• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Question about a Catholic litany

Status
Not open for further replies.

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
BTW, the Catholic Church teaches that once you die you are either saved or not saved. No amount of praying for someones soul is going to pursuade God to bring you out of hell if that is where you are bound.

This post in no way mentions that the Catholic Church teaches that when you die you go straight to heaven. It says your salvation is determined in this life. Oh, btw, this Catholic is washed in the blood of the Lamb!
Salvation is determined in this life. Perhaps. But it is not known to the one dying. Missing mass on Sunday is a mortal sin. If a person dies of a heart attack suddenly and hasn't been able to get to a confessional before that sin is confessed he is doomed forever in Hell because he has mortal sin on his soul. Even good intentions can't rule out going to heaven.

Catholic theology says nothing about sins being covered by the lamb. They are covered by the sacrament of baptism, without which you are lost. The RCC has always believed in the damnable heresy of baptismal regeneration. That makes salvation by works and it also means that Christ died in vain, and his blood is of no effect. It is the water that saves; not his blood, according to the Catholic Church. The work of Jesus has nothing to do with it. In fact Jesus doesn't even save; it is the RCC that saves.
 

lori4dogs

New Member
Let me say why I come to this board and to this forum in particular. I have learned a great deal over the years from reading (and for a long time not posting on) the various threads on this forum, especially about Early Church History. I also have a great deal of affection for Baptist and Baptist churches. I had a long history as a Baptist and I don't regret it. The decision I made to become a Catholic took time and a lot of study and I had to work through all the 'usual suspects' that have been brought up in this and like threads.

I have to believe that Christians can discuss differences in belief and still demonstrate mutual respect for each other. It saddens me when unkind and uncalled for and IMHO false statements are made about the church I now worship the same Jesus that the rest of the people on this board worship.

I hope I will be allowed to continue to post here and I intend to do it in way that glorifys the Lord.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

saturneptune

New Member
As a matter of fact, I challenge you to go to Catholic Answers and join the forum there. They are more than up for the challenge. They will answer you kindly, respectfully, truthfully, and with the love of Jesus. The problem is SN, you enjoy mocking and ridiculing. DHK basically lets it go on with only an occasional comment that you might reign it in a little. If they ban you from posting, it won't be because your winning a theological debate.

BTW, this is suppose to be a forum for 'Other Christian Denominations'. Why get so uptight when viewpoints other than Baptist are posted?
Several points to be made. First of all, I would not even consider going to the forum of another faith to spread my own doctrine. It is rude, and yes, I would be banned. You two or three have been treated graciously. I do not enjoy mocking as you say, but have no problem putting a cult in the clear light of day and in their place. The forum title is other Christian denominations, not mythical cults.

The question I posed was one for you to ponder, not a call to action. What on earth would be the purpose of me or anyone else going into a Catholic board for the mere purpose of ridiculing their beliefs. They do quite well enough on their own.
 

saturneptune

New Member
Let me say why I come to this board and to this forum in particular. I have learned a great deal over the years from reading (and for a long time not posting on) the various threads on this forum, especially about Early Church History. I also have a great deal of affection for Baptist and Baptist churches. I had a long history as a Baptist and I don't regret it. The decision I made to become a Catholic took time and a lot of study and I had to work through all the 'usual suspects' that have been brought up in this and like threads.

I have to believe that Christians can discuss differences in belief and still demonstrate mutual respect for each other. It saddens me when unkind and uncalled for and IMHO false statements are made about the church I now worship the same Jesus that the rest of the people on this board worship.

I hope I will be allowed to continue to post here and I intend to do it in way that glorifys the Lord.

Why are you so dogmatic about Catholic doctrine to the point of error when you are not even a Roman Catholic?

On an even playing field, the Catholic church would be brutal. They would have banned us long before now in a reverse situation. Again the point is made, they think all of us are bound for hell, whereas we have no such thought about Catholics, despite the church. If allowed, Catholics, and I mean real Catholics, not distant cousins, would come in here and trash this board. I cannot imagine anyone from this board doing the reverse. So before you start doing the Sarah Burnheart thing, look at things from a neutral stand point. This board has given you freedom that would never be allowed of us.
 

lori4dogs

New Member
Why are you so dogmatic about Catholic doctrine to the point of error when you are not even a Roman Catholic?

On an even playing field, the Catholic church would be brutal. They would have banned us long before now in a reverse situation. Again the point is made, they think all of us are bound for hell, whereas we have no such thought about Catholics, despite the church. If allowed, Catholics, and I mean real Catholics, not distant cousins, would come in here and trash this board. I cannot imagine anyone from this board doing the reverse. So before you start doing the Sarah Burnheart thing, look at things from a neutral stand point. This board has given you freedom that would never be allowed of us.

First, since you have stated you would never go to Catholic board, how do you know how you would be treated?

Second, despite what my profile says, I am Catholic. I was an Anglican when I joined BB, Baptist before that. It's been an interesting journey.

Third, Anglicans and Orthodox are more like 'kissing cousins' than distant ones.

And lastly, I don't think it would matter how many Catholics tell you we don't believe Baptist (Protestants) are bound for hell, you have just made up your mind that we believe that. That's OK, Jesus loves you anyway!:laugh:
 

Alive in Christ

New Member
Poor Catholics.

I feel so very very sorry for them. I think of them as docile little lambs, only being led to the slaughter...rather than the destination they *believe* they are heading for.

I was a card carrying standard Catholic for 25 years. I trusted in the churchs ability to get me to heaven, rather than the true Shepherd.

I worshipped Mary along with everyone else. I fumbled with the rosary beads like everyone else. I ate the little "wafer god" just like everyone else. I placed my hope for heaven in Rome...rather than Christ...just like all the other docile sheep being led to the slaughter.

But then something happened.

I started bumping into real christians.

They were like a whole different kind of person than anyone I had ever encountered. They werent *religious*...they were regular folks, only they were distinctly different. They had *something* that was very real and beautiful.

They clearly KNEW Jesus Christ...personally...and it showed.

They werent into sacraments, *holy* processions, grand rituals, supposed *teaching authorities*, candle lighting, hierarchial authorities and legalistic bondages.

They simply knew Jesus Christ...in simplicity and truth...and it showed.

What a wonderful difference between that and mere religion.

Of course it wasnt long before I came to me senses and was born of the Spirit, and sealed for heaven.

Glory to God.
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here is what you posted Matt:

My contention with Lori is that she said once a person dies they either go straight to heaven or straight to Hell. She seems to back-peddling on that now.
It seems apparent that I didn't read your entire quote. I stopped after the first sentence. It didn't make any sense. No one believes that there is a purgatory between earth and Hell, as you suggested. I never got to the second part of your post because the first half of it never made any sense.
I was responding in the first sentence to the suggestion that Catholics believe that people go ultimately to Heaven, Hell or Purgatory, the implication being that Purgatory is some kind of halfway house en route to either of the other two, and I was saying in response that Catholics believe that everyone ultimately ends up in Heaven or Hell, with some of those in Heaven going via Purgatory, that was all.
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Lets get this straight, one goes straight to hell, but not to heaven? If one does not go straight to heaven, where does one go? If one is saved by the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, then what does a detour say? That Christ was unable to save some of the sins. Is there a waiting period like an insurance policy?
You misunderstand the concept. Look at yourself now, look at me, look at any Christian. Are we forgiven? Yes! Are we saved? Yes! But are we perfect? No! I can only speak for myself but I sin every day. Praise be to Jesus Christ that those sins are forgiven! But I am not a good person, still less a perfect one; I am being "transformed into the image of Christ Jesus" as per Rom 12:1-2, but I'm not there yet. Now, suppose I go under a truck today in that state. Yes, I'm saved and destined for Heaven. But I'm not yet fully in the image of Christ. There's still some unfinished work, not for Christ to do, but for the Holy Spirit to do in me. That's my understanding of what Catholics mean by Purgatory.
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I really don't care about the RCC and their man-made theology or even their imaginary history. The papacy is about as solid as Moroni in Mormonism.

Read the Bible and find out for yourself. Here are some facts:

Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
--1. The church was not organized; it was scattered, spread abroad throughout many different regions. In fact there was no "Church". There were only "churches" local churches, like the ones Paul started. The Bible speaks nothing of denominations.

Acts 14:23-26 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. And after they had passed throughout Pisidia, they came to Pamphylia. And when they had preached the word in Perga, they went down into Attalia: And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled.
2.--The apostles "ordained" (appointed or chose) elders or pastors in every church that they started. Paul started over one hundred churches in the three missionary churches that he went on. There was no "apostolic authority" being passed on. These were all independent churches. Look at the different cities being mentioned which they passed through doing the same thing in each city.

Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
--Titus was appointed by Paul to take care of Crete. There he was to train men to be pastors of local churches in Crete. This is the method that he was to use:

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
--He was to teach faithful men who would in turn be able to teach others also.

1 Timothy 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
3.--Timothy was the pastor at Ephesus.

1 Corinthians 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
--Paul sent Apollos to be the pastor at Corinth. He had trained him as he had trained Timothy.

Thomas went to India.

James, the brother of our Lord was the pastor of the church at Jerusalem.

John was exiled to Patmos and eventually martyred as he was boiled in a great cauldron of oil (so tradition says).

Matthew suffered martyrdom being slain with the sword in Ethiopia.

Luke was hanged upon a tree in Greece.

Mark died in Alexandria after being dragged through the streets of the city.

James was thrown from a pinnacle of the temple and then beaten to death with a club.

Bartholomew was skinned alive.

Andrew was bound to a cross from whence he preached to his persecutors until he died.

Jude was shot to death with arrows.

Matthias was first stoned and then beheaded.

Barnabas was stoned to death at Salonica.

The apostles didn't have successors. They didn't live plush, luxurious lives. They were persecuted under Nero. They died martyrs' deaths. There wasn't any succession of bishops and popes. Such a theory is ludicrous and one dreamt up by the Catholics.
I note you exhort me to read the Bible yet the fate of the Apostles quoted above is all adduced by you from extra-Scriptural sources (largely Eusebius*). Make up your mind: either Scripture is all-sufficient or it isn't.

And none of the above answered my question: if Constantine founded the RCC, what novel doctrines did he introduce, which bishops did he appoint to the episcopate? And if all was fine and dandy prior to him (fl 312-337), then I trust you'll agree with this statement: "he cannot have God and his father who does not have the Church as his mother" - Cyprian of Carthage, fl. 250.

*As you refer to Eusebius, you will find, in addition to the matters quoted by you, not just the concept but the record of Apostolic Succession within the pages of his Church History.
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Salvation is determined in this life. Perhaps. But it is not known to the one dying. Missing mass on Sunday is a mortal sin. If a person dies of a heart attack suddenly and hasn't been able to get to a confessional before that sin is confessed he is doomed forever in Hell because he has mortal sin on his soul. Even good intentions can't rule out going to heaven.
Er..not quite: Catholic hamarteology is actually more nuanced than that. As with their sacramental theology, there have to be two 'legs' to a mortal sin: matter and intent (in law, the similar concepts would be actus reus and mens rea). In the case of a mortal sin, the matter has to be 'grave' ie: serious and has to be done with the intent to breach the relationship with God. Deliberately skipping Mass with no reasonable excuse (eg: you couldn't find a Catholic Church or you were ill) is a grave matter but it is only a mortal sin if done with the motive of giving God the finger.
 

lori4dogs

New Member
Poor Catholics.

I feel so very very sorry for them. I think of them as docile little lambs, only being led to the slaughter...rather than the destination they *believe* they are heading for.

I was a card carrying standard Catholic for 25 years. I trusted in the churchs ability to get me to heaven, rather than the true Shepherd.

I worshipped Mary along with everyone else. I fumbled with the rosary beads like everyone else. I ate the little "wafer god" just like everyone else. I placed my hope for heaven in Rome...rather than Christ...just like all the other docile sheep being led to the slaughter.

But then something happened.

I started bumping into real christians.

They were like a whole different kind of person than anyone I had ever encountered. They werent *religious*...they were regular folks, only they were distinctly different. They had *something* that was very real and beautiful.

They clearly KNEW Jesus Christ...personally...and it showed.

They werent into sacraments, *holy* processions, grand rituals, supposed *teaching authorities*, candle lighting, hierarchial authorities and legalistic bondages.

They simply knew Jesus Christ...in simplicity and truth...and it showed.

What a wonderful difference between that and mere religion.

Of course it wasnt long before I came to me senses and was born of the Spirit, and sealed for heaven.

Glory to God.

If I didn't know better, I would think this was pulled right off of a 'Jack Chick Tract'. At any rate, someone certainly didn't pay attention in catechism!
 

lori4dogs

New Member
Matt said: "In the case of a mortal sin, the matter has to be 'grave' ie: serious and has to be done with the intent to breach the relationship with God."

A mortal sin is not that easy to commit for someone following Christ. It has to be done with the intent that what you are doing is breaking your relationship with the Lord but you go ahead and consciously do it anyway.
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
Why the division of sin? The EO don't do it.
The difference of emphasis between Roman Catholicism and Orthodox on the topic of mortal/venial sin is what St John meant by "sin unto death."

The Western/Latin tradition often focused on the legal determination or classification of "sin unto death" ("mortal sin" - essentially a Scriptural expression) and "sin not unto death" ("venial sin").

The Orthodox tradition which tends to be more experiential and pastoral does not so much try to classify every sin legally as to determine the state of the spiritual life of a Christian: if a sin has been committed and this person needs forgiveness and healing, this is what the emphasis is on with the idea of the Church as a hospital (the "inn" in the parable of the Good Samaritan).

Sin unto death is comparable to the second death of Revelation 20-21; it is a form and practice of sin (intentional, deliberate, repetitive, in rebellious defiance of the Church) and reveals and effects a separation from the Body of Church (the Church), which is synonymous with loss of salvation.

This being said, "we have peace with God" (Rom. 5:1). Christians should live in the assurance and peace that the Lord has conquered and that He is their hope; being in the Church and united to the Lord in the Eucharist is a source of immense assurance and spiritual peace. There is watchfulness and care in how we live, but certainly no dreadful fear.

In XC
-
 

lori4dogs

New Member
Often I hear it said that what the Catholic Church teaches about sin is not biblical. Catholic Christianity has always used the Bible as its source for what is sinful. It is also important to say that ALL sin offends God. People object that the long standing teaching of the Church of a distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sin is an artificial distinction. But listen to what the Apostle John, says about it.

1 Jn 5:16-17
If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly (venial), he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin (mortal), about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
Often I hear it said that what the Catholic Church teaches about sin was not always biblical. Catholic Christianity has always used the Bible as its source for what is sinful. It is also important to say that ALL sin offends God. People objectthat the long standing teaching of the Church of a distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sin isan artificial distinction. But listen to what the Apostle John, says about it.

1 Jn 5:16-17
If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly (venial), he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin (mortal), about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.
Deadly meaning?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top