Catholics

[passing_through]

Mariology the most fabled of fables in the RCC.

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by GoodGnus

This is the biggest problem I have with totally discounting the idea of intercession of the saints (Mary included)

If we do discount this as an appropriate practice, then we must either:

1. Deny that any miracles have ever happened as a result of asking for such intersession.
2. Acknowledge that God permits Satan (for Satan can only do what God permits) to perform miracles to deceive people who believe in the validity of the practice.

Perhaps there is a third alternative I have not considered, can someone who thinks that the practice of asking for intersession of saints is akin to Satan worship help me see the flaw in my thinking?

Firstly you need to recognise that 'miracles' can take place through people having strong faith which reacts in their bodies. They are called psychosomatic. If they are confident enough their bodily resources repair what is wrong with them. Many miracles at places like Lourdes can be explained in this way.

Secondly a gracious God might hear what they are doing and respond. But I doubt if this happens very often. He told us to pray in Jesus' name not a saints name.

Thirdly many imagine that they are 'healed' because they have made a wrong diagnosis of themselves. Thus Mother Teresa was sainted for healing a girl from cancer, when in the end it turned out only to be a cyst.

 

[crossnote]

I am getting lost here. Eat an elephant one bite at a time.

This questioning stemmed I thought from my contention that we can see some of what apostles passed on in ECF - ignatius saying real presence, bishop needed very early in the church, which Interprets the practice of the Eucharist.

My saying that paradosis , tradition was the way the first generations handed on truth.

Dont get how your remark fits in?

The Apostles never mentioned most of the practices that Rome holds so dear. Then you tried to pull 'the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth' routine, so I countered that you are using Scripture to make your point (implying Scripture must be an even deeper foundation).
Then you tried pulling the canon card, and say the canon was not around yet and therefore my pillar of truth was non existent. My reply was that the Jews had the canon all along, and asked if that was part of Rome's tactic at replacement theology.
Anyhows, I'm through here seeing this is just a ping pong game.

 

[valiant]

You are not breaking mine, I only talk to those who are courteous! Rest are a waste of time.

Love your enemies LOL that is if it suits you

 

[GoodGnus]

Firstly you need to recognise that 'miracles' can take place through people having strong faith which reacts in their bodies. They are called psychosomatic. If they are confident enough their bodily resources repair what is wrong with them. Many miracles at places like Lourdes can be explained in this way.

Secondly a gracious God might hear what they are doing and respond. But I doubt if this happens very often. He told us to pray in Jesus' name not a saints name.

Thirdly many imagine that they are 'healed' because they have made a wrong diagnosis of themselves. Thus Mother Teresa was sainted for healing a girl from cancer, when in the end it turned out only to be a cyst.

I have considered that hypothesis and find it odd that other faiths do not have such manifestations of miracles. Your post has cemented my belief that prayers asking for are misguided, but nonetheless, God in his mercy and grace will sometimes honor them.

I personally believe that a meaningful discussion of the RCC faith cannot take place in this format (no reflection of those that post, it is just difficult to ask questions and get thoughtful answers without being misunderstood)

I also believe that those in the RCC are like those Christians of Galacia that Paul wrote to. They are in error, but not cast out of the body.

 

[mikeuk]

The Apostles never mentioned most of the practices that Rome holds so dear. Then you tried to pull 'the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth' routine, so I countered that you are using Scripture to make your point (implying Scripture must be an even deeper foundation).
Then you tried pulling the canon card, and say the canon was not around yet and therefore my pillar of truth was non existent. My reply was that the Jews had the canon all along, and asked if that was part of Rome's tactic at replacement theology.
Anyhows, I'm through here seeing this is just a ping pong game.

With respect the timeline for NT and OT are different.
NT evolved, as even jason ( sola scriptura advocate) notes there was indeed oral and written both parts of dei verbum, but he conjectures all of that was subsumed in the written eventually, but that rather ignores that some of what is tradition does not add to scripture but interprets it. As I contended with ignatiius/ Smyrna, or for example didache on baptism rite.

 

[AngelFrog]

[h=1]Which of the 30,000 Protestant denominations is the true church of God?[/h]

 

[passing_through]

Which of the 30,000 Protestant denominations is the true church of God?

Bad ploy you are using.

I could say which of the, say, 30,000 pedefil priests is yours. Let drop this line of debate shall we..

 

[notuptome]

Which of the 30,000 Protestant denominations is the true church of God?

Give me a comprehensive list and I will tell you. Hasn't the Vatican given you the go no go list?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[atwhatcost]

But therein lies the problem, it takes time in big institutions.

Luthers big gripe was " paid indulgencies" , and at the council of Trent a few years after his death, the pope did indeed speak out against the practice in no uncertain terms. Patience is a virtue and Luther's" I demand it now" was never going to achieve anything. He excommunicated himself in essence by speaking out against the institution , refusing it!

What few realize about Luther is in later life he profoundly regretted the mess he created where all felt empowered to create their own doctrine, " every milkmaid now has their own" " scandalous" he lamented, and said had he foreseen what would happen he would never have spoken out about it, saying " the only way back to unity was via the councils of a Rome" , so he showed contrition.

He also kept his belief in real presence, his veneration of Mary and so on. If present day Protestants studied his later writings, I doubt they would use him as such a poster boy, because abhorred the idea of modern Protestants, that " me, Jesus and the bible " are enough for sound theology.

I told you recently in another thread that the "until otherwise notified" hasn't hit me for you yet.

It just hit me. You've just notified me that you aren't a Christian, but a Catholic. You're giving the Catholic version of his life, instead of his whole life. That does it for me. You'd rather believe the Catholic version above all else.

I'm not the Protestant version. Luther isn't God. He was wrong on several issues (because he's not God.) Then again, my life doesn't revolve around Luther or Protestantism. And, unlike you, I don't skip the whole to tear into a tiny crumble. So, okay, you're not Christian, but you're a very good example of what's wrong with Catholicism, so thanks for the demonstration of what's wrong with it.

So, feel free to keep splitting frog hair without even noticing frogs have no hair. I'll put you on ignore, so you can rant away in peace, of sorts.

 

[valiant]

I have considered that hypothesis and find it odd that other faiths do not have such manifestations of miracles. Your post has cemented my belief that prayers asking for are misguided, but nonetheless, God in his mercy and grace will sometimes honor them.

I personally believe that a meaningful discussion of the RCC faith cannot take place in this format (no reflection of those that post, it is just difficult to ask questions and get thoughtful answers without being misunderstood)

I also believe that those in the RCC are like those Christians of Galacia that Paul wrote to. They are in error, but not cast out of the body.

well actually other faiths do claim healings, which can only really be by psychosomatic healing unless we believe in their gods.

 

[atwhatcost]

I believe that we should be civil and polite, I am polite to those who entered my country illegally, but I don't want them here.

I said that to say that everyone is due civility and respect until they prove themselves unworthy of it.

As for Catholicism, it is a ' ism ', it is not Christianity, it was contrived in the mind of a man named Origin, adapted by Constantine to please the pagans, and has been proven by history to be as bloody a religion as Islam. The Pope himself ordered assassination attempt's on King James who commissioned the authorised King James Translation.

Nevertheless, I will be polite to you Catholic's, or try to.

You might want to do a little research on who King James was. He's no saint.

 

[valiant]

Which of the 30,000 Protestant denominations is the true church of God?

lol it was 10.000 now its 30,000 and rising. and all in a day. we are doing well should soon hit fifty thousand.

the answer is of course that all within them who have truly received Christ as Saviour are in the true church of God.

 

[passing_through]

You might want to do a little research on who King James was. He's no saint.

Sorry, I did research the fellow and found his life to be impeccable.

 

[atwhatcost]

I think it the duty of every Christian to evangelize to a Catholic while they still have time to find their way to Christ.

[video=youtube;5oLtB0WI57o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oLtB0WI57o[/video]

To quote Moat from Avatar, "It is hard to fill a cup that is already full." I have tried to tell the gospel to my family. The Catholics seem to think they already know it, and the non-Catholics have dismissed Jesus long ago, because they think he is the Catholic Church.

It's a mess.

 

[passing_through]

Sorry, I did research the fellow and found his life to be impeccable.

The Papacy wanted him dead, he was considered a threat, but he was spared all attempts on his life.

 

[atwhatcost]

Here is what I know about the Catholic religion, I know it is more about rules regulations and traditions than an actual relationship with God I know that Mary seems to be just as important if not more by some than Jesus himself I know they baptize babies I know they pray to mary a regular human who had a sinful nature as well I believe she is supposed to interceded their prayer to God and I have met some who very strict and condemning but other than this I don't know a lot about Catholism.

But like I said the Catholic lady I am talking to showed more Christianity than she did Catholic, the relationship with God she has is so deep and intimate the knowledge of his nature and heart she had was astounding.

I don't think baptizing babies is wrong. To me, it's like circumcision, a promise the parents are giving to God to raise their child up in him. Some things aren't a matter of salvation. They're a matter of personal opinion.

 

[passing_through]

I don't think baptizing babies is wrong. To me, it's like circumcision, a promise the parents are giving to God to raise their child up in him. Some things aren't a matter of salvation. They're a matter of personal opinion.

Oh, it is so wrong, the infant has not the capability of contrition or repentance.

 

[valiant]

With respect the timeline for NT and OT are different.
NT evolved, as even jason ( sola scriptura advocate) notes there was indeed oral and written both parts of dei verbum, but he conjectures all of that was subsumed in the written eventually, but that rather ignores that some of what is tradition does not add to scripture but interprets it. As I contended with ignatiius/ Smyrna, or for example didache on baptism rite.

but there is nowhere any suggestion that either the Didache or Ignatius were following tradition received from the Apostles. If Ignatius had thought so he would have said so, He was following the tradition of his own times.

 

[valiant]

I don't think baptizing babies is wrong. To me, it's like circumcision, a promise the parents are giving to God to raise their child up in him. Some things aren't a matter of salvation. They're a matter of personal opinion.

but that is not what baptism is about. It was to take place when a man repented and turned to the Messiah. By all means dedicate children. But it is not the meaning of baptism which is a picture of a man receiving the Holy Spirit because he has become Christ's.