Why do Roman Catholic lent observers still observe weak & beggarly elements(laws) like abstain from "meat"?
143574
Basicly, the tech. postion from Rome is that only, The Cardinals and The Pope, have God speak to them regarding spiritual matters.  Which is then handed down to the catholic priests to share with their faith community.  In the United States, though many would disagree with me, Catholicism is more influenced by alot of Bible centered protestant influences, and you are likely to get a hybrid of Catholic / Christian answers from many sincere Catholic Believers.  The source to go to what Rome truly teaches however, is in the writings and declarations from the past former councils.  Many of these differ STRONGLY with Bible Centered Christians, then what Catholics in America would claim to believe and practice.
906951
This is the basis of hypocrisy . It enables them to lead the life of a materialist while ignoring the more inconvenient teachings of Jesus Christ
614378
The satiated man and the hungry one do not see the same thing when they look upon a loaf of bread---Jalaludin Rumi.\n\n\nSharia law or any other law is not biased towards any one but the men who are to pronounce justice , may be at fault sometimes.This bread make some people really cruel.\n\nPerfection is not attainable.\nBut if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence.---"Vince Lombardi"\nYour wish for perfection through Sharia is commendable, but also,know that it not attainable
194332
From: Ask a Franciscan web page:\n\n"Q: Where did the law about not eating meat on Fridays originate? When was this changed to Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent? \n\nA: Already in the fourth century, there was a Church law about abstinence (not eating meat on certain days). Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays were once days of abstinence in the Western Church. By the 12th century, this was required only on Ash Wednesday and on Fridays—to remind Christians that Jesus died on this day. (Later, abstinence was added in connection with a few feasts.) \n\nThe U.S. bishops decided in 1966 to require fasting and abstinence only on Ash Wednesday, the Fridays of Lent and on Good Friday. Earlier that year, Pope Paul VI allowed conferences of bishops to select days of fast and abstinence. \n\nWhy abstain from meat? People like it and notice its absence. Christian fasting regulations once included milk and eggs. Fasting and abstaining show respect for God’s creation by using it more sparingly at times."
627581
IT DEPENDS ON WHAT MEAT YOU EAT. GOD HAS CHOSEN ONLY CERTAIN FOODS TO EAT.\n** TEXTS THAT INVOLVE THE CLEAN AND UNCLEAN MEATS:\nGEN.18:7-8; LEV.11; 20:25; DEUT.14; ISAIAH 66:17; EZEK.22:26; DAN.1:8; MATT.3:4; LUKE 24:41-43; ACTS 10:10-14; 1COR.3:16-17; 9:27; 2COR.6:17; AND REV.21:8.\n\n**ALSO YOU CAN'T EAT THE BLOOD OF THE MEAT (LEV.17:14).\n \nJUST A NOTE FOR OTHERS----TO ME; IF THE CLEAN AND UNCLEAN MEATS WEREN'T VALID FOR TODAY; THEN WHY OH WHY WOULD THE LORD PLEAD WITH FLESH NOT TO EAT UNCLEAN MEAT--(ISAIAH 66:15-17). ALSO NOTICE DEUT.14:4 "SHALT NOT EAT ANY ABOMINABLE THING" AND REV.21:8 "...THE ABOMINABLE SHALL HAVE THEIR PART IN THE LAKE WHICH BURNETH WITH FIRE AND BRIMSTONE: WHICH IS THE SECOND DEATH."
649602
I don`t agree with John McArthur`s teaching but I also try not to call someone a heretic especially a sincere human being who is interested in God. Every study helps us to understand better the will of God. Maybe this quoting will help> "The law was never given as a means of salvation but it will always be the standard of Christian living" - Ellen White.\nIt is hard to understand were God works and were we have to do something...We confess our sins, God forgives us, we try not to sin but we are weak, God strengthens us....Maybe you should study more..because the problem is more complex.
362738
Because you are painting with an intolerant brush. All the Christians I meet are the opposite. So how do you explain that? \nAnd also, do not take the Bible out of context. The word for "judge" in that scripture is "condemn to hell". \n\nWe, as Christians, are commanded to judge (as fruit inspectors) each other to make sure we do not behave as you describe--we are not to judge the unbeliever. \n\nI suggest you stop doing the same thing here on Yahoo.
638769
1 Cor 10:25 - 1 Cor 10:27 (NIV) 25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” 27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. \n\nRom 14:20 - Rom 14:21 (NIV) 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.\n\nCol 2:16 - Col 2:17 (NIV) 16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.\n\nThere's another one in Acts I can't recall. In any event, when Christianity was new, it was having major problems finding new adherents, so circumcision, kosher laws and other distinctly Jewish traditions had to go in order to win over the hearts and minds of the pagan near east. The rest is history.\n\nKashrus, or kosher laws only apply to Jews, they have never applied to anyone else and Jews do not contend anyone elkse need live by them. There is nothing inherently wrong with pork, it's the world most consumed meat. The laws specifically state they are spiritual, not health related. Leviticus 20:25.
1187845
I believe that the term you are looking for is "Trafe".  It refers to all animals deemed unclean under Levitical law.  These laws, if you really look into them, weren't arbitrary.  They were designed to keep safe people who were born in a time when food spoiled extremely easily.
803743
There are some Fundamentalists around here who hold up big signs on weekend nights in one of the bar districts, informing everybody that they're going to hell for sucking down a margarita. They've been doing it for years. Most people think they're serious nutjobs. I'm a Catholic, and I prefer my religion to be a bit more sutble than that. Let God sort out the sinners; it's not in my job description.
194071
Catholics do a lot of things not in the bible.  They live by their own little set of rules and ideas they consider "truths".  Most cannot give a reason for their actions/beliefs, etc beyond "because that's what the catholic church says" and they just blindly follow it.
837788
they dont actully 'think' when they say that per se,\n\nit comes from protestant having to break off from catholic in a messy kind of way, with such justifications as 'they're idolatrous' 'un-christian' and others that really have no merit.\n\nwhen in reality, all it is is a reminder of the person that we're praying to.  in church the priest doesnt say 'statue have mercy' he says 'Christ have mercy'
786341
Excellent question!  I truly think that it is because modern American Protestantism is the new Pelagianism - and it is failing miserably...no matter how much they preach about "Grace" and "Faith" - the whole idea about "I am saved now - I don't have to work on sanctification" is BOGUS...and not at all what the Scriptures or the Apostolic Fathers teach.  These neo-con "Evangelicals" would have lasted about a nanosecond during the persecution of Nero or Diocletian.  None of this surprises me...."All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God."
564508
As I understand it, a critical division is obedience to the Pope, and therefore the various rules the Catholic Church has because of Papal Bulls.  Things about divorce and birth control, for example, and about priests being celibate while Lutheran ministers get married.  A lot, really.  Martin Luther had 95 Theses, among them the concept that one can get to heaven on faith alone, and not necessarily by good works.  Also, Catholics have never approved of individuals reading the Bible (only priests), while Luther recommended it.
866828
The bible does not say that.  \n\nFROM DIGNITYUSA.ORG\n\nWhat was the point of the Bible texts if not to condemn homosexuality? \n\nIt is not easy to summarize briefly the body of research on homosexuality in the Bible. But these are the interpretations that some scholars are proposing:\n\n•The story of Sodom in Genesis 19 is about offense against the sacred duty of hospitality. That is how Ezekiel 16:48-49 and Wisdom 9:13-14 interpret this text. The attempted male rape only heightens the atrocity of this offense. \n\n•Leviticus 18:22 does forbid male-male sex as an "abomination." But the word simply means an impurity or a religious taboo — like eating pork. As in the case of Catholics who used to be forbidden under pain of mortal sin to eat meat on Friday, the offense was not in the act itself but in the betrayal of one's religion. The ancient Jews were to avoid practices common among the unclean Gentiles. \n\n•Romans 1:27 mentions men having relations with men. But the terms used to describe them are "dishonorable" and "shameless." These refer deliberately to social disapproval, not to ethical condemnation. Moreover, according to Paul's usage, different from the prevalent Stoic philosophy of the day, para physin ("unnatural") would best be translated "atypical" or "beyond the ordinary." So it bears no reference to natural law. And it can imply no ethical condemnation because in Romans 11:24 God is said to act para physin. Paul sees gay sex as an impurity (see Rm. 1:24), just like uncircumcision or eating forbidden foods. He mentions it to make the main point of his letter, that purity requirements of the Jewish Law are not relevant in Christ Jesus. See L. William Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex. \n\n•1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10 list arsenokoitai among those who will be excluded from the Reign of God. This obscure term has been translated "homosexuals" but its exact meaning is debated. It certainly does not include women but only some kind of male sexual offenders. If it does refer to men having sex with men — which is dubious — it must be interpreted in light of the abuse and licentiousness commonly associated with male-male sex in the Roman Empire. See Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality. \n\n•Finally, Genesis 1-3 shows Adam and Eve created for mutual companionship and procreation. These accounts use the most standard of human relationships to teach a religious lesson. The point is the love and wisdom of God, who made all things good and wills us no evil. Nothing suggests the biblical authors intended a lesson on sexual orientation.
897494
because of the caffeine content in coffee, some teas, and some sodas- it is forbidden to use such "stimulants"\n\nand it has not been forgotten with the new testament- it has more so adapted to more hygienic treatment of animal products through the years- it used to be very unsafe to eat meat, especially certain cuts of meat or meat of questionable origins, that's why there were so many dietary restrictions- some people still hold fast to their dietary beliefs while others have changed with the times
244942
It actually depends on their diocese.  I know the bishop in ours offered a special dispensation that allows Catholics to eat corned beef on St. Patrick's Day.  Our Irish and Catholic population is pretty large, so it was a big deal.  I'm not Catholic and I don't really get it, but there you go.