You know the typical argument - Jesus rose on Sunday, so the Apostles began celebrating the Liturgy on that day to commemorate the Resurrection. Additionally, Jesus appeared to the Apostles (plus many others) in the Upper Room on Pentecost - the seventh Sunday after Easter. It seems to me that would have been a good time for Jesus to inform them that the party needed to be moved to another day.

I always chuckle at the idea that early Christians stole pagan worship days and festivals (not that that is your position). Maybe it's a case of God directing traffic the way he wanted it to go - pretty sure we all believe the pagan gods can't stand up to that heat. Think of it as "might equals right".

8 Six days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a solemn assembly to the Lord your God; you shall do no work on it.
9 “You shall count seven weeks for yourself; you shall begin to count seven weeks from the time you begin to put the sickle to the standing grain. 10 Then you shall celebrate the Feast of Weeks to the Lord your God with a tribute of a freewill offering of your hand, which you shall give just as the Lord your God blesses you;

All 7 of our Father's Holy Days point to The Messiah. It's a shame that these Holy Days have been diluted or outright eliminated in modern churches, and replaced by adopted pagan days.

There is no Easter in the Bible, except for older KJV, where Passover is mistranslated. Later KJV versions corrected this, and now use Passover.
The word "Easter" is a transliteration of the Greek word - Astarte or the Mesopotamian - ISHTAR, or the Hebrew form - Ashtoreth. These words are names for the pagan goddess of "fertility." The Old Testament is replete with warnings from God, to His people, to stay clear of the goddess of Ashtoreth. You may remember that this was one of the major sins of Gideon's father, He had an altar built to this goddess. God instructed Gideon to destroy it. Sadly, this same altar still exists in many churches as EASTER, complete with the celebration of "fertility" with bunnies and eggs, baskets and flowers. The resurrection of Jesus often takes a back seat in many "Christian" homes and churches to the celebration of the "spring season" through the Goddess of "Easter" or Ishtar.

Yeshua was resurrected on the Feast of First Fruits.

The Indo-European roots of our languages have the prefix aus-, which means to shine, important derivatives of which are the words east, Easter, aurora. It has the idea, “the direction of the sunrise.” The Old H
igh German ostan – east – derives from this root. That the dawn-goddess Eastre or Oestar derives from the same root does not mean they are the same word with the same meaning. The Indo-European ausos- refers to the dawn, and also to the Indo-European goddess of the dawn. [Taken from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 3rdEd, the section, “Indo-European Roots”, p. 2095.]

No, I don't.
The congregation where I attended before I moved had several Etymological Dictionaries that I had access to. It's been awhile since I studied them.
Going through what I have on hand, I was reading in Noah Webster 1828, and it's definition of Easter is: "n. Sax. easter; G. ostern; supposed to be from Eostre, the goddess of love or Venus of the north, in honor of whom a festival was celebrated by our pagan ancestors, in April; whence this month was called Eostermonath. Easter is supposed by Beda and others to be the Astarte of the Sidonians."

I also recall reading in an old Catholic Encyclopedia about Easter being named after a goddess of the Anglo-Saxons named Eostre, the goddess of the dawn, but can't quote it since I don't have it at hand.
It seems as this was a controversy  between the Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church in 325 A.D. on whether to celebrate Easter on Sundays or on the day the Passover fell upon.

It's an ongoing source of amusement to me when people try to link the celebration of Easter with pagan religions as some sort of evidence that the Roman Catholic Church is steeped in paganism.

Easter is an English word derived from Germanic roots.  Latin was and remains the official language of the Catholic Church.  In the Romance languages, the various words used to describe Easter are all derived from the Latin "pascua".

Thank you.

I continue to be amazed at how much theological derp here is rooted in conscious etymological derp. There have been entire religious movements based on it.

The word "God" used to refer to pagan gods, as it is also Germanic. Then you have the threads where people derp out over the use of the word "priest" just because modern English uses the same word for the historical Jewish priesthood.

Language does not work the way people like to pretend it does.

Jesus gave men the power to decide.



Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.



Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven.





 

Maybe those Rad-Trads have a point after all. Latin super omnem

Though I'm not Catholic, I want to throw this in regarding the Sabbath day and when it is recognized.  


…4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.…

From Romans.  Verse 6 is the pertinant verse here.  The preceding and following are included for context.  Early Christians celebrated on the first day of the week.  Paul addresses people who didn't like this.  I have no problem with people celebrating on the 7th day or the first.  If you are convinced in your mind and do it to Glorify God, good.  I'm pretty sure that the word Sunday came after the New Testament.  And they were celebrating on the first day of the week there.  So if the word came from pagans or not doesn't matter.  I'm positive tht the names of planets came from gods.  Doesn't men the planets are owned by tht religion.

I recently heard or read an interesting answer to "Why does the Catholic Church still use Latin?"

The answer was so obvious that I kick myself for not having realized it myself. It's because that was the language in use in Rome when all these events happened. In order to ensure that the truth is not lost over repeated translations, they stick to the language almost everything was written in, or into which the original texts were accurately translated into.

And before our usual friends come along and claim that those translations are wrong, but that the ones done 1500 years later by a government-approved committee who was hell-bent on separating from the Catholic Church were correct, the answer is... YOU'RE WRONG.

"Ad Fontes!" was being used centuries before "Sola (government-approved, improper, and incomplete translation of) Scriptura!" was even a noodle of a thought in Luther's heretic mind.

In for the usual RCC bashing that seems to animate so many Protestants more than love of the Lord does...

Simply reading the Bible will show that the Sabbath is everlasting. Shabbat in Hebrew(the one true language, not Latin) means 7. Even in Spanish, the word for Saturday is Sabbato. The Messiah kept Shabbat, the Apostles, even after the death, burial and resurrection, kept Shabbat.

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.  For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 31:16 So the sons of Israel shall observe the Sabbath, to celebrate the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.’

Matt. 5:17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Deut 7:9 Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Our Father in Heaven gave us a free will, to follow His ways, or to follow traditions of men!
As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord.

Shabbat is the only named day in the whole Bible. All others are simply numbered days of the week. You'd think that if any other day of the week were set apart, it would have been named.

1. The Spanish is 'sabado', not 'sabbato'.

2. So, again, why didn't Jesus take the opportunity to correct them? Especially since the Resurrection and Pentecost occurred on (what we call) Sunday?

Correct them for what? They never attempted to change the Sabbath. They kept Sabbath even after the resurrection.
There is debate if Shavuot(Pentecost) is on Sunday or not, since Shabbat not only means the 7th day, but also any of our Father's 7 set apart Holy days, that all point to the Messiah. These are High Sabbaths, like Bikkurim(Feast of First Fruits), the actual Holy Day that Yeshua(Jesus) was resurrected on. He is the First Fruit. 50 days later, no matter what day of the week, is Shavuot.
It's seems like if the Sabbath was changed, that it would have been mentioned in the books of the Bible that were written years after the Messiah walked the earth.
Why would anyone think that 1 of the 10 Commandments would be changed? Our Father never changes.

I know it's hard to break from traditions. I started going through it myself, about 30 years ago, seeking truth from a Biblical perspective, instead of going by what men said.

Pentecost occured on what we call Sunday. It couldn't have been on a Sabbath, as it the same day of the week as the Resurrection. Following that, if Jesus wanted them NOT to worship on that day he would have told them.

Rom 5-6:  [For] one person considers one day more important than another, while another person considers all days alike. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind. Whoever observes the day, observes it for the Lord. Also whoever eats, eats for the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while whoever abstains, abstains for the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Acts 20:7 "On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them because he was going to leave on the next day, and he kept on speaking until midnight."  
Breaking bread - celebrating the Eucharist (i.e. mass) on the first day of the week.  Paul preached until midnight after this celebration

1 Cor 16:1-2  "Now in regard to the collection for the holy ones, you also should do as I ordered the churches of Galatia.  On the first day of the week each of you should set aside and save whatever one can afford, so that collections will not be going on when I come.
Again, taking a collection, presumably during worship, on the first day of the week.  You could even read it that Paul is directing the churches to meet on the first day of the week.

Col 2:16 "Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or Sabbath"

The Letter of Barnabas, not from the Bible, but indicative of how the first century church was worshipped:  ""We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]). "

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.

He is speaking about Sabbath, either keeping it or not. There is no referral to the 1st day there.

In Acts 20, this was after Sabbath ended at dusk, which is the beginning of the 1st day, when traditionally, believers break bread after Sabbath services, since they don't prepare food on that day. A simple reading shows that this occurred at night, what we would call Saturday night.

1 Cor. 16, is telling the believers that on the 1st day, which is one of the six work days, to start setting aside and save for the following Sabbath's tithes, as they had deposited into the Tzedakah box the previous Sabbath. It was common in those days to be paid daily.

Col. 2:16 is speaking about the Sabbath, not the 1st day. The Sabbath is clearly defined in the Bible, and nowhere is the 1st day referred to as the Sabbath.

Are you judging me for keeping Sabbath?

I'm not the one accusing you of not following God's will and instead traditions of man.  Stop projecting

Ok, serious question here.  I have heard talk of a secret letter in the Vatican that the pope has already signed that will be revealed next year on the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, stating that it is finished.  Or something to that effect.  Have any Catholics heard of such a thing?  Looks like he is planning something with the Lutherans...

What is "it"?

That thing that is finished. That which no longer is unfinished.

The reformation....that's what seems strange.

That doesn't even make any sense.

i agree..that's why I asked.  If he didn't start it how can he end it.  That's why I want clarification.  It's a secret catholic document after all....

Usually, when folks on the 'net talk about secret Catholic documents, it's in the context of paranoid Catholic bashing motivated most often by players among the extreme fundamentalist Jack Chick type movements.

As for this one, you seem to be the only one who has heard of it, and you are being very vague about where and in what context you heard it.

I'd think you could be the one providing some clarification.

That's all I heard.  In passing on a radio channel.  I have no other info.  Could have been heard out of context.  I don't see how it could be bashing, but maybe.  If no one has heard of it, then it was probably a one off comment I heard to much into.  But if some secret letter is released remember that it was mentioned here first....even if I didn't know what I was mentioning....

Cambodian radio sounds fun.

Declaration on the Way

Thank you.  That was it.

I suppose the media confusing the significance and secrecy of an document essentially documenting the 50 years of talks is no surprise.

Never happen. The protestant side is too invested in its 'fresh' interpretation of God and church.

So secret it's on the official, public web site of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops .

Lutherans aren't trying to hide it either:  http://www.elca.org/en/Faith/Ecumenical-and-Inter-Religious-Relations/Bilateral/Declaration-on-the-Way?_ga=1.141539696.33387129.1454963627

In your opinion, what are the requirements to be a Catholic?




The reason I ask is, most of the Catholics I know personally aren't in agreement with Catholic teaching on various issues.  Are they still Catholic?  



great thread btw, enjoyed reading through it

Nicene creed is a pretty good start.



 

Good answer

I'll give you my opinion as one who, for many years, was "a Catholic who disagreed with Church teaching on various issues"....

We are all sinners. All of us. The question above is no different than, "If you are a Christian, and still sin, are you a Christian?"

The answer to both is YES.

But there is a caveat.... Do you not accept Catholic teaching because you are stubborn, or because you don't know any better?

If you refuse to accept the teachings because you are stubborn (and that includes self-styled "Bible Christians" who flatly refuse to accept the authority of the Pope despite it being right there in red and white in Scripture) then you are not Catholic.

If you consider yourself a Catholic "but...", or think the Church IS Mother Church, but it may have drifted a bit, but you are still willing to listen to the answers coming from it, then you are still a Catholic.

I fell into the latter category. Even when I was a "Bible Christian" it wasn't so much because I was rebelling against the Church, but rather because I was looking for the TRUTH, and was temporarily wandering in the wilderness. All that time, I still held to the belief that the Catholic Church was, in fact, Mother Church, but it was wrong on a), b), and c). I mean, it was right there in the Bible, right?

Well, as with many things in life, you have to dig through a lot of refuse before you strike bedrock and then begin rebuilding.

One by one, my objections fell to Scripture, history, and humility. The greatest was when I realized that I had placed MY interpretation of the Scriptures above that of the very people Christ had chosen to teach us, and who He had guaranteed would not teach error. It was a moment of personal realization when it hit me that here I was declaring myself a righteous "Bible Christian", but was actively rebelling against the Lord anyway in my arrogance by denying the authority He Himself had given His Church.

I remember thinking that here I was again, back where I had started..... A Catholic! But now I knew WHY.

Thank you, Lord, for sending my wife to me with the appropriate books that put me back on the path to Your Church...

Some have made that trip. Some have just begun it and don't know it yet. Others never needed to take it because they were correctly taught their faith.

But Then there are the ones who simply refuse to even consider it. They I fear for... Not because being a non-Catholic is a guarantee of damnation, but rather because they have closed their hearts to only what THEY believe, and refuse to consider anything else. Their arrogance is a dangerous weight to carry.

Those who go further and say that Catholics aren't Christians, that the Pope is the (or an) antiChrist, and similar gibberish are, in my opinion, in for one hell of a surprise when they meet the Lord. Their open hatred will be their undoing.

Me? I have accepted the authority of the Pope and Bishop as being entirely Scriptural and historical. When I disagree with something, I ask respectful questions to try and understand why the Church teaches as it does, and not once have I won the argument. The last was the Marian Doctrines, and even in those, I have submitted to the Church and accepted its teachings, even if I don't fully understand them.

The Lord did not write a book. He established a Church. I now humbly and gratefully follow that Church, albeit poorly. In doing so, I follow the Lord, and put my opinions into the proper context; I am entitled to ask questions, but I am not entitled only to answers I like or that make sense, I hope the Lord will take this into consideration when measuring my faith and my devotion to Him, however poor it is, because after it all, I am more interested in being with Him than in being right in my own mind or before others.

I hope that helps.

I have a good start then.

I invite you to read the newer translation which, oddly enough, only needed to be fixed in English. When compared to the Nicene Creed I grew up with, it offers a wonderfully subtle improvement that took me a while to get used to, but which I now see as so much better than the old. It will also put you on a the same translation that the rest of the world has been using from the beginning.

Is the "Niceness Creed" something that USNA instituted after '89 was graduated?

No, it was implemented when Apple updated their spell-check software and deactivated the ham-finger subroutine.

Well, I knew you didn't learn it at SWOS.

Outstanding testimony.



Similarly, I married a Southern Baptist and in the course of our early years, went to SBC Sunday school and then mass every week, I also attendied Bible study at a Methodist Church and discussed issues with Presbyterian PCA friends regularly. When the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message came out, the admonition for wives to submit to your husband prompted my wife to join RCIA, not at my urging, she was just drawn to it. The baptist preacher nearly threw up in his mouth when we told him this. Well, the wife would come home from RCIA every week (she had a female sponsor) and tell me, they said 'such and such' tonight. And some of the stuff that was being related was, although not flatly wrong, just horribly inconsistent with the faith that I grew up in. So I went at the study of Scripture and the Catechism in order to clarify all that she was getting at RCIA. She did not join that Easter. The next year we took RCIA again, with new moderators and she had me as her sponsor.



I too had issues that I did not fully agree with as presented by the Church. Most often when I study these I can at the very least acknowledge the rationale for them and submit to that authoritative stance. I still have problems with the latest pronouncement on the death penalty, but I understand the consistency of the pro-life stance and accept it.



 

My wife was my sponsor.

It was kinda funny going through RCIA when I had been raised a Catholic.

Wife and I were sponsors for a couple last year. That was fun.




But even with all that, it's been weeks (more like months) since I've been to church. Too busy, too sick, too tired, too whatever. Lousy excuses all of them. I've been angry, unforgiving, and stubborn. Heck, I noticed last night that it had been ages since I'd even prayed at bedtime, which was my usual practice.

Hence, the reason that I fear facing the Lord. I know what I am, and I know that I'm not following the rules, and it worries me to be making assumptions of salvation in denial. Scares the sillies out of me.

Gotta get my butt to confession and mass. I always feel better when I do. I'm suffering from STD - Spiritually-Transmitted Disease.

What I've come to realize is that sin physically weighs you down. You can feel it emotionally. It's a cloud of doom that starts with guilt for the first sin and then gets gloomier as you sin more. The sick thing is that it's like an addiction; the deeper you go, the easier it is to get lost, the easier it is to just stay put, the harder it is to turn.

And yet, when you turn, it's suddenly sunshine and the weight falls off. Damndest thing. I always thought it was folks just saying that, but now I see it is quite true.

Sometimes I really do wish our Protestant brethren were right one the idea of once-saved, always-saved, but even if someone were to show that it was true (it isn't), I would still feel as though I'm making the Lord do the heavy lifting on my behalf rather than lifting myself and accepting that the Lord will find my effort to be enough in His grace. Yes, He will forgive me if I only ask and repent, but I have to walk to Him, even if it's one step, before He reaches out and pulls me back.

I'm rambling. Past few months have been emotionally tough for various reasons (none of them worth it, of course), and I've allowed myself to wallow in self-pity, complacency, and even the delusion that the Lord will be there even if I've been ignoring Him lately. It sucks...

I should man up. I'm blessed beyond measure and I'm still whining. How pathetic.

I often grapple with simiilar thoughst. I feel a sense of despair and self pity in any number of situations, and have no viable reason to persist in that vein. I do think its sinful line of thought not to rejoice in the miracle of creation and the abundant grace that is poured on us.



I would encourage you to go to mass. Sometimes, in the height of our sin, the Eucharist is all we can hold on to. Participation in the once and forever sacrifice is waiting to heal your body and spirit. Partake.



Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof. But only say the word and I shall be healed.



 

Amen to that. It's the most basic, yet the most profound of prayers...

This.

Zap, I don't know about your parish but mine has Confession right before the Sat evening Mass. That's typically my routine about every 3 months.

So does mine.

The trick, of course, is getting my lazy heathen ass to the church at all.

I have no excuses. Just gotta do it.