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

[mrtumnus]

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.

Not double talk. Thoroughness that must be taken in context. The entire Council of Trent and the Vatican Councils and all that preceded them must be viewed as a holistic compilation of the faith, not a piece picked out and the rest ignored.

Picking pieces out of anything (including the Bible) and ignoring the rest and not viewing it holistically has a purpose wishing to not understand, regardless of agreement. Have you ever visited an atheist site? They do it all the time with the Bible. Their intent is not to understand; their intent is to disprove.

Bottom line – there is nothing we can do or could have done to merit the grace of salvation Christ provided on the cross. Neither faith nor works.

In order to have that grace applied to us, we must indeed participate in some way and respond to the free gift of grace. Unless you are a universalist or believe in pre-destination, I would say you have to agree with that.

Catholics would say that faith alone absent works of grace is not an adequate response to grace.

Do you believe that one who professes faith but it is accompanied by no works of grace will be in heaven?

 

[mrtumnus]

First you say



Then you say





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.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another person. Justice doesn’t necessarily come into play because you’re assuming that all laws are just.

Andrea Yates killed her children. Was that murder? Absolutely. Was that a mortal sin? Only God knows. She says God told her to do it. Obviously she was mentally ill and possibly oppressed or possessed.

CS Lewis has a wonderful piece in “Mere Christianity” regarding what it means to “stand naked before God” and why we mere mortals are not in a position to judge these things.

“Human beings judge one another by their external actions. God judges them by their moral choices. When a neurotic who had a pathological horror of cats forces himself to pick up a cat for some good reason, it is quite possible that in God’s eyes he has shown more courage than a healthy man may have shown in winning the V.C. When a man who has been perverted from his youth and taught that cruelty is the right thing, does some tiny little kindness, or refrains from some cruelty he might have committed, and thereby, perhaps, risks being sneered at by his companions, he may, in God’s eyes, be doing more than you and I would do if we gave up life itself for a friend.

It is as well to put this the other way round. Some of us who seem quite nice people may, in fact, have made so little use of a good heredity and a good upbringing that we are really worse than those whom we regard as fiends. Can we be quite certain how we should have behaved if we had been saddled with the psychological outfit, and then with the bad upbringing, and then with the power, say, of Himmler? That is why Christians are told not to judge. We see only the results which a man’s choices make out of his raw material. But God does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what he has done with it. Most of the man’s psychological make-up is probably due to his body: when his body dies all that will fall off him, and the real central man, the thing that chose, that made the best or worst out of this material, will stand naked. All sorts of nice things which we thought our own, but which were really due to a good digestion, will fall off some of us: all sorts of nasty things which were due to complex or bad health will fall off others. We shall then, for the first time, see every one as he really was. There will be surprises.”

 

[mrtumnus]

I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtumnus
Jesus alone could remove the eternal punishment for our sins – spiritual death.


You said:
He could have, but to Rome, He did not. Bummmer.

This is technically known as a “strawman” argument. Establish another’s position independent of what the position actually is, and then shoot it down. Catholic doctrine is quite clear that Jesus alone could remove spiritual death which is the eternal punishment for our sins, and his work on the cross completely did this.

 

[mrtumnus]

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

You said:
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 once again gets into a OSAS theology, which Catholics do not believe. However, this is hardly a Catholic doctrine but shared by many Protestants as well, including different Baptist groups.

Is there a particular scripture that says once you accept Christ all your sins are forgiven past and future regardless of what you do in the future? I know that Peter says that we have been cleansed from our past sins. Doesn’t mention future ones. Jesus told us that when we pray to request the Father to “forgive us our sins”. Do you still pray this in the Lord’s prayer? If so, why if you don’t believe it is needed?

Skipping a holy day of obligation may be a mortal sin. May not be.

Your portrayal of Catholics living in fear at the edge of hell may be accurate for a few, but there is no reason. You don’t ‘slip up’ and commit mortal sin. Deliberate, pre-meditated, full knowledge rejection of God and His grace. You can certainly slip into a state where this is more likely to occur. We must be on guard so we do not fall from our secure position.

Paid is indeed past tense. However, remember there is no “past” with God. Only present. Omnipresent. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross occurred at one specific moment in human history, but it is perpetual and eternal and for all time, which is how it applies to those living before as well as those living after for all eternity. Always present in the eyes of God. Available throughout eternity.

And hope is a wonderful theological virtue. What do you propose its purpose is if not the hope of heaven? At any rate, I believe I am in good company. Paul says that we have put our hope in the living God, that we are called to one hope when we are called, that we eagerly await the righteousness for which we hope, and we have a faith and knowledge that rests on the hope of eternal life.

So what do you hope for?

 

[mrtumnus]

I said:
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"


You said:

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.

Again, if you’re going to question the theology, question the actual theology. Christ paid fully for the eternal consequence of our sins.

However, what part of “The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you.”, do you not understand? What part of “the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.”, and “God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness” does not make it clear that we make amends for the wrong we have done? It is part of the divine chastisement of God – the discipline of sanctification. Do you reject these Scriptures? Or have another interpretation of them? If so, please share what that is?

And I’m not having an argument; I’m having a discussion.:thumbs:

 

[annsni]

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?

Yep. Mary cannot hear our prayers, she cannot "get us to her Son", she cannot interceed for us. Yep - they're assigning undue powers to Mary.

 

[annsni]

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.

Yes, but they confirm many of them.

 

[annsni]

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.

Yes, God needed her to carry His Son and raise Him but she has nothing more to do with our salvation than anyone else in history does.

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!"

No - I do not need anyone else to save me but Christ. Of course the body of Christ is for me to be a part of and for us to work together for the work of Christ but since those who are departed are no longer here, their work is finished.

Jesus said to follow him. Paul says to follow him (Paul) and his example, and to imitate him. 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.

Imitating is one thing. I can certainly look at Mary and say "Man, she was so willing to give up her reputation and possibly her life for God. Would I be willing to do that?" It's a big difference between that and praying to her. I do not follow Paul. Paul is dead. I do not follow Mary. Mary is dead. I can follow their example but it will not lead me to Christ because we know that no one comes to the Son unless the Father draws him. It's God who will lead us to Christ - and while it may include other people, the other people are living and yet have no special powers to do anything for my salvation other than to teach me God's Word.

 

[annsni]

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?

Being part of the body after death is quite different than being part of the body when alive. Scripture does not ever tell us to pray to, to ask, to plead or anything to the dead. As a matter of fact, Scripture has some pretty strong stuff to say against it.

 

[mrtumnus]

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

I provided a list of several scriptures a few page back that we can administer grace by praying for each other. Totally independent of the official ministering of the church.

Regarding “There is no salvation outside the church”, I can tell you how the Catholic church interprets this statement by the Early Church Fathers, but you aren’t going to like it.

First, the statement is built on the premise that Jesus established a church. It “subsists” or continues, in the Catholic church. You certainly may disagree with that, but you cannot pull the statement “There is no salvation outside the Catholic church” out of that context to determine its meaning.

Essentially, there is only one body of Christ. All who are baptized into Christ using a trinitine formula are members of the one body, the church.

Those who are not in communion with the church established by Christ are nonetheless still part of the body they were baptized into. Even though many groups have broken off, etc. – they are still part of the church.

Consider for example the family who has a falling out. The child may leave, strike out on their own, determine to never see the family again, rend their clothes, disown them all and break off all relationship.

Doesn’t change the fact that they are a member of the family. They certainly no longer sit at the family table. But once in a family, you are there forever.

All grace comes from being a member of the family, the body of Christ. This is the church Christ established. Like it or not, we basically view you all as Catholics, just not in communion with us. You no longer come to the family table, but you’re still in the family.

This is why Pope Benedict said in speaking about other Christian groups “"It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.”

 

[mrtumnus]

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.

And which part of the prayer qualifies as "worship" in your view?

 

[mrtumnus]

Yep. Mary cannot hear our prayers, she cannot "get us to her Son", she cannot interceed for us. Yep - they're assigning undue powers to Mary.

Please provide scriptures that say she cannot hear our prayers or provide intercessory prayer. And I assume you think a person can never lead another to Christ?

 

[mrtumnus]

Yes, God needed her to carry His Son and raise Him but she has nothing more to do with our salvation than anyone else in history does.



No - I do not need anyone else to save me but Christ. Of course the body of Christ is for me to be a part of and for us to work together for the work of Christ but since those who are departed are no longer here, their work is finished.



Imitating is one thing. I can certainly look at Mary and say "Man, she was so willing to give up her reputation and possibly her life for God. Would I be willing to do that?" It's a big difference between that and praying to her. I do not follow Paul. Paul is dead. I do not follow Mary. Mary is dead. I can follow their example but it will not lead me to Christ because we know that no one comes to the Son unless the Father draws him. It's God who will lead us to Christ - and while it may include other people, the other people are living and yet have no special powers to do anything for my salvation other than to teach me God's Word.

Then you do not believe that someone can pray for another person's salvation at all? You've never prayed for someone you know that they will respond to God's grace? You believe the only thing someone can do is to teach scripture?

Or do you mean to teach you Jesus? Because Word (capitalized) generally references Jesus, not scripture.

Paul at one point asked for people to pray that God would "open a door" for their message. He evidently thought there was more that could be done than teach the message.

And I'm assuming you're saying that Mary and Paul are no longer part of the body of Christ? That it is divided at death?

 

[mrtumnus]

Being part of the body after death is quite different than being part of the body when alive. Scripture does not ever tell us to pray to, to ask, to plead or anything to the dead. As a matter of fact, Scripture has some pretty strong stuff to say against it.

Please provide the scripture that says that being part of the body after death is different than being part of the body when alive.

Scripture condemns "consulting" the dead in terms of that which a medium would do -- set up a two way communication expecting information to be exchanged. This is why the Catholic church condemns all forms of sorcery, witchcraft, ouija boards, fortune tellers, horoscopes and the like.

Scripture does not condemn humbly requesting of the living -- those who are alive in the body of Christ who we come before in the New Jerusalem to pray for us.

 

[mrtumnus]

Yes, but they confirm many of them.

A handful. Never at the time the phenomenon is occuring. Generally years, if not decades. And is again viewed as private revelation -- not an addition to the deposit of the faith.

 

[peterotto]

In order to have that grace applied to us, we must indeed participate in some way

Which means "works". How does one participate without calling it a work? See below examples of works.

and respond to the free gift of grace.

Response by doing some work. How do you "respond" without calliing it a 'work'? See below for examples of work..


Then you say the same exact thing I have been saying all along.
Catholics believe faith plus works will get them grace.

Catholics would say that faith alone absent works of grace is not an adequate response to grace.

Do you believe that one who professes faith but it is accompanied by no works of grace will be in heaven?

Grace in Catholic terms means faith plus works. One must have faith and do the works to recieve Grace.

For example
-------------------
Work == baptism
Work == receiveing communion
Work == going to Mass
Work == doing penance
Work == saying the rosary
Work == spending time in purgatory
Work == joining the Roman Catholic Church

What is not works
------------------
Not work == believing the sun will rise tomorrow

Faith alone is sufficient. Roman Catholic theology is still a works based theology. One must have faith and do work in order to obtain salvation.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Mrtumnus,

"Please provide scriptures that say she cannot hear our prayers or provide intercessory prayer."

OK...

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"

"And I assume you think a person can never lead another to Christ?"

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:




Only a Catholic, or Catholic apologist, could be so out in "La La Land" as to equate one person sharing the gospel with someone...with the idolatrous "Maryolatry" that the Catholic Church cons her victims into believing and participating in.

"Thinking" is your friend, Mrtumnus. Try it sometime.



Thanks for the laugh


:godisgood:

 

[peterotto]

Jesus alone could remove spiritual death

He could then again He could not. It all depends on your works.
If you do not continue your works (going to Mass, eating the Euchrist), then salvation is lost. Hence Roman catholic theology is a work based salvation. our disagreement in the meaning of work. So lets go there and get a better understanding of what it means to both of us.

I gave examples what work means to me, now
What does work mean to you? Please explain.
Could you please give me an example of a work that is required for salvation?

 

[peterotto]

Jesus told us that when we pray to request the Father to “forgive us our sins”. Do you still pray this in the Lord’s prayer? If so, why if you don’t believe it is needed?

I do not have time to go down every rabbit trail. You can start a new thread and ask this. Right now on want to focus on the 'faith plus works' theology of Rome which you believe does not exists.

And hope is a wonderful theological virtue. What do you propose its purpose is if not the hope of heaven? At any rate, I believe I am in good company. Paul says that we have put our hope in the living God, that we are called to one hope when we are called, that we eagerly await the righteousness for which we hope, and we have a faith and knowledge that rests on the hope of eternal life.

So what do you hope for?

Bible say
"in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago".
God promised it, so the hope in eternal life is already given but not here yet.

What do I hope for? His second coming. I already have the salvation part down. No need to 'hope I make it to heaven'.

 

[D28guy]

Matt...

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."

You friend would expect you to help keep it clean. He would not be happy if you didnt. But He would of course not kick you out, for he offered it to you unconditionally.

God offers justification to us unconditionally, other than faith in Christ....

"For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith. And that no of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast.

If we live like a lost person, God deals with us in this life. He counsels us through His word and Holy Spirit to "get with the program" and live consistently with who we are. He also might chastise and discipline us, if needed, for we are his eternally secure children. The lost do not experience that, because they are not His children. (See Hebrews 12)

"Also, what if I in due course move out?"

If one is born again, there is no "moving out"

What if I burn the place down?"

Same thing...

God offers justification to us unconditionally, other than faith in Christ. If we live like a lost person, God deals with us in this life. He counsels us through His word and Holy Spirit to "get with the program" and live consistently with who we are. He also might chastise and discipline us, if needed, for we are his eternally secure children. (Hebrews 12)

Mike