Need Absolved of Abortion? Hustle to Madrid. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Need Absolved of Abortion? Hustle to Madrid.


ArtificialGrape
08-19-2011, 10:18
Pope Benedict XVI has conferred upon all the priests administering confession during the World Youth Day celebration in Madrid to absolve confessors of abortion and lift the automatic excommunication. (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/18/authority-to-absolve-sin-of-abortion-extended-for-papal-visit/?hpt=hp_c2)

-ArtificialGrape

Paul7
08-21-2011, 16:31
Why is this a story? Repentance and confession leading to salvation is quite common in the Bible.

SDGlock23
08-21-2011, 19:09
You cannot have your sins absolved by anyone, they have to be forgiven by the King of Kings Himself, Jesus Christ.

ArtificialGrape
08-21-2011, 19:46
Why is this a story? Repentance and confession leading to salvation is quite common in the Bible.
It seems that only a limited number of priests are normally authorized to absolve abortion within the Roman Catholic Church. However, for people that have been involved in abortion, and that happen to be in Madrid during this particular week, then they can be absolved by any of the priests administering confession for World Youth Day.

It would appear that people that are not in Madrid for the week, and don't have access to one of the otherwise authorized priests are out of luck.

-ArtificialGrape

Sharkey
08-21-2011, 20:33
Well I'm sure I will upset the "religious" Catholics but last I checked, I did not need a human priest to absolve me of anything. Christ is the Great Priest and my sins are already forgiven.

Besides, have you seen the price of airfare to Madrid lately + luggage fees.

This is a perfect example of religion vs. Christianity.

Roering
08-22-2011, 15:08
Sometimes I wish Atheists would mind their own business and leave us believers alone.

ArtificialGrape
08-22-2011, 16:00
Sometimes I wish Atheists would mind their own business and leave us believers alone.
Like when Christians:

Tell consenting adults who to marry
Tell women what to do with their bodies
Tell researchers what can be done with a clump of cells
Tell people in AIDS ravaged Africa that condoms are evil
Are activists pushing to teach Christian Creation in science classes

Is that the example of leaving alone that atheists should strive to follow?

I would be glad to leave alone if religion was harmless, and I was left alone, but I don't see that happening.

Roering
08-22-2011, 16:04
Like when Christians:

Tell consenting adults who to marry
Tell women what to do with their bodies
Tell researchers what can be done with a clump of cells
Tell people in AIDS ravaged Africa that condoms are evil
Are activists pushing to teach Christian Creation in science classes

Is that the example of leaving alone that atheists should strive to follow?

I would be glad to leave alone if religion was harmless, and I was left alone, but I don't see that happening.

No, I was just speaking in terms of posting matters of the "other side" on internet threads. Let's not get off topic here AG.

ArtificialGrape
08-22-2011, 16:18
No, I was just speaking in terms of posting matters of the "other side" on internet threads. Let's not get off topic here AG.

That wasn't clear from your previous message, but fair enough.

I guess you didn't see the thread as a public service announcement for those that might be in need of absolution.

Does it also bother you when snowbird and DonGlock initiate threads regarding matters involving the "other side", or does it all depend on who the "other side" is?

Roering
08-22-2011, 16:29
That wasn't clear from your previous message, but fair enough.

I guess you didn't see the thread as a public service announcement for those that might be in need of absolution.

Does it also bother you when snowbird and DonGlock initiate threads regarding matters involving the "other side", or does it all depend on who the "other side" is?

A little. Probably why I don't look at them much anymore. And no, it really doesn't depend on who the "other side" is.

You could do a search and find I have yet to post a thread about atheists doing this or that. Not my thing.

Schabesbert
08-23-2011, 07:59
Well I'm sure I will upset the "religious" Catholics but last I checked, I did not need a human priest to absolve me of anything. Christ is the Great Priest and my sins are already forgiven.
You need to check again. Your beliefs are unscriptural and un-Apostolic.

Sharkey
08-23-2011, 10:39
You need to check again. Your beliefs are unscriptural and un-Apostolic.

Well I am definitely not a theologian but didn't they say the above about Jesus? I'll be doing my quiet time later so go ahead and point me to the scriptures I need to read to get my beliefs in line.

So upon Christ's death, the curtain in the temple was torn apart for what reason? Accident?

Schabesbert
08-23-2011, 11:43
Well I am definitely not a theologian but didn't they say the above about Jesus?
Not quite, but similar. Does that mean that everyone's addled theories are not unscriptural?

I'll be doing my quiet time later so go ahead and point me to the scriptures I need to read to get my beliefs in line.
Well, Christ indeed is the High Priest who forgives sins. But since He promised to ratify the decisions made by the Apostles (and Peter in particular), you need to go through the channels that He instituted. Yes, He can make exceptions, but to presume that you are one of the exceptions is, well, unsafe. As the Catholic Catechism says: "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments." (CCC no. 1257). This applies to other sacraments as well.

Start with these:

Jn 20:22-23 - breathed on them, "receive Holy Sp." (recall Gn 2:7)
whose sins you forgive/retain are forgiven/retained

2 Cor 5:17-20 - given us the ministry of reconciliation

James 5:13-15 - prayer of presbyters forgives sin

Mt 18:18-whatever you bind & loose on earth, so it is in heaven


You also said that "Christ is the Great Priest and my sins are already forgiven."
This seems to imply that you buy into the "Once-Saved-Always-Saved" idea. If so, then there are dozens if not hundreds of places you need to read.



So upon Christ's death, the curtain in the temple was torn apart for what reason? Accident?

Sharkey
08-23-2011, 12:59
Not quite, but similar. Does that mean that everyone's addled theories are not unscriptural?

I would guess that if the theory is not based on Biblical scripture than that would be unscriptural which seems logical to me.


Well, Christ indeed is the High Priest who forgives sins. But since He promised to ratify the decisions made by the Apostles (and Peter in particular), you need to go through the channels that He instituted. Yes, He can make exceptions, but to presume that you are one of the exceptions is, well, unsafe. As the Catholic Catechism says: "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments." (CCC no. 1257). This applies to other sacraments as well.

See I was a Catholic as a child (thanks mom) but not now so I don't go by Catholic Catechism. So baptism is required for salvation? What about the thief on the cross?

Start with these:

Jn 20:22-23 - breathed on them, "receive Holy Sp." (recall Gn 2:7)
whose sins you forgive/retain are forgiven/retained

2 Cor 5:17-20 - given us the ministry of reconciliation

James 5:13-15 - prayer of presbyters forgives sin

Mt 18:18-whatever you bind & loose on earth, so it is in heaven

I'll look at these but my guess is that we interpret these verses differently. I am gonna guess we can both list some scholars that agree with us.


You also said that "Christ is the Great Priest and my sins are already forgiven."
This seems to imply that you buy into the "Once-Saved-Always-Saved" idea. If so, then there are dozens if not hundreds of places you need to read.

OOPS, I AM one of those folks. Are the dozens if not hundreds of places in the Bible or somewhere else? Hence my earlier statement of this thread being a good example of religion vs. Christianity. I think I am in the same camp as Billy Graham which seems like a pretty good camp to be in.

Did you comment on the ripped curtain? If so, I missed it. Sorry.

Schabesbert
08-23-2011, 13:23
I would guess that if the theory is not based on Biblical scripture than that would be unscriptural which seems logical to me.

OK, that brings us back around to my earlier post, to wit:
"Your beliefs are unscriptural and un-Apostolic."

See I was a Catholic as a child (thanks mom) but not now so I don't go by Catholic Catechism. So baptism is required for salvation? What about the thief on the cross?
Did you bother to read the quote I gave earlier? I explained that there are exceptions.

I'll look at these but my guess is that we interpret these verses differently. I am gonna guess we can both list some scholars that agree with us.

Very true. And THAT, my friend, is one huge reason that Christ left us with a teaching office. Otherwise, there'd be tens of thousands of different contradictory opinions, as we see in protestantism today.

He didn't want that. He wanted us UNITED in TRUTH:

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

See also:
Eph 4:3-6 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God &Father
Rom 16:17 - avoid those who create dissensions
Phil 2:2 - be of same mind, united in heart, thinking one thing
Rom 15:5 - God grant you to think in harmony w/ one another
Jn 17:17-23 - I pray that they may be one, as we are one
Jn 17:23 - that they may be brought to perfection as one

OOPS, I AM one of those folks. Are the dozens if not hundreds of places in the Bible or somewhere else? Hence my earlier statement of this thread being a good example of religion vs. Christianity. I think I am in the same camp as Billy Graham which seems like a pretty good camp to be in.
Not really, since this isn't the camp that the Apostles were in.

Yes, there are dozens if not hundreds of places in the Bible that will contradict the idea of OSAS (which was a novel idea made up in the 16th century).


Did you comment on the ripped curtain? If so, I missed it. Sorry.
Nope. Did you provide YOUR interpretation? How much are you reading your beliefs into this event? This is known as eisegesis.

Paul7
08-23-2011, 14:38
OK, that brings us back around to my earlier post, to wit:
"Your beliefs are unscriptural and un-Apostolic."


Did you bother to read the quote I gave earlier? I explained that there are exceptions.


Very true. And THAT, my friend, is one huge reason that Christ left us with a teaching office. Otherwise, there'd be tens of thousands of different contradictory opinions, as we see in protestantism today.

He didn't want that. He wanted us UNITED in TRUTH:

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

See also:
Eph 4:3-6 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God &Father
Rom 16:17 - avoid those who create dissensions
Phil 2:2 - be of same mind, united in heart, thinking one thing
Rom 15:5 - God grant you to think in harmony w/ one another
Jn 17:17-23 - I pray that they may be one, as we are one
Jn 17:23 - that they may be brought to perfection as one


Not really, since this isn't the camp that the Apostles were in.

Yes, there are dozens if not hundreds of places in the Bible that will contradict the idea of OSAS (which was a novel idea made up in the 16th century).



Nope. Did you provide YOUR interpretation? How much are you reading your beliefs into this event? This is known as eisegesis.

Bert, do you believe in 'once baptized as an infant, always saved'?

There is far less disagreement among Protestants on the essentials (as stated in the creeds) than imagined. Most of the differences are on secondary issues.

Sharkey
08-23-2011, 15:53
OK, that brings us back around to my earlier post, to wit:
"Your beliefs are unscriptural and un-Apostolic."

Yes you said that already. Actually my remarks are based on scripture just not the way you (some Catholics) interpret.


Did you bother to read the quote I gave earlier? I explained that there are exceptions.

Yep I did read it. Can Jesus only make those exceptions or can human priests too? Are those exceptions listed in the Bible? Sorry, it's rhetorical.
Who is being unscriptural now?


Very true. And THAT, my friend, is one huge reason that Christ left us with a teaching office. Otherwise, there'd be tens of thousands of different contradictory opinions, as we see in protestantism today.

He didn't want that. He wanted us UNITED in TRUTH:

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Well I never said there shouldn't be a church with a leader. What I did say is that Jesus is the High Priest and his death presented a way for us to have a personal relationship with God free of a human priest who offers forgiveness.
Hence, the temple curtain being torn in two that divided the temple area from the area restricted to the priest.

We should be united. The problem lies not in infighting between members of a church (as some of the scripture relates to) but with major doctrinal differences.

Not really, since this isn't the camp that the Apostles were in.

Uh oh. Didn't the Pope meet with Graham several times? Did the Pope ever tell Billy, "hey you're doing it wrong"? Perhaps the church can go and tell all those people who answered the alter call that hey you aren't saved if you haven't been baptized or continually ask for forgiveness of sins from a human priest.



Yes, there are dozens if not hundreds of places in the Bible that will contradict the idea of OSAS (which was a novel idea made up in the 16th century).

So a Catholic scholar is correct but a non Catholic biblical scholar is incorrect. To think of all those Baptist and Methodist theologians have it wrong. It's a wonder you even associate with us heathens. :supergrin:



Nope. Did you provide YOUR interpretation? How much are you reading your beliefs into this event? This is known as eisegesis.

Dang, what is it with this RI section? So many folks are so quick to criticize (yeah I do my fair share) but refuse to answer a question I ask about their beliefs. I'm thinking I just need to stick with the CCW, Cop, and Knife section. Someone warned me not to come here, but did listen? No.

At least you'll don't want to exterminate the pit bull here....................yet.

Schabesbert
08-23-2011, 15:56
Bert, do you believe in 'once baptized as an infant, always saved'?
Of course not. Why do you ask?

There is far less disagreement among Protestants on the essentials (as stated in the creeds) than imagined. Most of the differences are on secondary issues.
Perhaps.
But one essential is unity.

Eph 4:3-6 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God &Father
Rom 16:17 - avoid those who create dissensions
Phil 2:2 - be of same mind, united in heart, thinking one thing
Rom 15:5 - God grant you to think in harmony w/ one another
Jn 17:17-23 - I pray that they may be one, as we are one
Jn 17:23 - that they may be brought to perfection as one

Schabesbert
08-23-2011, 16:46
Yes you said that already.

Right. But you avoided responding to what I actually said.

Actually my remarks are based on scripture just not the way you (some Catholics) interpret.
No, your remarks are based on YOUR interpretaion, which is in conflict with the way the Church has interpreted them from the very beginning.

You see, one of the major things that drew me to the Catholic Church was the actual historic continuity of belief and practice since the very founding of Christianity.

Yep I did read it. Can Jesus only make those exceptions or can human priests too? Are those exceptions listed in the Bible? Sorry, it's rhetorical.
Jesus set up those rules; only He can make exceptions to them. He's the judge.

No, those exceptions are NOT listed in the Bible; that's the point. That's why we can not rely on those exceptions.


Who is being unscriptural now?

That's quite simple: you are.

Well I never said there shouldn't be a church with a leader. What I did say is that Jesus is the High Priest and his death presented a way for us to have a personal relationship with God free of a human priest who offers forgiveness.
You were doing OK until that last part.

I'll not that you did NOT address the scripture passages I provided above which contradict your mere human "opinion."

Hence, the temple curtain being torn in two that divided the temple area from the area restricted to the priest.
It may very well mean something like that. We don't really know. For instance, the text doesn't specify WHICH curtain was torn (there were two).

We should be united. The problem lies not in infighting between members of a church (as some of the scripture relates to) but with major doctrinal differences.
Please elucidate.

Uh oh. Didn't the Pope meet with Graham several times? Did the Pope ever tell Billy, "hey you're doing it wrong"?
And, what pray tell do you think THAT means?

Since the Pope met with Graham, didn't Graham also meet with the Pope?
Did Billy ever tell the Pope, "hey you're doing it wrong"?

Maybe the Pope is just more respectful than Billy.

Perhaps the church can go and tell all those people who answered the alter call that hey you aren't saved if you haven't been baptized or continually ask for forgiveness of sins from a human priest.
The Church's teachings are already there for all to see.

Including, but not limited to, the NT (which the Church authored, through the Holy Spirit, protected, through the same Holy Spirit, and ratified, again through the same Holy Spirit).

So a Catholic scholar is correct but a non Catholic biblical scholar is incorrect.
Actually, it was a Catholic scholar & rogue priest that invented that idea (Luther). Many heresies were invented by Catholic scholars, going back to Arius.

No, one way to determine the proper interpretations of scripture is to see how the early Church understood these teachings. If you want to know what John and Peter taught, you could go to the students of John and Peter, for instance. The very men who were discipled and ordained by these Apostles (and who died as martyrs for the name of Jesus). If they were silent on these matters, go to THEIR disciples.


Dang, what is it with this RI section? So many folks are so quick to criticize (yeah I do my fair share) but refuse to answer a question I ask about their beliefs. I'm thinking I just need to stick with the CCW, Cop, and Knife section. Someone warned me not to come here, but did listen? No.
If your beliefs won't stand up to scrutiny, then perhaps you should have heeded their advice.

Sharkey
08-23-2011, 18:12
No, your remarks are based on YOUR interpretaion, which is in conflict with the way the Church has interpreted them from the very beginning.

That is not entirely true. There are many biblical scholars that believed once saved always saved. I mean we could post scripture here till we get carpal tunnel. The difference is there are different interpretations and I'm not just some moron who comes up with a belief.


You see, one of the major things that drew me to the Catholic Church was the actual historic continuity of belief and practice since the very founding of Christianity.

It sounds like you became Catholic because of the ritualistic repetitions that are found in that religion. As I'll state a third time, there is a huge difference between being religious and being a Christian.


Jesus set up those rules; only He can make exceptions to them. He's the judge.

Well God set up the rules and Jesus is the judge but as you state below, the exemptions aren't listed in scripture so what basis do you use to say that is an exception?

No, those exceptions are NOT listed in the Bible; that's the point. That's why we can not rely on those exceptions.

You can't rely on them but you can state them which is kind of a de facto - relying on them.



That's quite simple: you are.


You were doing OK until that last part.




It may very well mean something like that. We don't really know. For instance, the text doesn't specify WHICH curtain was torn (there were two).

Of course it may mean something like that. Just read that and other passages of the Bible to find that meaning.

Ex. take the basic verse use for salvation John 3:16. Does it say at the end-
"shall not perish but have everlasting life"....for awhile but then you need a human priest to forgive you again cuz you lost your salvation by sinning again?

Please elucidate.

I don't even know what that word means.





Maybe the Pope is just more respectful than Billy.

Yeah nothing like covering up decades of sodomy by these priest.


The Church's teachings are already there for all to see.

No, one way to determine the proper interpretations of scripture is to see how the early Church understood these teachings. If you want to know what John and Peter taught, you could go to the students of John and Peter, for instance. The very men who were discipled and ordained by these Apostles (and who died as martyrs for the name of Jesus). If they were silent on these matters, go to THEIR disciples.

Well kinda. The disciples themselves thought Jesus was a worldly king for the longest time. Peter denied Christ. Peter was also pretty dogmatic on circumcision too. Some of the early churches also thought they were in the end times too. I'm gonna say there are better ways to determine the interpretation of scripture than going by what a disciple taught or worse what the disciple of the disciple taught.

If your beliefs won't stand up to scrutiny, then perhaps you should have heeded their advice.

My beliefs stand up to the Bible and Christian scholars who interpreted the Bible so I'm not too worried. I wonder if the priests who forgive sins and require baptism for salvation ever consider Revelations where the warning is given to those who would add or take away from the Scripture.

Well you are right on the last sentence. I got to get out of here and not return. Between the atheist criticizing everyone and you folks with you religious dogma, it is a no win situation.

Christ died for ALL my sins and I sure don't need a Catholic priest to baptize me or forgive me in a confessional (or maybe other things in a confessional) to obtain salvation.

See, I knew I would make some Catholics mad. See you on the other side...........................maybe. :wow:

Paul7
08-23-2011, 20:54
Of course not. Why do you ask?

Just curious about your view of salvation.

Perhaps.
But one essential is unity.

Eph 4:3-6 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God &Father
Rom 16:17 - avoid those who create dissensions
Phil 2:2 - be of same mind, united in heart, thinking one thing
Rom 15:5 - God grant you to think in harmony w/ one another
Jn 17:17-23 - I pray that they may be one, as we are one
Jn 17:23 - that they may be brought to perfection as one

Unity begins at the foot of the cross. The unity God wants is unity on the essentials of the faith, whatever Christian denomination one is a member of. There are people in the Catholic Church who nevertheless believe in abortion (see the embarassing Joe Biden in China), gay rights, etc. Just because they are members of the Catholic Church isn't the kind of unity God is interested in.

Roering
08-24-2011, 16:29
My beliefs stand up to the Bible and Christian scholars who interpreted the Bible so I'm not too worried. I wonder if the priests who forgive sins and require baptism for salvation ever consider Revelations where the warning is given to those who would add or take away from the Scripture.

Well you are right on the last sentence. I got to get out of here and not return. Between the atheist criticizing everyone and you folks with you religious dogma, it is a no win situation.

Christ died for ALL my sins and I sure don't need a Catholic priest to baptize me or forgive me in a confessional (or maybe other things in a confessional) to obtain salvation.

See, I knew I would make some Catholics mad. See you on the other side...........................maybe. :wow:

This one could be a new record for the RI thread.

Schabesbert
08-25-2011, 11:14
That is not entirely true.
Yes, it is true, your non-backed-up assertions notwithstanding. This belief did not exist for many centuries after Christ. It was invented by men. It is therefore a tradition of man which makes null the Word of God.

There are many biblical scholars that believed once saved always saved. I mean we could post scripture here till we get carpal tunnel. The difference is there are different interpretations and I'm not just some moron who comes up with a belief.
No, there were morons who invented this belief long before you, but even much longer AFTER the Apostles. :wavey:


It sounds like you became Catholic because of the ritualistic repetitions that are found in that religion.
It sounds like you believe you know what I'm thinking, and what my motivations are. Aside from being totally incorrect, it's wrong to do from a moral, Christian perspective.

As I'll state a third time, there is a huge difference between being religious and being a Christian.
Is there? Well, I suppose you could say such a thing, since you're making up your own definition of what it means to be "religious."

but I think I know where you're coming from. You want to form a relationship with Jesus on your own terms, objecting to the way He wants to form a relationship.


Well God set up the rules and Jesus is the judge but as you state below, the exemptions aren't listed in scripture so what basis do you use to say that is an exception?
To say WHAT is an exception?

You can't rely on them but you can state them which is kind of a de facto - relying on them.
No. Let me spell it out for you:
Jesus & the Apostles tell us the plan for salvation.

We also know that some people who, through no fault of their own, are not aware of the Gospel, can still be saved.

We also see that, in at least ONE very highly specialized unique instance (the thief on the cross), Jesus made an allowance. Now, this man died as a witness (martyr) to Jesus, and was unable to do things such as being baptized. The Church has ALWAYS recognized such things as exceptions (the so-called "baptism of blood").

We don't know what the exceptions are, and therefore it is VERY dangerous and presumptuous to bet your soul on them.

Of course it may mean something like that. Just read that and other passages of the Bible to find that meaning.

Ex. take the basic verse use for salvation John 3:16. Does it say at the end-
"shall not perish but have everlasting life"....
Very good example. An example for why you need to read the Bible as it was meant to be read: taught by the Church, or you will get some very important things wrong (see Acts 28:6 and following, and 2Peter 3:16 for example).

The phrase is:
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Sounds good for your argument, until you delve into the meanings of the original Greek text. The word for "believes" in this text is "pisteuo" which means much more than simply acknowledging Jesus. It also implies to be faithful to and to be obedient to.

for awhile but then you need a human priest to forgive you again cuz you lost your salvation by sinning again?
Well, yeah. Since that's what the Bible says, and that's what Jesus, the Apostles and the Church have always taught.

Ro 11:22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

1Co 10:12 Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

Jas 2:17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But some one will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder.

etc. etc. etc.

Please elucidate.
I don't even know what that word means.
That's kind of scary. You should really look it up, rather than proclaiming such a thing. I think it's a 5th grade vocabulary word.


No, one way to determine the proper interpretations of scripture is to see how the early Church understood these teachings. If you want to know what John and Peter taught, you could go to the students of John and Peter, for instance. The very men who were discipled and ordained by these Apostles (and who died as martyrs for the name of Jesus). If they were silent on these matters, go to THEIR disciples.

Well kinda. The disciples themselves thought Jesus was a worldly king for the longest time. Peter denied Christ. Peter was also pretty dogmatic on circumcision too.
How does this remotely address my comment above?

Peter was dogmatic on circumcision, but why?

Because GOD WANTED IT THAT WAY:
Ac 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

Peter, the first Pope, was speaking for God.

Some of the early churches also thought they were in the end times too. I'm gonna say there are better ways to determine the interpretation of scripture than going by what a disciple taught or worse what the disciple of the disciple taught.
So, your contention is that all the Apostles and their disciples were teaching wrong doctrine? :dunno:

In that case, you'd be denying most of the NT.

Are you a Christian?

At all?



Yeah nothing like covering up decades of sodomy by these priest.
Oops, I guess you're not a Christian.

Real Christians don't spread lies about someone. This is known as "bearing false witness against your neighbor" and is expressely forbidden.


My beliefs stand up to the Bible and Christian scholars who interpreted the Bible so I'm not too worried.
:rofl:

I wonder if the priests who forgive sins and require baptism for salvation ever consider Revelations where the warning is given to those who would add or take away from the Scripture.
First, it's "Revelation."
Second, the book of Revelation didn't have such a warning.
It says:
Re 22:19 and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

"book of this prophecy" means the book of Revelation. Period.


Well you are right on the last sentence. I got to get out of here and not return. Between the atheist criticizing everyone and you folks with you religious dogma, it is a no win situation.
You're right. You should exit. You don't have the knowledge, and possibly not the aptitude, to enter into such discussions. You only regurgitate that which you've been mislead to believe, and you won't consider that these things that you've been fed could be wrong, even in the face of proof, including scriptural proof.

Ho 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...


Christ died for ALL my sins and I sure don't need a Catholic priest to baptize me or forgive me in a confessional (or maybe other things in a confessional) to obtain salvation.
Interesting mantra, wholly contradicted by Scripture AND Apostolic teaching.
All you seem to have is assertions.


See, I knew I would make some Catholics mad.
What Catholics did you make mad? Certainly not me.

I find you amusing, in a sad sort of way. :wavey:

Schabesbert
08-25-2011, 11:22
Unity begins at the foot of the cross.
Does it also end there?

The unity God wants is unity on the essentials of the faith,
I don't seem to be able to find a list of these essentials anywhere.

Will you accept my list of essentials as authoritative?

There are people in the Catholic Church who nevertheless believe in abortion (see the embarassing Joe Biden in China), gay rights, etc. Just because they are members of the Catholic Church isn't the kind of unity God is interested in.
Agreed.

Quoting Peter Kreeft (from one of his talks) on this matter:
"There is no such thing as a 'Kennedy Catholic.' Sadly, it seems that there's no such thing as a Catholic Kennedy, either."

You must understand that the situation is precisely (surprise, surprise!) as Christ predicted it would be:

Mt 13:24 Another parable he put before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field;
25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.
26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also.
27 And the servants of the householder came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?'
28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?'
29 But he said, 'No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

Mt 13:47 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind;
48 when it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into vessels but threw away the bad.


The kingdom now contains both wheat and tares. Both good and bad fish.

Sharkey
08-25-2011, 22:36
It sounds like you believe you know what I'm thinking, and what my motivations are. Aside from being totally incorrect, it's wrong to do from a moral, Christian perspective.

I said "sounds like" I can only go off what you post to come to a conclusion of what you believe. I will say, you are a very good Catholic. How is that wrong from a Christian perspective? We makes judgments every day.


Is there? Well, I suppose you could say such a thing, since you're making up your own definition of what it means to be "religious."

No I'm not making it up. Remember those scholars who made it up long before me but long after Christ (says you)? Even using the Catholic standard, do you not think there are "religious" people who are not saved?

but I think I know where you're coming from. You want to form a relationship with Jesus on your own terms, objecting to the way He wants to form a relationship.

I could say the same about you but of course you'd say I'm unbiblical. What was the purpose of Christ's death if it wasn't for the salvation of mankind without the help of a human priest? The bible continues to point out that man is insufficient to save himself and that would include a human priest.



To say WHAT is an exception?

The exception (says you) is the thief on the cross. I say it's not an exception. He believed and he was saved which is biblical. IF it was an exception and only Jesus performs it don't you think He would mention it to the disciples? That exception is listed nowhere else in the bible where all thru the NT the message of salvation is preached. What about Paul's conversion, there was no priest there? My guess is your answer was it was God himself talking to Paul so that is an "exception" too.


No. Let me spell it out for you:
Jesus & the Apostles tell us the plan for salvation.

We differ majorly here. Jesus IS the plan for salvation. The apostles share the Good News. Are you saying the whole ambassadors for Christ and fishers
of men only apply to Priest?

We also know that some people who, through no fault of their own, are not aware of the Gospel, can still be saved.

We also see that, in at least ONE very highly specialized unique instance (the thief on the cross), Jesus made an allowance. Now, this man died as a witness (martyr) to Jesus, and was unable to do things such as being baptized. The Church has ALWAYS recognized such things as exceptions (the so-called "baptism of blood").

I'm not too concerned with what the Roman Church says as much as what the bible says (I'm sure you'll tell me to read it better) Are we all not baptized by the blood of Christ? (I'm sure the atheist love these comments).
Really what good does baptism by water do for salvation? It is an outward expression that the person has changed and is a Christ follower NOT a church follower. Do the Priests somehow make the water holy? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Baptism isn't important, it just isn't required for salvation. I go back to John 3:16. It doesn't say anything about being baptized to receive eternal life.

We don't know what the exceptions are, and therefore it is VERY dangerous and presumptuous to bet your soul on them.

Once again YOU are claiming the exceptions. I say there are no exceptions in the Bible. I would say I don't know them because they aren't in the Bible.
The Bible believing to be the true word of God would tell us of any exceptions right? God loves us and sends his Son to pay the penalty for my sin but He just happens to leave exceptions out of His word?


Very good example. An example for why you need to read the Bible as it was meant to be read: taught by the Church, or you will get some very important things wrong (see Acts 28:6 and following, and 2Peter 3:16 for example).

Just to be clear, are you saying NOT to read the Bible by myself? I need the church, specifically the Catholic church ,to teach me. Obviously the Baptist and Methodists are doing it wrong.

The phrase is:
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Sounds good for your argument, until you delve into the meanings of the original Greek text. The word for "believes" in this text is "pisteuo" which means much more than simply acknowledging Jesus. It also implies to be faithful to and to be obedient to.

So the people who "believe" in Him and live their life with faith by being obedient such as following and reading His word, tithing, praising him, and sharing the Good News are only saved if they did it in front of a Priest? It seems like only Priest are the true modern day disciples? The problem with obedience is that it can not be done to perfection. If it could, we could save ourselves.

So if these believers try to be obedient but end up sinning (I'm bad. I sin at least 1X a day and I'm being conservative), they need to specifically go to a Priest? I hate to say it but it sounds like that is pretty religious. One of the few times Jesus was very angry was in the temple where the religious following the law made a mockery of God. Does He not talk about being clean on the outside but dirty on the inside? Only a perfect sacrifice (Jesus), cleanses us, not a dirty human priest similar to myself.

What made the Disciples so special? The great thing about God is he uses ordinary people (like the Disciples and even Billy Graham) to do extraordinary things. You don't have to be special, just available.

That's kind of scary. You should really look it up, rather than proclaiming such a thing. I think it's a 5th grade vocabulary word.

So it's not ok to say I don't know the definition of something? How pious of you?

Peter was dogmatic on circumcision, but why?

Because GOD WANTED IT THAT WAY:
Ac 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

Peter, the first Pope, was speaking for God.

Paul later takes the message to the uncircumcised and ate meat dedicated to idols because he saw that the meat was well just meat. I believe Paul also admonished Peter at some point for treating the circumcised (Jews) and the uncircumcised (Gentiles) differently?


So, your contention is that all the Apostles and their disciples were teaching wrong doctrine? :dunno:

No I did not say they taught wrong doctrine but rather that there are other ways to authenticate what was taught.

In that case, you'd be denying most of the NT.

Answered above. The NT tells the good news of salvation.

Are you a Christian?
At all?
Oops, I guess you're not a Christian.

Real Christians don't spread lies about someone. This is known as "bearing false witness against your neighbor" and is expressely forbidden.

Once again, you are pretty pious but that isn't surprising since you are such a good Catholic. How am I spreading "false" witness? Are you saying the victims are lying and that the priests never sodomized them? I guess the Catholic Church payout was what? Goodwill money?

rofl:


First, it's "Revelation."

Ah now we have a nazi speller.

Second, the book of Revelation didn't have such a warning.
It says:
Re 22:19 and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

"book of this prophecy" means the book of Revelation. Period.

Gotcha it doesn't mean the whole Bible. I guess that is why it is ok for the Roman Catholic church to have the you gotta be saved a lot by priests and be baptized to be saved doctrine.



You're right. You should exit. You don't have the knowledge, and possibly not the aptitude, to enter into such discussions. You only regurgitate that which you've been mislead to believe, and you won't consider that these things that you've been fed could be wrong, even in the face of proof, including scriptural proof.

Your right I am just an average joe who was saved by grace. I haven't drank the Kool Aid the the Catholic church has developed. It seems eerily similar to that of the Sadducees and Pharisees that Christ railed against during his time on earth.

Ho 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...

Well if we are gonna be literal, can I get the official Catholic interpretation of this? Was it strictly for the Jews or Gentiles too? :tongueout:


What Catholics did you make mad? Certainly not me.

I find you amusing, in a sad sort of way. :wavey:


Great. I appreciate it. My wife finds me amusing in a good way.

Last Q: Do some or all Catholics pray to different saints still and Mary too?

That doesn't contradict the first commandment? I guess if the Catholic church says it's ok, it's ok.

Roering
08-26-2011, 11:37
Great. I appreciate it. My wife finds me amusing in a good way.

Last Q: Do some or all Catholics pray to different saints still and Mary too?

That doesn't contradict the first commandment? I guess if the Catholic church says it's ok, it's ok.

This was explained in depth previously but I'll sum up.

Pray to different Saints and Mary? ---- Yes.

Worship different Saints and Mary? ---- No.

Does this contradict the 1st Commandment? --- No.

Sharkey
08-26-2011, 11:42
This was explained in depth previously but I'll sum up.

Pray to different Saints and Mary? ---- Yes.

Worship different Saints and Mary? ---- No.

Does this contradict the 1st Commandment? --- No.

Well you can understand the confusion from those looking in. I just don't ever recall reading in the Bible where Jesus prayed to an OT Saint/Prophet or the disciples praying to anyone other than God/Jesus.

Thanks for the reply.

Schabesbert
08-30-2011, 16:04
Well you can understand the confusion from those looking in. I just don't ever recall reading in the Bible where Jesus prayed to an OT Saint/Prophet or the disciples praying to anyone other than God/Jesus.

Thanks for the reply.
Nor did Jesus ask anyone else to pray for Him. Kind of understandable, no?
But hopefully you see that we are told to pray for others, and to ask others for our prayers. THAT is what we ask of the Angels and Saints.

Schabesbert
08-30-2011, 17:28
but I think I know where you're coming from. You want to form a relationship with Jesus on your own terms, objecting to the way He wants to form a relationship.

I could say the same about you but of course you'd say I'm unbiblical.
Only when you are being unbiblical.

What was the purpose of Christ's death if it wasn't for the salvation of mankind without the help of a human priest? The bible continues to point out that man is insufficient to save himself and that would include a human priest.
It is only through His death & resurrection that the priest's actions are efficacious. Jesus works THROUGH the priest.

The exception (says you) is the thief on the cross. I say it's not an exception. He believed and he was saved which is biblical.
That is only a part of what the Bible says is needed for salvation. But it's the only part that the thief, in his present predicament, could do.

What about Paul's conversion, there was no priest there? My guess is your answer was it was God himself talking to Paul so that is an "exception" too.

READ about Paul's conversion.

This guy was striken blind, then followed Christ's command to go to see Ananias:

Ac 9:8 Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus.
9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Ac 9:17 So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized,
19 and took food and was strengthened. For several days he was with the disciples at Damascus.

Look at these details: Paul didn't eat or drink for THREE DAYS! In that part of the world, he was barely surviving!!

And what did he do first, upon being cured? Before even having some water?
Must've been pretty important to him, ya think?

No. Let me spell it out for you:
Jesus & the Apostles tell us the plan for salvation.

We differ majorly here. Jesus IS the plan for salvation.
Yes, He is. But are you telling me that we don't have to listen to Him?

The apostles share the Good News. Are you saying the whole ambassadors for Christ and fishers of men only apply to Priest?

Of course not. But the priests & bishops (the Apostles WERE bishops, after all) play an extremely important role in the bringing of Christ to the world, in general, and individuals in particular.

I'm not too concerned with what the Roman Church says as much as what the bible says (I'm sure you'll tell me to read it better)
No, I'm going to tell you to listen to what it says:
1Ti 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

The Bible itself tells you to listen to the Church. So, IF you followed the Bible, you'd also be obliged to follow the Church that Jesus left for us.

Really what good does baptism by water do for salvation?
Well, according to St. Peter:
1Pe 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

So, again, following the Bible leads us to the teaching that "Baptism ... saves you."

go back to John 3:16. It doesn't say anything about being baptized to receive eternal life.
It doesn't say a lot of things, explicitely, that are important. It doesn't, for instance, say you must love God, but I think that we both agree that this is a requirement for salvation. Nor does it say we must repent (explicitely).

I say "explicitely" because, as I explained to you earlier, the word for "believe," pisteuo in greek, implies such things in addition. It's a form of speech known as a synecdoche. Look it up.

From http://preacherstudy.com/faithalon.html
1) "Repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38) = Parts that represent whole response to gospel that also includes faith, confession, and staying faithful.
2) "Believe" (Acts 16:31) - Belief represents whole response to gospel
3) "Confess" (Romans 10:9-10) - Confess represents whole response to gospel
4) "Repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9) - Repentance represents whole response to gospel
5) "Baptism" (1 Pet. 3:21) - Baptism represents whole response to gospel

Again, I could multiply the examples but these should suffice.

So in 1 John 5:1 when "believe" is used to indicate how one is born of God, we must see it as the part representing the whole. It is synecdoche. I am certain that John did not mean to exclude repentance or baptism from the equation. He just did not need to mention them in this letter to make the point he was trying to make. So he chose to use belief as synecdoche to represent the whole response to the gospel. His readers would have immediately recognized it as such, and mentally read in the requirement for repentance, confession and baptism.

Certainly you would not argue that repentance is not needed to be saved since it is not mentioned in 1 John 5:1. I wouldn't argue that belief and repentance aren't necessary because Peter says baptism saves you in 1 Pet. 3:21. Instead, I would say that both writers are using synecdoche.


Just to be clear, are you saying NOT to read the Bible by myself? I need the church, specifically the Catholic church ,to teach me.
You should read it by yourself, of course, but with the Church's and the Holy Spirit's guidance.

This IS Biblical. For example, read about the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8. He needed Apostolic guidance to understand Isaiah.

Obviously the Baptist and Methodists are doing it wrong.
Well, at least one of them is, since they don't agree on it's meaning. Look at their beliefs on infant baptism, for example; they differ.

So the people who "believe" in Him and live their life with faith by being obedient such as following and reading His word, tithing, praising him, and sharing the Good News are only saved if they did it in front of a Priest?
Absolutely not. However, the graces afforded through His Sacraments, given by a priest, are extremely important in our lives. And further, they are required since He commanded that they be done. Now, you may have the excuse of "invincible ignorance" if you don't realize that this is the case, but your plausible deniability is lessened since I'm telling you about it here. You MUST explore the issue, in sincerity and honesty, or you cannot claim that you didn't know.


The problem with obedience is that it can not be done to perfection. If it could, we could save ourselves.
Yes. That is one reason that we have been given the grace of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Further, even though all sin wounds our relationship with Christ, not all sin actually kills the life of Christ in the soul (mortal sin).

What made the Disciples so special? The great thing about God is he uses ordinary people (like the Disciples and even Billy Graham) to do extraordinary things. You don't have to be special, just available.
Yes, but He CHOSE those men for a special purpose, and He afforded them the graces of Authority needed to carry out that purpose.
Peter, the first Pope, was speaking for God.

Paul later takes the message to the uncircumcised and ate meat dedicated to idols because he saw that the meat was well just meat.
Yes. He takes the message that was given by the Holy Spirit and Pope Peter. Note that the part about eating meat dedicated to idols was NOT part of the magisterial decree; it was a pastoral decree given subsequently by St. James, not intended for all the Church for all time.

I believe Paul also admonished Peter at some point for treating the circumcised (Jews) and the uncircumcised (Gentiles) differently?

Good point. It shows that even Popes can be rebuked when they don't follow even their own decrees. Popes are not sinless, certainly. However, by Christ's promise, they are protected from teaching error when said teaching on faith & morals is intended to be binding on all Christians.

In that case, you'd be denying most of the NT.
Answered above. The NT tells the good news of salvation.

No, it was NOT answered. You said that you don't follow the disciples of the Apostles. That means you don't follow Luke, Mark, or Paul. You shouldn't consider Hebrews inspired, since we don't know who wrote that.

You have no reason, other than the testimony of the Church, to accept these books as scripture.

Maybe the Pope is just more respectful than Billy.

Yeah nothing like covering up decades of sodomy by these priest.Real Christians don't spread lies about someone. This is known as "bearing false witness against your neighbor" and is expressely forbidden.
Once again, you are pretty pious but that isn't surprising since you are such a good Catholic. How am I spreading "false" witness? Are you saying the victims are lying and that the priests never sodomized them? I guess the Catholic Church payout was what? Goodwill money?
You accused the Pope of covering up sodomy. This is a blatent false accusation, and you should be ashamed to do so while calling yourself a Christian.
And now you're covering up what you said by claiming you said something else.

"book of this prophecy" means the book of Revelation. Period.
Gotcha it doesn't mean the whole Bible. I guess that is why it is ok for the Roman Catholic church to have the you gotta be saved a lot by priests and be baptized to be saved doctrine.
Excuse me for pointing out that WE, not you, actually follow the Bible.

Sharkey
08-30-2011, 21:20
Nor did Jesus ask anyone else to pray for Him. Kind of understandable, no?
But hopefully you see that we are told to pray for others, and to ask others for our prayers. THAT is what we ask of the Angels and Saints.

Of course it is understandable because He is Lord.

Well when we pray for others and others pray for us, there is no mention to pray to angels or saints. I think I'd remember reading that.

In fact, I am pretty sure Jesus gave us a model to pray and it begins with Our Father. Maybe Jesus just forgot to mention to pray to saints?

Schabesbert
08-31-2011, 08:15
Of course it is understandable because He is Lord.

Well when we pray for others and others pray for us, there is no mention to pray to angels or saints. I think I'd remember reading that.

In fact, I am pretty sure Jesus gave us a model to pray and it begins with Our Father. Maybe Jesus just forgot to mention to pray to saints?
I think your problem is that you are using the word "pray" in the context of the meaning that protestants have given it in the last few centuries: that of worship. Unfortunately, Catholicism is 2000 years old; much, much older than protestantism, and even older than the English language.

Look at the KJV bible, even. The word "pray" is used in 243 verses, and it looks at first glance like waayyyy more than half the time it connotes a request of another human being.

The word "pray" has multiple meanings, as exemplified in the phrase "pray, tell." This does not connote worship.

Here's the first instance:
Ge 12:13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

When we pray to the Angels & Saints, it is not worship; rather, it is a sincere and earnest petition to ask them to pray for us.

After all, THEY are in God's very presence, enjoying the beatific vision.
They are no longer sinners. When we ask others here to pray for us, it is good to do so, but we are asking fellow sinners. We know that the prayer of the righteous has great strength (Proverbs 15:29, James 5:16, 1Peter 3:12). Who is more righteous than those who are completely cleansed of sin, and are holy enough to see God?
Heb 12:14 Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Not going to address the question about the disciples of the Apostles?
How do you know that you should regard Mark & Luke as scripture?
The only way is to listen to the Church. Therefore, you should listen to the Church on the writings of the Apostolic Fathers as well.

Sharkey
08-31-2011, 08:36
I was going to reply to Schabebert's comments but than I started to think why? I don't think I will make a convert of him nor he of me. I also don't think the atheists here will make converts of Christians nor will we of them. As Solomon would say - an empty futility. In my career, winning is everything. In the life of a Christian, telling is everything. Many will still not believe and well, you move on.

Let's see, I've been called unchristian and bared false witness against the pope no less. Good thing I didn't do this to Islam or I would be an Infidel, worthy of death. Oh wait, I think the Catholics put many to death a long time ago.

Can a drowning man rescue you if you are drowning? Likewise, can a priest who needs to be saved himself, offer salvation to you? He can tell you how to get it but it is offered only thru the One who is a capstone, the cornerstone, and a rock of offense to so many. It has, is, and always will be about the Son of God. All will be judged but for him that is in Him, there will be no condemnation.

There are verses in the NT that clearly say that nothing will separate us from the love that is in Christ Jesus. How the interpretation comes that you can lose salvation is beyond me. If I was only as smart as the "original" Catholic scholars, perhaps I could see? The Church is the body of believers, not a meaningless human institution where control is gained by endless rule following. Rule following offers no salvation because all (including priests) are rule breakers.

Jesus made clear what must be done to receive salvation. He is the only way to the Father and He clearly states salvation is found in no one else. Seeing that this is a pretty important topic, I would think He would have said something about priests/apostles facilitating the process or baptism but He doesn't.

The post isn't for Schabesbert for his mind is already made up. Hopefully, the post is for those who waded into the RI forums looking for something more than endless discussions where everyone claims to be right.

At death, you will stand before God and all this BS on doctrine or atheism or the peaceful religion of Islam will truly be meaningless. If I'm wrong, what have I lost? If you are wrong about who Jesus is, what will you have lost.

I'm going to post one more article on Catholicism and then you Catholics who claim I have so misinterpreted the Bible and bared false witness can have the last word.

creaky
08-31-2011, 08:38
I think your problem is that you are using the word "pray" in the context of the meaning that protestants have given it in the last few centuries: that of worship. Unfortunately, Catholicism is 2000 years old; much, much older than protestantism, and even older than the English language.

Look at the KJV bible, even. The word "pray" is used in 243 verses, and it looks at first glance like waayyyy more than half the time it connotes a request of another human being.

The word "pray" has multiple meanings, as exemplified in the phrase "pray, tell." This does not connote worship.

Here's the first instance:
Ge 12:13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

When we pray to the Angels & Saints, it is not worship; rather, it is a sincere and earnest petition to ask them to pray for us.

After all, THEY are in God's very presence, enjoying the beatific vision.
They are no longer sinners. When we ask others here to pray for us, it is good to do so, but we are asking fellow sinners. We know that the prayer of the righteous has great strength (Proverbs 15:29, James 5:16, 1Peter 3:12). Who is more righteous than those who are completely cleansed of sin, and are holy enough to see God?
Heb 12:14 Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Not going to address the question about the disciples of the Apostles?
How do you know that you should regard Mark & Luke as scripture?
The only way is to listen to the Church. Therefore, you should listen to the Church on the writings of the Apostolic Fathers as well.

Airtight apologetics as usual Bert.

Sharkey, look into these things for yourself. You'll be amazed at what you'll find.

Sharkey
08-31-2011, 08:43
From: www.gotquestions.org

Question: "Catholic vs. Protestant - why is there so much animosity?"

Answer: This is a simple question with a complicated answer, because there are varying degrees of, and reasons for, animosity between any two religious groups. This particular battle is rooted in history. Degrees of reaction have ranged from friendly disagreement (as reflected in the numerous ecumenical dialogues produced between the two groups), to outright persecution and murder of Protestants at the hands of Rome. Reformation teachings that identify the Pope as the Beast of Revelation and / or Roman Catholicism as Mystery Babylon are still common among Protestants. Clearly, anyone with this view is not going to “warm up” to Rome any time soon.

For the most part, today at least, most of the animosity comes from basic human nature when dealing with fundamental disagreement over eternal truths. Passions are sure to ignite in the more weighty matters of life, and one's faith is (or at least should be) at the top of the heap. Many Protestants think Roman Catholics teach a works-gospel that cannot save, while Roman Catholics think Protestants teach easy-believism that requires nothing more than an emotional outburst brought on by manipulative preaching. Protestants blame Catholics for worshipping Mary and Catholics think Protestants are apparently too dull to understand the distinctions Rome has made in this regard. These caricatures are often difficult to overcome.

Behind the particular disagreements over the role of faith and works, the sacraments, the canon of Scripture, the role of the priesthood, prayers to saints, and all the issues surrounding Mary and the Pope, etc., lies the biggest rift between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism: the issue of authority. How one answers the authority question will generally solve all the others. When it comes down to deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn’t really much to discuss on the Catholic's side because once Rome speaks, it is settled. This is a problem when trying to debate a Roman Catholic - reason and Scripture are not the Catholic’s final authority, they can always retreat into the “safe zone” of Roman Catholic authority.

Thus, many of the arguments between a Protestant and a Catholic will revolve around one's “private interpretation” of Scripture as against the "official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church." Catholics claim to successfully avoid the legitimate problems of private interpretation by their reliance on their tradition. But this merely pushes the question back a step. The truth is that both Roman Catholics and Protestants must, in the end, rely upon their reasoning abilities (to choose their authority) and their interpretive skills (to understand what that authority teaches) in order to determine what they will believe. Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.

Both sides can also be fiercely loyal to their family's faith or the church they grew up in without much thought to doctrinal arguments. Obviously there are a lot of possible reasons, and while we should not divide over secondary issues, both sides agree that we must divide when it comes to primary issues. Beyond that, we can agree to disagree and worship where we find ourselves most in agreement. When it comes to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, the differences are just too great to ignore. However, that does not give license for caricatures or ignorant judgments - both sides need to be honest in their assessments and try not go beyond what God has revealed.

Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy.

Schabesbert
08-31-2011, 09:38
I was going to reply to Schabebert's comments but than I started to think why?
Why indeed, when you have no coherent answers to the questions I posed.

Let's see, I've been called unchristian and bared false witness against the pope no less.
No, you have been SHOWN to be baring false witness against the Pope.
And, barring any repentance, that IS, by definition, unChristian.

Can a drowning man rescue you if you are drowning? Likewise, can a priest who needs to be saved himself, offer salvation to you? He can tell you how to get it but it is offered only thru the One who is a capstone, the cornerstone, and a rock of offense to so many. It has, is, and always will be about the Son of God. All will be judged but for him that is in Him, there will be no condemnation.
And, to remain, or "abide" in Him as we must (notice that this implies the possibility of loss of salvation to one who was, at one time, "saved"), you must follow the path that HE (not YOU) has shown.

Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.
Joh 15:6 If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

1Jo 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming.

1Jo 3:24 All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us.

2Jo 1:9 Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son.


There are verses in the NT that clearly say that nothing will separate us from the love that is in Christ Jesus. How the interpretation comes that you can lose salvation is beyond me.
It might be beyond you if you are going with your preconceptions instead of what was actually meant (as the Church has always taught). Further, if you follow the teaching of the Church, all of scripture is reconcilable. YOUR way leaves us pitting scripture against scripture. You cannot explain, for instance, the verses I quoted above.

Now, as for the verse you are alluding to:
Ro 8:38 For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

(As an aside, note that death is one of the things which will not separate us. Meaning, our "dead" brothers & sisters still love us & will pray for us.)

Look closely: it doesn't say that sin can't separate us. The list is of external forces.

Now, how, in your theology, do you reconcile your beliefs with this:

1Jo 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.
17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

Notice that it is a brother doing the sinning. Someone who is "saved."

Notice, too, that EVEN PAUL didn't have a so-called "assurance of salvation":

1Co 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself.
4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.
5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God.

1Co 9:27 but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

If I was only as smart as the "original" Catholic scholars, perhaps I could see?
No, but you could learn from the men who learned from the Apostles themselves.

It's humbling to realize that there are those who have been put over you in respect to the Lord, but that's the way He set it up. Are you going to argue with Him about it?

Jesus made clear what must be done to receive salvation.
Yes. He said that we must repent, be baptised, eat His body & blood, confess our sins, etc. etc.

He is the only way to the Father and He clearly states salvation is found in no one else.
True. But the way that HE instituted. NOT the way some men in the 1500s set things up.

The post isn't for Schabesbert for his mind is already made up. Hopefully, the post is for those who waded into the RI forums looking for something more than endless discussions where everyone claims to be right.
Fine. Then show "them" that you have a logical point, and are not just reading your beliefs into the Bible.

Show me how you even believe that, for example, Mark & Luke are part of the Bible.

At death, you will stand before God and all this BS on doctrine or atheism or the peaceful religion of Islam will truly be meaningless. If I'm wrong, what have I lost? If you are wrong about who Jesus is, what will you have lost.
If you're wrong, you will need to explain to Him why you wouldn't obey His teachings. I wouldn't want to be in that position.

I'm going to post one more article on Catholicism and then you Catholics who claim I have so misinterpreted the Bible and bared false witness can have the last word.
Ahh, so you don't want to have a dialog (since your beliefs are unsupportable). You want a monolog. Got it.

Roering
08-31-2011, 10:41
Well you can understand the confusion from those looking in. I just don't ever recall reading in the Bible where Jesus prayed to an OT Saint/Prophet or the disciples praying to anyone other than God/Jesus.

Thanks for the reply.

Quite true, Jesus never prayed to anyone other than the Father. Then again, why would he? his connection to God is unlike ours. That is not in scripture either but my guess is that you would agree.

What you do find in scripture are apostles praying for us and asking that we pray for them. Which we as Catholics still do to this day. I ask for Paul to pray to the Lord for me, I ask Peter to pray to the Lord for me, I ask for many of my brothers and sisters that have not yet departed to pray for me. This practice is found in the NT.

Now when I say "pray" I'm speaking in terms of communication/petition. Not worship. Over the years the meaning of the word "pray(er)" has taken on connotations of worship.

If you look through scripture you will see that worship is not associated with "prayer" but rather sometimes with praise and more often sacrifice.

Paul7
08-31-2011, 13:40
I don't seem to be able to find a list of these essentials anywhere.

Will you accept my list of essentials as authoritative?

If we use the creeds, yes.

Agreed.

Quoting Peter Kreeft (from one of his talks) on this matter:
"There is no such thing as a 'Kennedy Catholic.' Sadly, it seems that there's no such thing as a Catholic Kennedy, either."

You must understand that the situation is precisely (surprise, surprise!) as Christ predicted it would be:

Mt 13:24 Another parable he put before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field;
25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.
26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also.
27 And the servants of the householder came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?'
28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?'
29 But he said, 'No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

Mt 13:47 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind;
48 when it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into vessels but threw away the bad.


The kingdom now contains both wheat and tares. Both good and bad fish.

I'm not knocking your church because such as the Kennedys are a part of it. All churches have both saved and unsaved within.

Schabesbert
08-31-2011, 14:57
Originally Posted by Schabesbert
I don't seem to be able to find a list of these essentials anywhere.

Will you accept my list of essentials as authoritative?

If we use the creeds, yes.

Yes, but folks have a habit of re-defining the terms, and thus change the meaning as it was originally understood.

For instance, "the Communion of Saints (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm)."
The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices.

And, of course, the four marks of the Church: "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic."

Besides, we consider more than just the creeds to be essential.
The Creeds were meant to be said in the context of that most essential form of Worship: the Mass.

Sharkey
08-31-2011, 21:07
Quite true, Jesus never prayed to anyone other than the Father. Then again, why would he? his connection to God is unlike ours. That is not in scripture either but my guess is that you would agree.

What you do find in scripture are apostles praying for us and asking that we pray for them. Which we as Catholics still do to this day. I ask for Paul to pray to the Lord for me, I ask Peter to pray to the Lord for me, I ask for many of my brothers and sisters that have not yet departed to pray for me. This practice is found in the NT.

Now when I say "pray" I'm speaking in terms of communication/petition. Not worship. Over the years the meaning of the word "pray(er)" has taken on connotations of worship.

If you look through scripture you will see that worship is not associated with "prayer" but rather sometimes with praise and more often sacrifice.


Well of course we pray for each other. That is certainly Biblical. Jesus set the model for our prayers. I don't recall Jesus or the disciples praying to a dead saint to petition for them. When we pray to God, does not Jesus petition for us? When we don't know what to pray, does not the Holy Spirit intercede on our behalf? Are we not saints when we become Children of God?

So if we lose our salvation, does God hear any prayer other than asking for forgiveness of our sin?

Sharkey
08-31-2011, 21:17
Why indeed, when you have no coherent answers to the questions I posed.

Ahh, so you don't want to have a dialog (since your beliefs are unsupportable). You want a monolog. Got it.


I told you why I didn't answer, pay attention.

My beliefs are well supported by the Protestant church just not the Pope apparently.

Schabesbert
09-01-2011, 08:51
I told you why I didn't answer, pay attention.
Oh, I read it. I just don't believe it.

It must be embarassing to you.

But rather than lash out, or evade, I ask you to humble yourself and pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit.

My beliefs are well supported by the Protestant church just not the Pope apparently.
Yes, and AM's beliefs are well supported by Athiests.
:rofl:

Roering
09-01-2011, 10:01
Well of course we pray for each other. That is certainly Biblical. Jesus set the model for our prayers. I don't recall Jesus or the disciples praying to a dead saint to petition for them.

You may believe them dead, we believe them to be very much alive. A part of the "cloud of witnesses" mentioned in Hebrews.

What do you mean by "I don't recall Jesus or the disciples praying to a dead saint"? Are you implying that because it is not recorded in scripture it didn't happen?

Cream Soda Kid
09-01-2011, 10:28
All of the back and forth arguing by Roman Catholics and Protestants such as we have seen in this thread accomplishes nothing except to delight the unbelievers. You guys were pretty vicious to each other. All the atheists reading this thread must be so happy. They probably feel very justified about all the trash they talk and throw our way when they see Christians going at it like this.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
I don’t recall ever hearing Billy Graham publically arguing with or putting down any Christian denomination. We should all be Christians first, denominational second.

Roering
09-01-2011, 12:15
All of the back and forth arguing by Roman Catholics and Protestants such as we have seen in this thread accomplishes nothing except to delight the unbelievers. You guys were pretty vicious to each other. All the atheists reading this thread must be so happy. They probably feel very justified about all the trash they talk and throw our way when they see Christians going at it like this.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
I don’t recall ever hearing Billy Graham publically arguing with or putting down any Christian denomination. We should all be Christians first, denominational second.

I don't think you understand what the original purpose of this thread was for. Check out the title.

Sharkey
09-01-2011, 14:44
You may believe them dead, we believe them to be very much alive. A part of the "cloud of witnesses" mentioned in Hebrews.

What do you mean by "I don't recall Jesus or the disciples praying to a dead saint"? Are you implying that because it is not recorded in scripture it didn't happen?

Wouldn't the cloud of witnesses witness and not participate? Is there anything in Scripture that points to Saints in heaven listening to prayers?

The answer to your second Q is that it is hard to prove a negative. Once again, Jesus gave us a model for prayer and it is to the Father and not anyone else. Apparently that was kind of important.

Sharkey
09-01-2011, 14:50
All of the back and forth arguing by Roman Catholics and Protestants such as we have seen in this thread accomplishes nothing except to delight the unbelievers. You guys were pretty vicious to each other. All the atheists reading this thread must be so happy. They probably feel very justified about all the trash they talk and throw our way when they see Christians going at it like this.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
I don’t recall ever hearing Billy Graham publically arguing with or putting down any Christian denomination. We should all be Christians first, denominational second.

I guess my post 32 had the opposite effect? I agree there should be unity among Christians but did you not catch my other post-34? There are pretty big doctrinal differences between Catholic and Protestants and it is hard to find unity in that. I see more of both religions steering clear of one another.

Once again, it is not about religious differences but Christianity.

Schabesbert
09-01-2011, 14:51
Wouldn't the cloud of witnesses witness and not participate? Is there anything in Scripture that points to Saints in heaven listening to prayers?

Re 5:8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;
Re 8:3 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne;
Re 8:4 and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

The answer to your second Q is that it is hard to prove a negative. Once again, Jesus gave us a model for prayer and it is to the Father and not anyone else. Apparently that was kind of important.
It's great to pray to the Father. In fact, THE prayer of the Catholic Church, the Mass, is one big prayer to (and worship of) the Triune God.

He didn't model any prayer to the Son, either. Should we not pray to Jesus?

Sharkey
09-01-2011, 20:35
Re 5:8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;
Re 8:3 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne;
Re 8:4 and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.


It's great to pray to the Father. In fact, THE prayer of the Catholic Church, the Mass, is one big prayer to (and worship of) the Triune God.

He didn't model any prayer to the Son, either. Should we not pray to Jesus?

Well you quote scripture but you didn't answer my question. The saints are praying, it doesn't say they listen to our prayers to intercede on our behalf.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit - The Trinity will answer your second question which was rhetorical I presume.

I deal with tools everyday so your assumption to call me out because I supposedly can't answer your questions ain't gonna work. In fact, I'll do us both a favor.
Goodbye.

Schabesbert
09-02-2011, 06:53
Well you quote scripture but you didn't answer my question. The saints are praying, it doesn't say they listen to our prayers to intercede on our behalf.
Read it again.
The 24 elders and the Angels are presenting prayers of the saints on earth to God.

Cream Soda Kid
09-02-2011, 08:51
I misunderstood, I apologize.