Consecration To Mary?

[Undercover]

thx all.. dunno how much time I can devote to hanging around here, I feel a bit overwhelmed with stuff to learn.

I feel that there really isn't that much separating our beliefs, as much as there is culture and different ways of saying the same thing.

Edited November 6, 2003 by Undercover

[cmotherofpirl]

So you agree the Pope is head of the Church on earth, the John 6 is to be taken literally, that there is one baptism for forgiveness of sins and entrance into the kigdom., that divorce and remarriage are unacceptable, and that the Bible and Sacred Tradition are equal and inseperable.[sp]?

Edited November 6, 2003 by cmotherofpirl

[Ash Wednesday]

http://www.iipg-queenofpeace.org/consecration1.htm?o=0

OH THIS IS GREAT!!! :D

I'm so going to do this.

[IcePrincessKRS]

http://www.iipg-queenofpeace.org/consecration1.htm?o=0

OH THIS IS GREAT!!!  :D

I'm so going to do this.

It IS really great. I love it. If you find the online version more difficult or harder to get on to do the consecration the book is easy enough to get ahold of. :)

[Undercover]

So you agree the Pope is head of the Church on earth, the John 6 is to be taken literally,  that there is one baptism for forgiveness of sins and entrance into the kigdom., that divorce and remarriage are unacceptable, and that the Bible and Sacred Tradition are equal and inseperable.[sp]?

Well, my stance on the Pope would be a bit different.. don't really want to get into that right now, but let me just say I respect him, as I would respect any leader of the Church (the Church meaning all believers). I don't really feel that all the heiarchy is necessary, but again, that's not really what I want to talk about here. John 6 literal? hm, no. I don't agree that that should be literal, as to me, it seems obvious that he is talking figuratively (as he is not *literally* the lamb of God meaning he's a lamb).

On the subject of Baptism, I don't think it should be a huge focus of the faith, but that it can be an important symbol of your faith, but that that act alone does not remove your sins. Jesus sacrifice removes our sin, and all that is necessary is for us to repent and believe (sinner on the Cross next to Jesus for example).

On the Bible, I believe it is much more important than tradition (although I have to be honest I don't know what the "Sacred Tradition" entails). I mean, what if tradition were to steer you in a wrong direction, a direction away from the Bible and from Christ? I see Satan trying to pervert and destroy the faith at any chance he gets, and therefore am very careful of what I trust.

What I mean when I say that our beliefs are similar is that we believe in a Creator who loves us, and sent his Son as a sacrifice for our sins, and that the only way to heaven is to put our trust in him and to repent from our sin. I think that even on our stances on the Holy Spirit and other things like that, we are very simliar, even if our words to express it are different.

But yes, there is much separating us as well. Does that mean we are not brothers in Christ? Does that mean that there should be emnity between us and that we cannot work together? Are these things more important than the gift that Christ has given us that we would throw his sacrifice away over things like form? I would hope not.

[Uncle Gus]

Baptism is essential, however, it is not sufficient. It is like a link in a chain, if you remove it, the chain is broken, however, just the one link on it's own does not constitute the entire chain. In baptism, we receive the means to our salvation, not our entire salvation. Therefore we are "saved" from out sins, but not "saved" in the Protestant understanding of the word.

As for Sacred Tradition leading us astray, that could only happen if God lied to us. I don't think God tells lies. Do you? John 16:13 "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth."

I don't see how the Bible can be more important that Sacred Tradition. That's like saying that the gas tank is more important than the car. The gas tank is part of the car, just as the Bible is part of the Sacred Tradition. It is that part that has been written down.

As for enmity between us, certainly not. Mark 9:40 "whoever is not against us is for us." So let's keep striving and praying for unity, as Jesus prayed we would in John 17 "That they be one, as we are one."

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.

[vianney]

Then why in John 6 did the jews leave Jesus in disbelief when he told them that they are to eat his body and drink his blood. They couldnt believe him and left. If he was only talking figuratively dont you think he would of told them that he didnt literally mean to eat the body and blood? No he didnt say that. He let them leave because they couldnt accept the fact that it TRULY was his body and blood.

Funny we do the same thing today.......

[Undercover]

Then why in John 6 did the jews leave Jesus in disbelief when he told them that they are to eat his body and drink his blood. They couldnt believe him and left. If he was only talking figuratively dont you think he would of told them that he didnt literally mean to eat the body and blood? No he didnt say that. He let them leave because they couldnt accept the fact that it TRULY was his body and blood.

Funny we do the same thing today.......

I don't think your argument is sound. There are many of examples where Christ spoke in parables or in metaphor and didn't exactly clear it up, and left the people wondering. In John 4 for example, he tells the woman at the well that he had living water, and that whoever drinks it will not be thirsty again. Personally I think it's obvious (for us now) that it's not talking about physical thirst for liquid, but for the Thirst in your soul. She didn't understand, and I don't see Jesus saying "no wait, i was speaking in metaphor, let me explain..."

And again, when Christ said he would raise the temple in 3 days, he was talking about himself, but didn't explain it exactly right away.

As far as that I don't think you can get a valid argument about it. To me, I could see it go either way Biblically, but I haven't seen any physical evidence that is flesh and blood which makes me lean towards the fact that he is speaking symbollicly, which makes sense to me.

[vianney]

the incident at the well is different from John 6 for three reasons.

1. Jesus commands us to practice this after he is gone

2. It is life or death situation

3. The woman at the well did not leave Jesus in disbelief she was just ignorant of what he said. The Jews knew beaver dam well what Jesus was talking about and chose not to accept it because it was so absurd.

In John 6 after all had left him he turned to his disciples and asked if they to would leave him. You cant compare this to The woman at the well story.

[Anna]

undercover,

I realize how demanding life can be, and the things we discuss on this phorum aren't always 'quickie' topics.

It takes a considerable amount of reflection, prayer, research, etc.

Take your time!

We don't need to discuss every doctrine right now...

But I sure hope that you stay around for a lonnnnnnnnnnnng time, until you understand the Biblical and historical basis for all Catholic doctrines.

We have a Baptist couple on this phorum, Brother Adam and Mrs. Brother Adam, and they've been dialoguing with us for a long time.

It's such a pleasure to fellowship with other Christians who really want to understand what we believe and why we believe it.

And I do appreciate your taking the time to come to us, Catholics, to learn what we believe.

Some protestant websites I've seen that describe Catholic belief would even turn ME off from Catholicism, if they were speaking truthfully about the Faith!!!

If you want to learn about the Jewish Faith, you don't go ask a nazi for information!!

:D

Since we're on the topic of John 6 at the moment, I will just say that this is where Sacred Tradition really comes in and helps us understand what Jesus meant.

When speaking in parables, Jesus would explain the meanings to the Apostles privately. He trained them in His Holy Priesthood to be leaders of His Church, and to teach others. It is Apostolic tradition that the Apostles took Jesus literally. St. John was a teacher to St. Ignatius of Antioch (the third bishop of Antioch).

Not only did St. Ignatius take John 6 literally, but he wrote a considerable amount about the Eucharist being Truly the Body and Blood of Jesus. He learned this directly from John.

Learning what the Early Church Fathers had to say about the areas in which we differ will shed a LOT of light, and help us grow much closer in understanding and mutual respect.

I look forward to seeing you on this board, as your time permits.

Oh, and yes, ecumenical efforts are very important...we should be working together always for peace and justice, helping the poor, defending the innocent and defenseless...This, too, should bring us closer together, while bringing Christ's love to others.

God Bless.

Pax Christi. <><

Edited November 7, 2003 by Anna

[Undercover]

Baptism is essential, however, it is not sufficient. It is like a link in a chain, if you remove it, the chain is broken, however, just the one link on it's own does not constitute the entire chain. In baptism, we receive the means to our salvation, not our entire salvation. Therefore we are "saved" from out sins, but not "saved" in the Protestant understanding of the word.

hm, could you explain the different understandings of the word "saved"? And as I pointed out, the man next to Jesus on the Cross was not baptized, yet was promised he would see Christ in paradise. So I would say it's not absolutely necessary, although it can be important and can mean a lot to a person. I just don't know that it has as much eternal significance besides the symbolism.

[Anna]

The Church recognizes several forms of baptism: The Sacramental form of Baptism where water is used, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is the most common.

There is also a Baptism of Blood, when one who believes in Christ but has not had the opportunity to receive the Sacramental Baptism is martyred.

Also, Baptism of Desire, where a person desiring to be sacramentally baptized, dies before he get the chance to receive the Sacrament.

St. Dismas, the Good Thief, is considered to be baptised, though not sacramentally.

For us, the word "SAVED" is a conclusion, the final judgement, which is left to God alone to decide. We've been saved by Jesus Christ, but are working out our salvation in fear and trembling, and hope to be pronounced "saved" when we are judged...It's just not a term we throw around loosely. We'd be more likely to say, "I'm baptized," then "I'm saved," because we don't have the authority to make the final call.

Pax Christi. <><

[Anna]

Anna is the grandmother of phatmass!!!

prayin' for all her peeps! ;)

[Monica]

Thanks for your replies.

[Uncle Gus]

hm, could you explain the different understandings of the word "saved"? And as I pointed out, the man next to Jesus on the Cross was not baptized, yet was promised he would see Christ in paradise.  So I would say it's not absolutely necessary, although it can be important and can mean a lot to a person.  I just don't know that it has as much eternal significance besides the symbolism.

Baptism is like the gate by which we enter the Kingdom of God. It is absolutely necessary to go through the gate, as there is no other way to enter the Kingdom of God. However, just because you go through the gate, does not mean that you remain there. There are baptised people in hell, rest assured. Baptism is the beginning of the means by which we are saved, but it is not the entirety of our salvation.

As for "unbaptised" people entering heaven, such as the good thief, this is where God's infinite mercy comes into light. Baptism is the normal means by which we receive this sanctifying grace, the ordinary means. However, God is not limited in how He can administer grace. There are exceptional or extra-ordinary situations in which God will give someone these graces, even though they have not been baptised with water.

Imagine this; a person is on a desert island and they have only a Bible. They read it and decide to become a Christian. Ordinarily, they would require baptism, and so they have the desire and intention to be baptised, but there is no-one around to baptise them (a person cannot baptise him/herself). Now, this person dies before they can receive baptism, but they had the desire and intention to be baptised. In the eyes of God, and of the Church, this person is baptised. They have what is called a baptism of desire. This baptism only suffices when a person cannot otherwise receive the ordinary baptism of water before their death.

The other kind of baptism is known as the baptism of blood, and this is when an unbaptised person chooses to die (be martyred) for the faith before they can receive baptism. To lay down your life for someone is the greatest sacrifice a person can make. It would be somewhat merciless for God to let such a person go to hell for want of the ordinary ritual.

So, in summary, the good thief, who came to believe in the Christ, would have had the baptism of desire. If by some turn of events he was let down from his cross before he died, and allowed to continue his life, he would have been baptised with water, in the ordinary fashion. But his circumstances prevented this, against his good intentions. So God honoured those intentions and treated him as baptised.