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

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

Yes, I do believe you are confused.

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

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.

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.)

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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).

 

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."

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

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 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"?

 

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.