you'll hate this thread, I guarantee it. (2)

[Trento]

follow not the traditions of man The Pharisees thought they were a okay before God Jesus rebuked them, pulled down their money tables and would not follow the traditions of men like wash your hands this and that certain way before eating...they were offended by Jesus radical disregaurd of Rules of Men

I find it very interesting that Jesus, while He often scathingly rebuked the Pharisees, nevertheless says:


The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; therefore do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.
(Matthew 23:2-3; NRSV)


Pharisees had the teaching authority at that time, but were hypocritical in not following their own teaching. Yet Jesus (somewhat surprisingly) said to follow them as authorities anyway, because they sat on "Moses' seat" (i.e., they preserved the ongoing Tradition).


Note also how the Apostle Paul respects the authority of the high priest, who wasn't even a Christian. In the account of his "trial" before the chief priests (Acts 23:1-5), Paul was ordered by the high priest Ananias to be struck on the mouth. Paul immediately lashed out at him, saying, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! . . . " (similar to Jesus' denunciations of the Pharisees). But when informed that he was the high priest, Paul appealed to his ignorance of that fact, desists, and says, ". . . for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.' "

In other words, he respected the leader, though not even a Christian, and far less an authority -- in one sense -- on spiritual matters than St. Paul. Then in 23:6 he calls himself a Pharisee, and many Pharisees defend him in 23:9. The whole point is that obedience to divinely-appointed leaders is not an option for the Catholic. Paul wouldn't even speak ill of the high priest. He calls us to imitate him elsewhere.

 

[godlovesmebest]

I know the passage and as usual, your infallible self interpretation of looking at it through the lens of the invisible Protestant magisterium is at play here.

Everything permitted but not beneficial in context means what UB? That if you want to disagree with something that has been 2000 years proven to be beneficial- you can just chuck it?

No, you don't have to pray the Catholic way to be saved, but you do have to pray, I hope you agree there.

But the growth and the presence of our Lord can be truly realized through this way of praying and that is from the heart no matter how you pray. This can even lead non Christians to salvtion if they pray to the God of their understating from the heart.

So I have no clue how it is you think the bible teaches that our prayer style is not beneficial. Or that it's subjective, that it is beneficial for some but not for all.

That is absurd UB, the way we pray, can benefit you immensely but you are closed minded. Oh well.

And to say that something good can be beneficial to some but not so for another? Oh come on with the relativism.

Paul is not talking about the way Catholics pray. He is talking about things that are not sinful but that aren't beneficial. Like gambling- it is not sinful in itself but it sure as heck is not beneficial, you can get hooked and that can be sinful.

And I do sense something going on in you. You are having difficulties, aren't you?

There were no catholics in Paul's days were there? Did Paul and his followers ever say the Hail Mary for instance?

 

[Uphill Battle]

I know the passage and as usual, your infallible self interpretation of looking at it through the lens of the invisible Protestant magisterium is at play here.

Everything permitted but not beneficial in context means what UB? That if you want to disagree with something that has been 2000 years proven to be beneficial- you can just chuck it?

No, you don't have to pray the Catholic way to be saved, but you do have to pray, I hope you agree there.

But the growth and the presence of our Lord can be truly realized through this way of praying and that is from the heart no matter how you pray. This can even lead non Christians to salvtion if they pray to the God of their understating from the heart.

So I have no clue how it is you think the bible teaches that our prayer style is not beneficial. Or that it's subjective, that it is beneficial for some but not for all.

That is absurd UB, the way we pray, can benefit you immensely but you are closed minded. Oh well.

And to say that something good can be beneficial to some but not so for another? Oh come on with the relativism.

Paul is not talking about the way Catholics pray. He is talking about things that are not sinful but that aren't beneficial. Like gambling- it is not sinful in itself but it sure as heck is not beneficial, you can get hooked and that can be sinful.

And I do sense something going on in you. You are having difficulties, aren't you?

prayer style is completely subjective.

or lest you forget, some of those prayers that you think have been around for 2000 years, haven't. Whenever someone writes a prayer that you think is great, you use it. It's taking someone elses prayer, and making it your own.

again, I do not say that is a sin. But it would be for me. Much like it would be sin for the one convicted not to eat meat, to do so.

and no, I am not struggling. thanks very much. I've already said as much.

I have not misused the context of the passage.

 

[Uphill Battle]

There were no catholics in Paul's days were there? Did Paul and his followers ever say the Hail Mary for instance?

not that we have any evidence of.

(pauses to let a Catholic say "of course they did.")

 

[benedictaoo]

prayer style is completely subjective.

or lest you forget, some of those prayers that you think have been around for 2000 years, haven't. Whenever someone writes a prayer that you think is great, you use it. It's taking someone elses prayer, and making it your own.

again, I do not say that is a sin. But it would be for me. Much like it would be sin for the one convicted not to eat meat, to do so.

and no, I am not struggling. thanks very much. I've already said as much.

I have not misused the context of the passage.

what sin is there in it? Sin is NOT subjective but something very objective.. oh my goodness!

 

[benedictaoo]

prayer style is completely subjective.

or lest you forget, some of those prayers that you think have been around for 2000 years, haven't. Whenever someone writes a prayer that you think is great, you use it. It's taking someone elses prayer, and making it your own.

again, I do not say that is a sin. But it would be for me. Much like it would be sin for the one convicted not to eat meat, to do so.

and no, I am not struggling. thanks very much. I've already said as much.

I have not misused the context of the passage.

what sin is there in it? Sin is NOT subjective but something very objective.. oh my goodness!

 

[Uphill Battle]

what sin is there in it? Sin is NOT subjective but something very objective.. oh my goodness!

read the passage about meat again, Bene.

 

[benedictaoo]

There were no catholics in Paul's days were there? Did Paul and his followers ever say the Hail Mary for instance?

No but Elizabeth and Gabriel did... the way y'all rationalize your objections... they are silly. Paul never prayed it in the bible so that means it's condemned. Oh brother.

 

[benedictaoo]

read the passage about meat again, Bene.

why are you even using this verse to make a point that you think praying the Lord's prayer would be sinful for you???

Be specific, what is the sin???

 

[Uphill Battle]

what sin is there in it? Sin is NOT subjective but something very objective.. oh my goodness!

and actually, that brings to mind the meat on friday sin.

thanks for pointing that out.

 

[benedictaoo]

and actually, that brings to mind the meat on friday sin.

thanks for pointing that out.

What is sinful about it- do you know?

 

[benedictaoo]

and actually, that brings to mind the meat on friday sin.

thanks for pointing that out.

What is sinful about it- do you know?

 

[benedictaoo]

and please oblige in answering, what sin would you be committing if you prayed the Our Father from your heart?

 

[Uphill Battle]

What is sinful about it- do you know?

Yep. It was once mortal sin to eat meat on fridays. Now, it's not. (but sin, of course, isn't subjective!)

and please oblige in answering, what sin would you be committing if you prayed the Our Father from your heart?

nothing. Except that I would not be.

which would be inauthentic worship, and sinful for me to do. that is what I have been saying all along, that you have been missing.

 

[Trento]

There were no catholics in Paul's days were there? Did Paul and his followers ever say the Hail Mary for instance?

Before St. Paul's days This embodies the words used by the Angel Gabriel in saluting the Blessed Virgin (Luke, I, 28)."Hail full of Grace and Elizabeth's greeting, "blessed are you among women" (Lk 1:42), which Luke characterizes as words spoken in the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:4 1), had not been a once-only episode.

 

[benedictaoo]

Yep. It was once mortal sin to eat meat on fridays. Now, it's not. (but sin, of course, isn't subjective!)

Wrong... it still is but it's not in eating the meat or not eating the meat that is the sin- it is obedience or lack there of. Do you get it? Disobedience is a sin across the board.

Not eating meant on Friday is a rule, discipline and not a sin . What is a sin is disobeying the Church law.

There is no apples to apples comparison here and you didn't prove the Church wrong-- or contradictory.

now sin- you really think sin as in grave matter is not objective? that grave matter depends? Wow- that blows my mind.

So like, murder isn't objectively grave?

I think you need to be made aware of what grave matter is and what constitutes mortal sin. Mortal sin is subjective not grave matter and how in the heck did this thread turn this topic?

nothing. Except that I would not be.

which would be inauthentic worship, and sinful for me to do. that is what I have been saying all along, that you have been missing.

How, and in what way????

 

[benedictaoo]

Yep. It was once mortal sin to eat meat on fridays. Now, it's not. (but sin, of course, isn't subjective!)

Wrong... it still is but it's not in eating the meat or not eating the meat that is the sin- it is obedience or lack there of. Do you get it? Disobedience is a sin across the board.

Not eating meant on Friday is a rule, discipline and not a sin . What is a sin is disobeying the Church law.

There is no apples to apples comparison here and you didn't prove the Church wrong-- or contradictory.

now sin- you really think sin as in grave matter is not objective? that grave matter depends? Wow- that blows my mind.

So like, murder isn't objectively grave?

I think you need to be made aware of what grave matter is and what constitutes mortal sin. Mortal sin is subjective not grave matter and how in the heck did this thread turn this topic?

nothing. Except that I would not be.

which would be inauthentic worship, and sinful for me to do. that is what I have been saying all along, that you have been missing.

How, and in what way????

 

[benedictaoo]

Yep. It was once mortal sin to eat meat on fridays. Now, it's not. (but sin, of course, isn't subjective!)

Wrong... it still is but it's not in eating the meat or not eating the meat that is the sin- it is obedience or lack there of. Do you get it? Disobedience is a sin across the board.

Not eating meant on Friday is a rule, discipline and not a sin . What is a sin is disobeying the Church law.

There is no apples to apples comparison here and you didn't prove the Church wrong-- or contradictory.

now sin- you really think sin as in grave matter is not objective? that grave matter depends? Wow- that blows my mind.

So like, murder isn't objectively grave?

I think you need to be made aware of what grave matter is and what constitutes mortal sin. Mortal sin is subjective not grave matter and how in the heck did this thread turn this topic?

nothing. Except that I would not be.

which would be inauthentic worship, and sinful for me to do. that is what I have been saying all along, that you have been missing.

How, and in what way????

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Wrong... it still is but it's not in eating the meat or not eating the meat that is the sin- it is obedience or lack there of. Do you get it? Disobedience is a sin across the board.

Not eating meant on Friday is a rule, discipline and not a sin . What is a sin is disobeying the Church law.

There is no apples to apples comparison here and you didn't prove the Church wrong-- or contradictory

So why should I come under the Law of the RCC instead of the law of YHWH and His Christ?

LLOJ [proud member of Luther's SS]

 

[Uphill Battle]

Wrong... it still is but it's not in eating the meat or not eating the meat that is the sin- it is obedience or lack there of. Do you get it? Disobedience is a sin across the board.

yes, I'm well aware of how the Catholic Church justifies their stance on this. That's the point.

Not eating meant on Friday is a rule, discipline and not a sin . What is a sin is disobeying the Church law.

which is just linguistic games to call an apple an orange.

There is no apples to apples comparison here and you didn't prove the Church wrong-- or contradictory.

no, of course not. I could no more convince you of that, than I could convince a bird that swimming is better than flying.

now sin- you really think sin as in grave matter is not objective? that grave matter depends? Wow- that blows my mind.

So like, murder isn't objectively grave?

I think you need to be made aware of what grave matter is and what constitutes mortal sin. Mortal sin is subjective not grave matter and how in the heck did this thread turn this topic?

I don't know. you took it there. and you are using a false dichotomy. I never said that sin isn't sin. I said that for me, it would be sinful to participate in something as worship that is not really worship. IOW, lips honour, heart far from.

scriptural premise.