I want to understand the Catholic faith so....

[LonelyPilgrim]

According to your own dogma you must confess this sin of lying to a priest and do the requisite amount of Our Fathers and Hail mary's to be cleansed of this sin. How that aint the ULTIMATE in works, and how you can twist in your mind that it isn't is truly sad.

Mr. PennEd, I'm afraid you misunderstand the concepts of confession and penance. Confessing sin, as Scripture itself commands, has only to do with the forgiveness of sins (cf. 1 John 1:9, James 5:16) -- a forgiveness which God alone gives, which Jesus has already bought and paid for in full. The guilt of our sin is completely washed away by His blood. Any penance we do after being forgiven has nothing to do with being "cleansed" of sin, but only with the healing of our souls. The only "works" that matter in our absolution is the work of Christ.

 

[LonelyPilgrim]

Another Catholic lie. You baptize babies because you believe their soul is contaminated with original sin and that to baptize them removes the stain.

Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth. (CCC 1250).

Ms. Magenta, I don't think it's very charitable to accuse a brother of "lying" when you merely have a difference of understanding. In fact, as Mr. epostle said, Catholics do not generally condemn a person or judge the state of his soul. Your charges against infant baptism here are misplaced. The Catholic belief in original sin (in fact, it's a belief that the great majority of Christians, following the teachings of Saint Paul and the later elaborations of Saint Augustine, have held) has nothing to do with the soul being "contaminated," let alone with any person, let alone an infant, being "guilty" of sin. Infants, as you well know, have not committed any sins and cannot be condemned for such! "Original sin" does not have the character of actual sin at all (cf. CCC 405) -- it is merely a statement of mankind's fallen human nature (as CCC 1250, which you cited, itself says), of the loss of the original grace that all humans have been subject to since the fall of Adam (cf. Romans 5:12, 19).

 

[ukok102nak]

Leviticus: 27. 10. He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good: and if he shall at all change beast for beast, then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy.

Deuteronomy: 10. 17. For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

 

[epostle]

FAULTLINES


Original sin is the term we use to describe mankind’s first transgression –Adam’s fall. It is also the term we use to describe the consequences or effects of that fall. For Adam, original sin was a personal, actual sin. For us, it’s an impersonal sin, not an actual sin. But here we distinguish; we do not separate, because it’s all of a piece. There is a bond that unites sin in all its forms.

When teachers discuss the mystery of original sin, they often use the metaphor of a “stain on the soul”. But that’s only a metaphor.Sin isn’t essentially a stain; it isn’t a spiritual substance. It isn’t a thing at all. It is, rather, the lack of something, theabsence of something, namely sanctifying grace. The indwelling lifeof the Trinity was evacuated from human nature by Adam’s sin. That’s what original sin is. We have to get at it by explaining what it isn’t. It’s the absence of something necessary for human beings to reach their divinely appointed end. The absence of sanctifying grace certainly does plunge us into darkness and blindness and death.

Bu tit’s critically important for us to recognize that original sin isnot something that’s transmitted biologically or psychologically. Yet at the same time we can speak of original sin as being somethinghereditary.

Even that word choice - fault – might lead you to believe that original sin is something that renders us guilty. But it isn’t. Think offault here in the sense of the San Andreas Fault, the fracture in the earth’s crust that renders California vulnerable to devastating earthquakes. It isn’t my fault, but it’s like a fault line that runs my soul and inclines me to be separate from God.

Original sin is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants:One man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men…By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, who have sinned in him. (Rom5:18-19)

The mystery, of course, is how we sinned in Adam. We sinned in Adam, ina sense, because there is a mystical solidarity we share with him,based upon two realities: biologically, we’re his descendants; andtheologically, he’s our covenant head. As our father, he is our representative in making the covenant with God. Since he broke the covenant, we, his progeny, inherit the consequences. Consider an analogy from human relations: If I mismanaged my business affairs and ended by declaring bankruptcy before passing my estate to my sons and daughter, my creditors could pursue my children, now rendered debtors through our family bond.

In effect, original sin means the loss of sanctifying grace and,therefore, the loss of eternal life. The soul is immortal, andpeople in hell will live everlastingly, though miserably. Eternallife is more than everlasting. It is God’s life, divine life. Godalone is eternal because He utterly transcends time. So when wespeak of eternal life, we are talking about sharing in the very beingand communion of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And that is what humanity lost through original sin.

Original sin is hereditary but impersonal. It is contracted, not committed;and we contract original sin without consent. That is why God can remove original sin without personal consent, as He does with newborn babies on their baptismal day.

The same thing can be said for actual sin. Actual sin can only becommitted through informed consent. And so it can only be removed through informed consent. That’s why we need confession.

 

[epostle]

THE LAW OF (MORAL) GRAVITY
It an be helpful to keep in mind that sin is like a terminal – but curable – illness, one that afflicts all of the organs of the body. Only in this case, it affects the eternal life of the soul.


Are people better off not knowing that they are sick? Or how accessible(though difficult) the cure is? Are they any happier not being told how serious – but also how treatable – their condition is?
For me, the key is remembering that sin is more than breaking laws, it is breaking lives – our own and others’.
Likewise,our spiritual life is far more precious – and fragile – than physical life. And far more fulfilling, eternally speaking.

Just because people don’t recognize all (or any) of God’s laws, and how they reflect His loving concern for our spiritual and physical health, doesn’t change the fact that it’s all still true. If an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted to abolish the law of gravity, and so both houses of congress voted to repeal it, and the president signed it into law – what would happen if the president and all the congressman decided to celebrate their “liberation”by jumping off the White House roof? They wouldn’t break the law of gravity, of course; their fall would demonstrate gravity, and that law would break them and whatever bones hit first.

What people often forget is that the moral laws of God are just as firmly fixed as the physical laws – it’s just that the results of sin are not as visible or immediately painful as broken bones.

That’s why the church has to get the word out – both the bad news of sin’s deadly effect, and the Good News of Christ as the only total cure. And again, that’s why we need confession.

“Lord,Have Mercy” The Healing Power of Confession by Scott Hahn,Doubleday, April 2003, pg. 72-75

 

[ukok102nak]

1 John: 3. 4. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
1 John: 3. 5. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

Hebrews: 5. 13. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

Matthew: 18. 3. And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.


God bless us all always

:ty:

 

[ukok102nak]

: : as this words was been told to us by unknown source . ....
Surely he knoweth your inventions, and what ye think in your hearts, even them that sin, and would hide their sin.
Therefore hath the Lord exactly searched out all your works, and he will put you all to shame.
And when your sins are brought forth, ye shall be ashamed before men, and your own sins shall be your accusers in that day.
What will ye do? or how will ye hide your sins before God and his angels? Behold, God himself is the judge, fear him: leave off from your sins, and forget your iniquities, to meddle no more with them for ever: so shall God lead you forth, and deliver you from all trouble. For, behold, the burning wrath of a great multitude is kindled over you, and they shall take away certain of you, and feed you, being idle, with things offered unto idols.

:smoke: as it is written in this verses
:read:
Ecclesiastes: 7. 29. Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

:dontknow: how many inventions in religions by those man
made doctrines were inserted in the history
of human worshippings to god

God bless us all always

:ty:

 

[santuzza]

Infants, as you well know, have not committed any sins and cannot be condemned for such!

I'm not too sure about that! I think infants (and even young children) just can't recognize it as sin.

 

[MikeHenderson]

It is very clear LonelyPilgrim that you have been influenced by the Catholic Church to misinterpret the Scriptures.

Exodus 20:4-5
[SUP]4 [/SUP] "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
[SUP]5 [/SUP] you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.

A statue of Mary is a carved Image. We are NOT to have any image of anything, not even of Mary.

Idolatry:
1. the worship of a physical object as a god


2. immoderate attachment or devotion to something

Being devoted to Mary is Idolatry LonelyPilgrim.

1 Corinthians 5:11-13
[SUP]11 [/SUP] But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner--not even to eat with such a person.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?
[SUP]13 [/SUP] But those who are outside God judges. Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person."

We are not to judge those who are outside of us. We ARE to judge those who is named a brother with us. Epostle is an Idolater and we are to judge him for that. We are to not have anything to do with an Idolater.

You thinking LonelyPilgrim has been totally influenced by Catholicism, not by the Holy Spirit.

We as True Christians who have the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit can judge those who teach as doctrines the commandments of men.

Matthew 15:8-9
[SUP]8 [/SUP] 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' "
This is what you Catholics do the best. Teaching as Doctrines the commandments of the Catholic Church.

God has said those who do this is because their Hearts are far from God. Your Heart LonelyPilgrim and epostles Heart are far from God and we do have the right to Judge you for this. You can claim all you want that we can not judge a person, but according to the Holy Spirit we do have a right to judge those who claim to be our brothers in Christ.

 

[Budman]

What part of "ordinary means" don't you understand?

Those requirements by the Catholic "church" are not "ordinary" for Christianity. There are only two biblical requirements: Repentance and faith.

What part of that don't you understand?

You are blind to the condition: "knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ" the proactive word is "knowing" which you can't seem to understand. In other words, you have to be a Catholic for this to apply.

Yet you ignore the fact that your "church" teaches if you don't belong to her, you cannot be saved. Without the sacraments bestowed by her, there is no hope of salvation. Both are, once again, anti-biblical and anti-Christian.

No, you are interpreting through Protestant lens. Sacraments are not performed.

Oh stop with the worthless word-games. It doesn't matter how much you try to spin it, without the sacraments being "performed" or "received" there can be no salvation, according to your "church".

Your terminology is outdated and unbiblical. Through generations of use, beginning even with the usage of St. Paul in the New Testament, anathema came to mean something other than its literal, etymological meaning

That has to be your biggest stretch yet. Anathema means, and has always meant, accursed or damned. Whether classical or modern, it means you are not saved by the declaration of your "church".

Jesus redeemed the human race, but we play a part in our salvation, a free gift, not a ticket.

Would a gift be a gift if you had to pay for it in any way? No. The only "part" we play in our salvation is receiving it as it's offered - by grace through faith - period.

And you skirted my question: If Jesus paid for all of our sins on Calvary's cross, what is left to atone for - be it through penance or purgatory?

Go over all my post and quote where I have directly insulted or attacked a person.

By calling my writings "psychotic" you are, in fact, insulting me by labeling me as deranged.

You are pressing hard to make the Church look like some kind of exclusive salvation club

Pope Eugene IV (1441) in his Bull "Cantate Domino" said: "The most holy Roman church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal, but that they will go into eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they joined with her - No one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic church."

Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull "Unam Sanctam" (1302) infallibly taught: "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one Catholic church, and that one apostolic. Outside this church there is no salvation and no remission of sins - We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pope Benedict XV in his Encyclical "Ad Beatissmi" (1914) said: "Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

Pope Innocent III at the fourth Lateran Council wrote: " There is but one universal church of the faithful, outside of which, no one at all can be saved."

So, nice try.

 

[PennEd]

Mr. PennEd, I'm afraid you misunderstand the concepts of confession and penance. Confessing sin, as Scripture itself commands, has only to do with the forgiveness of sins (cf. 1 John 1:9, James 5:16) -- a forgiveness which God alone gives, which Jesus has already bought and paid for in full. The guilt of our sin is completely washed away by His blood. Any penance we do after being forgiven has nothing to do with being "cleansed" of sin, but only with the healing of our souls. The only "works" that matter in our absolution is the work of Christ.

Good morning. May the Grace and Truth of Jesus Christ be with you.

If what you say is true than the priests and nuns lied to me at St. rose of lima grammar school that I couldn't even partake in communion that week til I confessed all my sins of that week to a priest, then say a bunch of heretical hail marys and not heretical Our Fathers.

The truth is there is NO intercessor between the God the Father and us EXCEPT Jesus Christ. The curtain has been torn, we don't NEED a priest, we can go directly to Jesus, AND ONLY Jesus, to be cleansed of sin.

I am also disgusted with Indulgences. This is perhaps the worst of an incredibly terrible record of the catholic church. Many of my relatives still engage in this ABSOLUTE evil in the form of mass cards that MUST be purchased. Even the hint that MONEY could atone for some sin that Jesus wasn't powerful enough to pay for is unspeakably offensive.

I have heard the doubletalk regarding the explanation of purgatory. The facts ARE that this doctrine is still taught, and people are still trying to BUY less time for passed loved ones OR themselves in purgatory.

Sir, no matter how you spin it those are the facts.

I beg you to simply put your faith in Jesus alone. ADD NOTHING!!!!!!! Then let the Holy Spirit work in you and through you to spread the Gospel of Grace ALONE, and works that will glorify Him, but NOT save you. In Jesus name I pray.

 

[LonelyPilgrim]

I'm not too sure about that! I think infants (and even young children) just can't recognize it as sin.

Well, that's the issue, isn't it? Is a young child really culpable for an offense -- is it a sin -- if he or she didn't understand it was wrong? Do you hold it against your own child? Most Christians I know (not just Catholics) would agree that children reach an age of reason at which they appreciate the difference between right and wrong -- but before then, if they don't have such moral consciousness, they are not capable of sin.

 

[LonelyPilgrim]

We are NOT to have any image of anything...

I suppose, then, that God is wrong to command it?

And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. (Exodus 25:18ff.)

Moreover you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen and blue and purple and scarlet stuff; with cherubim skilfully worked shall you make them. (Exodus 26:1ff.)

And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” (Numbers 21:7-8)
​

Being devoted to Mary is Idolatry LonelyPilgrim.

You didn't answer my question, sir. Is being devoted to your mother "idolatry"?

 

[LonelyPilgrim]

UORRe: I want to understand the Catholic faith so....

You ignore the fact that your "church" teaches if you don't belong to her, you cannot be saved. Without the sacraments bestowed by her, there is no hope of salvation. Both are, once again, anti-biblical and anti-Christian.

Sir, this isn't true. The Catholic Church teaches, quite plainly and vocally, that "the separated Churches and Communities ... have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation; for the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation..." (Second Vatican Council [1965], Unitatis redintegratio 3).

That has to be your biggest stretch yet. Anathema means, and has always meant, accursed or damned. Whether classical or modern, it means you are not saved by the declaration of your "church".

I am the author of the article on "anathema" Mr. epostle was citing. And he is correct. "Anathema sit" is a formula used by Church councils to announce a formal excommunication from the Church. As Paul himself uses the term and concept, excommunication is a measure both to spur the sinner to repentance and to protect the body of the faithful from sin. It is never a pronouncement of damnation, but has the aim that "[the sinner] may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Corinthians 5:4).

The only "part" we play in our salvation is receiving it as it's offered - by grace through faith - period.

You're correct, that the only thing absolutely necessary for our salvation is receiving it -- by grace through faith. This is a Catholic teaching. But how do we live the life of grace, once we receive it? Even most Protestants teach that sanctification, following the Lord to grow in holiness, is the necessary fruit of His salvation. For "faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead" (James 2:16).

And you skirted my question: If Jesus paid for all of our sins on Calvary's cross, what is left to atone for - be it through penance or purgatory?

Nothing. Jesus paid it all. Neither penance nor purgatory has anything to do with atonement.

This conversation is awfully hostile, isn't it? -- with people accusing each other of being liars and deranged and idolators and evil. Why don't we try to bring it back to where the Lord to have it, to a civil, respectful, and charitable discussion among believers?

 

[LonelyPilgrim]

Good morning. May the Grace and Truth of Jesus Christ be with you.

Good morning to you also, and His peace be with you!

If what you say is true than the priests and nuns lied to me at St. rose of lima grammar school that I couldn't even partake in communion that week til I confessed all my sins of that week to a priest, then say a bunch of heretical hail marys and not heretical Our Fathers.

I'm not sure what they told you, but as Paul himself teaches us, quite rightly, that "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" and that "a man should examine himself" before partaking of the Body and Blood (1 Corinthians 11:27-28). Even as a Protestant, I understood that I had no business receiving Communion if I had sin on my conscience for which I hadn't asked forgiveness -- lest I "eat and drink judgment upon [myself]" (v. 29).

The "Hail Mary" is only as "heretical" as Luke 1:28 and 42-43.

The truth is there is NO intercessor between the God the Father and us EXCEPT Jesus Christ. The curtain has been torn, we don't NEED a priest, we can go directly to Jesus, AND ONLY Jesus, to be cleansed of sin.

Sure. Even Catholics teach that this is possible -- it just isn't what Jesus or His Apostles taught us to do. What was He talking about when he imparted to the Apostles that "whose sins you forgive are forgiven, and whose sins you retain are retained" (John 20:22-23)? What was James talking about when he taught us to "confess [our] sins one to another" (James 5:16)? Scripture teaches that sin is cleansed in baptism (Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-6, etc.) -- and then the only other place it talks about sins being forgiven, for the one who sins after becoming a Christian, is in these passages about confession of sins.

Even the hint that MONEY could atone for some sin that Jesus wasn't powerful enough to pay for is unspeakably offensive.

Again: As I've said I think Mr. epostle has said, indulgences -- or any other exchange of money or goods -- don't have anything at all to do with the atonement of sins.

I beg you to simply put your faith in Jesus alone. ADD NOTHING!!!!!!! Then let the Holy Spirit work in you and through you to spread the Gospel of Grace ALONE, and works that will glorify Him, but NOT save you. In Jesus name I pray.

No, our works don't save us -- only His. My faith is in Christ alone, is His grace and mercy. May the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, guard your heart and your mind in Christ Jesus.

 

[Ahwatukee]

I'm not sure what they told you, but as Paul himself teaches us, quite rightly, that "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" and that "a man should examine himself" before partaking of the Body and Blood (1 Corinthians 11:27-28). Even as a Protestant, I understood that I had no business receiving Communion if I had sin on my conscience for which I hadn't asked forgiveness -- lest I "eat and drink judgment upon [myself]" (v. 29).

Hello LonelyPilgrim,

Forgive me, but I could not help to make a correction here. First of all, if our being without sin was necessary in order to partake in the breaking bread, then no one could ever partake of it. Secondly, according to the scripture, having sin is not what Paul was speaking about by partaking in an unworthy manner. What he was speaking about was that when they were meeting to break bread, they were doing so for the sake of eating a meal, drinking and getting drunk, which is why Paul said, "don't you have homes to eat and drink in?" Therefore, the way to partake of this institution that the Lord gave us in a correct manner, is to partake of it with the sole purpose of breaking bread in recognizing his body that was broken for us and the drinking of the cup representing his blood that was shed for us.

 

[LonelyPilgrim]

Forgive me, but I could not help to make a correction here. First of all, if our being without sin was necessary in order to partake in the breaking bread, then no one could ever partake of it. Secondly, according to the scripture, having sin is not what Paul was speaking about by partaking in an unworthy manner. What he was speaking about was that when they were meeting to break bread, they were doing so for the sake of eating a meal, drinking and getting drunk, which is why Paul said, "don't you have homes to eat and drink in?" Therefore, the way to partake of this institution that the Lord gave us in a correct manner, is to partake of it with the sole purpose of breaking bread in recognizing his body that was broken for us and the drinking of the cup representing his blood that was shed for us.

Mr. Ahwatukee, I've never heard this passage dismissed as such, either in my days as a Protestant or a Catholic. Certainly the context in which he is speaking is the abuses of the agape meal you name; certainly this is an "unworthy manner" of receiving the Lord's Communion. But can we really limit his intent to this? He speaks of "judgment," of "judging ourselves truly," since when the Lord judges us "we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world." Certainly this refers to sin! (I will write more but I accidentally already posted this thing so I will add another post.)

 

[LonelyPilgrim]

Being "without sin" (i.e. never having sinned at all) is certainly not what Paul says or means. But certainly we should not be in a state of sin, in the process of sinning gravely and abusing the gift of our Lord (which the people in the agape meal he referred to were doing). Elsewhere in the letter Paul compares those who engage in grave sin to "[taking] the members of Christ and [making] them members of a prostitute" -- for "he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with Him" (1 Corinthians 6:15-17). In the context of his words about Communion with the Lord, certainly this admonition applies: the Lord's Communion is the most intimate act of becoming one with Him (cf. 10:16). The "unworthy manner" Paul speaks of cannot be limited to any one: he speaks to any manner that "does not discern the body" (11:29).

 

[Magenta]

One more thing: Catholics don't make judgments on the state of a persons soul no matter who they are or what they have done. We leave those judgments up to God, but some prot cults have taken on that job for themselves.

Another Catholic lie. You baptize babies because you believe their soul is contaminated with original sin and that to baptize them removes the stain.

Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth. (CCC 1250).

Ms. Magenta, I don't think it's very charitable to accuse a brother of "lying" when you merely have a difference of understanding. In fact, as Mr. epostle said, Catholics do not generally condemn a person or judge the state of his soul. Your charges against infant baptism here are misplaced. The Catholic belief in original sin (in fact, it's a belief that the great majority of Christians, following the teachings of Saint Paul and the later elaborations of Saint Augustine, have held) has nothing to do with the soul being "contaminated," let alone with any person, let alone an infant, being "guilty" of sin. Infants, as you well know, have not committed any sins and cannot be condemned for such! "Original sin" does not have the character of actual sin at all (cf. CCC 405) -- it is merely a statement of mankind's fallen human nature (as CCC 1250, which you cited, itself says), of the loss of the original grace that all humans have been subject to since the fall of Adam (cf. Romans 5:12, 19).

It is no mere misunderstanding, and you trying to characterize it as such seems deceptive. Not only that, you have clearly misrepresented what he actually said, so you in fact are lying also. Have you taken Epostle to task for every time he has accused others here of lying? You simply show your prejudice against those who speak the truth by telling more lies.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Mr. Ahwatukee, I've never heard this passage dismissed as such, either in my days as a Protestant or a Catholic. Certainly the context in which he is speaking is the abuses of the agape meal you name; certainly this is an "unworthy manner" of receiving the Lord's Communion. But can we really limit his intent to this? He speaks of "judgment," of "judging ourselves truly," since when the Lord judges us "we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world." Certainly this refers to sin! (I will write more but I accidentally already posted this thing so I will add another post.)

Hello LonelyPilgrim,

Here is the scripture in question:

"In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. 22Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!"

* Division

* Personal meals

* Getting drunk

Above are the reasons listed as to what Paul was speaking about in partaking in an unworthy manner. What people have done is to add to that, siting their need to examine themselves for sin, which is not what Paul is talking about. We are all sinners! If anyone says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him. Now if a person has gone back living according to the sinful nature, then it would be good idea to repent and return to the Lord before partaking in the breaking of bread. But if they were in that state I don't believe that breaking break would be on their agenda anyways. But for those who are in Christ, we are all sinners covered by the blood of Christ. Let me put it this way, after examining yourself for sin, do you come to the conclusion that you have none? If you do, then I would say that if anything, that would be partaking in an unworthy manner. The whole purpose of breaking the bread is to remember Christ's body that was broken for us "by his wounds you were healed." And partaking of the cup is done in remembrance of his blood that was shed in payment for our sins. Therefore, to examine yourself and to conclude that you are without sin is in opposition to partaking of this.

We need to stick with the details of the scripture and stop adding our own details. People do the same thing in regards to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit by ignoring the reason that scripture gives us as the reason for this sin and turning it into something that it's not. If people gather together for the sole purpose of breaking bread in remembrance of Christ's body and drink of the cup in remembrance of his blood, then that is the proper manner in which to partake in it.