|
Post by safetildecember on Oct 18, 2009 18:28:29 GMT -4
If you have any questions, try St. Christopher's Catholic Church on Kent Island. 643-6220. As I am sure she was well intended, the information Moosie provided is not correct. Yes you do have to go to confession before you can receive your first holy communion. i never said you did not. It is not essentially required that you go to mass except for once during Lent. Lent starts on Ash Wednesday, 40 days before Easter. Ash Wednesday is the day you see Catholics running around with ashes on their forehead. You can go on Ash Wednesday, on Easter or any day inbetween in order to satisfy the rules. Actually, not true. you must receive communion at least once per year, during that period. you are obligated to go to mass EVERY sunday and EVERY holy day of obligation. you must go to confession if you have committed a mortal sin, or you are walking around in a state of mortal sin. you don't want to do that. clearly, you must go before communion if you are in a state of sin. I wish when you post to a quote that you would do it in such a way that you can tell what I wrote and what you wrote. It can be confusing to someone else that is reading it. Can you show me where you are getting your information as I have never heard of such a thing. You have to go to church once a year and it has to be during Lent. It does not have to be on Easter Sunday, it can be anytime from Ash Wednesday to Easter.
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Oct 18, 2009 18:37:16 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by moosie on Oct 18, 2009 18:58:08 GMT -4
this is from the catechism, issued by the vatican, which i consider i higher authority than wikipedia. www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a3.htm#I2180 The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass."117 "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day."118 2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.119 Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin. a wealth of info there for anyone interested
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Oct 18, 2009 19:01:42 GMT -4
We were talking about Mortal Sin and it is a mortal sin not to go to church at least once during Lent. You said it had to be on Easter and I said it has to be anytime from Ash Wednesday to Easter. Yes the church says to honor the sabbath, they also use to make me wear a cover on my head, they do not anymore. They also say to rest on Sunday and do no work. Priests use to be able to be married, the church stopped that because too much of the churches money was going to the kids. You use to have to fast more during Lent, things have changed. And, what you said about confession was not correct. You do have to go to confession before your first holy communion and before communion if you have committed a mortal sin. The church does not mandate you go any other time although they prefer it once a year.
|
|
|
Post by moosie on Oct 19, 2009 0:14:20 GMT -4
let me try this one more time. i NEVER--repeat--NEVER said you did not have to go to confession before your first communion, ok? and i NEVER said you did not have to go to confession before communion if you have mortal sin.
covering your head is not the same as missing mass.
do not smite me for things i NEVER SAID.
i gave you a link to the official catechism from the vatican.
Question: Is it a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation?
Answer: It is a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation, unless we are excused for a serious reason. They also commit a mortal sin who, having others under their charge, hinder them from hearing Mass, without a sufficient reason. This is Question 390 of the Baltimore Catechism, a work in the public domain.
call st. christopher's yourself.
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Oct 19, 2009 9:13:08 GMT -4
Moosie, why don't you just pretend I don't exist and I will do the same with you. I have not smited you any where near as much as you have smited me. Did it ever occur to you that other people can smite as well? Other people have smited you as well, even recently. I am tired of getting blamed for every freakin' stupid smite on this board. I have read old posts from several people that blamed me for smiting when I was not even on the board. I was not a registered member all year until recently. I never used another IP or someone else's account or someone else's computer like I have been accused of. If it makes you happy to log on just to smite me, keep on doing it. You really don't have to sign in as invisible either to do it. That is something else I have been falsely accused of, I have not signed in as invisible. Why don't you go read that grammar book some more or better yet, put your little grammar book down and go pick up the one that teaches you how to use caps and correct punctuation.
|
|
|
Post by shorti on Oct 19, 2009 10:04:43 GMT -4
now now you guys... let's not start that here...
|
|
|
Post by deputy on Oct 19, 2009 12:03:14 GMT -4
Moosie, why don't you just pretend I don't exist and I will do the same with you. Most of us know you couldn't, and wouldn't hold up your end of that deal. AND AGAIN. You have no clue who is smiting who or whom, or when they are doing it, or why, or if they are invisible or not, although you do seem to be on here almost 24/7. Just get down from your soap box before you get too wound up, again. Yeah, I stuck my nose in it.
|
|
|
Post by moosie on Oct 19, 2009 12:12:38 GMT -4
for the record--i don't log on just to smite you; i don't log on ad invisible anybody. stop accusing me of saying things i have not said or doing things i have not done.
|
|
|
Post by stephadele on Oct 20, 2009 10:14:05 GMT -4
Sounds like a pissing contest to me...who is "smitting" who , , my' "smite" is better and badder than yours, whatever that is supposed to mean....There are alot of things in this world Im glad I dont get into...
|
|
|
Post by shorti on Oct 20, 2009 10:56:33 GMT -4
uh huh... i'm w/ ya stephadele
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Oct 20, 2009 17:40:48 GMT -4
That's kind of why I took a break from this thread. I got to feeling like there was a bit too much judging going on and we lost the ability to be open and respectful with each other.
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Oct 20, 2009 18:03:38 GMT -4
I thought I read in the bible where Jesus or God said that all religions are basically the same. Of course he said that long ago before the age of some of the wacko "religions" we have now.
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Oct 20, 2009 21:20:36 GMT -4
I thought I read in the bible where Jesus or God said that all religions are basically the same. Of course he said that long ago before the age of some of the wacko "religions" we have now. Umm...I don't think I remember ever reading anything quite like that - Jesus spoke about prophets, but I think... You know what, I think I'll just stick with what I believe and leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Oct 20, 2009 22:11:52 GMT -4
I thought I read in the bible where Jesus or God said that all religions are basically the same. Of course he said that long ago before the age of some of the wacko "religions" we have now. Umm...I don't think I remember ever reading anything quite like that - Jesus spoke about prophets, but I think... You know what, I think I'll just stick with what I believe and leave it at that. I said that " I thought I read" , it was a long time ago and I do not remember exactly what it said. When reading the bible I often did not fully understand what I was reading, it was not in "plain English", the type of speaking that people use today. I do remember I read something that made me think that is what God was saying. It seems to me it might have been something where people were fighting about religion and God made a comment, something to the effect that " they are fighting but they are really worshiping the same God. Maybe it was in the Old Testament, I do not remember. "In a theological vein it is argued, truthfully, that Islam and Christianity (along with Judaism) are both religions of the Book and of Abraham. That is to say, both accept the Divine revelation of the Hebrew Bible (Christian 'Old Testament') and both look back to God as revealed to Abraham as their faith's foundation. Thus it can be contended that Christians and Muslims ultimately do worship the same God."
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Oct 20, 2009 22:58:54 GMT -4
And for some of us...then there is the New Testament...
Sorry - I'm just not going there with you (or any one else) any more on this. Clearly, we do not agree.
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Oct 20, 2009 23:19:33 GMT -4
www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/testaments.htmlSome info on the old and new testaments. Notice how it says " the bible is final complete and nothing will ever be added to it" hence making religions with extra biblical revelation BU||crap in the eyes of the bible. The Old Testament has played a major role in Christianity from the very beginning of the faith. Jesus, the apostles, and the earliest converts quoted from it, alluded to it and understood the Christian faith in light of its teachings. All the books of the Old Testament except Esther, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon are quoted in the New Testament, and there are about 300 quotations in all. {1} It was not known as the "Old Testament" at that time, for the "New Testament" did not yet exist. It was simply the "scriptures," which revealed the nature, will and actions of the one true God, Yahweh. Quotations of the Old Testament in the New, which are very numerous, are not made according to any uniform method. When the New Testament was written, the Old was not yet divided into chapters and verses, so it is referred to by topic rather than citation. For instance, when Luke (20:37) refers to Exodus 3:6, he quotes from "Moses at the bush", i.e., the section containing the record of Moses at the bush. In general, the New Testament writers quote from the Septuagint ("LXX") version of the Old Testament, as it was then in common use among the Jews. But it is noticeable that these quotations are not made in any uniform manner. Sometimes, e.g., the quotation does not agree literally either with the LXX. or the Hebrew Masoretic text. This occurs in about one hundred instances. Sometimes the LXX. is literally quoted (in about ninety instances), and sometimes it is corrected or altered in the quotations (in over eighty instances). Quotations are sometimes made also directly from the Hebrew text (Matthew 4:15, 16; John 19:37; 1 Corinthians 15:54). Besides the quotations made directly, there are found numberless allusions, more or less distinct, showing that the minds of the New Testament writers were filled with the expressions and ideas as well as historical facts recorded in the Old. www.religionfacts.com/christianity/texts/OT.htm
|
|
|
Post by stephadele on Oct 31, 2009 13:13:40 GMT -4
"which is why I took a break from this thread...Water Lady" This is why I could never be in maintstream organized religion. Everyone is pontificating how "right" they are over someone else and NO one is listening to each other. It is the norm to actively listen to differences in my church without blaming or personalizing or being "right" , so Im not used to people arguing about it so personally. It just seems so...silly to me...
|
|