How does a Catholic increase the chance of getting into Heaven?

[CentralFLJames]

Q : Do you know you cannot find priest, in reference to an heirachy?

You really do need to read your bible. The Church ALWAYS had a priestly hiearchy of bishops, priests and deacons:
Proof:
Matt. 16:18; 18:18 - Jesus uses the word “ecclesia” only twice in the New Testament Scriptures, which demonstrates that Jesus intended a visible, unified, hierarchical, and authoritative Church.

Acts 20:17,28 - Paul refers to both the elders or priests (“presbyteroi”) and the bishops (“episkopoi”) of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church.

1 Cor. 12:28 - God Himself appoints the various positions of authority within the Church. As a loving Father, God gives His children the freedom and authority to act with charity and justice to bring about His work of salvation.

Eph. 4:11 - the Church is hierarchical and includes apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, all charged to build up the Church. The Church is not an invisible entity with an invisible foundation.

Phil. 1:1 - Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles.

1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 - Christ’s Church has bishops (“episkopoi”) who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles.

1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14 - Christ’s Church also has elders or priests (“presbyteroi”) who serve the bishops.

1 Tim. 3:8 - Christ’s Church also has deacons (“diakonoi”). Thus, Jesus Christ’s Church has a hierarchy of authority - bishops, priests and deacons, who can all trace their lineage back to Peter and the apostles.

Exodus 28:1 and 19:6 – shows the three offices of the Old Testament priesthood (1). high priest – Aaron (Ex. 28:1); (2). Ministerial priests – Aaron’s sons (Ex. 19:6; 28:1); and (3). Universal priests – Israel (Ex. 19:6). The New Testament priesthood also has three offices: (1) High Priest – Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1); (2) Ministerial priests – the ordained bishops and priests (Rom. 15:16; 1 Tim. 3:1,8; 5:17; Titus 1:7); and (3) Universal priests - all the baptized (1 Pet. 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6).

The early church confirms it:
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c.* A.D. 110**). *

Do you know that Loosing and binding applies to everyone who is able to present the gospel? Matthew 18. It was an old rabinnical teaching “if you obey the law you sins are forgiven and if you do not obey the law, then you remain in your sin”; the NT vernacular would be “if you accept the gospel, the your sins are forgiven and if you reject the gospel, you remain in your sins” Isn’t that true? Would heaven be in agreement with that?

This is bologna. You can not prove this universal loosing and binding since its not in scripture and not in history and is a teaching right out of darkest ignorance of hell. There are 2 distinct priesthoods - ministerial-priesthood (the clergy) and universal (Christian laity).

The universal priesthood lacks the spiritual authority to forgive sins. Take a lesson from Korah’s rebellion to see what God does to those who try to assume that the laity have the same authority as the ministerial priesthood - its not pretty… (Numbers 16).
James

 

[IrishYanksFan]

Everybody else is overcomplicating this. To be saved, one simply must be a baptized Catholic and be in a state of grace at the time of his/her death. That simple.

Sure scapulars and rosaries and all that stuff have their merits, but they will not save you if you are unbaptized or in mortal sin.

The OP asked what would “increase your chances” of going to Heaven. While we do not know when exactly our time on earth will end, if you are in a state of grace, than you can be assured 100% that you will see Heaven when you die (well, Purgatory first, then Heaven).

Going to confession promptly when you commit a mortal sin will raise your “chances” to near 100%.

 

[Detales]

From onespiritcatholic.org/About_the_Priesthood.html

"The early church was not hierarchic, though it was not without its structure. In Paul’s church, and because of his letters his is the church we know most about, ministry was not a function of office, but of gift of the Spirit. Members of the community were called to exercise different gifts through the spirit, as they were given. …

In Paul’s church there was a radical equality of all in Christ, including an equality of the sexes. There truly were no Jews or Greeks, no slaves or free, no man or woman, but all were one in Christ. Consequently the gifts of all were recognized and allowed to flourish. There was no need for ordination - indeed there was, as yet, no cultic priesthood. The brothers and sisters gathered to share a meal, literally and ritually, and to remember the Lord. The entire community celebrated, the entire community prayed, and if there were a presider at all, that person was called from the community to lead it in prayer.

Gradual clericalization and emergence of the monarchic episcopacy

Gradually, especially after Paul’s death, a natural leadership emerged in the communities Paul founded. In later letters attributed to Paul there is mention of elders '(presbeteroi), and leaders (episkopoi), though no distinction is drawn between the two, and there is certainly no claim of authority based on a call from the apostle through ‘ordination.’ In fact, there is NO mention of “ordination” in the New Testament. And during Paul’s lifetime he never asserted an authority of coercion, never attempted to impose uniformity or conformity, or centralized authority (his or anyone else’s) on the communities he founded. Paul was content to trust in the Spirit to guarantee unity, precisely through the diverse gifts of the members of the community, and in particular through the “greatest” of the gifts of the spirit - agapic (selfless) love.

Women, it is clear, played an important role in the early church - Paul addresses women, as well as men, as his synergoi, his “fellow workers.” At the end of his letter to the Romans, Paul acknowledges twenty-nine leading Christians in the Roman community to whom he sends greetings - ten of them were women. He calls Phoebe, a “woman active in the Church in Cenchreae, a diakonos, indicating that she was the leader of a home church. He writes of the woman Junia as being “distinguished among the Apostles,” suggesting that she was instrumental in spreading the faith, and eminent in the Christian community - in every respect Paul’s equal"

 

[CentralFLJames]

From onespiritcatholic.org/About_the_Priesthood.html

"The early church was not hierarchic, though it was not without its structure. In Paul’s church, and because of his letters his is the church we know most about, ministry was not a function of office, but of gift of the Spirit. Members of the community were called to exercise different gifts through the spirit, as they were given. …

In Paul’s church there was a radical equality of all in Christ, including an equality of the sexes. There truly were no Jews or Greeks, no slaves or free, no man or woman, but all were one in Christ. Consequently the gifts of all were recognized and allowed to flourish. There was no need for ordination - indeed there was, as yet, no cultic priesthood. The brothers and sisters gathered to share a meal, literally and ritually, and to remember the Lord. The entire community celebrated, the entire community prayed, and if there were a presider at all, that person was called from the community to lead it in prayer.

Gradual clericalization and emergence of the monarchic episcopacy

Gradually, especially after Paul’s death, a natural leadership emerged in the communities Paul founded. In later letters attributed to Paul there is mention of elders '(presbeteroi), and leaders (episkopoi), though no distinction is drawn between the two, and there is certainly no claim of authority based on a call from the apostle through ‘ordination.’ In fact, there is NO mention of “ordination” in the New Testament. And during Paul’s lifetime he never asserted an authority of coercion, never attempted to impose uniformity or conformity, or centralized authority (his or anyone else’s) on the communities he founded. Paul was content to trust in the Spirit to guarantee unity, precisely through the diverse gifts of the members of the community, and in particular through the “greatest” of the gifts of the spirit - agapic (selfless) love.

Women, it is clear, played an important role in the early church - Paul addresses women, as well as men, as his synergoi, his “fellow workers.” At the end of his letter to the Romans, Paul acknowledges twenty-nine leading Christians in the Roman community to whom he sends greetings - ten of them were women. He calls Phoebe, a “woman active in the Church in Cenchreae, a diakonos, indicating that she was the leader of a home church. He writes of the woman Junia as being “distinguished among the Apostles,” suggesting that she was instrumental in spreading the faith, and eminent in the Christian community - in every respect Paul’s equal"

Detales - you finally reveal your true agenda - portraying a new secular neo-Catholicism with NO apostolic authority and committed to deceiving others into believing it is Catholic and of course teaches EXACTLY opposite the Catholic Church in matters relating to homosexuals, ordination of women, abortion and so on. You sir are are at direct cross-purposes to the Catholic Church & Jesus Christ and are here to deceive and recruit others into your false church against forum rules. I will refute you point by point to expose you for the fraud that you are.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

From onespiritcatholic.org/About_the_Priesthood.html

"The early church was not hierarchic, though it was not without its structure. In Paul’s church, and because of his letters his is the church we know most about, ministry was not a function of office, but of gift of the Spirit. Members of the community were called to exercise different gifts through the spirit, as they were given. …

Your reference source is without pedigree and is a fabrication that is refuted by scripture. St. Paul never had his own Church - he was just one of many Bishops in the Christian Church who taught the same faith as the others. Ministry was most definitely a function of office. History and the early church father writings bear out that no one other than a consecrated representative were permitted to address the church - and only from prepared texts or approved oral traditions. While it is true that many people had different gifts such as private-prophecy and discernment etc. NONE but the ecclesial order were permitted to teach from the pulpit. The spiritual gifts of hte laity were called on by the presiding community bishop, priest or deacon when they were asked for or were given permission and authority ONLY after first coming to them to use those gifts. There were MANY problems with emotional people imagining they had gifts but did not. In fact Paul complains against it:

1 Cor 14:34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

So much for woman running the church eh?

In Paul’s church there was a radical equality of all in Christ, including an equality of the sexes. There truly were no Jews or Greeks, no slaves or free, no man or woman, but all were one in Christ. Consequently the gifts of all were recognized and allowed to flourish. There was no need for ordination - indeed there was, as yet, no cultic priesthood. The brothers and sisters gathered to share a meal, literally and ritually, and to remember the Lord. The entire community celebrated, the entire community prayed, and if there were a presider at all, that person was called from the community to lead it in prayer.

You are trying to create a false dichotomy and trying to manufacture a strawman argument against the Church for a position it never taught or condoned. This is disingenuous and you should know better. The Catholic Church is PREMIER in advancing women’s rights and equality but that that equality does not mean that both genders have interchangeable roles. A man can not be a mother and a mother can not be a father and a man can not impregnate a man or form a licit intimate union in a homosexual relationship like you and YOUR Church (not Paul’s) advocates. The Catholic Church is universal and has always been open to all races and genders so please don’t try to act like your new Johnny Come Lately secular church calling itself “Catholic” is Catholic - it is not its a secular neo-Chrisian church that is recently fabricated by liberal ex-Catholics who did not want to obey apostolic teaching or authority.

There was most certainly a need for ordination in the early Church and this has always been done through apostolic selection, in front of all the other ordained members in that region and by physical laying on of hands and prayer of blessing (ref. Mathias and Timothy more here:The Church is Hierarchical ).

The earliest Church records PROVE that the church was hearchicial and you know it and you also know you can’t refute it:

"Accordingly,* elect for yourselves bishops and deacons**, men who are an honor to the Lord, of gentle disposition, not attached to money, honest and well-tried; for they, too, render you the sacred service of the prophets and teachers." The Didache (c. A.D. 90).

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 44:1-2 (c. A.D. 96).

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyraens, 8 (c. A.D. 110). *

[cont]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Gradually, especially after Paul’s death, a natural leadership emerged in the communities Paul founded. In later letters attributed to Paul there is mention of elders '(presbeteroi), and leaders (episkopoi), though no distinction is drawn between the two, and there is certainly no claim of authority based on a call from the apostle through ‘ordination.’ In fact, there is NO mention of “ordination” in the New Testament.

Utter fabrication and deception of known fact. See my references.

And during Paul’s lifetime he never asserted an authority of coercion, never attempted to impose uniformity or conformity, or centralized authority (his or anyone else’s) on the communities he founded. Paul was content to trust in the Spirit to guarantee unity, precisely through the diverse gifts of the members of the community, and in particular through the “greatest” of the gifts of the spirit - agapic (selfless) love.

Nice try to paint the early church as coercive. That’s pretty sleazy even for you Detales. You are are also attempting to “spin” the truth since Paul was very specific to tell Timothy to be careful who he selected for the priesthood and to use his spiritual gift (his apostolic ordination) carefully and only with men of good reputation and in accordance to the traditions Paul have passed on. Paul was VERY ORTHODOX and would curse you for speaking a new gospel that deviated in the least from what “WE” (the other apostles and he) had passed on.

To wit:
*Galatians 1:9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! *

Women, it is clear, played an important role in the early church - Paul addresses women, as well as men, as his synergoi, his “fellow workers.” At the end of his letter to the Romans, Paul acknowledges twenty-nine leading Christians in the Roman community to whom he sends greetings - ten of them were women. He calls Phoebe, a “woman active in the Church in Cenchreae, a diakonos, indicating that she was the leader of a home church. He writes of the woman Junia as being “distinguished among the Apostles,” suggesting that she was instrumental in spreading the faith, and eminent in the Christian community - in every respect Paul’s equal"

Again, nice try to paint the Catholic Church as anti-women. The Church has ALWAYS highly revered women as important in the church. In case you don’t know Church History the Catholic Church has 3 female Doctors of the Church - the higest honor it can give a saint. Phoebe was not an ordained leader but a highly respected female leader who knew the scriptures and was used to teach in a lay capacity just as the Catholic Church has 10’s of thousands of consecrated female women in the religious orders to this day. She would probably be the equivalent of an Abbess who was given a limited lay authority within the Church. But for you to make the comparison that she or Junia was Paul’s ecclesial equal is like spiritual alchemy. I suppose you also consider yourself as equal to John the Baptist or some other prophet to come up with these conjectures and personal opinions as if speaking prophesy? Talk is cheap Datales - show some data so support it.

James

 

[Tanner9188]

Actually I have not watched TV for over 2 years since its all commercials and mindless fluff and secularized social programming and mind-control. So that blows that speculation all up. With over 40,000+ word wide protestants sects to choose from I am sure you would have quite a collection of fellow Protestants to point to as the one’s who are apostates and which ones are really saved. So this is dead end discussion as far as I am concerned. From a Catholic perspective all of them are apostates for choosing to join ecclesial clubs that have no apostolic priesthood and have no authority to be teaching God’s Word and propagating a new gospel never before taught in all of Christendom till a few hundred years ago. I’d still like you to point to some historical evidence of a single Christian city or church or state before the 1400’s who taught sola scriptura and sola fide or any of the other solas. I know you can’t since no one ever taught this neo-Christianity.

Some things are easy to discern; while others are not and some things are better left to God. But when it comes to cults; the discernment is particularly easy; like the JW’s for example.

Good. So you are not against works and recognize that there are valid and necessary spiritual works that God gives those who are being sanctified by Him? This is Catholic Teaching and we do make a distinction because if one is not in a state of grace one can not do any good work for God no matter how well intending to please God. But you are too restrictive on your saying that if one does a work for God with the hope of pleasing Him that this invalidates the work. That is just as silly as saying you’d spank your young child for making up his room and cleaning out the garage for his daddy since he wanted to make his father happy and proud of him. Our relationship with God is just as a father and we can be sure that God loves any good deed done with the idea of winning his approval and making him happy. If we expect to be paid for it though - well that is a different matter except we know that God always pays his debts. So even the man not devoted to God can possibly gain some temporal benefits if he donates to charity or desires to do good for a reward - God may grant longer life, or he may ostensibly receive “good luck” in this world - but it will not merit him any grace for the next world but God might indeed give more repentant grace to help him decide to convert etc. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen very secular men who do not ostensibly believe in God do good things for the community out of a true desire to help Christians or the community at large who over time “fall in love with God’s people” and convert. God settles his accounts - both temporal and eternal. Don’t confuse the two though.

Let me clarify; doing a work with the heart intent of hoping God will find merit in one’s work. I would like to see you brake down the above paragraph and give Scriptural recipe for these graces and how God dispenses them; it really is laughable, not in a funny way.

But here you are just showing your ignorance of what Catholic believe and are just mindlessly spewing anti-Catholic polemics that some ignorant dirt-clod taugh you.

When you find an honest Catholic, which there are many; that doesn’t care much about semantics, they will tell you that we do work our way to heaven with God’s cooperation; and it doesn’t bother them. They won’t distinguish much between veneration and worship; usually by admitting or confirming that veneration is not much different than worship and some will say it is a form of worship; so what is wrong with that, we love Mary. They see for what it is; when you have to write a book to distinguish what veneration means versus worship. You teaching is that veneration is a lessor form of worship.

newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm

**I find it interesting to note that Mark 7 Jesus chastises the Pharisees “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” , then He proceeds to give an example of how children were not honoring their mother and father by giving what was set aside to God. The interesting part to me is your misuse of Father, the capital “F” being reserved for God the Father alone in relation to priests and the misuse of Mary as Mother of God, which God has no mother; since He always exists, with a capital “M”. I know Jesus is God; but Jesus was made lower than the angels when coming in His humanity. i also, understand that the early church “fathers”, not the apostles, used the term, but not in the same way Roman Catholic Church uses it; along with a myriad of other names for Mary.

1 Timothy 4:1-5 "1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 {men} who forbid marriage {and advocate} abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

Teach me; what do you do with passages like this? I don’t know of another “Christian religion”; that this applies to than yours IMO. I really don’t know; all I do know is whenever I come across this passage; Catholicism comes to mind; even before setting foot in this forum. Maybe some orthodox, but beyond that???**

 

[Tanner9188]

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

Sanctifying Grace is a gift from God. We get our first gift at baptism which is the seed of new life that God plants in us. Over time this seed properly nourished with prayer, worship of God (especially in the Eucharist) grows and intensifies. We gain more grace as we grow and are disposed to receive more grace - maturing in the faith. Works of grace are a natural fruit of growth that God gives for His purposes (bringing others to Himself, helping His people etc.) and we in turn gain more grace for more good works of grace so we can produce ever more good fruits. This metaphor of the bearing good fruit and good works is all through scripture and if you don’t see that then you are as the cursed fig tree that would not bear fruit except for when it wanted to (in natural season instead of producing fruit to serve God all the time). Do you read scripture? Really?

**Anyone can read Scripture, but not everyone can understand…know what I mean? We do agree that sanctification is both lifelong and a gift of God, but we cannot not earn it.
**

Can you show me in the bible were it lists these 2 conditions are are you just making up a new religion here on the fly? Sacraments are for the benefit of God’s people and while unity of God’s people with themselves and with God is one aspect of it the benefit is that individuals each gain grace that is THEIRS and THEIRS ALONE - each in accordance with one’s own disposition to receive grace. Christianity is not some kind of socialism or equal-grace system that holds back grace from those who are ready to advance so that “no child is left behind” (no matter how disobedient and sinful). Nope - Christianity is not founded on a least common denominator system and lets those that want to soar have the liberty to be all they can be - for greater service to God and His people. The greatest among us serves the least out of desire to elevate God’s people and advance God’s kingdom. Thus Christianity is the ultimate expression of freedom man can ever ascend to.

[cont]

James

**On the first; anything that is contrary to the teaching of God; which the Pharisees were chastised by God for is another gospel or precept of men. " If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4 he is conceited {and} understands nothing;" & “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!”

This is no different than Jesus getting on the Pharisees for adding traditions contrary to the Word that was given.

On the second point; it should be obvious that God always looks at the heart, but I like this one because it comes from Peter and has the message of salvation as well and what is not here is water baptism, but baptism of the Holy Spirit, the true baptism received by grace through faith to those who believe the gospel as Peter puts it in Acts 15 "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 “And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.”

This one applies to you by the insults you like to hurl and reveals your heart IMO. “But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.”

Although you have toned it down somewhat, but the speech of a person; does tell from where the heart comes as Jesus said.**

 

[Tanner9188]

Detales - you finally reveal your true agenda - portraying a new secular neo-Catholicism with NO apostolic authority and committed to deceiving others into believing it is Catholic and of course teaches EXACTLY opposite the Catholic Church in matters relating to homosexuals, ordination of women, abortion and so on. You sir are are at direct cross-purposes to the Catholic Church & Jesus Christ and are here to deceive and recruit others into your false church against forum rules. I will refute you point by point to expose you for the fraud that you are.

James

This will be interesting to see.

 

[Tanner9188]

From onespiritcatholic.org/About_the_Priesthood.html

"The early church was not hierarchic, though it was not without its structure. In Paul’s church, and because of his letters his is the church we know most about, ministry was not a function of office, but of gift of the Spirit. Members of the community were called to exercise different gifts through the spirit, as they were given. …

In Paul’s church there was a radical equality of all in Christ, including an equality of the sexes. There truly were no Jews or Greeks, no slaves or free, no man or woman, but all were one in Christ. Consequently the gifts of all were recognized and allowed to flourish. There was no need for ordination - indeed there was, as yet, no cultic priesthood. The brothers and sisters gathered to share a meal, literally and ritually, and to remember the Lord. The entire community celebrated, the entire community prayed, and if there were a presider at all, that person was called from the community to lead it in prayer.

Gradual clericalization and emergence of the monarchic episcopacy

Gradually, especially after Paul’s death, a natural leadership emerged in the communities Paul founded. In later letters attributed to Paul there is mention of elders '(presbeteroi), and leaders (episkopoi), though no distinction is drawn between the two, and there is certainly no claim of authority based on a call from the apostle through ‘ordination.’ In fact, there is NO mention of “ordination” in the New Testament. And during Paul’s lifetime he never asserted an authority of coercion, never attempted to impose uniformity or conformity, or centralized authority (his or anyone else’s) on the communities he founded. Paul was content to trust in the Spirit to guarantee unity, precisely through the diverse gifts of the members of the community, and in particular through the “greatest” of the gifts of the spirit - agapic (selfless) love.

Women, it is clear, played an important role in the early church - Paul addresses women, as well as men, as his synergoi, his “fellow workers.” At the end of his letter to the Romans, Paul acknowledges twenty-nine leading Christians in the Roman community to whom he sends greetings - ten of them were women. He calls Phoebe, a “woman active in the Church in Cenchreae, a diakonos, indicating that she was the leader of a home church. He writes of the woman Junia as being “distinguished among the Apostles,” suggesting that she was instrumental in spreading the faith, and eminent in the Christian community - in every respect Paul’s equal"

On Phoebe, the term “diakonos” could mean deacon, the office, at best; but not an overseer, not unless Scripture contradicts itself. I do believe however; that women who are forbidden to be deacons; are in error when the grammatical context of the qualification as an office is defined. Not for overseer though; there is no doubt concerning the construction and context.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Some things are easy to discern; while others are not and some things are better left to God. But when it comes to cults; the discernment is particularly easy; like the JW’s for example.

The truth is most each of the 40,000+ protestant sects will point to the other 39,999+ Protestant sects and claim the others are unregenerate apostates when the truth is they all are heretical sects with bare minimum of Christian teachings. If not for water baptism the only Christians would be Catholic, Orthodox, Coptics and a few other schismatic apostolic Churches.

Let me clarify; doing a work with the heart intent of hoping God will find merit in one’s work. I would like to see you brake down the above paragraph and give Scriptural recipe for these graces and how God dispenses them; it really is laughable, not in a funny way.

Here are dozens of scripture verses that prove that works of law are useless but works of grace are essential to one’s salvation. Let me know if you don’t agree with any of it and be able to back up your objections with scripture.

scripturecatholic.com/justification.html

When you find an honest Catholic, which there are many; that doesn’t care much about semantics, they will tell you that we do work our way to heaven with God’s cooperation; and it doesn’t bother them. They won’t distinguish much between veneration and worship; usually by admitting or confirming that veneration is not much different than worship and some will say it is a form of worship; so what is wrong with that, we love Mary. They see for what it is; when you have to write a book to distinguish what veneration means versus worship. You teaching is that veneration is a lessor form of worship.

newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm

You are giving me back one of the same references I give Protestants that proves that Protestants scarcely worship God to the same level that Catholics venerate her saints since without the Holy Mass one is giving God only prayers and thanks and not giving God what He wants most - His Son’s obedience on the cross.

I have not met any Catholics that agree with you here. Can you give names of members here at CAF that agree with you? I didn’t think so since talk is cheap. Catholics do not believe we can work our way into heaven - but just for argument sakes how is believing oneself into heaven any different of a work? How many Protestants flapped their lips into heaven by sayin over and over real fast “I believe” “I do believe” “I really truly believe” “This time for sure Lord I believe!” etc. etc. ad nasuem Do you have any evidence that a single Protestant ever made it to heaven by “just believing”? Any post-death miracles confirmed by witnesses and investigated? Any at all in 500 years of Protestant belief? No? I didn’t think so…

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

I find it interesting to note that Mark 7 Jesus chastises the Pharisees “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” , then He proceeds to give an example of how children were not honoring their mother and father by giving what was set aside to God.

But some traditions were honored by the Lord - like passover, circumcision, reading the word in synagogue on the sabbath. This was not a wholesale ban on traditions - just those that became legalistic and not tied to official teachings of the prophets.

The interesting part to me is your misuse of Father, the capital “F” being reserved for God the Father alone in relation to priests and the misuse of Mary as Mother of God, which God has no mother; since He always exists, with a capital “M”. I know Jesus is God; but Jesus was made lower than the angels when coming in His humanity. i also, understand that the early church “fathers”, not the apostles, used the term, but not in the same way Roman Catholic Church uses it; along with a myriad of other names for Mary.

Sorry, you can’t side step dozens of scriptures by playing games with capitalization conventions which no one can hear when they verbally called the apostle Paul “father” like I proved from scripture that they did. You are being very evasive and now are trying to duck and dodge and run down a new rabbit hole to denigrate Mary as Mother of God - a thing we were not even talking about. I am on to your rope-a-dope tactics Tanner. Why not defend you absurd charges that you can’t back up about “call no man father” with scripture Tanner or at least admit you scripture proves you wrong - dozens of times in fact. You are doing the typical Protestant Dance - running from one anti-Catholic polemic to another and not answering the mail on the prior things that are refuted. I am not playing your game anymore. I put good time into replying to you and you come back with one liners. That’s not a good example of defending your faith Tanner. The Catholic Church uses “father” in the same exact way as the early church does - and we now make it a title - which in English is capitalized. And don’t you dare try to claim we think our priests and bishops are God the Father.

1 Timothy 4:1-5 "1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 {men} who forbid marriage {and advocate} abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

Teach me; what do you do with passages like this? I don’t know of another “Christian religion”; that this applies to than yours IMO. I really don’t know; all I do know is whenever I come across this passage; Catholicism comes to mind; even before setting foot in this forum. Maybe some orthodox, but beyond that???

What do we do with passages like this? Passages like this have been spoken from the podium of the Catholic Church for 2000 years. So we knew that false Christians such as the heretical reformers and the whole Protestant down line would come because of verses like this that have warned us that men like Calvin, Luther etc. would come to speak demonic neo-christian teachings and easy-believism that would trade he truth for mere convenience. This is definately teaching of heretics like Luther and Calvin who invented a new religion and tried to redefine the bible and throw out divine word and remake it in their own corrupted image and call it “enlightened”. The mention of forbidding of marriage is about the apostolic error of the Gnostic’s who banned marriage. It has nothing to do with Paul’s and Jesus teaching for he priests to be eunuchs for Christ. Man was not meant to be alone - except for those who the Lord has called to himself. Catholics forbid no foods - so I don’t know what you are talking about there.

Of course as a Protestant you would have to subscribe this to the same Church that has always existed for 2000 years and not to the new rebellious church that tried to take it over. You have to be kidding right? You are the ones teaching all new never before teachings and calling it Christian. How could this NOT apply to Protestants?

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

**Anyone can read Scripture, but not everyone can understand…know what I mean? We do agree that sanctification is both lifelong and a gift of God, but we cannot not earn it.
**

In fact few could read scripture in the time of the Protestant uprising - which just made the new protestant teaching of sola scriptura even more absurd and why it was so easy for college professors and ivory tower academics like Luther to trick mere plow boys and dirt farmers into rebelling against The Church. Too bad for them because he then ordered them all slaughtered for rebelling against his sponsors - the lords and land owners.

But we know Luther lamented bitterly against these ignorants who imagined they knew scripture better than he as well as St. Paul - a tradition still robustly celebrated among Protestants to this very day who want to teach everyone their own private errors.

*“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.” (citation: Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.) *

Pity - the Catholic Church has had it right for 2,000 years…

On the first; anything that is contrary to the teaching of God; which the Pharisees were chastised by God for is another gospel or precept of men. …

This is no different than Jesus getting on the Pharisees for adding traditions contrary to the Word that was given.

Oh, no. It’s A LOT different. That verse was defending the APOSTOLIC authority and what will condemn most Protestant preachers to hell for ignoring the validity of the apostolic succession and for just hanging a divinity degree on their walls and thinking they were called by God to teach the nonsence they do for personal wage and income in a modern act of Simony that turns Christianity into a franchise little different than a fast food joint.

On the second point; it should be obvious that God always looks at the heart, but I like this one because it comes from Peter and has the message of salvation as well and what is not here is water baptism, but baptism of the Holy Spirit, the true baptism received by grace through faith to those who believe the gospel as Peter puts it in Acts 15 "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 “And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.”

And a disobedient heart is not palatable to God. Those who reject Peter’s successors and imagine that they can invent their own Christian “club” are in for a sad day at their time of judgement. Read on a little further and you see that Peter ORDERS a baptism. As I mentioned the signs and wonders were sent to confirm His Papal authority in making the judgement to open baptism and salvation to the Gentiles and nothing more. The same thing happened to Paul - his scales were not removed until he submitted to the authority of The Church, had hand laid on to heal him THEN he was baptised. Address the points I make and stop dancing around Tanner. Admit it you are wrong - water baptism is the normative way. You keep trying to jump through hoops to look for the few exceptions to justify your corrupted teachings.

This one applies to you by the insults you like to hurl and reveals your heart IMO. “But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.”

Although you have toned it down somewhat, but the speech of a person; does tell from where the heart comes as Jesus said.

Of course you have to try to demonize me say this sort of thing to save face after being proven over and over again from scripture that you are wrong. Just accept the truth Tanner and get on with life and give up the false teachings.

James

 

[Mannyfit75]

What does a catholic need to do to increase their possible of getting into heaven when the die ???

thnx

Stop sinning, obey the commandments

 

[Tanner9188]

The truth is most each of the 40,000+ protestant sects will point to the other 39,999+ Protestant sects and claim the others are unregenerate apostates when the truth is they all are heretical sects with bare minimum of Christian teachings. If not for water baptism the only Christians would be Catholic, Orthodox, Coptics and a few other schismatic apostolic Churches.

Here are dozens of scripture verses that prove that works of law are useless but works of grace are essential to one’s salvation. Let me know if you don’t agree with any of it and be able to back up your objections with scripture.

scripturecatholic.com/justification.html

You are giving me back one of the same references I give Protestants that proves that Protestants scarcely worship God to the same level that Catholics venerate her saints since without the Holy Mass one is giving God only prayers and thanks and not giving God what He wants most - His Son’s obedience on the cross.

I have not met any Catholics that agree with you here. Can you give names of members here at CAF that agree with you? I didn’t think so since talk is cheap. Catholics do not believe we can work our way into heaven - but just for argument sakes how is believing oneself into heaven any different of a work? How many Protestants flapped their lips into heaven by sayin over and over real fast “I believe” “I do believe” “I really truly believe” “This time for sure Lord I believe!” etc. etc. ad nasuem Do you have any evidence that a single Protestant ever made it to heaven by “just believing”? Any post-death miracles confirmed by witnesses and investigated? Any at all in 500 years of Protestant belief? No? I didn’t think so…

James

James,

Now you are really cracking me up; lack of evidence is not evidence, but the truth of God’s word stands forever. I will address the link, the first one on the list was real easy; it is sanctification, not justification; in fact the Greek term for justification does not meet the definition on your link; so we are starting with error, but we will work with it.

I have to run; just checking in. I’ll be back.

 

[Tanner9188]

In fact few could read scripture in the time of the Protestant uprising - which just made the new protestant teaching of sola scriptura even more absurd and why it was so easy for college professors and ivory tower academics like Luther to trick mere plow boys and dirt farmers into rebelling against The Church. Too bad for them because he then ordered them all slaughtered for rebelling against his sponsors - the lords and land owners.

But we know Luther lamented bitterly against these ignorants who imagined they knew scripture better than he as well as St. Paul - a tradition still robustly celebrated among Protestants to this very day who want to teach everyone their own private errors.

*“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.” (citation: Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.) *

Pity - the Catholic Church has had it right for 2,000 years…

Oh, no. It’s A LOT different. That verse was defending the APOSTOLIC authority and what will condemn most Protestant preachers to hell for ignoring the validity of the apostolic succession and for just hanging a divinity degree on their walls and thinking they were called by God to teach the nonsence they do for personal wage and income in a modern act of Simony that turns Christianity into a franchise little different than a fast food joint.

And a disobedient heart is not palatable to God. Those who reject Peter’s successors and imagine that they can invent their own Christian “club” are in for a sad day at their time of judgement. Read on a little further and you see that Peter ORDERS a baptism. As I mentioned the signs and wonders were sent to confirm His Papal authority in making the judgement to open baptism and salvation to the Gentiles and nothing more. The same thing happened to Paul - his scales were not removed until he submitted to the authority of The Church, had hand laid on to heal him THEN he was baptised. Address the points I make and stop dancing around Tanner. Admit it you are wrong - water baptism is the normative way. You keep trying to jump through hoops to look for the few exceptions to justify your corrupted teachings.

Of course you have to try to demonize me say this sort of thing to save face after being proven over and over again from scripture that you are wrong. Just accept the truth Tanner and get on with life and give up the false teachings.

James

You demonize yourself; I don’t have to do anything; it comes naturally for you. Look at the posts above and it is more of the same. Out of the mouth speaks the heart and it is the heart that defiles the man.

See ya later; gotta go out to plow me field…naw what I’s mean?

 

[holy_moly]

As to the OP, I doubt if one can gain heaven w/out the grace of forgiveness, both giving & receiving! St. Augustine on forgiveness:

“There is nothing more consoling for mankind upon earth than the forgiveness of sins, for nothing causes us more misery than sin. Even in pagan times Socrates looked forward hopefully to the advent of a mediator who would teach mankind in what manner remission of sins was to be obtained. Christ earned the grace of forgiveness for us by His sacred Passion and death upon the cross (Council of Trent, 6, 7).

Christ is the Lamb of God, Who taketh away the sins of the world (John 1:29). In Him we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins (Col. 1:14). Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Christ conferred the power to forgive sins only upon the apostles and their successors. He Himself exercised this power in the case of Mary Magdalen, Zacheus, the good thief; when He healed the paralytic He said expressly: “That you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, I say unto thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and go” (Matt. 9:6).

This same power which He possessed Our Lord e gave to the holy apostles, when, after His resurrection He said to them: “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” (John 20:23). He therefore who would have his sins forgiven must address himself to the bishop or to the priests whom Christ has appointed. In the Catholic Church alone is remission of sins, for she alone has received the Holy Ghost as a pledge of this grace”

 

[CentralFLJames]

You demonize yourself; I don’t have to do anything; it comes naturally for you. Look at the posts above and it is more of the same. Out of the mouth speaks the heart and it is the heart that defiles the man.

See ya later; gotta go out to plow me field…naw what I’s mean?

I expected as much. You want to pontificate as if you are infallable but you don’t want to stick around to defend what you have no license to preach. You run away at the slightest push-back of truth because you can’t substantiate your “different” non-apostolic Gospel gainst the true teaching.

If you won’t listen to me i’ll just let both Peter & Paul speak their words to you from their hearts. You can run but you can’t hide.
Galatians 1:9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

2 Peter 3: … and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness…*

Now Tanner, I know you imagine that you are “outstanding in your field” in every way. But standing in a tare field of error is a lonely place to be standing while trying to figure out scripture all on your own – much less getting anyone to gather around the soapbox to hear you preach. So, let me ask you this. Who taught you scripture? If you were not taught by the Apostolic Church then you had to have been taught by unprincipled men or self taught - which puts you in the same categories that Peter warned about.

If scripture is self teaching as you believe against all evidence then why can’t you just let everyone interpret it for themselves like you do? What makes YOUR interpretation superior to anyone else’s? And more to the point what makes YOUR interpretation better than the Catholic Church’s who actually assembled the bible and personally knew the apostles? Inquiring minds and all that…

James

 

[holy_moly]

The acts of the past in Roman Catholic History are so bad; that it would violate some of the forum rules, but if you like I will be glad to send you some links, but if you are devout you are better off keeping your head in the sand IMO.

The only links I am interested in tanner come w/ a side of eggs & the only hair w/ sand on it’s yours; how you can ignore the way Christianity was practiced from the time of Christ is simply astounding. The fact that the Church has been under attack from satan since that same time, should come as no surprise. Christ said his church would prevail against the gates of hell. Obviously this meant that there would be attacks & schisms.

Do you notice WHICH church satan seems to focus on tanner Yes, the RCC is the only church that is a real threat to evil. Ever notice no one breaks into a Lutheran church & desecrates their bread? The RCC is under attack, because the Eucharist is under attack, because Jesus is under attack. Which side are you on tanner? Seems like you spend an inordinate amount of time attacking the RCC. Like I said before, sinners w/in the church are not a reflection of the doctrines & morals of the RCC, which have remained unchanged for over 2000 years. Can you say that about your church tanner? Nope, nobody can & nobody ever will. .

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner9188;5496930:

The acts of the past in Roman Catholic History; that it would violate some of the forum rules, but if you like I will be glad to send you some links, but if you are devout you are better off keeping your head in the sand IMO.The only links I am interested in tanner come w/ a side of eggs & the only hair w/ sand on it’s yours; how you can ignore the way Christianity was practiced from the time of Christ is simply astounding. The fact that the Church has been under attack from satan since that same time, should come as no surprise. Christ said his church would prevail against the gates of hell. Obviously this meant that there would be attacks & schisms.Do you notice WHICH church satan seems to focus on tanner Yes, the RCC is the only church that is a real threat to evil. Ever notice no one breaks into a Lutheran church & desecrates their bread? The RCC is under attack, because the Eucharist is under attack, because Jesus is under attack. Which side are you on tanner? Seems like you spend an inordinate amount of time attacking the RCC. Like I said before, sinners w/in the church are not a reflection of the doctrines & morals of the RCC, which have remained unchanged for over 2000 years. Can you say that about your church tanner? Nope, nobody can & nobody ever will. .

**What do you know about Satan? Let me tell you something about him. His goal is to damn men and womens souls; therefore we can assume he spends much of his time in church. Why? What specifically is the one thing the serpent of old tries to do to achieve his goal. He did it with Eve and Adam and tried it with Jesus. He perverts the gospel message of salvation just enough to take some of the glory from God and give it to man; thus in essence effectually changing the gospel to another. Then, it is as Jesus put it in Luke 6 "And He also spoke a parable to them: “A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he? Will they not both fall into a pit?”

Matthew 7:13-14 explains the results of this huge deception and just how effective it is.

Let me give you an example of how the Pope has usurped the authority reserved for the Holy Spirit. First, the early church fathers called and referred to the Holy Spirit as the Vicar of Christ.
The title Vicar of Christ came into use in the fifth and sixth centuries. The Christian Church prior to Constantine reserved the titles, Vicar of Christ and Vicar of the Lord exclusively for the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus sent to His Apostles to complete their training (John 16:12-15). Tertullian demonstrates this fact in the following quotes:**
“ Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost … He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ …[1] ”
“ For what kind of (supposition) is it, that, while the devil is always operating and adding daily to the ingenuities of iniquity, the work of God should either have ceased, or else have desisted from advancing? whereas the reason why the Lord sent the Paraclete was, that, since human mediocrity was unable to take in all things at once, discipline should, little by little, be directed, and ordained, and carried on to perfection, by that Vicar of the Lord, the Holy Spirit.[2]

1. ^ Prescription Against the Heretics, Chapter 28)
2. ^ Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins, Chapter 1)
   * “Vicar of Christ”. Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913. en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Vicar_of_Christ.

In the course of the ages other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, such as Vicar of St. Peter, Vicar of the Prince of the Apostles (again referring to St. Peter, the first Pope) and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Catholic Church on earth, which people believe he bears by virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. Thus, Pope Innocent III removed bishops by appealing to his power as Vicar of Christ (cap. “Inter corporalia”, 2, “De trans. ep.”). He declared that Christ had given such power only to His vicar, Peter and his successors (cap. “Quanto”, 3, ibid.) and stated that the Roman Pontiff is “the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ” (cap. “Licet”, 4, ibid.).

The title Vicar of God used for the pope by Nicholas III (c. “Fundamenta ejus”, 17, “De elect.”, in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ.

CONTINUED NEXT POST