Do Catholic priests have the authority to forgive sins on earth?

[PRmerger]

Are you calling me ignorant and only politely saying “misinformed”? That is insulting.

I believe that you are indeed quite uninformed about the Catholic faith. :sad_yes:

In order to prove this I ask you these two questions:
-what is the Immaculate Conception?
-where in the Mass is Scripture prayed?

Most folks cannot answer this without googling. My guess is that you are in this category.

You already tried to insult my intelligence by saying that Catholic priests do not make the claim to forgive sins,

Actually, Jenny, you are misrepresenting what I said. This is what I said (bolded for emphasis):

It is good that you see this. The Catholic priests do not forgive on their own authority either.

 

[david_ruiz]

Here, the definition of “Authority”

The only definition we could use for “Authority” for the Bible would be #4, and that would negate the use of all others. Authority is equivalent in its misuse to “infallibility”. For both to work, the subject to which they are being applied needs to have the faculties to ACT (in the one case the ability to make decisions and in the other the ability to make incorrect statements). Since the Bible can do neither, it can not be “authoritative” in any sense other than the referential (The Bible IS most definitely an authoritative reference for all things which Christ said and which were then recorded, but we DO have other sources of knowledge regarding what Christ taught, i.e. the Church).

Continued…

Authority must have a territory or area where as you say is enforceable .The president has authority , but only in the United States. I believe the Catholic church has full authority,it’s popes and bishops and dogmas ,but only for Catholics.I believe the bible ,God’s written word are authoratative ,as they are from God ,and ALL things are in his dominion .It is fully enforceable and has power .What may be confusing is God’s timing and mode of operendum …The bible says because judgement is postponed,men continue in their sin (apparent lack of power in His authority).You can jump off the Empire State building and live for a while, snickering at gravity,until you hit bottom .Then the authority of gravity is quite apparent…As far as mode of operendum ,God allows you to give the bible as much , or as little , authority as you wish .We have free will ,and the diginity of choice is His gift to us…As others have stated ,every jot and tittle shall not pass away till all be fullfilled -we shall be judged by his Word. Not by my church or catechism or yours…So you agree with #4 as a possibility but that it would negate others? Is that how you see us ,negating all others powers , deputies and forms of authority ? Can not all things exist , but under #4 ? Is not that how it will be in the end ,all things under His foot, and we are to advance the kingdom?..“other than referential” -and what is wrong with that .The whole thing since the Garden has been the challenge of ,“What hath God really said ?” The whole game is referential. Other sources ? that can only be a further magnifying glass .That is showing up what already is, our spiritual health .We agree on much biblical and disagree on some deep things also .Other sources will only produce the same results .So why not stick to the sure thing ,God’s Word, disagreements and all…Other sources for The"Confessional" ,as we have discussed , are real murky. Biblical sources give you a foundation, but no real practice or working out of the disputed interpretation .

 

[Jenny4Him]

I believe that you are indeed quite uninformed about the Catholic faith. :sad_yes:

Actually, Jenny, you are misrepresenting what I said. This is what I said (bolded for emphasis):

Which is in direct contradiction to the catechism; perhaps you forgot or don’t recall that aspect of the catechism?

Immaculate conception is Mary never having the stain of sin in her conception, which means her mother nor father did either and if you say that God protected Mary, then I say to you Mary was with sin as she aptly stated in Luke 1and God protected Jesus from her, which accords with the Biblical record whereas Catholic tradition does not on either account. (paragraph 49X; 491 or 492 if I recall speaks of immaculate conception) Later, Catholic theologians, figured if you have a perfect and sinless person, then they can’t die according to Scripture (the penalty for sin is DEATH), so in 1950 the Church hurried to add the assumption of Mary because the penalty for sin is death and since they made the claim she was never stained with sin and was sinless her entire life, then it reasons she could not have died without entirely contradicting Scripture. It took them over 100 years to figure out that the one can’t go w/out the other.

What makes Jesus so special is that He actually was without the stain of sin and lived a perfect life and should not have died; so why did He? Because He was made sin and therefore He had to die and by His resurrection the completely defeated death and its penalty; one sacrifice, one time, for all whom He chooses to save based on His grace by the Father’s choice alone. That is the atoning and completed work of Christ on behalf of Christians; praise God!

As far as the other question about the Mass; i’m not clear on what you are asking…so i’ll just go with i don’t know.

 

[Cat_Herder]

1. THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

Immaculate conception is Mary never having the stain of sin in her conception

Yes.

Genesis 3:15 (NRSV)

I will put enmity between you [satan] and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.’

Notice that both the Woman and Her Offspring are at enmity with the devil.

The Woman’s Offspring defeats satan by crushing the devil’s head. This occurred on Mount Calvary (which means skull-place) in 33 AD. The Woman’s Offspring is undoubtedly Jesus.

Who is the Woman, then? The female from which He off-sprung: Mary.

She isn’t Israel, because the Jews of Jesus’s earthly time were not at enmity with the devil. Enmity means total opposition, and everyone who commits sin is a child of the devil (1 John 3:8). The Jews were sinners in need of a Redeemer, as demonstrated by their actions in Pilate’s prateorium; although as sinners, we all bear guilt for the death of the Lord.

And She isn’t Eve, for the same reason.

For that matter, and precisely for that reason, no one can qualify as the Woman without divine intervention. All sin is cooperation with the devil—and all are sinners, so no one is at enmity with the devil. Because all are sinners, no one can be the Woman, the tree from which Her Offspring, the Messiah comes—without a specific prior act of divine grace that preserves from sin.

The Immaculate Conception is that necessary divine intervention, that prior act of divine grace, which Scripture required in order for the Messiah’s coming to be accomplished. It is the Immaculate Conception that put the Woman at enmity with the devil so that the Messiah could fulfill this prophecy of Scripture.

which means her mother nor father did either

No.

But let’s say that you’re right and for someone to be immaculately conceived, their parents must be immaculate. Well, Mary is still immaculate in your theory, because Jesus was immaculate and Mary is His Mother.

So now you’ll say that Jesus and God are not the same Person, that Mary is the mother of only the earthly Jesus, or that She is just a surrogate mother. Of course, that strips Jesus of His Jewish descent and Davidic DNA and so disqualifies Him from being the Messiah.

That line of thinking is also what started the Holocaust. Hitler wanted to make the Jews sub-human, but first he had to get around the fact that the Son of God is a Jew. Hitler convinced the Christian German people that Jesus was an Aryan. How do you think he did that? By getting rid of Mary and the Catholic Church.

and if you say that God protected Mary, then I say to you Mary was with sin as she aptly stated in Luke 1

She did not say She was a sinner. She said Jesus was Her Savior. No duh—the whole point of the Immaculate Conception was to bring Jesus into the world. Mary was saved by Her Son in a different fashion than the rest of us, but that does not change the identity of the Savior.

How could She be saved before Calvary? Well, how could Enoch and Elijah be raptured before Calvary? Because…

[BIBLEDRB]Rev 13:8[/BIBLEDRB]

… Christ’s Sacrifice is not bound by time. Calvary reaches into the past and the future (that is, now, at every Mass.)

2. THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY

Later, Catholic theologians, figured if you have a perfect and sinless person, then they can’t die according to Scripture (the penalty for sin is DEATH), so in 1950 the Church hurried to add the assumption of Mary

The Assumption of Mary is not a “new” teaching. Popes do not have the authority to make new teachings. All they can do is clarify the original teachings that were once and for all handed down to the saints (Jude).

Fatal to your argument that the Assumption is a new teaching dating to 1950 is the fact that the Orthodox, who schismed from the Catholic Church in 1054 AD, have celebrated the “Dormition of the Theotokos” since time immemorial: the dogma that Mary died—and then rose again just like Her Son, and was promptly assumed (raptured) like Enoch and Elijah. (Catholics are also allowed to believe this version of the Assumption).

Show it to me in the Bible, you say. OK.

[BIBLEDRB]Revelation 12:1-5[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Revelation 12:13-14[/BIBLEDRB]

The Woman (remember Her from Genesis?) gives birth to Jesus and is given wings and a shelter where the devil cannot go. Hmm. Gee. Where could that be? Heaven.

But you say the Woman of Revelation 12 suffers anguish in delivering Her Child, and only sinners have birth pains. You justify this based on the following Scripture:

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:16[/BIBLEDRB]

MATH 1301: Notice that it says INCREASE or MULTIPLY. To increase or multiply something there must be some prior existing quantity (n X 0 == 0). To make birth pangs worse, there must already be birth pangs.

But wait, you say, that Woman’s sufferings represent those of Israel in a pretribulational rapture scenario. That, of course, requires the Church to be raptured, to be out of the reach of the devil, at the time the woman is suffering.

But guess who the devil goes after immediately after the Woman is given shelter.

[BIBLEDRB]Revelation 12:14-17[/BIBLEDRB]

Do Jews keep the testimony of Christ? No. Christians do. But they were supposed to be raptured, right? Wrong—the devil is able to make war on them, but not the Woman. And if the Woman is the Jews, then why is she alone rescued? After all,rapturists say the tribulation will devastate the Jews, not the Church, but the Bible has it the other way around.

Conclusion: The Woman is Mary, and there’s no pre-trib rapture.

 

[david_ruiz]

Please believe me when I tell you that I was rabidly anti-Catholic and it was only the Holy Spirit that finally managed to convert me with the spiritual equivalent of a sledgehammer shot to the back of the head.

 

[david_ruiz]

Augustine would be appalled at your not capitalizing Catholic.

 

[david_ruiz]

1. THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

Yes.

Genesis 3:15 (NRSV)

I

will put enmity

​

 

[Cat_Herder]

It is late ,and i am trying to answer threads in order but i saw this and lost my composure.

I did not cause you to lose your composure. someone else did that. (Lack of capitalization intentional.)

Woman is eve .

Please read Genesis 3:15 again. Both the Woman and Her Seed are at the same enmity with the devil.

You have asserted that Eve is at the same enmity with the devil as Jesus Christ is.

Eve COOPERATED with the devil to bring down mankind. Her sin disqualifies her from being the Woman just as sin disqualified every woman before Mary. There must be one and only one Woman who is at enmity with the devil, who is without sin, from whom the Messiah springs. The Bible says so.

That is the context God is talking to satan in front of adam and eve .

No, the context is JESUS. The context of the entire Bible is JESUS and Genesis 3:15 is a promise that JESUS will redeem mankind—through the Woman.

 

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by **PRmerger **
It is good that you see this. The Catholic priests do not forgive on their own authority either.

Which is in direct contradiction to the catechism; perhaps you forgot or don’t recall that aspect of the catechism?

Let me quote from your own post that you cited, Jenny. You yourself have shown that the Catholic Church teaches the Catholic priests do not forgive on their own authority.

I thank you for that citation from the Catechism to prove our point. :tiphat:

(BB codes my emphasis)

Only God forgives sin
1441 Only God forgives sins.39 Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, “The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven."40 Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.41
1442 Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation."42 The apostle is sent out “on behalf of Christ” with “God making his appeal” through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."43
Reconciliation with the Church
1443 During his public life Jesus not only forgave sins, but also made plain the effect of this forgiveness: he reintegrated forgiven sinners into the community of the People of God from which sin had alienated or even excluded them. A remarkable sign of this is the fact that Jesus receives sinners at his table, a gesture that expresses in an astonishing way both God’s forgiveness and the return to the bosom of the People of God.44
1444 In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ’s solemn words to Simon Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."45 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head."46
1445 The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. *Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God. *
The sacrament of forgiveness

 

[PRmerger]

Immaculate conception is Mary never having the stain of sin in her conception,

Very good, Jenny.

which means her mother nor father did either

No, the Catholic Church does not teach that.

It’s fitting that Mary was created without sin, as her womb held the Divine. But it was not required.

Thus, Sts. Anne and Joachim did not have to be immaculate also.

Later, Catholic theologians, figured if you have a perfect and sinless person, then they can’t die according to Scripture (the penalty for sin is DEATH), so in 1950 the Church hurried to add the assumption of Mary because the penalty for sin is death and since they made the claim she was never stained with sin and was sinless her entire life, then it reasons she could not have died without entirely contradicting Scripture. It took them over 100 years to figure out that the one can’t go w/out the other

Oh! So much misinformation!

Firstly, the CC does not teach that Mary did not die. Only that she was Assumed into heaven, body and soul. She could have died first. The teaching intentionally omits whether she died or did not; rather, it uses the phrase, “having completed the course of her earthly life”.

Secondly, this teaching was professed and believed Christians from the earliest centuries, not just in 1950. There are no relics of Mary. Only the relics of the other apostles. Why? Because all the early Christians knew that Mary’s body was not here on earth.

What makes Jesus so special is that He actually was without the stain of sin and lived a perfect life and should not have died; so why did He? Because He was made sin and therefore He had to die and by His resurrection the completely defeated death and its penalty; one sacrifice, one time, for all whom He chooses to save based on His grace by the Father’s choice alone. That is the atoning and completed work of Christ on behalf of Christians; praise God!

Again, this is very Catholic of you to say this!

As far as the other question about the Mass; i’m not clear on what you are asking…so i’ll just go with i don’t know.

Fodder for another thread, then. Suffice it to say that yes, you do not know the Mass.

 

[Jenny4Him]

1. THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII solemnly declared:
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory[15]

Speaking excathedra; so I stand on my point firmly. The fact that theologians cannot determine if she died first or not is not to understand the nature of sin. If someone never sinned, then that someone never dies. For the wages of sin are what?

However all of it is mute. Anyone can twist the Scripture as the previous post demonstrates to make it say what it clearly doesn’t. The Catholic Mary is an interesting character with many abnormalities that other sinners do not seem to have; so she is fictitious or Scripture is wrong and particularly Luke got it wrong when he recorded what Mary actually claimed and said in contradiction to RC Maryology. The same is true with the catechism concerning the forgiving of sins by the priest; they not only contradict the Scripture, they contradict themselves.

I still wish any Catholic can show me where an apostle forgave a single sin by their own authority; whether given to them or not.

 

[PRmerger]

I still wish any Catholic can show me where an apostle forgave a single sin by their own authority; whether given to them or not.

I am heartened that you have, at least now, acknowledged that there is authority that has been given to them, from Christ. That is, none of the apostles, nor their successors, claimed to do God’s works in their own name, but rather, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Now, to your point. Why must we show you where an apostle forgave a single sin?

Does everything we believe have to be found in the Bible? That, clearly, is something you’ve been told by someone else, but you’ve never read that in a single page of the Bible. That, in other words, is a man-made tradition you’ve succumbed to. :sad_yes:

 

[Cat_Herder]

The fact that theologians cannot determine if she died first or not is not to understand the nature of sin. If someone never sinned, then that someone never dies. For the wages of sin are what?

You’d have to ask Jesus Christ about that.

So why did Enoch and Elijah not die? Are they not sinners? If they were sinners, how were their sins forgiven? If their sins were forgiven the way you say yours were, does that mean you will never die?

However all of it is mute.

You mean “moot.”

Anyone can twist the Scripture as the previous post demonstrates to make it say what it clearly doesn’t.

Exhibit A: the people who taught you what the Bible supposedly says.

The same is true with the catechism concerning the forgiving of sins by the priest; they not only contradict the Scripture, they contradict themselves.

You are ignoring James 5:14-15, John 20:22, and this:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 9:5-8[/BIBLEDRB]

I still wish any Catholic can show me where an apostle forgave a single sin by their own authority; whether given to them or not.

You’ve been shown 2 Corinthians 2:10 several times already. But you refuse to accept it just as you refuse to accept Gen. 3:15, James 2:24, Malachi 1:11, etc.

The Catholic Mary is an interesting character with many abnormalities that other sinners do not seem to have; so she is fictitious or Scripture is wrong and particularly Luke got it wrong when he recorded what Mary actually claimed and said in contradiction to RC Maryology.

Again, you reference Mary’s declaration that Jesus is Her Savior. The Church agrees with that statement (and the rest of the Bible) 100%. The difference is HOW She was saved. Why don’t you help us get back on topic and explain how peoples’ sins are forgiven?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Thanks .Fascinating .I have read also (Catholic historian) ,that first churches had two parts ,one for baptized and one for catechumens. People understood baptism for remission of sins ,and as you allude , no penance.

Yes, some churches at the time had two parts, some did not. Either way, when it was time for the Eucharistic Sacrifice the early Christians would send the uninitiated (unconfirmed) out of the sanctuary area and bar the doors.

I am afraid that I dont understand the “as you allude, no penance” statement. Baptism was for the remission of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit (“Be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit” etc.). Penance had more to do with confession, which I will deal with below.

Some even preferred to wait till deathbed and for sure have a good washing before death .Did they not have confessionals yet ?

Why, thanks for bringing this up, Yes, some did attempt to wait till death, and yes they had confession. Delaying baptism was not an artifact of the very early Church, people were always baptized with their whole family as soon as one was converted (There are two or three scriptural references I can think of, but I bet you know them too so I wont fill space with them). Confession, however, was made publicly in front of the ENTIRE congregation!!! And most often the penance required was to abstain from the Eucharist for up to a year (sometimes longer, but that would have been EXTREMELY harsh, even in the days of stronger penances than the norm today “Say a prayer of thanks”). So yes, they had confession. Yes, as time progressed people began to delay baptism to allow themselves to sin longer (“Oh Lord, make me holy, just not yet”) and I dont remember the point when the Church came down against this practice officially, but oh well.

Seems superstitious or at least not well grounded in truth

Why thank you for being so charitable

It was not superstition, and it was grounded in the truth of baptism, but it was disingenuous.

had a lot of heathen converts at once also. It is strange because the catechumen were “believers’”, which to me is born again , regenerated, yet they were not baptized nor partook of any sacrament, and they could do this for years .Weird.

You see it as “weird” because you dont understand the seriousness of what is being undertaken at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. To be fair, there are MANY “faithful” Catholics who dont understand it either. And FTR, the case was not that they “could” do this for many years, it was a requirement until they were FIT to join the Church (from what I remember), i.e. understood the faith. Until the time of their confirmation, the catechumens were like the fiancee of a sibling: you would be happy and loving towards them because they were in love with your family, but until the wedding, they were not IN the family yet. (I really need to work on my analogies. For a while they were doing good, but the quality has really dropped in the past couple months.)

With the practice of infant baptism ,catechumens diminished and churches had only one part for all.

Ummm, No. Infant baptism was practiced in the time of the apostles, before during and immediately following the writing of the Gospels and the NT Scriptures. That was when the Catholics were converting (i think) 40% of the people in each country they went to per decade. So infant baptisms had nothing to do with catechumens. As for Churches having only one part, Have you never been into a Catholic Church built before 1960? For instance

Narthex (or “Vestibule”)
A true narthex is either an outside, covered porch-like structure or an inside area separated from the nave (the “body” of the church) by a screen, but this word has come to mean “entry” or “foyer.” Originally, penitents and Catechumens were confined to this area until their reconciliation with or initiation into the Church. A westwork (or “westwerk”) is the front of a large cathedral that has a tall facade and, usually, towers and an upper chamber (imagine the front entry of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris with its towers and sculpture).

In more “traditional” Catholic services they still have a “sending out” of the candidates and catechumens before the liturgy of the Eucharist.

Continued

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

As far as our topic hear , is it one wrong to think that the sacrament or practice of the confessional was not from the first ?

That it was an artifact produced in the 10-12th century? Absolutely wrong. Although perhaps incorrect would be a gentler term.

It certainly was not like it is today .

True, confession has become too gentle, IMHO, but I trust my Holy Mother Church to guide me in this Sacrament.

Yet your dogma is very important , that you would think as it is today would go all the way back ,but it does not.Many things do -baptism,communion, reading scripture , but the sacrament of penance has a much weaker link ,in my estimation.

Inaccurate. In fact, the early church (i.e. 50-150 a.d.) gathered on the lords day to worship (pray) and to celebrate the SACRIFICE of the Lords Supper. And yes, it was always considered a SACRIFICE, not a symbol. And yes, there was confession then also.

Authority must have a territory or area where as you say is enforceable .The president has authority , but only in the United States. I believe the Catholic church has full authority,it’s popes and bishops and dogmas ,but only for Catholics.I believe the bible ,God’s written word are authoratative ,as they are from God ,and ALL things are in his dominion.It is fully enforceable and has power.

Does the Dictionary have power to do anything? Nope. Is it authoritative in the spelling of words in the English language? Yup. Then what is needed to correctly use the Dictionary? A PERSON. Same situation with the Bible. It has the authority of being Christs words and Theopneustos, yet still requires men to interpret. It is incapable of action by definition of its matter.

What may be confusing is God’s timing and mode of operendum …The bible says because judgement is postponed,men continue in their sin (apparent lack of power in His authority).You can jump off the Empire State building and live for a while, snickering at gravity,until you hit bottom .Then the authority of gravity is quite apparent…As far as mode of operendum ,God allows you to give the bible as much , or as little , authority as you wish .We have free will ,and the diginity of choice is His gift to us…As others have stated ,every jot and tittle shall not pass away till all be fullfilled -we shall be judged by his Word. Not by my church or catechism or yours.

Can you give me something Biblical to back up that statement “We will be judged by his Word”? Cause I can give you a couple that say we will be judged by our fruits, by our actions, by what we DID or DIDNT DO.

Ok, lets think about this in a different way (although still a tired, worn out way), Did Christ write a bible? Did he tell his apostles to get together and read his word? Nope. What he DID was to institute the apostles as his visible body on earth to spread his word. PEOPLE would spread the word, not a book. How did the concept of Christs Church, the visible and physical manifestation of Christ on earth, come to be Christs bible instead? When do you think that happened? It had to be after the council of Nicea where the bible was compiled, which leaves what, 350 years with a Church instead of a bible, including the time of the 12…

continued

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

So you agree with #4 as a possibility but that it would negate others?

No, it would not negate the others, the others a literally not possible to apply to an inanimate thing.

Is that how you see us ,negating all others powers , deputies and forms of authority ? Can not all things exist , but under #4 ? Is not that how it will be in the end ,all things under His foot, and we are to advance the kingdom?

I dont understand this bit… What are you getting at?

“other than referential” -and what is wrong with that.

Nothing, but referential does not equal Authority to rebuke, correct, etc. Those are the attributes of human authority, not the authority of unchanging (static) things, even if they are the Sacred Scriptures.

The whole thing since the Garden has been the challenge of ,“What hath God really said ?” The whole game is referential. Other sources ? that can only be a further magnifying glass .That is showing up what already is, our spiritual health .We agree on much biblical and disagree on some deep things also .Other sources will only produce the same results .So why not stick to the sure thing ,God’s Word, disagreements and all…Other sources for The"Confessional" ,as we have discussed , are real murky. Biblical sources give you a foundation, but no real practice or working out of the disputed interpretation .

Then I will come back to this, if you hold the bible as the authority, then why dont you follow what it says? “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood”, unless you eath the flesh and drink the blood", “This is my body, broken for you”, “This is my blood poured out for you”, to Peter “Feed my sheep, feed my sheep, feed my sheep”, “Unless you are born again of water and the Holy Spirit”. Yet you do not come to the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, you refuse to be fed by the descendants of peter, except in the sense of a thief who steals the bread from owner of the house. Heck, you even withhold baptism from children!!! According to 1peter 3:21 baptism now saves you. How can you justify withholding that from children when Jesus says to “suffer the little children”?

FidesSpesCarita;7315050:

When you were “anti-Catholic” what were you for ? I was Catholic , then nothing (fell away) , then anti-God , anti-Jesus, whether a Catholic or Protestant Jesus or any Jesus. Then His merciful sledgehammer came, and the Holy Spirit used much from Catholic upbringing but also had to flush some of it away for it’s hindrances., Much came from plain old evangelical ( for lack of a better word )-protestsant gospel.

I was evangelical before I was Catholic and thought I was for Christ. It took a while to realize that I was like Saul and wanted to become Paul, if you catch my drift.

The Holy Spirit said nothing of churches .I was faced with the simplest of spiritual truths , in facing Him , Jesus, like never before ,in spirit and truth. The song says, “Come to Jesus”. **

I was born into His Body (His family-that the Holy Spirit did promise me) . I was placed in His Church (where two or three are gathered,in my name -there am I"). Generally where one is born ,one stays.

You had already been re-born into his body if you were born and raised Catholic as you would have been baptised already. You were already in his Church, yet in you the hand has said to the foot “I dont need you”.

Sorry ,sloppy of me .It definitely crossed my mind when I typed it.Still ,The meaning still may have had some of it’s original meaning of “Universal” by his time.He unfortunately laid much groundwork for making it “Roman”.

The word Catholic is the same today as it was when Irenaeus penned at the beginning of the second century. Just because you refuse to be a part of the Church that Christ began, dont blame the Church for not being universal, blame yourself for putting yourself outside of its umbrella. Any and all are welcome in the Church and it is infinitely larger on the inside than it is on the outside. I would welcome you home, as would the entire community of Christs Church.

Sounds quite "Universal "to me.

No, it sounds like quotes pulled from context without a proper understanding of St. Augustine. He is the one who famously stated “I would not have believed the scriptures were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church”.

See ,I am catholic -quite Universal this Christianity. But tell me ,could you apply my unabridged statement not just to our lives ,but to the Church ?
God bless you,

You have assumed parts of the Catholic Faith and assimilated them into yourself like a man who wears the Skin of a lion and pretends to be one. Harsh, I know, but true. You have “come to understand” tiny parts of that which the Church has known for millenia and think yourself blessed for that. I remember when I was a child I would finally figure out how something worked (I was constantly taking things apart) and run to my father and explain it, slowly, since he obviously didnt know anything. It wasnt until I matured that I finally realized that he already understood almost everything I “figured out” and that I was not the first, the best, or even particularly good at understanding things. When you are willing to mature in the faith, it will come. If you are as I used to be and pray “God, enlighten me as to the meaning of scriptures” while simultaneously thinking “Jesus couldnt possibly have meant it literally when He told us to eat His flesh and drink His blood” then you are not honestly searching. I wasnt, I wasnt searching for affirmation of current beliefs, not the will and mind of God.

FSC

 

[Jenny4Him]

1. THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

Yes.

Genesis 3:15 (NRSV)

I
It is late ,and i am trying to answer threads in order but i saw this and lost my composure.Woman is eve .That is the context God is talking to Satan in front of adam and eve .The old testament ,to this day have the same story .Satan has his seed(Esau types), and Eve the righteous seed .Why do you think you have all the begats ,there are the righteous ones and the not so righteous ,carriers of the promise ,and antagonists.Old testament follows the two seeds.I have to read all your reply ,but part of it stems from anti-semitism,so prevalent in our history Luther and popes called them “dogs”. This deserves better critique .if we be graced with the time ,and i calm down.

Good luck
​

​

 

[Jenny4Him]

1. THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

Let’s say that you’re right and for someone to be immaculately conceived, their parents must be immaculate. Well, Mary is still immaculate in your theory, because Jesus was immaculate and Mary is His Mother.

If that theory were extrapulated backwards, then there is no need for a Savior of anykind because there is no sin.

She did not say She was a sinner. She said Jesus was Her Savior. No duh—the whole point of the Immaculate Conception was to bring Jesus into the world. Mary was saved by Her Son in a different fashion than the rest of us, but that does not change the identity of the Savior.

Double speaking will never make a legitimate point. What is the person who needs a savior being saved from in the Biblical context? Sin. What does Romans 3, Proverbs 6, Ephesians 2 and a whole host of other passages say about the condition all every single human ever born (including Mary)? That all fall short and all have sinned and no, not one does good and not one seeks after God and men love the darkness, this would include Mary.

If you are going to claim Mary was “saved” in a “SPECIAL WAY”, then you must be able to prove that from Scripture otherwise you are reaching for some authority that is fictitious.

Please do not bother; I cannot stand to see God’s Holy Word distorted to new meanings and if it bothers me, then how much more does it God? Whom I fear.

How could She be saved before Calvary? Well, how could Enoch and Elijah be raptured before Calvary? Because…

Read the Bible and it will give you a clear and concise answer to that question and many others as well. Rather than having you be like a Berean, I’ll point you to the passage that answers that question; Hebrews 11:39.

 

[Cat_Herder]

If that theory were extrapulated backwards, then there is no need for a Savior of anykind because there is no sin.

Double speaking will never make a legitimate point. What is the person who needs a savior being saved from in the Biblical context? Sin. What does Romans 3, Proverbs 6, Ephesians 2 and a whole host of other passages say about the condition all every single human ever born (including Mary)? That all fall short and all have sinned and no, not one does good and not one seeks after God and men love the darkness, this would include Mary.
If you are going to claim Mary was “saved” in a “SPECIAL WAY”, then you must be able to prove that from Scripture otherwise you are reaching for some authority that is fictitious.

What about Enoch and Elijah? They (and only them in the entire OT) were raptured without dying. (Gn 5:24, Hb 11:5, 2Kg 2:11) Why did they get special treatment if “all fell short” and the “wages of sin is death?”

 

[PRmerger]

What is the person who needs a savior being saved from in the Biblical context? Sin.

Well, of course. The Catholic Church believes Mary was saved from sin.

What does Romans 3, Proverbs 6, Ephesians 2 and a whole host of other passages say about the condition all every single human ever born (including Mary)? That all fall short and all have sinned and no, not one does good and not one seeks after God and men love the darkness, this would include Mary.

Well, if this is a literal “all”, then that would mean tiny babes have sinned. And those with Down syndrome. Indeed, if this is a literal “all” that would mean Jesus sinned as well.

In fact, I’ve had discussions with atheists and other non-Christians who use that verse to say,* “See! Even your very own holy book claims that Jesus was a sinner!”*. Now, to the non-Catholic Christian that indeed puts you in a predicament. For either the “all” is, literally ALL–and that would include Jesus–or it’s not exactly a literal “all”, and that means there are some exceptions. Like Mary.

So a Catholic can easily refute the atheist or the non-Christian. But you have no response to this argument posed by them. :sad_yes: