The Catholic Church can't be THE Church because...

[Matt Black]

OK, Mike, here's an example which was given me my someone else.

Let's suppose I'm homeless, through my own fault. A friend of mine offers me his house. Free - no payment, no rent, no bills, but free. I can live there as long as I like. I move in. A little later I trash the place. Now, how do you think that might affect my relationship with my friend? Don't you think he would want me to clear up a bit? The house is still mine, but that doesn't let me off the hook for trashing it and having to tidy up afterwards. Also, what if I in due course move out? What if I burn the place down?

 

[annsni]

But do your deacon friends confirm your opinion that Catholics worship Mary? Is that what they tell you? Do you tell them you think they do?

Nope - they argue just as you do but I've also listened to the words about Mary, seen the adoration and such. It's worship.

You do realize that this prayer is from the Middle Ages, correct? Today it would undoubtedly be written quite differently. My favorite history teacher who I happen to be married to says that the biggest mistake one can make in judging a person from history is to bring them and their actions into the context of today. You have to understand the context in which their actions occurred.

------

Bringing a prayer like this out of the context of its time and the context of what the faith teaches it about Mary to judge it is a mistake if you sincerely wish to understand its purpose.

Well, since we were required to say it in middle school, I'd say it was atleast still current in the last 30 years.

For Catholics, it is not an either/or regarding Mary or Jesus or any of the saints. Jesus is the head of the body of Christ. He is God, who is worshipped. But when we approach God the judge and Jesus the mediator in the New Jerusalem, it is knowing we also approach the angels and saints. “Praying” to Mary is requesting her intercessory prayer to her Son. It is not a replacement for praying to Christ. It is praying with Mary to Christ.

Well, since we know that there is only one mediator, praying to Mary is unbiblical. If you can show me ONE verse which says that we are to pray to Mary - or any dead person - then I'll consider it.

John Paul II is correct -- Mary is the path that leads to Christ. Walking her journey as the first of the redeemed is the path we follow TO Christ. Imitation of her faith – “be it done unto me according to your word” should be our walk as well.

Totally unbiblical and heretical. Mary has nothing to do with getting to Christ and to say so is scary. I have access to the Lord of Creation. I don't need a dead person to get to Him.

The American flag is material, but it is venerated, respected, and even given allegiance on its own (I pledge allegiance TO THE FLAG and the country….). Of course if it’s destroyed what it represents still stands. Just as a statue or icon can be venerated, respected, honored understanding what it represents. Nowhere near worship in either case.

I don't see people asking the flag to do anything. I don't see people bowing before the flag praying. I don't see Satan using the flag to show up on a building in the reflection of the glass or in the clouds where people come from miles around to cry and honor it.

Regarding the Rosary, you are aware that the above is considered private revelation and not part of the deposit of the faith, correct? For all of the claims that Protestants make that Catholics focus on Mary – the two official prayers of the church – the Mass and the Divine Office barely mention her. 99% focused on Christ, the Trinity, and worship thereof. Just thought I would point that out. One can be a fully faithful Catholic without ever saying a Rosary or the Salve Regina if they so choose. No problem at all.

That totally contradicts point #5. Oh wait - then I guess you can be a fully faithful Catholic and still perish? "5. The soul which recommend itself to me by the recitation of the rosary, shall not perish."

The rosary is indeed a very popular private prayer. Most who do not know it focus on the repetitions of the “Hail Mary”. Those who do know it understand the primary focus is on the meditation of the mysteries of the life of Christ associated with each decade. I guess my first question is – if this were not the rosary but the word ‘prayer’ were substituted, which of those would you have problems with. For example – “whoever should faithfully pray shall receive special graces” -- problem or not?

Can you show me a verse that say that? What "special graces" are we speaking of?

 

[peterotto]

First you say

The Catholic church does not deny justification by faith. It denies justification by faith "alone". Big difference

Then you say

Nope, not our faith. Not our works. Just God's grace.

Lol, you are one confused person. Exactly whos 'faith' are you talking about when it comes to justification?

Please read the Council of Trent again.

CANON 9: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."


Rome has a bunch of double talk in their Theology. In one hand they say this and in the other hand they say that. Rome needs to do this to try and keep everyone happy. In the end it is the Council of Trent and the Vatican Councils that are infallible, not your words.

 

[peterotto]

First you say

You need a better understanding of mortal sin. It must be a knowing, willing act which totally rejects God. Throws him out of your life by an act of free will. It’s a sin of grave nature, you understand it’s a sin of grave nature that is offensive to God, and you choose to do it.

Then you say

Murder may be a mortal sin. May not be.

LOL. Do you even know the meaning behind the word 'murder' is?
Murder is the unjust killing of an innocent person., therefore it is a mortal sin in Roman theology. Murder is not manslaughter. I think you have those two confused.

 

[peterotto]

Catholics do not believe the sacraments are the ONLY way grace is received or that the church is the SOLE dispenser of grace.

Could you please answer the following.

The Church says:
There is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.

What other ways outside the Church can one receive Grace?
If the Roman Church is not the SOLE dispenser of grace, what are the others?

Thanks

 

[grace56]

Thanks! I’ve listened/read much of Scott Hahn and I’ve heard a little of Jeff Cavins. I think Catholics have always been in love with Scripture – the Mass is soaked through with it. But I do think that at least from what I’ve read of Hahn many of the pieces are fitting better for people between Scripture and the faith they love, especially in light of the new covenant being the fulfillment of the old. He and others like him have been a real blessing the last few years.

Thanks for answering my post. My husband goes to the Parish where Jeff Cavins teaches his Bible Study and for the last two years I've been attending myself and I'm not the only non Catholic there, there are protestant Pastors, and even a Jewish person. Cavin's Adventure Through The Bible Series is being studied by over 6,000 Catholics in Minneapolis St Paul area, It's now in over 2,000 Catholic Parishes all over the country and now has gone international. This fall Jeff will be back on EWTN with his Adventure Through The Bible. What I've learned is how the whole Bible fits together to tell the whole story of salvation history. By the way Jeff first taught this class whenhe was a Protestant Pastor!

God is moving greatly!


grace56

 

[peterotto]

Perhaps the confusion here lies in what payment for our sins actually means.

Yes, I do believe you are confused.

Jesus alone could remove the eternal punishment for our sins – spiritual death.

He could have, but to Rome, He did not. Bummmer.

We are forgiven. The guilty verdict which sentenced us to eternal death is gone. He has paid the debt in full.

Nope He did not, and this is where you are confused. If you commit a Mortal sin. For example skip a Holy Day of Obligation, you are in Grave danger of the firey pits of Hell. So one day you have hope to get to heaven, then the next you are bound to hell. To say Jesus has 'paid' is the wrong word. Paid is past tense, to a Roman Catholic it is continuing. It should read Christ is paying and still pays.

This still does not mean the consequences of sin in the 'here and now' are gone, correct?

Again, you need to better clarify your terms. "here and now" and the next life in purgatory where you expiate or atone for your sins. (Like I said earlier, Christ did not atone for all sins to the Roman Catholic, they need to work some them off themselves.)

I get drunk and wreck my car and end up paralyzed – Jesus will certainly forgive. Doesn’t mean I get up and walk. Eternal punishment removed.

Please. If your going to teach Roman Theology, please use the correct terms. Eternal punishement is never fully, completely removed from a Roman Catholic, they must continue to do good works and do everything Rome tells them they must do. The past tense 'removed' should be removing and still removes. To a protestant, Christ paid, and removed all sins 2000 years ago. To a Roman Catholic, the work on the cross was not complete and need to continue in every Mass.

Therefore, it is indeed “a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death"

Now you have been skipping the entire message I am trying to get through your head. Christ did not pay for all the sins of a Roman Catholic. The sins of a Roman Catholic that was not paid by Christ will be paid by the sinner in this life or the next. In otherwords, the sinner pays for some of his sins, not Christ.

Did you read what I said 'expiated' means? If you understood the true meaning behind the word, you would not be having this argument with me.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

First you say



Then you say



Lol, you are one confused person. Exactly whos 'faith' are you talking about when it comes to justification?

Please read the Council of Trent again.

CANON 9: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."


Rome has a bunch of double talk in their Theology. In one hand they say this and in the other hand they say that. Rome needs to do this to try and keep everyone happy. In the end it is the Council of Trent and the Vatican Councils that are infallible, not your words.

You've already quoted the council of Trent and keep in mind it is talking about the doctrine of Faith Alone. It's not a statement about their Soteriology. They believe God saves through his grace, his act not by any ability of ours. Works is for the nuturing and continuation of that faith (they do not believe in OSAS. They believe a christian can be apostate by an act of will). You're kind of taking it out of context. Remeber during the reformation there were many challenges to the Catholics church (rightly so!) The catholics responded by exacting language that you seem to get hung up on. The problem in understanding what they are saying is deffinition. How you understand what you're talking about as apposed to what they've said. I haven't gotten to your web site. You have to understand my confusion of what you said about page 68. The Vatican II is a compilation of several documents. I was wondering what documents you're talking about.

 

[Matt Black]

There's the additional problem that the Catholic Church and the Reformers, in each case, thought they were anathematising doctrines they merely thought the 'other side' were teaching rather than what they were actually teaching. For instance, the Bishops at Trent thought that by sola fide Luther meant that all one had to do to be saved was (in modern parlance) 'pray the sinner's prayer' and then carry on with the drugs, drink and dames as if nothing had happened. So, when Trent says "If anyone says that we are justified by faith alone, let him be anathema", it was that which they believed they were anathematising, whereas of course Luther hadn't actually meant that (and indeed I know of no self-respecting evangelical who actually teaches that).

 

[peterotto]

CANON 9: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."

You've already quoted the council of Trent and keep in mind it is talking about the doctrine of Faith Alone.

If it is not faith alone what is it? (hint. faith plus works)

They believe God saves through his grace, his act not by any ability of ours.

How does one get Grace? Answer: By joining the Roman Catholic Church and do the works required to obtain the sacraments. ( hint. faith plus works). For example. Sunday I go to Mass, get in line and receive the Euchrist. It is through a work and having faith do I receive grace.

Works is for the nuturing and continuation of that faith (they do not believe in OSAS.

Works are neccessary for salvation. If they do not go to Mass on a Holy day of Obligation is one example. If they disobey the 4th commandment is another grave sin that can end them up in hell.
(hint. faith plus works )

You say "nuturing and continuing"??? If they do works to "continue" their salvation, then it is work based. Correct?

What is your definition of "faith plus works"?

 

[mrtumnus]

MrTumnus...

I posted this...




And you said...



Thats that old deceptive nonsense that the Church or Rome uses to dupe her victims. Its completly irelavent how the works are done or what they are called. What When the New Testament scriptures speak of "works of the law" they are referring to any form "works". "being holy", "being good", "doing good", etc etc etc...for any motivation at all.

If it is added to what is required for justification, it becomes a false non-saving gospel.



Either one. Makes no difference

Do you believe there is no difference between the two?[/b]

There is a big difference between the tiwo...but NOT if either of them are added to the gospel of Gods grace. No matter what form of works you want to bring up, if they are added to the gospel, you turn the gospel into a false non-saving gospel.



That has no relavence to the topic at hand. The Romish church uses the misrepresentation of that and many other scriptures to decieve its victims.



That is an entirely different issue being discussed there. It has no relavence regarding how one is justified.

Mike

Mike,

The main issue here boils down to this – will a person who professes faith yet has no works of grace enter heaven?

I believe you would say no because they really had no faith.

I would say no because they really had no grace. Christ could not be living in them.

I fail to see how I am “adding to the Gospel of grace”.


Are there people who turn grace into a legalistic system of works? With Catholic theology that is always a risk. It was a problem with the Jews too, in their God-ordained practices.

Yet there is a risk with “faith alone” theology as well. Because of the Gospel of “faith alone” and not grace alone, there are people who genuinely believe the answer to that is yes, they will be in heaven. They do not have to repent (that’s a “work” by their definition), nor do they to make any real effort to stop sinning (more works to please God and not possible to boot). Simply have to accept by faith that Jesus covers all their sins, and go on their merry way.

And you have not answered my question (or anybody who has an opinion). If someone believes they are born again, begins to live the life and show the fruit, and then returns to their previous life at some point in time – would you say they were never actually saved?

 

[mrtumnus]

Mrtumnus,



There is no contradiction between James and Paul in the least. The Church of Rome tells its victims that in order to maintain their false gosel.

James is discussing justification in an entirely different context than what is required to be justified eternally beore God.

Open your eyes, Mrtumnus! Dont let them do this to you. Dont be one of Romes victims. There is too much at stake.

Mike

Mike, I am certain that your intent is in the proper spirit and that is how I choose to receive it.

Yet the Catholic church never says that James and Paul contradict each other. The understanding is that Paul would never have intended anyone to infer he was speaking about that which constitutes the Biblical definition of a ‘useless’ faith (or in your case a ‘real’ faith) when he was speaking about faith. Otherwise, he probably would have indeed said 'faith alone'.

I see no support for your assertion that James is discussing justification in an entirely different context. Are there really two types of justification? Where are these explained and defined in Scripture? How can you tell the difference?

 

[mrtumnus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtumnus
But do your deacon friends confirm your opinion that Catholics worship Mary? Is that what they tell you? Do you tell them you think they do?


Nope - they argue just as you do but I've also listened to the words about Mary, seen the adoration and such. It's worship.

I’m not arguing; I’m having a discussion. My ears aren’t even red.:type:

Do you believe that you can discern whether another person is worshipping, or not? In church, can you tell if someone is worshipping or is deep in thought about the laundry they need to do?

This is what I do not understand. You have friends (obviously people you know) who tell you that there is a difference between worship and veneration, they know the difference, honor and praise are not worship, and they do not worship Mary. She is a creature, created by the eternal God, who alone is worshipped. Yet you believe you have some insight to their heart, mind, and relationship with God that is hidden to them?

And yet you believe they assign un-due powers to Mary?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

When one recites the words "Blessed art thou, Holy Mary, Mother of God,..." that one is worshiping Mary.

Whether you want to admit it or not, it is worshiping her.

 

[mrtumnus]

I said:
You do realize that this prayer is from the Middle Ages, correct? Today it would undoubtedly be written quite differently. My favorite history teacher who I happen to be married to says that the biggest mistake one can make in judging a person from history is to bring them and their actions into the context of today. You have to understand the context in which their actions occurred. Bringing a prayer like this out of the context of its time and the context of what the faith teaches it about Mary to judge it is a mistake if you sincerely wish to understand its purpose.


You said:
Well, since we were required to say it in middle school, I'd say it was atleast still current in the last 30 years.

It is still a middle ages prayer, and one needs to understand it within the context of the overall theology about the role of Mary and the language nuances of the period rather than making assumptions regarding the intent of those who say it.

 

[mrtumnus]

I said:
For Catholics, it is not an either/or regarding Mary or Jesus or any of the saints. Jesus is the head of the body of Christ. He is God, who is worshipped. But when we approach God the judge and Jesus the mediator in the New Jerusalem, it is knowing we also approach the angels and saints. “Praying” to Mary is requesting her intercessory prayer to her Son. It is not a replacement for praying to Christ. It is praying with Mary to Christ.

You said:
Well, since we know that there is only one mediator, praying to Mary is unbiblical. If you can show me ONE verse which says that we are to pray to Mary - or any dead person - then I'll consider it.

Which definition of the word ‘pray’ are you applying here? The one of your choice, even though it may not be the intent? “To address God with adoration, confession, supplication, or thanksgiving” is actually the second definition you know. The first is “to make a request in a humble manner”. To anyone.

So to humbly request of saints in heaven their intercessory prayers – where does the Bible say to not do this? I assume you ask this of others here on earth? Does the Bible explicitly say to request this of the saints in heaven? No. But it gives us some pretty good indications in two different ways.

The first is in Hebrews beginning with Chapter 11. The first “litany of the saints”. People who have gone on before us in faith. Paul says “God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.” Together with us – together in the one body of Christ.

He goes on to speak of them as a “great cloud of witnesses” that he associates with our perseverance in “running the race”. I have certainly seen interpretations that say this means “witnesses of the faith” not “witnesses of us”. I’m not sure why they should be mutually exclusive.

He then proceeds to talk about how God was approached in the OT – a burning mountain that cannot be touched. He says we now have come (not will come in the future) to the New Jerusalem. When we now approach God, we come not only to God the judge and Jesus the mediator, but also to the angels and spirits of righteous men made perfect. I don’t know how you ‘come to God’. The way I ‘come to God’ is through prayer. And I recognize that when I do so in the New Jerusalem I come into the presence of God, Jesus, the angels and the saints in heaven. It would seem to me they are indeed witnesses of our coming to the New Jerusalem.

This is a fundamental difference as far as I can see in the way Catholics view their relationship with Christ. Protestants seem to be more focused on a “personal” relationship with Christ – “me and Jesus”. Catholics see an intimate relationship with Christ that is wholly contained within the body of Christ, not personal or separate from the body.

Which is the second area to consider – exactly what do you believe about the “body of Christ”? Are we still part of the body of Christ after death? Catholics would say yes, absolutely. If not, the resurrection of Christ is not true – for if the dead are not raised, then Christ is not raised either. Death does not separate us from Christ. There is “one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father who is over all and in all.” Whether we are living here on earth or in heaven we live together with Him. There is no division in the body of Christ.

So what in that last paragraph do you disagree with? Because it must be something. Otherwise, if you too believe that there is no division in the body of Christ and we cannot be separated from it at death – how can you say to those who are in heaven that you do not need them?

1 Corinthians 12: 14-26 Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

So, do we separate from the body of Christ at death or not in your view?

 

[mrtumnus]

I said:
John Paul II is correct -- Mary is the path that leads to Christ. Walking her journey as the first of the redeemed is the path we follow TO Christ. Imitation of her faith – “be it done unto me according to your word” should be our walk as well.

You said:
Totally unbiblical and heretical. Mary has nothing to do with getting to Christ and to say so is scary. I have access to the Lord of Creation. I don't need a dead person to get to Him.

Actually, I would have to say you did need her. The plan of salvation that God put in place was dependent upon the cooperation of a human woman to cooperate freely at great personal risk. Did he have to do it in this way? Of course not. But it was the plan he chose.

Is the thought that you have no need of anyone other than Christ? That does not seem consistent with Scripture to me. It implies a relationship with Christ independent of the body of Christ, in which "The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!"

Jesus said to follow him. Paul says to follow him (Paul) and his example, and to imitate him. Is that heretical? Does that mean Paul is replacing Christ with himself? I think not. He is recognizing that imitation of those holy people who have gone before us is a good thing as this will lead us to Christ. Not a mutually exclusive or contradictory thing with coming to Christ.

 

[mrtumnus]

I don't see people asking the flag to do anything. I don't see people bowing before the flag praying. I don't see Satan using the flag to show up on a building in the reflection of the glass or in the clouds where people come from miles around to cry and honor it.

You do realize that the church investigates thousands of those incidents every year and declares the great, great majority of them to be fraudulent or simply some natural phenomenon that’s been mis-interpreted, right? Catholics are not encouraged to participate in these events, and one cannot make the assumption that those who do are actually Catholic, or knowledgeable practicing Catholics. Many are seekers of the paranormal period.

 

[mrtumnus]

I said:
Regarding the Rosary, you are aware that the above is considered private revelation and not part of the deposit of the faith, correct? For all of the claims that Protestants make that Catholics focus on Mary – the two official prayers of the church – the Mass and the Divine Office barely mention her. 99% focused on Christ, the Trinity, and worship thereof. Just thought I would point that out. One can be a fully faithful Catholic without ever saying a Rosary or the Salve Regina if they so choose. No problem at all.


You said:
That totally contradicts point #5. Oh wait - then I guess you can be a fully faithful Catholic and still perish? "5. The soul which recommend itself to me by the recitation of the rosary, shall not perish."

Actually it would only contradict #5 if it said that if you don’t recite the rosary, you shall perish.

 

[mrtumnus]

I said:
Quote:
The rosary is indeed a very popular private prayer. Most who do not know it focus on the repetitions of the “Hail Mary”. Those who do know it understand the primary focus is on the meditation of the mysteries of the life of Christ associated with each decade. I guess my first question is – if this were not the rosary but the word ‘prayer’ were substituted, which of those would you have problems with. For example – “whoever should faithfully pray shall receive special graces” -- problem or not?

You said:
Can you show me a verse that say that? What "special graces" are we speaking of?

I provided a whole list of verses a couple of pages back where prayer causes grace to flow for many purposes – to prevent our falling into temptation, enlighten our hearts, fill us with knowledge and understanding, sanctify us more fully. I would say that those are all ‘special graces’. Grace comes in many forms and its working is often a mystery which we do not fully comprehend.