The Catholics and my conclusion

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Ahwatukee

Senior Member
Mar 12, 2015
11,162
2,380
113
The Jews held Tradition to be sacred, which it was. Sola scriptura could not, and did not, exist in ancient Judaism, and they had no closed canon until the 1st century.
"They replied, "Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee."[/quote]

"You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me[/quote]

I beg to differ! These are just two examples off the top of my head and it looks like they trusted in the authority of the Scriptures.
 

Patnubay

Senior Member
May 27, 2014
498
8
18
I would be happy to explain, but one thing at a time. You are asking me to post a small library.
It begins with understanding the sacred, and for that we look to the Old Testament. By "sacred", I don't mean something airy or atmospheric or feelings, I mean an earthly object that is holy. It starts with the Ark of the Covenant. It's not just a box. I'm really tired right now, so permit me to give you some easy to read links. I can get into more detail tomorrow or we can exchange messages privately.
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant

4 Biblical Reasons Mary Is The New Ark of the Covenant


That's more than enough for now.
Wow. Don't you think this is too much? "Mary, the New ark of the covenant". Even Mary, if she were alive would not go for this. If this is another Papal declaration, truly, he (this pope) is
leading the
catholics to the slaughter.
 

Ahwatukee

Senior Member
Mar 12, 2015
11,162
2,380
113
Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God's word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean's use of sola Scriptura.
On the contrary epostle! Now you are just circumventing scripture and making things up. The scripture states that the Bereans searched the scriptures daily to see if what was saying was the truth, which would demonstrate that they did not take him at his word, but checked the scriptures as the authority.
 

Patnubay

Senior Member
May 27, 2014
498
8
18
How many violent actions against other nations (that never attacked us or even posed a real threat) in just the past few decades have we good Christians of America been well pleased to support? Right this moment, you yourself.... would you not be in favor of the USA "taking care of" the ISIS situation, once and for all? Hell, so would I. But, if we are truly honest, we would have to say that is Mohammad's teaching, and not Jesus'.

"No", I don't have the answer (all I understand is violence for violence... like most of us) , but then, I would never have dreamed up "the cross", either. Though we claim to (and probably honestly WANT to) follow Jesus, we usually end up doing just the opposite of what He would do.

ha ha ha. The painful truth, Willie
 

Ahwatukee

Senior Member
Mar 12, 2015
11,162
2,380
113
The Apostles reading from the New Testament is a stupid claim. The Bible was compiled by Catholic bishops, successors to the Apostles.
Well, we also have the Codex Sinaiticus which was Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. The Roman church had nothing to do with this first Bible.

You can't assume Catholics do not have an intimate personal relationship with Jesus. In fact, we ingest Him like he told us to, and I don't think you can get more intimate than that. But don't square up the worst Catholics with the best Protestants. That isn't fair.
Again, the problem does not lie with Catholics, but the teachings from the RCC's councils, dogma and catechism. You say you have a personal relationship with him, but everything else that is practiced and believed is foreign to scripture and therefore, anyone who is engaging in those practices and rituals has the wrong the Jesus and the wrong gospel. This why God is calling the people he does have within the RCC/Mystery Babylon to separate themselves from her and that because God is going to put it into the heart of the beast and the ten kings to destroy her sometime during that last 3 1/2 years.
 

Patnubay

Senior Member
May 27, 2014
498
8
18
Following Mary is Idolatry which will keep the Catholics from entering into Heaven. No Catholic who prays the Hail Mary will ever enter into Heaven. No Catholic who prays the Rosary will ever enter into Heaven. No Catholic who bows down to a statue of Mary will ever enter into Heaven.

You Catholics need to understand you cannot enter into Heaven until you reject Mary and follow God only.
I honestly agree with you. I just wonder if we have the right to say that ( not entering heaven ) to other people. I say that because unlike the others, we didn't earn our passage to heaven. We got it thru grace.
 

Patnubay

Senior Member
May 27, 2014
498
8
18

This is what the admin of this site believe. Are they being rude and judgmental?


So for the record, Catholicism is heresy. That's what the admins of this site believe.

Mary WAS A SINNER.

She needed a savior, just like you and me.

She is NOT the "mother of God". God has no mother, because God is God. Yes Jesus is God, and Mary was his mother, but we have to understand the dual nature of Jesus. He was 100% God yes, and also 100% man. Mary was his mother as a man, not as God. No where does the scripture refer to Mary as the "mother of God". And in fact, she's not even mentioned in all the epistles. All the New Testament instruction to the church is all about Jesus, not Mary. They never said "hail Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners". They always said JESUS .. JESUS... JESUS.

This is preaching to the choir for most people here. But it regularly happens that we start to accumulate Catholics here who really promote and argue their Catholicism, along with all the heresy.

So for the record, if anyone wants or needs to hear it, we don't agree with Catholic heresy. And yes it is heresy to exalt any other human being as sinless to the same level as Jesus (as the Catholics do with Mary -- they actually teach that Mary was sinless like Jesus!!!), and put equal focus on a person other than Jesus.


hear hear hear
 

Patnubay

Senior Member
May 27, 2014
498
8
18
From experience, no. But they encourage going to Mary in order to have a better shot at having your prayers answered...which is a blast against the Shed Blood of Jesus.
Prayer is a form of worship. If they pray the " Hail Mary ", then they worship Mary.

There are also songs and hymns of praise for Mary. It is also a form of worship.
 

epostle

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2015
660
15
18
He we can agree on something.

You are the modern day form of Judaism.
No. The Jews are our elder brother.

1. You reject scripture as sole authorltiy
We accept scripture in its material sufficiency and a primary source for doctrine. What the sacred authors meant is inspired by God. Bible alone theology is not in the Bible, it can't work, there is no historical record of it therefore its a man made tradition.

2. You make man made books and writings and call them equal with Gods word.
The missals or missalettes we use at Mass contain all the scripture readings each day for the year, almost the whole bible is covered, more so in a 3 year cycle. We do not call it a bible. Whatever other books and writings you mean, please produce some official Catholic source that states, hints, or suggests we
call them equal with Gods word. It's a big fat lie.
3. You take works, and make them essential for salvation.
Love is a work. Living a moral life is essential for salvation.
4. You think yourself more righteous than you really are
No, I am the worst of sinners. And you are making a judgement. And I know how to spel and how sentence a together put to.

5. You take traditions and religious ceremony (you call them sacraments) and make them ways to salvation.
So did Jesus. Actually, we got the ideas from him, not the other way around.
You managed to get 4 very rich topics in one sentence.
You make the same mistakes they did, they were destroyed in 70 AD. Your church will be destroyed soon.
Are you saying Jesus is a liar? He promised the Apostles He would always be with them. He meant on earth.
well of course he is, He is not quoting jewish leaders or jewish books, he quotes scripture. He was a sola scripturist.
Quoting scripture does not make one a sola scripturist. Satan quoted scripture. In the proper sense, one would have to quote all of scripture to be a pure sola scripturist. It gets a little silly.

lol. Yes, Jesus was quoting scripture. You state he was not a sola scripturist, Yet you claim he quotes scripture..

He always quoted scripture. or he wrote new scripture. He is God. He is allowed to write new scripture. In fact, he kept writing it until revelation was penned. Then he stopped speaking, because he said all we need to hear.
see above
Sacramentalism
by Dave Armstrong (1996)


Evangelical Protestants of the "low church" or non-denominational variety especially, oftentimes exhibit an antipathy to matter as a conveyor of grace (or "blessing"). In other words, they tend to deny the sacramental principle. This hearkens back to the Docetic heresy, with traces of Nestorianism and Donatism. Non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians frequently express the notion that matter is a step down, a "reduction" of Christ's Atonement: Matter vs. Spirit. Catholics (and Orthodox and many Anglicans and Lutherans) believe that the truth is quite the contrary, both prima facie and when examined in scriptural and reasoned depth.

The Incarnation, which made the Atonement possible, is the Event in salvation history which has raised matter to previously unknown heights. God took on human flesh! Given that all created matter was "good" in God's opinion from the start (Gen 1:25), and now is "glorified" further by the wonder of the Incarnation, why is it that such beliefs are still held? What is the scriptural basis? Most non-sacramental Protestants wouldn't deny the goodness of matter per se, but then their beliefs regarding sacraments are all the more puzzling.

Ritual and "physicality" were not abolished by the coming of Christ. Nor was the Atonement purely "spiritual." Quite the contrary! It was as physical as it could be, as well as obviously spiritual. Protestants speak much (or used to, anyway) of "the Blood," and rightly so (see Rev 5:9, Eph 1:7, Col 1:14, Heb 9:12, 1 Pet 1:2, 1 Jn 1:7, etc.). It was the very suffering of Jesus in the flesh, and the voluntary shedding of His own blood, which constituted the crucial, if not essential aspect of the Propitiatory Atonement. One can't avoid this. "By his bruises we are healed" (Is 53:5).

So it is curious that most Protestants appear to possess a distinct and pronounced presuppositional hostility to the sacramental idea of the Real Presence, flowing as it does so straightforwardly from the Incarnation and Crucifixion itself. To me, this smacks of an analogy to the Jewish and Muslim disdain for the Incarnation as an unthinkable (impossible?) task for God to undertake. They view the Incarnation in the same way as the majority of Protestants regard the Eucharist.

For them God wouldn't or couldn't or shouldn't become a man. For evangelicals God wouldn't or couldn't or shouldn't become substantially, sacramentally present under the outward forms of bread and wine. I think the dynamic is the same. And I think that if any bias must be present going into a study of the Eucharist, it ought to be in favor of a material, Real Presence standpoint, for the following scriptural reasons:

The New Testament is filled with incarnational and sacramental indications: instances of matter conveying grace. The Church is the "Body" of Christ (1 Cor 12:27, Eph 1:22-3, 5:30), and marriage (including the sexual act) is described as a direct parallel to Christ and the Church (Eph 5:22-33, esp. 29-32). Jesus even seems to literally equate Himself in some sense with the Church, saying He was "persecuted" by Paul, after the Resurrection (Acts 9:5). Not only that, there is the whole repeated strain in St. Paul's thought of identifying with Christ and His sufferings, very graphically and literally, or so it would seem: 2 Cor 4:10, Phil 2:17, 3:10, 2 Tim 4:6, and above all, Col 1:24; cf. 2 Cor 1:5-7, 6:4-10, 11:23-30, Gal 2:20, 6:17, Rom 12:1. Again, if this be the case, why not a literal Eucharist (and indeed, Paul sure seems to believe in that very thing, too)? It makes all the sense in the world, and is indicated strongly by Scripture in the first place.


Matter conveys grace all over the place in Scripture: baptism confers regeneration: Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Pet 3:21 (cf. Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-4), 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5. Paul's "handkerchiefs" healed the sick (Acts 19:12), as did even Peter's shadow (Acts 5:15), and of course, Jesus' garment (Mt 9:20-22) and saliva mixed with dirt (Jn 9:5 ff., Mk 8:22-25), as well as water from the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:7). Anointing with oil for healing is encouraged (Jas 5:14).

Then there is the laying on of hands for the purpose of ordination and commissioning (Acts 6:6, 1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 1:6) and to facilitate the initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17-19, 13:3, 19:6), and for healing (Mk 6:5, Lk 13:13, Acts 9:17-18). Even under the Old Covenant, a dead man was raised simply by coming in contact with the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21)!

All this and yet so many Protestants reject sacramentalism in principle! Protestants have exhibited many extremes in this regard historically: the no holds-barred iconoclasm of the early Calvinists and some Lutherans (e.g., Carlstadt), in which they marauded about, destroying stained glass windows, altars, religious paintings and statuary (even of Christ!), organs (probably even manger scenes), etc. Drama was banned in England for a time. Early Protestant painting was almost confined to the Dutch in one bleak period, due to the pervasive iconoclasm. Music and dance and art in general is still frowned upon in many Protestant circles, or else vastly under-appreciated. It is obvious that the great majority of classic Western art originated in the Catholic countries. This was no coincidence!

Sacramentalism is merely the Incarnation extended, just as the Church is. No a priori biblical or logical case can be made against a literal Eucharist on the grounds that matter is inferior to spirit and/or indicative of a stunted, primitive, "pagan" spirituality or some such similar negative judgment. If Christ could become Man, He can surely will to become actually and truly present in every sense in bread and wine, once consecrated.

So I challenge "low church" Protestants to go ahead and make their case against the Real Presence, but to do it on scriptural, exegetical grounds, not Docetic, philosophical ones. I submit that oftentimes, the bias against matter is what creates a prior bias in favor of pure symbolism, thus leading to eisegesis of John 6, Lk 22:19-20, 1 Cor 10:16 and 11:27-30.
 

Patnubay

Senior Member
May 27, 2014
498
8
18
He we can agree on something.

You are the modern day form of Judaism.

1. You reject scripture as sole authorltiy
2. You make man made books and writings and call them equal with Gods word.
3. You take works, and make them essential for salvation.
4. You think yourself more righteus than you really are
5. You take traditions and religious ceremony (you call them sacraments) and make them ways to salvation.

You make the same mistakes they did, they were destroyed in 70 AD.

Simplified.....
 

epostle

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2015
660
15
18
Prayer is a form of worship. If they pray the " Hail Mary ", then they worship Mary.

There are also songs and hymns of praise for Mary. It is also a form of worship.
Worship has several meanings.

The word "worship" has undergone a change in meaning in English. It comes from the Old English weorthscipe, which means the condition of being worthy of honor, respect, or dignity. To worship in the older, larger sense is to ascribe honor, worth, or excellence to someone, whether a sage, a magistrate, or God.

For many centuries, the term worship simply meant showing respect or honor, and an example of this usage survives in contemporary English. British subjects refer to their magistrates as "Your Worship," although Americans would say "Your Honor." This doesn’t mean that British subjects worship their magistrates as gods (in fact, they may even despise a particular magistrate they are addressing). It means they are giving them the honor appropriate to their office, not the honor appropriate to God.

Outside of this example, however, the English term "worship" has been narrowed in scope to indicate only that supreme form of honor, reverence, and respect that is due to God. This change in usage is quite recent. In fact, one can still find books that use "worship" in the older, broader sense. This can lead to a significant degree of confusion, when people who are familiar only with the use of words in their own day and their own circles encounter material written in other times and other places.

In Scripture, the term "worship" was similarly broad in meaning, but in the early Christian centuries, theologians began to differentiate between different types of honor in order to make more clear which is due to God and which is not.
As the terminology of Christian theology developed, the Greek term latria came to be used to refer to the honor that is due to God alone, and the term dulia came to refer to the honor that is due to human beings, especially those who lived and died in God’s friendship—in other words, the saints. Scripture indicates that honor is due to these individuals (Matt. 10:41b).

A special term was coined to refer to the special honor given to the Virgin Mary, who bore Jesus—God in the flesh—in her womb. This term, hyperdulia (huper [more than]+ dulia = "beyond dulia"), indicates that the honor due to her as Christ’s own Mother is more than the dulia given to other saints. It is greater in degree, but still of the same kind. However, since Mary is a finite creature, the honor she is due is fundamentally different in kind from the latria owed to the infinite Creator.

All of these terms—latria, dulia, hyperdulia—used to be lumped under the one English word "worship." Sometimes when one reads old books discussing the subject of how particular persons are to be honored, they will qualify the word "worship" by referring to "the worship of latria" or "the worship of dulia." To contemporaries and to those not familiar with the history of these terms, however, this is too confusing.

Another attempt to make clear the difference between the honor due to God and that due to humans has been to use the words adore and adoration to describe the total, consuming reverence due to God and the terms venerate, veneration, and honor to refer to the respect due humans. Thus, Catholics sometimes say, "We adore God but we honor his saints."

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics have been so schooled in hostility toward the Church that they appear unable or unwilling to recognize these distinctions. They confidently (often arrogantly) assert that Catholics "worship" Mary and the saints, and, in so doing, commit idolatry. This is patently false, of course, but the education in anti-Catholic prejudice is so strong that one must patiently explain that Catholics do not worship anyone but God—at least given the contemporary use of the term. The Church is very strict about the fact that latria, adoration—what contemporary English speakers call "worship"—is to be given only to God.

Though one should know it from one’s own background, it often may be best to simply point out that Catholics do not worship anyone but God and omit discussing the history of the term. Many non-Catholics might be more perplexed than enlightened by hearing the history of the word. Familiar only with their group’s use of the term "worship," they may misperceive a history lesson as rationalization and end up even more adamant in their declarations that the term is applicable only to God. They may even go further. Wanting to attack the veneration of the saints, they may declare that only God should be honored.

Both of these declarations are in direct contradiction to the language and precepts of the Bible. The term "worship" was used in the same way in the Bible that it used to be used in English. It could cover both the adoration given to God alone and the honor that is to be shown to certain human beings. In Hebrew, the term for worship is shakhah. It is appropriately used for humans in a large number of passages.

For example, in Genesis 37:7–9 Joseph relates two dreams that God gave him concerning how his family would honor him in coming years. Translated literally the passage states: "‘ehold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf arose and stood upright; and behold, your sheaves gathered round it, and worshiped [shakhah] my sheaf.’ . . . Then he dreamed another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, ‘Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were worshiping [shakhah] me.’"

In Genesis 49:2-27, Jacob pronounced a prophetic blessing on his sons, and concerning Judah he stated: "Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father’s sons shall worship [shakhah] you (49:8)." And in Exodus 18:7, Moses honored his father-in-law, Jethro: "Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and worshiped [shakhah] him and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare, and went into the tent."
Yet none of these passages were discussing the worship of adoration, the kind of worship given to God.

Honoring Saints
Consider how honor is given. We regularly give it to public officials. In the United States it is customary to address a judge as "Your Honor." In the marriage ceremony it used to be said that the wife would "love, honor, and obey" her husband. Letters to legislators are addressed to "The Honorable So-and-So." And just about anyone, living or dead, who bears an exalted rank is said to be worthy of honor, and this is particularly true of historical figures, as when children are (or at least used to be) instructed to honor the Founding Fathers of America.

These practices are entirely Biblical. We are explicitly commanded at numerous points in the Bible to honor certain people. One of the most important commands on this subject is the command to honor one’s parents: "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you" (Ex. 20:12). God considered this command so important that he repeated it multiple times in the Bible (for example, Lev. 19:3, Deut. 5:16, Matt. 15:4, Luke 18:20, and Eph. 6:2–3). It was also important to give honor to one’s elders in general: "You shall rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the Lord" (Lev. 19:32). It was also important to specially honor religious leaders: "Make sacred garments for your brother Aaron [the high priest], to give him dignity and honor" (Ex. 28:2).

The New Testament stresses the importance of honoring others no less than the Old Testament. The apostle Paul commanded: "Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due" (Rom. 13:7). He also stated this as a principle regarding one’s employers: "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ" (Eph. 6:5). "Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed" (1 Tim. 6:1). Perhaps the broadest command to honor others is found in 1 Peter: "Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor" (1 Pet. 2:17).

The New Testament also stresses the importance of honoring religious figures. Paul spoke of the need to give them special honor in 1 Timothy: "Let the presbyters [priests] who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching" (1 Tim. 5:17). Christ himself promised special blessings to those who honor religious figures: "He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward, and he who receives a righteous man [saint] because he is a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward" (Matt. 10:41).

So, if there can be nothing wrong with honoring the living, who still have an opportunity to ruin their lives through sin, there certainly can be no argument against giving honor to saints whose lives are done and who ended them in sanctity. If people should be honored in general, God’s special friends certainly should be honored.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
24,999
13,008
113
58
Your post is meaningless without the source. For all I know you spent a long time making this stuff up.
Go here so you can attack the source - Is The Roman Catholic Church The One True Church Founded By Christ? - ONE WAY JESUS

Earlier, I thought that you mentioned something about Matt Slick, but I see that you edited your post. Carm.org is a good source to refute Roman Catholicism and so is pro-gospel.org with Mike Gendron and justforcatholics.org with Joe Mizzi. I'm sure you'll do your best to discredit all of these men.

Catholics don't teach or believe "works righteousness", that is a Protestant myth.
It's no myth. You continue to remain in denial of the truth. :rolleyes:

Just for Catholics
ANSWERS | HOME

The Catholic Church Teaches Salvation by Works

Question: You mentioned something about how the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is through works. This is contrary to everything that I’ve discovered about the Catholic Church.

Answer: Many Catholics will not agree with you. They frankly admit that they hope to be saved by living a good life. They seek to obey the commandments, participate in the sacraments, go to church, do penance and give alms, recite prayers and so on, in order to merit salvation. In its official writings, the Catholic Church teaches that faith is important; but it also insists on the necessity of good works to merit eternal life. Please read carefully the following quotations from the Council of Trent on Justification:

Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, excluding grace and charity which is poured into their hearts by the Holy Spirit and inheres in them, or also that the grace which justifies us is only the favour of God, let him be anathema. (see note 1)

Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice (righteousness) received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.

Canon 30. If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ (of whom one is a living member), the justified does not truly merit an increase of grace, and eternal life, provided that one dies in the state of grace, the attainment of this eternal life, as well as an increase in glory, let him be anathema.

Official Catholic teaching would not allow the sinner to rely by faith on the mercy of God or to believe that his sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake only. Something more is required. You must keep yourself justified by your own good works. You must merit grace and eternal life by your works. You must pay the debt of sins by your penance and your purgatorial sufferings. That is Rome's salvation by works!

What about Canon 1?

Question But you forgot to mention canon 1, which clearly asserts that we are not justified by our works. "If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."

Answer This canon gives an initial impression that Rome denies justification by works just as the Bible (and evangelicals) also do. In fact it does not! The canon simply says that a man cannot be justified by performing the works of the Law by his own natural powers. However, the same canon indicates that a man can 'receive divine grace through Jesus Christ' to perform the works necessary for justification. In other words, Rome teaches that God helps man to do good works and hence to fully satisfy the Law. Only then is a person qualified to enter heaven. The Council of Trent elaborates this idea in chapter 16:

"For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified, - as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches, - and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God, - we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace..."

To be fair, we should acknowledge that a great emphasis is placed on Jesus Christ and the grace of God. Good works do not originate in man's natural ability but can only be performed through Jesus Christ. Yet, it is also true that these works do not cease to be the good works of the Christian; personal works give him the right to heaven.

So then, what is required for a person to be justified at the end, that is, to be accounted to have fully satisfied divine law, and therefore to merit eternal life? Trent answers: THEIR GOOD WORKS! Their good works fully satisfy the divine law. Their works merit eternal life.

Catholic theology insists that the Christian's good works are truly his good merits, and by these works, he preserves and increases the initial righteousness received in baptism to finally attain eternal life (canons 24 and 32). Without doubt, the official documents of the Roman Catholic Church teach justification by works.

In contrast to this, the Bible declares:

“Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes (reckons, credits to one’s account) righteousness apart from works” (Romans 4:4-6).

The Bible asserts that he who "does not work" but "believes" is justified before God. Justification is not the reward for our works. Justification is the free gift of grace which we do not merit. The works that a Christian performs - and every true believer performs good works - are not the basis of their acceptance before God. The blood and righteousness of Jesus is the only basis for the believer's justification. "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him... by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:9, 19).

That is the true Gospel; Rome’s message is counterfeit.
 
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
251
0
Catholics don't make judgments on who is saved and who is not
Too bad this statement is extremely far from true. And why is that? Must have something to do with the teachings of the Catholic church, otherwise Communion would be freely given to any professing Christian in the Catholic church. And don't say its because of transubstantiation/consubstantiation viewpoints; its about viewing non-Catholics as lost.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
24,999
13,008
113
58
Bartholomew F. Brewer
Hugh Farrell.
Charles Berry.
Bob Bush.

"There two types of works. Not by works of the law (Paul) but good works (James) which is inseparable.
In James 2:15-16, the example of a "work" that James gives is: "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?" To give a brother or sister these things needed for the body would certainly be a "good work" yet to neglect such a brother or sister and not give them the things needed for the body is to break the second great commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) as found written in the law of Moses (Leviticus 19:18).

In Matthew 22:37-40, we read: Jesus said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. Please tell me, which good works could a Christian accomplish that are completely detached from these two great commandments which are found in the law of Moses? (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18). Are there any genuine good works that Christians do which are detached from loving God and our neighbor as ourself? Faith is faith and works are works and we cannot dissect good works from the moral aspect of the law and then teach we are saved by "these" works, just not "those" works. Paul NEVER said saved through faith AND works.

Works is the same as love. You cannot separate love from faith. Some of you probably do this instinctively when you perform any act of mercy. (they are listed).
Faith works through love (Galatians 5:6).

No Christian should do good for a reward, we do good because we love our (sometimes annoying) neighbor.
Yet Christians/Believers will be rewarded for their works (1 Corinthians 3:11-15) but not saved by works (Ephesians 2:8,9).

How is that possible? By the grace of Christ. When you look at it that way, it's what we all aspire to.
Romans 5:5 - Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our (believers) hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us. Unbelievers do not receive agape love in their hearts because they do not receive the Holy Spirit. We have access by faith into grace.. (Romans 5:2).

This constant drum-beat of "works righteousness" is ridiculous. And contrary to several encyclicals since the first "works righteousness" heretic, Pelagius, was renounced by the Church in the six century. Yet the myth prevails.
It's not ridiculous at all. It's what the Roman Catholic church teaches. "If any one saith, that the justice [righteousness] received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification). A Roman Catholic author plainly admits, "It is a universally accepted dogma of the Catholic Church that man, in union with the grace of the Holy Spirit must merit heaven by his good works" (Dogmatic Theology for the Laity, 1977). The Roman Catholic works system of merit is far removed from the gospel of grace.

mailmandan, since you posted a short list of priests who left the priesthood, I see no reason why I can't post some going the other way.
The main reason that I posted those testimonies is to show you how these ex Roman Catholic priests came to understand that salvation is not by works/rituals/sacraments etc.. but THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, but unfortunately, what they said either seemed to go right over your head or you just simply closed your eyes to the truth. :(

The Scott Hahn Conversion Story

Here following is the transcript of a talk given by Scott Hahn outlining his journey of faith, a journey that took him from being a fervent Presbyterian minister and Professor of Theology at a major Protestant seminary to become a Roman Catholic Theologian and internationally known apologist for the Catholic Church. Through study and prayer Scott Hahn came to realize that the truth of the Catholic Church is firmly rooted in Scripture.
read more here

video format https://www.youtube....h?v=XyFuaXlYo8Q

Francis Beckwith was president of the Evangelical Theological Society, an association of 4,300 Protestant theologians. Now he has returned to the Church of his baptism.

Read more here:


Ulf was a restless secular teenager. He turned his life to Christ from the witness of a friend. Birgitta was born in India to Methodist missionary parents. Ulf and Birgitta met at university, while Ulf was studying for ministry in the Lutheran Church. After they were married they were both active in the Charismatic renewal. From this they founded the Word of Life Bible School out of which grew a megachurch. As their ministry grew, they began to encounter Catholics. They began to ask, “What is the essence of the Church?” After living in Israel for three years, the witness of Catholic began a journey for them that would lead them Home to the Catholic Church.
read more here (accompanying video)

Pastor and Flock Convert to CatholicismWhen Pentecostal minister Alex Jones came into the Church this past Easter he was not alone. He brought much of his congregation in with him. read more here

Dr. Robert Koons

A life-long, active Missouri-Synod Lutheran, Dr. Robert Koons made the shocking announcement in 2006 that he was planning on entering the Catholic Church.

"I teach metaphysics, philosophy of religion, philosophical logic, and ancient and medieval philosophy at the University of Texas. I've been at UT for 24 years, after having studied philosophy at Michigan State, Oxford and UCLA. I have authored two books, Paradoxes of Belief and Strategic Rationality (Cambridge Univ., 1997) and Realism Regained (Oxford Univ., 2000), and co-edited a third, The Waning of Materialism (OUP, 2010, with George Bealer). Tim Pickavance and I are at work on a textbook in Metaphysics for Blackwell/Wiley. I serve on the Executive Committee of the Society of Christian Philosophers, and I'm a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture and the Witherspoon Institute, and I'm a member of the Academic Council of the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. I'm the president of the Texas Association of Scholars, the statewide affiliate of the NAS, and Senator of the Phi Beta Kappa Society."

Dr. Robert Koons - Deep in Scripture 06/30/2010 - The Coming Home Network
In not one of these testimonies do you here these people explain how they received salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and not by works. I noticed that Dr. Robert Koons talked about Mary and the Eucharist, but no clear gospel presentation. Unfortunately, these people all bought into the sales pitch and faulty human logic and traditions of the Roman Catholic church and that's why they are in the Roman Catholic church. That salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and is not by works is not hard to understand. It's just hard for Roman Catholics to ACCEPT. It's tragic that human pride will not allow them to come to Christ. Their hands of full of their works/rituals/sacraments and they will not let go in order to take hold of Christ through faith. :(
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest


No. The Jews are our elder brother.


We accept scripture in its material sufficiency and a primary source for doctrine. What the sacred authors meant is inspired by God. Bible alone theology is not in the Bible, it can't work, there is no historical record of it therefore its a man made tradition.


The missals or missalettes we use at Mass contain all the scripture readings each day for the year, almost the whole bible is covered, more so in a 3 year cycle. We do not call it a bible. Whatever other books and writings you mean, please produce some official Catholic source that states, hints, or suggests we
call them equal with Gods word. It's a big fat lie.

Love is a work. Living a moral life is essential for salvation.
No, I am the worst of sinners. And you are making a judgement. And I know how to spel and how sentence a together put to.


So did Jesus. Actually, we got the ideas from him, not the other way around.
You managed to get 4 very rich topics in one sentence.
Are you saying Jesus is a liar? He promised the Apostles He would always be with them. He meant on earth.
Quoting scripture does not make one a sola scripturist. Satan quoted scripture. In the proper sense, one would have to quote all of scripture to be a pure sola scripturist. It gets a little silly.

see above
Sacramentalism
by Dave Armstrong (1996)


Evangelical Protestants of the "low church" or non-denominational variety especially, oftentimes exhibit an antipathy to matter as a conveyor of grace (or "blessing"). In other words, they tend to deny the sacramental principle. This hearkens back to the Docetic heresy, with traces of Nestorianism and Donatism. Non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians frequently express the notion that matter is a step down, a "reduction" of Christ's Atonement: Matter vs. Spirit. Catholics (and Orthodox and many Anglicans and Lutherans) believe that the truth is quite the contrary, both prima facie and when examined in scriptural and reasoned depth.

The Incarnation, which made the Atonement possible, is the Event in salvation history which has raised matter to previously unknown heights. God took on human flesh! Given that all created matter was "good" in God's opinion from the start (Gen 1:25), and now is "glorified" further by the wonder of the Incarnation, why is it that such beliefs are still held? What is the scriptural basis? Most non-sacramental Protestants wouldn't deny the goodness of matter per se, but then their beliefs regarding sacraments are all the more puzzling.

Ritual and "physicality" were not abolished by the coming of Christ. Nor was the Atonement purely "spiritual." Quite the contrary! It was as physical as it could be, as well as obviously spiritual. Protestants speak much (or used to, anyway) of "the Blood," and rightly so (see Rev 5:9, Eph 1:7, Col 1:14, Heb 9:12, 1 Pet 1:2, 1 Jn 1:7, etc.). It was the very suffering of Jesus in the flesh, and the voluntary shedding of His own blood, which constituted the crucial, if not essential aspect of the Propitiatory Atonement. One can't avoid this. "By his bruises we are healed" (Is 53:5).

So it is curious that most Protestants appear to possess a distinct and pronounced presuppositional hostility to the sacramental idea of the Real Presence, flowing as it does so straightforwardly from the Incarnation and Crucifixion itself. To me, this smacks of an analogy to the Jewish and Muslim disdain for the Incarnation as an unthinkable (impossible?) task for God to undertake. They view the Incarnation in the same way as the majority of Protestants regard the Eucharist.

For them God wouldn't or couldn't or shouldn't become a man. For evangelicals God wouldn't or couldn't or shouldn't become substantially, sacramentally present under the outward forms of bread and wine. I think the dynamic is the same. And I think that if any bias must be present going into a study of the Eucharist, it ought to be in favor of a material, Real Presence standpoint, for the following scriptural reasons:

The New Testament is filled with incarnational and sacramental indications: instances of matter conveying grace. The Church is the "Body" of Christ (1 Cor 12:27, Eph 1:22-3, 5:30), and marriage (including the sexual act) is described as a direct parallel to Christ and the Church (Eph 5:22-33, esp. 29-32). Jesus even seems to literally equate Himself in some sense with the Church, saying He was "persecuted" by Paul, after the Resurrection (Acts 9:5). Not only that, there is the whole repeated strain in St. Paul's thought of identifying with Christ and His sufferings, very graphically and literally, or so it would seem: 2 Cor 4:10, Phil 2:17, 3:10, 2 Tim 4:6, and above all, Col 1:24; cf. 2 Cor 1:5-7, 6:4-10, 11:23-30, Gal 2:20, 6:17, Rom 12:1. Again, if this be the case, why not a literal Eucharist (and indeed, Paul sure seems to believe in that very thing, too)? It makes all the sense in the world, and is indicated strongly by Scripture in the first place.


Matter conveys grace all over the place in Scripture: baptism confers regeneration: Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Pet 3:21 (cf. Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-4), 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5. Paul's "handkerchiefs" healed the sick (Acts 19:12), as did even Peter's shadow (Acts 5:15), and of course, Jesus' garment (Mt 9:20-22) and saliva mixed with dirt (Jn 9:5 ff., Mk 8:22-25), as well as water from the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:7). Anointing with oil for healing is encouraged (Jas 5:14).

Then there is the laying on of hands for the purpose of ordination and commissioning (Acts 6:6, 1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 1:6) and to facilitate the initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17-19, 13:3, 19:6), and for healing (Mk 6:5, Lk 13:13, Acts 9:17-18). Even under the Old Covenant, a dead man was raised simply by coming in contact with the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21)!

All this and yet so many Protestants reject sacramentalism in principle! Protestants have exhibited many extremes in this regard historically: the no holds-barred iconoclasm of the early Calvinists and some Lutherans (e.g., Carlstadt), in which they marauded about, destroying stained glass windows, altars, religious paintings and statuary (even of Christ!), organs (probably even manger scenes), etc. Drama was banned in England for a time. Early Protestant painting was almost confined to the Dutch in one bleak period, due to the pervasive iconoclasm. Music and dance and art in general is still frowned upon in many Protestant circles, or else vastly under-appreciated. It is obvious that the great majority of classic Western art originated in the Catholic countries. This was no coincidence!

Sacramentalism is merely the Incarnation extended, just as the Church is. No a priori biblical or logical case can be made against a literal Eucharist on the grounds that matter is inferior to spirit and/or indicative of a stunted, primitive, "pagan" spirituality or some such similar negative judgment. If Christ could become Man, He can surely will to become actually and truly present in every sense in bread and wine, once consecrated.

So I challenge "low church" Protestants to go ahead and make their case against the Real Presence, but to do it on scriptural, exegetical grounds, not Docetic, philosophical ones. I submit that oftentimes, the bias against matter is what creates a prior bias in favor of pure symbolism, thus leading to eisegesis of John 6, Lk 22:19-20, 1 Cor 10:16 and 11:27-30.

if sola scriptura is not true, then any man can make up any doctrine, and no one can prove that man wrong. It leaves to much to the rhelm of men, and not enough to Gods word.

Your church happened to do that back in the 300's.. It seems all you want to do is post what men say, Your a follower of men. Thats fine, you are free to be that way.

I am a follower of God. I am made complete by his word. If I mess up the interpretation, that is on me, I will be held accountable. but I will place my eternity in NO MANS HANDS..
 
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
251
0
Unfortunately, these people all bought into the sales pitch and faulty human logic and traditions of the Roman Catholic church and that's why they are in the Roman Catholic church. That salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and is not by works is not hard to understand. It's just hard for Roman Catholics to ACCEPT. It's tragic that human pride will not allow them to come to Christ. Their hands of full of their works/rituals/sacraments and they will not let go in order to take hold of Christ through faith. :(
Two weeks ago the husband of a dying woman asked me to contact a priest for his dying wife so that she may receive the sacrament of the sick, aka, last rites.

I assured him I would, but also assured him that if his wife died before the priest arrived, it would have no impact on her salvation, for it is in Jesus Christ alone that we are saved.

The sigh of relief on his face was amazing, and all I could think was, how pathetic! Not his reaction, but the fact that the Catholic church's teachings are insulting to Christ and harmful to Catholics.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Two weeks ago the husband of a dying woman asked me to contact a priest for his dying wife so that she may receive the sacrament of the sick, aka, last rites.

I assured him I would, but also assured him that if his wife died before the priest arrived, it would have no impact on her salvation, for it is in Jesus Christ alone that we are saved.

The sigh of relief on his face was amazing, and all I could think was, how pathetic! Not his reaction, but the fact that the Catholic church's teachings are insulting to Christ and harmful to Catholics.
now, saying this, Lets hope his wife put her faith in Christ, and not in the church and all their works, to be saved. Otherwise,, :(
 
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
251
0
now, saying this, Lets hope his wife put her faith in Christ, and not in the church and all their works, to be saved. Otherwise,, :(
Amen to this. She believed in Jesus but she and her husband were non-practicing Catholics because the lack of grace was apparent to them both. Strange they never joined another house of worship.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Amen to this. She believed in Jesus but she and her husband were non-practicing Catholics because the lack of grace was apparent to them both. Strange they never joined another house of worship.

I know a few who came to Christ but never left, The fear the roman church places on people about what will happen if they leave is just to much for some people..


they become non practicing catholics who may show up time to time just t say they did.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
55,247
25,713
113
Worship has several meanings.

The word "worship" has undergone a change in meaning in English. It comes from the Old English weorthscipe, which means the condition of being worthy of honor, respect, or dignity. To worship in the older, larger sense is to ascribe honor, worth, or excellence to someone, whether a sage, a magistrate, or God.

For many centuries, the term worship simply meant showing respect or honor, and an example of this usage survives in contemporary English. British subjects refer to their magistrates as "Your Worship," although Americans would say "Your Honor." This doesn’t mean that British subjects worship their magistrates as gods (in fact, they may even despise a particular magistrate they are addressing). It means they are giving them the honor appropriate to their office, not the honor appropriate to God.

Outside of this example, however, the English term "worship" has been narrowed in scope to indicate only that supreme form of honor, reverence, and respect that is due to God. This change in usage is quite recent. In fact, one can still find books that use "worship" in the older, broader sense. This can lead to a significant degree of confusion, when people who are familiar only with the use of words in their own day and their own circles encounter material written in other times and other places.

In Scripture, the term "worship" was similarly broad in meaning, but in the early Christian centuries, theologians began to differentiate between different types of honor in order to make more clear which is due to God and which is not.
As the terminology of Christian theology developed, the Greek term latria came to be used to refer to the honor that is due to God alone, and the term dulia came to refer to the honor that is due to human beings, especially those who lived and died in God’s friendship—in other words, the saints. Scripture indicates that honor is due to these individuals (Matt. 10:41b).

A special term was coined to refer to the special honor given to the Virgin Mary, who bore Jesus—God in the flesh—in her womb. This term, hyperdulia (huper [more than]+ dulia = "beyond dulia"), indicates that the honor due to her as Christ’s own Mother is more than the dulia given to other saints. It is greater in degree, but still of the same kind. However, since Mary is a finite creature, the honor she is due is fundamentally different in kind from the latria owed to the infinite Creator.

All of these terms—latria, dulia, hyperdulia—used to be lumped under the one English word "worship." Sometimes when one reads old books discussing the subject of how particular persons are to be honored, they will qualify the word "worship" by referring to "the worship of latria" or "the worship of dulia." To contemporaries and to those not familiar with the history of these terms, however, this is too confusing.

Another attempt to make clear the difference between the honor due to God and that due to humans has been to use the words adore and adoration to describe the total, consuming reverence due to God and the terms venerate, veneration, and honor to refer to the respect due humans. Thus, Catholics sometimes say, "We adore God but we honor his saints."

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics have been so schooled in hostility toward the Church that they appear unable or unwilling to recognize these distinctions. They confidently (often arrogantly) assert that Catholics "worship" Mary and the saints, and, in so doing, commit idolatry. This is patently false, of course, but the education in anti-Catholic prejudice is so strong that one must patiently explain that Catholics do not worship anyone but God—at least given the contemporary use of the term. The Church is very strict about the fact that latria, adoration—what contemporary English speakers call "worship"—is to be given only to God.

Though one should know it from one’s own background, it often may be best to simply point out that Catholics do not worship anyone but God and omit discussing the history of the term. Many non-Catholics might be more perplexed than enlightened by hearing the history of the word. Familiar only with their group’s use of the term "worship," they may misperceive a history lesson as rationalization and end up even more adamant in their declarations that the term is applicable only to God. They may even go further. Wanting to attack the veneration of the saints, they may declare that only God should be honored.

Both of these declarations are in direct contradiction to the language and precepts of the Bible. The term "worship" was used in the same way in the Bible that it used to be used in English. It could cover both the adoration given to God alone and the honor that is to be shown to certain human beings. In Hebrew, the term for worship is shakhah. It is appropriately used for humans in a large number of passages.

For example, in Genesis 37:7–9 Joseph relates two dreams that God gave him concerning how his family would honor him in coming years. Translated literally the passage states: "‘ehold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf arose and stood upright; and behold, your sheaves gathered round it, and worshiped [shakhah] my sheaf.’ . . . Then he dreamed another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, ‘Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were worshiping [shakhah] me.’"

In Genesis 49:2-27, Jacob pronounced a prophetic blessing on his sons, and concerning Judah he stated: "Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father’s sons shall worship [shakhah] you (49:8)." And in Exodus 18:7, Moses honored his father-in-law, Jethro: "Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and worshiped [shakhah] him and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare, and went into the tent."
Yet none of these passages were discussing the worship of adoration, the kind of worship given to God.

Honoring Saints
Consider how honor is given. We regularly give it to public officials. In the United States it is customary to address a judge as "Your Honor." In the marriage ceremony it used to be said that the wife would "love, honor, and obey" her husband. Letters to legislators are addressed to "The Honorable So-and-So." And just about anyone, living or dead, who bears an exalted rank is said to be worthy of honor, and this is particularly true of historical figures, as when children are (or at least used to be) instructed to honor the Founding Fathers of America.

These practices are entirely Biblical. We are explicitly commanded at numerous points in the Bible to honor certain people. One of the most important commands on this subject is the command to honor one’s parents: "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you" (Ex. 20:12). God considered this command so important that he repeated it multiple times in the Bible (for example, Lev. 19:3, Deut. 5:16, Matt. 15:4, Luke 18:20, and Eph. 6:2–3). It was also important to give honor to one’s elders in general: "You shall rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the Lord" (Lev. 19:32). It was also important to specially honor religious leaders: "Make sacred garments for your brother Aaron [the high priest], to give him dignity and honor" (Ex. 28:2).

The New Testament stresses the importance of honoring others no less than the Old Testament. The apostle Paul commanded: "Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due" (Rom. 13:7). He also stated this as a principle regarding one’s employers: "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ" (Eph. 6:5). "Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed" (1 Tim. 6:1). Perhaps the broadest command to honor others is found in 1 Peter: "Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor" (1 Pet. 2:17).

The New Testament also stresses the importance of honoring religious figures. Paul spoke of the need to give them special honor in 1 Timothy: "Let the presbyters [priests] who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching" (1 Tim. 5:17). Christ himself promised special blessings to those who honor religious figures: "He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward, and he who receives a righteous man [saint] because he is a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward" (Matt. 10:41).

So, if there can be nothing wrong with honoring the living, who still have an opportunity to ruin their lives through sin, there certainly can be no argument against giving honor to saints whose lives are done and who ended them in sanctity. If people should be honored in general, God’s special friends certainly should be honored.
Still posting in your shot gun style, I see, something you called a sign of someone's lack of desire to discuss. When are you going to start practicing what you preach?

This volume of misrepresentations is a sign you are not interested in discussion. It's called the shot gun tactic. One thing at a time please.