will heal you?? Must you go to a priest?? Besides before you guys crucify me, I just want to understand how objective a preist can be in he's 'disburesemnt of penance'. I don't entirely disagree with the idea of confession, I'm just asking if the whole exercise ir really improtant,

Beautiful.
- When you have children, allow them to grow up and baptize themselves!
- When your children want to marry, they should just stay in the kitchen [by themselves] and exchange marriage vows!
- When someone dies, just bury the nigga, no prayers, no nothing. He is dead anyway!


===
You have still not answered my question => why did God kill Ananias and Sapphira for telling a simple white lie?
Both of them must have thought that 'God will understand and forgive'. But, alas, He did not!
What happened in their case?

imhotep:

===
You have still not answered my question => why did God kill Ananias and Sapphira for telling a simple white lie?
Both of them must have thought that 'God will understand and forgive'. But, alas, He did not!
What happened in their case?

Ujujoan:

Ananias and Sappharia did not tell a white lie. What they did was pure embezzlement. Even when Peter asked them, they denied. Not only that, they broke a vow they made to God. The Christians agreed to sell their properties and help the poor but Ananias and his Wife broke that vow by trying to keep some of the money for themselves!! "The offence of Ananias and Sapphira showed contempt of God, vanity and ambition in the offenders, and utter disregard of the corruption which they were bringing into the society. Such sin, committed in despite of the light which they possessed, called for a special mark of divine indignation."

Am not trying to judge them or explein why God killed them. I just want you to know that they did NOT tell a 'simple white lie'!!!

Did you miss that??

ujujoan:
Am not trying to judge them or explein why God killed them. I just want you to know that they did NOT tell a 'simple white lie'!!!

So, why did their simple faith not save them?

@ imhotep

even tho some of Oladegbu 's criticisms are unfounded i quite agree with a number of them. however, ur i foun d ur answer to his criticism unsatisfactory

imhotep:

One more 'pagan' practice => The bible was compiled and approved in 393 AD

@olaadegbu
You must reject the bible in order for your anti-catholicism to be consistent.
Go and compile/approve your own bible from your own sources.
Afterall, Jesus never wrote any book.

the methods in which the books of the bible was chosen to become the bible was quite transparent and logical. quite unlike many of the doctrines of the catholic church acquired along the way. the old testament was already widely in use by Jews and early Xtinas and even Jesus Xrist himself. the gospels were generally accepted by the early church as a true representation of Xrist s life and works (remember many of them were actual eyewitnesses themselves or at least were jesus 's contemporaries). all the council had to do was choose books that were consistent with all the already accepted ones.

those books which are not included in the protestant bible (macabees ,etc) are not necessarily considered false or bad. they just are not congruent with the teachings of the other books. and so to avoid confusion, they were excluded .

imhotep:

So, why did their simple faith not save them?

Xtians should learn that u can't have an answer to everything in life. Why is there so much suffering in the world despite God s love? why are their natural disasters in which the good die with the bad? why did Job suffer so much?

no one can question God and i can't claim to know why they died. mayb Peter lost his temper and pronounced death on them rashly,  or mayb God saw into their hearts and realised that they would never change. no matter what i think it would all amount to speculatiuon.

simmy:

@ imhotep

even tho some of Oladegbu 's criticisms are unfounded i quite agree with a number of them. however, your i foun d your answer to his criticism unsatisfactory


the methods in which the books of the bible was chosen to become the bible was quite transparent and logical. quite unlike many of the doctrines of the catholic church acquired along the way. the old testament was already widely in use by Jews and early Xtinas and even Jesus Xrist himself. the gospels were generally accepted by the early church as a true representation of Xrist s life and works (remember many of them were actual eyewitnesses themselves or at least were jesus 's contemporaries). all the council had to do was choose books that were consistent with all the already accepted ones.

those books which are not included in the protestant bible (macabees ,etc) are not necessarily considered false or bad. they just are not congruent with the teachings of the other books. and so to avoid confusion, they were excluded .

@simmy
Your response is also unsatisfactory. The same group that compiled and approved the bible is the same group that defined the Trinity.

The word 'Trinity' is not in the bible. Why do you [and olaadegbu] believe in the doctrine of the 'Trinity'.

On what basis do we accept/reject doctrines? Based on our emotions?

simmy:

no one can question God and i can't claim to know why they died. mayb Peter lost his temper and pronounced death on them rashly,  or mayb God saw into their hearts and realised that they would never change. no matter what i think it would all amount to speculatiuon.

But they must have witnessed Pentecost, spoken in tongues and witnessed other miracles.
I thought their faith was enough to save them from the wrath of God?

What happened?

those books which are not included in the protestant bible (macabees ,etc) are not necessarily considered false or bad. they just are not congruent with the teachings of the other books. and so to avoid confusion, they were excluded

They are congruent with the teachings of the other books. Infact they support the New Testament. Go and read them.

The Protestants took those books out from the Bible because Martin Luther took the books out. Luther took those books out because they were not congruent with his teachings and because the Jews took them out from the Torah on reasons other than they are not congruent with scripture, because they are. They were taken out because they were written by Jews who spoke Greek, or Aramaic or it was written outside of Palestine.

The Protestants stuck to Luther's exclusion of the books until they realised that Luther also took out James and some other books in the New Testament, I believe he took out Hebrew also.
So my question to you is why didn't the Protestant just stay consistent and exclude the books in the New Testament also? Why only the Old Testament? After all Luther already declared that the books in the New Testament weren't in line with the scriptures. Why are they still considered scripture today?

So much for just transparent and logical selection huh?

The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced in 1854

What does the RCC mean by the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?