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

[CentralFLJames]

So sackcloth and ashes in the OT was the normal attire? How about you are too embarrassed and would look stupid. Although; you might just do it; you have a real Catholic zeal.

I suppose you have never heard of us Catholics starting our 40 days of fasting, prayer and repentance during Lent on the first day known as “Ash Wednesday”?

http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn...files.wordpress.com/2009/04/ash-wednesday.jpg http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn...m/.a/6a00d83451b46269e201156edaeacc970c-350wi http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn.../wp-content/uploads/2008/02/ash-wednesday.jpg
Ash Wednesday - Start of 40 Day Catholic Lenten Repentance Season

In large multi-cultural cities like New York we even get a lot of NON-Catholics who come out for this service to repent and rededicate themselves to God - Jews especially.

James

 

[Tomster]

**You must be Christian; I feel the love and kindness you exert like that of Jesus. Have you ever searched the Scriptures to see if anything was true from anyone? I encourage you to do so; you might shed some of that hatred. **

Hatred! Excuse me please! It was out of love that that I said what I said. Another misinterpretation on your part.

Again, and I really do not like repeating myself, but if you had read what I wrote you would not have had to asked the question “Have you searched the Scriptures . . .?”

One last time “Sola Tanner”, Catholics do search the Scripture.

 

[Tomster]

Hi buddy;

You just did the same thing you accused me of…LOL

As I said; search the Scripture to see if things are true; take no ones word, no institutions word, no commentaries word or any other source of teaching without comparing to the truth. If it is, then embrace it; if it is not, then explain why it is not and support your position so we can all learn. I have said this numerous times; but all you get is lip service and insults and an occasional blob of Scripture thrown out there for no apparent or relevant reason.

Is that unreasonable?

Bless you buddy!

Thanks for giving us the freedom not to take your interpetations of Scripture seriously. We all appreciate that.

To whom, then, shall we turn?

 

[CentralFLJames]

There are many groups out there that like to change His grace into something other than divine mercy by adding works or meritorious activities; such as rituals and traditions and/or sacraments and other religious activities they claim adds and “cooperates” to His “saving grace” that results in removing the “free” out of the "free gift"of grace. These ungrateful and Gift rejecting religious people claim to be partial givers of His gift; coming from within themselves through their works, thus denying the glory do to the true Giver.

By your criticism of Catholics adding works or meritorious activities such as rituals and traditions and sacraments and cooperating with His saving grace do you mean things like the washing of the feet and the eating of the bread of life as Jesus commanded? We know that Peter at first did not want to cooperate with Christ’s commandment (just as you council) but immediately abandoned that idea after Christ told Peter explicitly that he can "have no part with Me” unless Peter OBEYS the Lord’s Commandments and what you would call a ritual.

• *John 13:5-11
  Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. 6 So He came to Simon Peter. He said to Him, “Lord, do You wash my feet?” 7 Jesus answered and said to him, “What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter.” 8 Peter said to Him, **“Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” **9 Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.” 10 Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11 For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.” *
• Luke 22:17 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

Bible: Genesis 18:

Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. 2 When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth, 3 and said, “My Lord, if now I have found favor in Your sight, please do not pass Your servant by. 4 “Please let a little water be brought and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree; 5 and I will bring a piece of bread, that you may refresh yourselves; after that you may go on, since you have visited your servant.” And they said, “So do, as you have said.” 6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah, and said, “Quickly, prepare three measures of fine flour, knead it and make bread cakes.” 7 Abraham also ran to the herd, and took a tender and choice calf and gave it to the servant, and he hurried to prepare it. 8 He took curds and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and placed it before them; and he was standing by them under the tree as they ate.

Again Tanner, wake up and smell the myrrh bro (it’s an incense that will infuse your senses and wake you up to what is going on ).

What you call tradition is what God has been planning to do from the very start! Can’t you see God in the OT prefiguring a new race of humans through the faith of Abraham and Sarah and making good on it in the NT with Jesus doing the same things? EVERYTHING ties to OT scripture - EVERYTHING. Not one thing is coincidental. God is recreating humanity through the new Adam and new Eve of Jesus and Mary. We die to our old selves in baptism and join in Christ’s suffering and service to do God’s will. NO ONE GETS TO HEAVEN WITHOUT SUFFERING. It’s a SPIRITUAL LAW. Mere lip-service is NOT going to cut it. You MUST come to understand this and come into the truth. Faith is only ratified by what we do and by what we are willing to suffer for The Lord. There is ALWAYS suffering when good comes into proximity with evil - why Christ’s suffered the most since he was perfectly good. But by suffering evil for God He uses evil against itself to make us GROW and overcome. Suffering is the very nature of life on his planet. The mother suffers giving birth, the child suffers as it cuts new teeth and as it falls learning to walk etc.

These traditions you abhor are commandments and are part of God binding with our humanity and sharing intimately with us in our spiritual re-birth through His Son. All these so called rituals are as relevant to God and you MUST start obeying Jesus and following His example and trusting in those who He sent to shepherd His flock.

*John 21:15-17 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, **do you love Me ***more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.” 16 He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep.

This was more than Jesus forgiving Peter’s 3 denials - this was forgivness simultaneous with giving Him the authority to lead His Flock - which is Christ’s Church - INCLUDING all the other apostoles/disciples.

It’s time to be a full Christian Tanner - a Catholic Christian.

James

 

[Tanner9188]

Everyone; I am way behind and I am on page 56; so when this is shut down and I have not responded to your question or comments, that is why. We are nearing the 1000 post mark.

 

[Tanner9188]

You see, you can’t avoid the Catholic view, even though you tell others not to. Here you recognize Peter’s ability to define what is scripture, don’t you. You see, the Catholic view is unavoidable, because it is the truth.

One day soon we all will know who told the truth and who chose to reject the truth.

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner, Moondweller, Quickcat,

For months we have been discussing the nature of salvation using scripture to no avail. When we show you that scripture demonstrates that you need to do the will of God to enter heaven, you simply wave it away, with excuses like, " that was only meant for the saved" or " you don’t understand the context". I have come to the conclusion (which I should have recognized months ago) that using scripture to explain something to you is worthless because you are already in the habit of making scripture say whatever you wish. Such is the weakness of sola scriptura and individual interpretation.

So lets go about this a little differently. Let’s go through a few basic questions.

You have a problem with the Catholic view that we need to do the will of God to enter heaven because you think it somehow diminishes the work of Jesus on the cross.

But consider the alternative: if we aren’t doing the will of God, whose will are we doing? our own? Satan’s? Isn’t it in fact, obvious that those that will go to heaven would be doing the will of God? Because isn’t it also obvious that if we are to be saved, we will have the spirit of God within us, which will compell us to do the will of God?

Also, what is the point of personal morality, if it has no effect on salvation. Why did Jesus bother to preach, if all that mattered was his personal sacrifice?

Why did Jesus bother gathering disciples around him if his intention wasn’t to build a visible church?

If his goal was to simply have people learn about salvation from a book, why didn’t he write one personally?

Why did he bother to get baptized, if baptism is to no effect? Why did he bother to train his Apostles to baptize? Why did St. Peter instruct the first converts to be baptized at Pentecost, if baptism was in fact meaningless?

Why does virtually every epistle have a section on how to live the Christian life, if the only thing required is to believe that Jesus saved us by dying on the Cross and personal morality is ineffectual?

Why do Protestants evangelize, if God has already picked the elect and personal decisions have nothing to do with it?

How do you explain how a person who has acknowledged Jesus and thus has been born again, turns around and subsequently commits a heinous crime? How is this possible for the elect?

How do you deal with the issue of Free will? If man is either pre-ordained elect or reprobate, can he have free will? If he doesn’t have free will, how do you explain the choices you personally know you make every day?

Its not necessary that you answer these if you don’t want to. The questions themselves make the point…

I’ll speak for the group, they can correct me if I am wrong. You do not understand the nature, character and attributes of God.

 

[Tanner9188]

Don’t confuse a thick noggin or a defect of reason as the armor of God. No doubt Invincible Ignorance serves God in some mysterious way but only a bone-head would imagine that he can put ignorance or obstinacy on and off like a yarmulke and protect himself from reason. The next regression from here is to start hearing inner voices and then join to the tin-foil hat club.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...//tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:K8R8paByMxTFBM:riverdaughter.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/tinfoil_hat_girl.jpg


James

:knight1:

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner, all you have is the full armor of your delusions that you are the arbiter of truth, not the Church that Christ established through Peter et al. Do you really believe that you have some special knowledge from God & over 1 billion Catholics have been in error the past 2000 yrs? Are you really at peace w/ your personal theology? I am sure you have thrown more darts than have bounced off you.

Obviously it does no good to play bible roulette w/ you or anyone else. We will all continue to believe what we believe. If you really are a direct spigot for the HS, I pray that he will imbibe you w/ The Truth. Catholics are called to do corporal acts of mercy, one of which is confronting error in our fellow man. Like all other Catholics on this site, I KNOW that I follow the truth & not my own interpretations of that truth.

You have a greater faith in man that I do; that’s for sure.

 

[Tanner9188]

I would explain nothing to an unregenerate (a psuchikos, a natural man). I would present to him the gospel of Jesus Christ by which, through faith, he could be saved and receive the free gift of eternal life. I would simply explain to him that, according to the Scriptures, as the “Lamb of God” the Man Christ Jesus died a sacrificial death FOR his sins that were, at that time, imputed to Him on the cross, and that He died, once for all, TO his sins, and rose bodily to new life on the third day. And that he would receive the “GIFT” of salvation by believing in the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ on his behalf. I can do no more. At that point it’s up to that person to believe the gospel message. Just as Paul and his companions responded to the Philippian jailer when he asked: "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"Acts 16:31 "They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,"As I said. I don’t explain anything of the sort to an unregenerate. However, when an unbeliever turns from his unbelief and believes the gospel message concerning Christ, sin, the gift of salvation and eternal life, at the time of true belief he is regenerated by the Holy Spirit and having been made spiritually alive he knows he’s saved. He’ll then grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ and his salvation through other born again believers who have the gift of teaching and studying the written Word of God which reveals all “…the things FREELY given to us by God” (1 Cor. 2:12).I do not! I would not be asking him to become a Mason. There are no “levels” of belief in respect to salvation. There are, however, “false brethren” who have professed belief. These are the “tares” planted among the wheat by the enemy (Matt. 13:24-30)2 Cor 11:26 “{I have been} on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from {my} countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren;”

Gal 2:4 "But {it was} because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage."I don’t know what you mean by “self-willed.” But if this one is in fear of Hell because he now understands the gravity of his sinful state having been convicted by the Holy Spirit of sin and judgment, and after hearing the gospel message of Christ regarding his sins, believes in Christ, yes, then of course, he is at that moment gifted salvation by God (Eph. 2:8-9) and created a new creature in Christ (v. 10). One of the works of the Holy Spirit coming into the world is to convict the world of judgment (Jn. 16:8). That would result in a healthy fear of Hell. Which would be a very good and effective reason for turning from unbelief to belief in Christ for the forgiveness of sins, salvation and eternal life.Yes, certainly. If the prayer was rooted in belief in the Person and sacrificial work of Christ on his behalf. It’s the belief in Christ, however, through which God saved him, not the prayer.No one is saved through a “love of Christ.” Salvation is divinely gifted through FAITH in Christ. Salvation based on one’s “love of Christ” is the Catholic "gospel."It’s not a quantity of belief, but quality. Assurance of eternal life is based on divine revelation, the written Word of God (see for instance, Jn. 3:14-18; Rom. 6:23; 1 Jn. 5:9-13). True faith also results in believing God’s Word as revealed in Scripture. A false faith argues against it.The “once saved” is based on divine revelation. It’s understood when one believes first the gospel message of Christ and then what God has said concerning the believer’s saved state through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ as revealed in the theopneustos Scriptures. As He said to the prophet Jeremiah:Jer 1:12 "Then the Lord said to me, "You have seen well, for I am watching over My word to perform it."And Peter wrote to his fellow Jewish believers:2 Pet 3:18 “…but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him {be} the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.”

MD,

That is a very good post.

God bless!

 

[SteveGC]

You have a greater faith in man that I do; that’s for sure.

Clever…Tanner. Clever to finally add “in man” after all the repetitive statements from you that we “have a greater faith than you”. And here we were all this time trying to connect with you, and remind you that we don’t feel superior to you in our faith, that this is not a competition…and you come back with THIS meaning all along. I love you in Christ, brother…but I don’t like you one bit.

 

[Thing]

So sackcloth and ashes in the OT was the normal attire? How about you are too embarrassed and would look stupid

Behold they that are clothed in soft garments, are in the houses of kings.

 

[Tanner9188]

Yes indeed. This is precisely where I was going with Tanner, nuntym. Thank you…well said. Especially the part I enlarged above.

Tanner, please address this post…this is related to my question to you that you never answered…regarding whether or not you could be in error.

You tell us to “search the Scriptures” to see if what you say is true, and if we find through this searching that what you say is NOT true, then you want us to tell you so that you may be corrected and find truth for yourself. Well, guess what…we’ve been doing that since you joined in on this discussion, Tanner.

Quite disingenuous. I suppose you left out the part that you will only be “corrected” if what we reveal to you matches what you already believe?

So, can you be wrong or not?

How I long for that to be true Steve. I have seen so much abuse of the Gods Word here. I really wish people would search the Scripture and see if these things are true, but to understand them you must be lead by the Spirit of God. When you refute someone you must take their use of Scripture and explain to them what part is wrong and why; no one but the few Protestants here have and are able to do so in my observation, because the Word of the Lord is true and it does what it say and means what it says, but the natural man cannot understand.

So one asks, why are you here if you believe “we” can’t understand and you are correct in showing the truth, as god has spoken? The answer to that question is; it is a spiritual exercise that deepens my understanding and love for God. I have had a few epiphany’s I wish I could share with you. i read more, study more, pray more and therefore understand more; I have God to thank for the use of this forum and I appreciate that it is yet another tool available to strengthen the heart of God’s children.

Steve; I have already answered whether one can be wrong; that is like asking if you are human? Just as your “Church” is made of humans. The real difference is can you be shown where you are wrong and rejoice when you are corrected; because you have gained an understanding of God that you did not know before and this will usually open other doors of discovery.

Proving the fallibility of your “Church” is no big thing, nor difficult. Once you claim infallibility; especially as humans, you have pigeon holed yourself; because once you make an error, and they do, then they have to spend all kinds of time and exercise various techniques to cover the mystical infallibility with more fallibility. Obama is a modern day example of this. But proving this will lead to no end or be profitable.

 

[Tomster]

**You must be Christian; I feel the love and kindness you exert like that of Jesus. Have you ever searched the Scriptures to see if anything was true from anyone? I encourage you to do so; you might shed some of that hatred. **

It is interesting, Sola Tanner, that you would insinuate that hatred was the motivation for my response to you. It was not. Be that as it may.

However, why would that be a concern for you or me. Suppose that hatred was a motivation for my response, which it wasn’t. What difference would it make in regards to my eternal salvation?

According to your standards it wouldn’t make any difference.

According to your standards, all an individual has to do is make that one-time, all-important claim to eternal security and nothing else that a person does, says or thinks for the rest of his natural life will come between him and salvation.

A person could place material objects over the due worship of God, take the Name of the Lord in vain, play golf instead of worshipping God on the Sabbath, dishonor his parents and family, kill another person, commit adultary, steal, bear false witness against his brother, covet his neighbor’s property and/or wife. None of that really enters into your scheme of salvation. It just doesn’t matter according to what you and other Fundamentalists on this thread have been saying.

So long, again, one has made that one-time, all-important, ever binding decision to accept Jesus as the Lord and Savior, their salvation is secure, no matter what they do afterwards. Sounds like cheap salvation to me.

So, once again, what if hatred motivated my response to you? What bearing would that have on my salvation according to your belief in “God’s Simple Plan for Salvation?”

 

[CentralFLJames]

You have a greater faith in man that I do; that’s for sure.

Hello?

Jesus had no problem identifying with His humanity to suffer and die as a REAL MAN (or as a REAL BELIEVER[sup] ®[/sup] as you might say ). In fact he calls himself Son of Man over 96 times in the NT alone! Jesus LOVED “man”. Why don’t you? Do you imagine that love can be divorced from faith?

Matthew 11:19 “The **Son of Man **came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.”

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.

Matthew 17:12 but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the **Son of Man **is **going to suffer **at their hands."

Mark 2:10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"–He said to the paralytic, 11"I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home."

[ed: note here that Jesus forgave sins AS A MAN just as He gave this authority to men to act in His Name]

Luke 6:22 Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man

Luke 7:34 "The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’

Luke 19:10 “For the **Son of Man **has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the **Son of Man **and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

Heb 2:6 But one has testified somewhere, saying," WHAT IS MAN, THAT YOU REMEMBER HIM?OR THE SON OF MAN, THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HIM?

Rev 1:13 and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash.
*

And the most profound testamony that God had faith in Man was in His choosing to make Himself as vulnerable a child in the care of a HUMAN MOTHER for 40 weeks in the womb!

*Luke:1 30-33 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.”

Luke 1:38 38"I am the Lord’s servant," Mary answered. “May it be to me as you have said.” Then the angel left her.
Tanner, what would have happened to humanity if Mary had elected to say “NO” or had decided to abuse her role as Mother of God and attempted to harm herself and/or the infant Jesus before the Son of Man was born?

James

p.s. compare Mary’s fear with Zachrias fear in Luke 1 – Do not be afraid, Zechariah – Do not be afraid, Mary

 

[SteveGC]

How I long for that to be true Steve. I have seen so much abuse of the Gods Word here. I really wish people would search the Scripture and see if these things are true, but to understand them you must be lead by the Spirit of God. When you refute someone you must take their use of Scripture and explain to them what part is wrong and why; no one but the few Protestants here have and are able to do so in my observation, because the Word of the Lord is true and it does what it say and means what it says, but the natural man cannot understand.

So one asks, why are you here if you believe “we” can’t understand and you are correct in showing the truth, as god has spoken? The answer to that question is; it is a spiritual exercise that deepens my understanding and love for God. I have had a few epiphany’s I wish I could share with you. i read more, study more, pray more and therefore understand more; I have God to thank for the use of this forum and I appreciate that it is yet another tool available to strengthen the heart of God’s children.

Steve; I have already answered whether one can be wrong; that is like asking if you are human? Just as your “Church” is made of humans. The real difference is can you be shown where you are wrong and rejoice when you are corrected; because you have gained an understanding of God that you did not know before and this will usually open other doors of discovery.

Proving the fallibility of your “Church” is no big thing, nor difficult. Once you claim infallibility; especially as humans, you have pigeon holed yourself; because once you make an error, and they do, then they have to spend all kinds of time and exercise various techniques to cover the mystical infallibility with more fallibility. Obama is a modern day example of this. But proving this will lead to no end or be profitable.

Rubbish rubbish rubbish. Since you are behind, you’ll see a response I have to this drivel of yours about your superior indwelling. So I’ll spare you most of it here. Click here to jump to it if you want.

Suffice it to say that your apologetics are cowardly, hit-and-run tactics that attempt to stand up straight on a self-proclaimed Christian wisdom, yet buckle limply to the ground upon close examination of your credentials. In other words, you have what look like the strong legs of Sacred Scripture supporting you, but they are ultimately hollow and weak inside, unable to support the weight of your reformist Christian claims, due to the fact that the substance of your scripture is diseased by personal interpretation outside of the apostolic unity and authenticity. If you can’t claim you’re infallible, what good is it to say your scripture interpretation is superior? Isn’t your indwelling superior to ours, Tanner? Then claim it, man! Tell us your interpretations can NOT be in error. Why won’t you do that? And look…when you do…I won’t challenge you. I just want you to be publicly accountable to God Almighty…I want you to openly profess your infallible interpretations before Him. Do that, and I’ll leave you alone with this challenge and questioning. I’ll leave you alone because I know that you have but one to answer to…and you WILL answer to Him.

 

[Tomster]

Rubbish rubbish rubbish. Since you are behind, you’ll see a response I have to this drivel of yours about your superior indwelling. So I’ll spare you most of it here. Click here to jump to it if you want.

Suffice it to say that your apologetics are cowardly, hit-and-run tactics that attempt to stand up straight on a self-proclaimed Christian wisdom, yet buckle limply to the ground upon close examination of your credentials. In other words, you have what look like the strong legs of Sacred Scripture supporting you, but they are ultimately hollow and weak inside, unable to support the weight of your reformist Christian claims, due to the fact that the substance of your scripture is diseased by personal interpretation outside of the apostolic unity and authenticity. If you can’t claim you’re infallible, what good is it to say your scripture interpretation is superior? Isn’t your indwelling superior to ours, Tanner? Then claim it, man! Tell us your interpretations can NOT be in error. Why won’t you do that? And look…when you do…I won’t challenge you. I just want you to be publicly accountable to God Almighty…I want you to openly profess your infallible interpretations before Him. Do that, and I’ll leave you alone with this challenge and questioning. I’ll leave you alone because I know that you have but one to answer to…and you WILL answer to Him.

Steve,

Do NOT hold your breath for a response to this. Two posts back I asked Sola Tanner for a response. I really do not expect to get a coherernt reply due to the fact, as you have correctly said, of Sola Tanner’s cowardly and hit-and-run tactics. But then what else can we expect from a self appointed, fallible, interpreter of Scriptures?

 

[o_mlly]

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

thnx

When we die, our senses no longer give (name removed by moderator)ut to our intellect and we are locked at the point of death in our state of mind and our state of grace. To gain heaven, one must die in the state of sanctifying or habitual grace which is the disposition to do good reflexively when faced with a moral decision.

While we cannot know with certainty our present state of grace, we can know relatively by three criteria: 1) Do I find joy in thinking and taliking (praying) to God? 2) Do I have contempt for the materialism of the world? 3) Do I think myself to not be in the state of a mortal sin?

If you can answer “yes” to all three, then you have a relatively good chance to gain eternal life with the Trinity.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[CentralFLJames]

There is a specific word used in the NT for priest and it is a marked distinction in the roles from the Pastors, overseers and deacons. You know this is true, but to admit the truth is to deny the faith.
…

hiereus - a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites

Used around 70 times and always referring to the OT priest; maybe one exceotpion, but I could not find it…found it Paul in Romans 15:16;

Show me where I am wrong?

You will never see or any 1st and 2nd century ecf’s use the term priest “hiereus”. Clement did not refer to himself as Pope; that is also a lie.)

No specific word? DUDE - STOP being so parochial. ENGLISH IS NOT the UNIVERSAL language for all people and all times. There are many concepts in the ancient dialects that DO NOT translate directly to English. There is NO ENGLISH WORD for AGAPE - the KIND of Love Christians are called to have for one another. The Greek has more than 3 forms or dimensions for love and you would by your parochial and pharasycial legal standard of “The King’s English” hold God to just one of those meanings and one word? Does Tanner loves his sister in the same way Tanner loves his dog and his wife?
Ewww, don’t answer that one please… I am not trying to create a strawman here on a position you do not hold but to demonstrate through the absurd standard of your own shallow thinking and judgment how ridiculous your statements are here. Not only do they lack depth of insight - they are proved wrong by the historical record as I have already demonstrated viz the Church Fathers who were telling us to respect the bishops and the priests in the 1st and 2nd centuries. Are you here to tell us that God let His Church be hijacked so soon? Where are you going with this since this line of reasoning can only result in a lack of trust in God and lead to loss of faith in Christianity of being legitimate. You simply can not challenge the historical record Tanner. There is indisputable FORENSIC evidence that we can put our hands on TODAY that PROVES that the early Church has a ecclesial structure very similar to what Catholics have today.

Tanner: You will never see or any 1st and 2nd century ecf’s use the term priest “hiereus”. Clement did not refer to himself as Pope; that is also a lie

And what’s your point here? “The Bible” has never called itself “The Bible” either. It is only by current conventions started by CATHOLICS after Catholics assembled “The Bible” and called it “The Bible” hundreds of years after Christ died that we come to know it by this title. Why do object to Pope Clement not calling himself “Pope” but not to the bible’s not calling itself “the bible”??? Irrational…

Catholics today know Clement as both “St. Clement” and “Pope Clement” from the benefit of our historical insight. St. Clement never called himself “St. Clement” either. It is an honorary term WE CATHOLICS give him out of respect (and also due to the fact he is cannonized as a saint and is worthy of veneration and intercessory appeal).

This modern use of that honorary title “Saint” does not change who and what the man was “in fact”. There is not one shred of suspicion that Clement was not the Bishop of Rome and had Peter’s same apostolic authority in the Early Church except in your “Reformed History”.

Early Christian writings from the 2nd century tell us that Peter’s successors, the bishops of Rome (who from the earliest times have been called by the affectionate title of “pope,” which means “papa”), continued to exercise Peter’s ministry in the Church. But this title was not used exclusively by the Bishop of Rome till a few hundred years later. But this term MOST CERTAINLY was used in the early Church - it just did not apply to a single bishop till the convention was established that it was “special” and to be given only for the Bishop of Rome. It is YOU who immediately anachronistically back-read modern semantics into the word “Pope” in writings accredited to Clement as “pope” is known to us today. Please learn some history bro and stop shooting yourself in your own foot all the time. It’s getting bloody in here mopping up after you…

As for your assertion we will never see the Greek word hiereus for “Priest” you need to realize that Greek was NOT the only language spoken.

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

As for your assertion we will never see the Greek word hiereus for “Priest” you need to realize that Greek was NOT the only language spoken.

Nor does YOUR personal critera for the words used to connote “Priest” apply to the truth of the history of those times.

You need to read here: Why We Have a Ministerial Priesthood (By Tim Staples

Catholics KNOW that there was a ministerial priesthood since we hold to the same tradition and the historical evidence bears it out.

But the English word priest is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, or “elder.” It does not originate from hiereus. The German word priester also has its origin from the Greek word for “elder.” So there is etymological reason to say that the elder in the Christian Church was considered to be a priest. In fact, the Douay-Rheims Bible translates presbuteros as “priest,” which can be a valid translation (see Jas. 5:14, DRV).

Rather than speculating on the semantics of words you really need to examine the function of the underlying people and offices. If you read your bible with comprehension you will see that it was the function of the apostle, bishop, and elder, which is clearly revealed to be of a priestly nature. (A deacon is ordained, but he is not a ministerial priest.)

To get you into the True Faith you need to see that ** the standard noun for priest—hiereus—is not used for New Testament ministers, the verb form of hiereus is**. And it is found when Paul refers specifically to his ministry as an apostle. Paul refers to his ministry as a “priestly service”:

You also need to consider that Aramaic was probably most often used by Jesus and his disciples. The 1st century Christian witnesses giving biblical accounts to the biblical authors/scribes probably mostly spoke Aramaic. But the scribes translated to Greek. So again don’t get too hung up looking for specific words in a pagan language that had priests and priestesses to back up your theory that The Catholic Church are all liars who made all this ancient history up; and if you are honest with yourself you will admit that is what you really believe to be true here since you are paranoid of Catholics. **What is important here is what actually happened **and what real ecclesial authorities were in place. Clearly, the early church writings prove that there is an ecclesial structure of 3 principal ordained spiritual ranks (Apostle/Bishop, Priest, Deacon).

You also MUST see that 1 Peter 2:5–9 is a reference to Exodus 19:6: "and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." This text indicates a universal priesthood in the Old Covenant. Yet in that same chapter, verse 22, we read: “And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves.” clearly you should see that there was a universal priesthood in existence in the Old Covenant, but this did not exclude the possibility of a distinct ministerial priesthood as well. Could it be the same in the New Covenant? Yep - is sure was!

Also, if you learn some period history come to see that the Christians of the first century would avoid using the priestly word in naming the ministerial offices of the Church, because it was the same term being used by the more numerous Jewish and even pagan priests (cf. Luke 1:8–9; Acts 14:13). Christians used* language to* distinguish **their priests from the Jewish and pagan priests of their day.

If you are of sincere heart you will see in Scripture that New Covenant ministers functioned as priests.

“If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . . .”

Read that Tim Staples article.

James