Is there a protestant conspiracy on this site

[x4us]

Alfie:

. If you look at the You obviously believe in a division of sin into venial and mortal. The Bible does not speak about a division of sin into two catagories. If you were playing a football game and you either lost by 1 point or 100 points it does not matter you still lost the game.

Dear Alfie, Please look at John’e epistles: I John 5:16 says, “If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death (my emphasis).”

Your quarrel, Alphie, is not with the Catholic Church - your quarrel is w/ John the Evangelist. . . he very clearly delineates that there are two kinds of sin: a sin that leads to death and a sin that does not lead to death. In old English, guess what the word was for “leading to death” . . . the word was mortal - as in “he received a mortal injury in the battle.” Mortal literally means leading to death. This concept of mortal sin is taken directly from John’s epistle.

 

[Anonymous_1]

Alfie:

Mastda,
You obviously believe in a division of sin into venial and mortal. The Bible does not speak about a division of sin into two catagories. If you were playing a football game and you either lost by 1 point or 100 points it does not matter you still lost the game.

This has been dealt with many times…Alfie I would like to point you to 1 John 5:16(NLT)

If you see a Christian brother or sister sinning in a way that does not lead to death, you should pray, and God will give that person life. But there is a sin that leads to death, and I am not saying you should pray for those who commit it. Every wrong is sin, but not all sin leads to death.

It has always been belief in the Church that there are varieties of sin. Here is a link that references what the the Early Church Fathers had to say on this very topic. Keep in mind Alfie that these were first, second, third generation Church leaders. People who learned directly from the Apostles and were in fact their succesors.

For something to be mortal sin there are three requisites, if any onet hese three things is not present in the act of will that comprises the sin, it is not mortal.

Is it not common sense that although telling a “white lie” to protect a friends reputation is wrong, it is not the same as freely, thoughtfully, deliberatley and sytematically spreading malicous rumors about an adversary to destroy his reuptation.

First, the mater must be serious matter.
Second there must be full knowledge that the matter is seriously wrong. One cannot sin Mortally through ignorance.
Third, There must be full consent of the will.

When these three things are present in an act of our will, we have commited a mortal sin. It is a refussal to give our love and obedience to God. That is not to say that venial sin is not sin, all sin is evil. But not all sin is mortal.

I quote a good apologist Leo Trese

Such sins are called venial fromt he Latin word venia which means forgiveness. Venial sins are readily forgivable by God, even without the Sacrament of penance; a genuine act of sorrow and purpose of amendment will suffice for forgiveness.
The does not mean that veial sin “doesn’t matter.” Any sin is at least a partial failure in love, an act of ingratitude toward God, who loves us so much. In all creation there is no evil so great as a venial sin, excepting only mortal sin. Venial sin is by no means a harmless laxity. Every venial sin brings punishment in its train, here or in purgatory. Every venial sin lessens a little the love of God in our hearts and weakens our resistance to temptaion…carelessness about venial sin will surley pave the way for mortal sin. If we keep saying “yes” to ourselves in “little” things, we shall end up saying “yes” when a really big temptation comes along. For one who truley loves God, the habitual resolution will be to avoid all deliberate sin, venial as well as mortal.

I hope and pray that this helps Alfie.

 

[Alfie]

Anonymous_1:

This has been dealt with many times…Alfie I would like to point you to 1 John 5:16(NLT)

It has always been belief in the Church that there are varieties of sin. Here is a link that references what the the Early Church Fathers had to say on this very topic. Keep in mind Alfie that these were first, second, third generation Church leaders. People who learned directly from the Apostles and were in fact their succesors.

For something to be mortal sin there are three requisites, if any onet hese three things is not present in the act of will that comprises the sin, it is not mortal.

Is it not common sense that although telling a “white lie” to protect a friends reputation is wrong, it is not the same as freely, thoughtfully, deliberatley and sytematically spreading malicous rumors about an adversary to destroy his reuptation.

First, the mater must be serious matter.
Second there must be full knowledge that the matter is seriously wrong. One cannot sin Mortally through ignorance.
Third, There must be full consent of the will.

When these three things are present in an act of our will, we have commited a mortal sin. It is a refussal to give our love and obedience to God. That is not to say that venial sin is not sin, all sin is evil. But not all sin is mortal.

I quote a good apologist Leo Trese

I hope and pray that this helps Alfie.

I pasted this quote from your link

Caesarius of Arles
“Although the apostle [Paul] has mentioned many grievous sins, we, nevertheless, lest we seem to promote despair, will state briefly what they are. Sacrilege, murder, adultery, false witness, theft, robbery, pride, envy, avarice, and, if it is of long standing, anger, drunkenness, if it is persistent, and slander are reckoned in their number. Or if anyone knows that these sins dominate him, if he does not do penance worthily and for a long time, if such time is given him . . . he cannot be purged in that transitory fire of which the apostle spoke [1 Cor. 3:11–15], but the eternal flames will torture him without any remedy. But since the lesser sins are, of course, known to all, and it would take too long to mention them all, it will be necessary for us only to name some of them. . . . There is no doubt that these and similar deeds belong to the lesser sins which, as I said before, can scarcely be counted, and from which not only all Christian people, but even all the saints could not and cannot always be free. We do not, of course, believe that the soul is killed by these sins, but still they make it ugly by covering it as if with some kind of pustules and, as it were, with horrible scabs” (Sermons 179[104]:2 [A.D. 522]).

I am a bit confused. Correct me if I am wrong but the above paragraph that I posted from your link sounds like every sin is a mortal sin. The Bible says that looking upon a woman with lust is adultery even if the actual act has not been commited. Is that still a mortal sin? Can a venial sin turn into a mortal sin? For example if one uses a white lie every day for the rest of that persons life does it then turn into a mortal sin and if I commit adultery only one time during my life and ask for forgiveness than it is not a mortal sin…right? It is hard for me to explain myself because I do not enjoy writing. It would be a lot easier to discuss the subject verbally.

 

[linuspop]

I suggest you read what Jesus said in his response to Nicodemus in John 3:5: "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Notice Jesus said water and the spirit is necessary to be “born again”, not simply the verbal declaration and confession of ‘believe in your heart and confess with your mouth’ scripture excerpt that most protestants teach is all that is required to be truly born again. Catholics believe that to be born again in the Spirit and scripturally is to first be baptised into the faith and continue live a life of faith empowered by grace and love. That is the faith that is not “dead” faith. James 2:22 says: You see that his (Abraham’s) faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. As for your comment about the last days, the writer of Hebrews used that as a reference to the “last days” the apostles were currently living in, when the early Church was being attacked by various heresies. Hebrews 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. Peter also referred to the last days to explain the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles during Pentecost - in Acts 14:15-17. It is presumptuous to consider only protestants as the “elect” if you delve into scripture - especially considering that protestantism didn’t arise until the 1500s. You may want to read about the seducing spirits that the Church encountered in the early days of Christianity by reading early Church Fathers writings. It would be a very enlightening experience for you. There is a link to it here: [ccel.org/fathers2/](Calvin College Ethereal Library) Rest assured, the link is to a Protestant website.

A person who has truly been “born again” is never going to join the Catholic church. However the Bible does say that in the last days that even “the Elect” would be deceived and we Evangelicals are “the Elect” so it is possible I suppose that some could be deceived by “seducing spirits”.

 

[Maranatha]

Alfie:

If you have read your Bible you would realize that very few people will make it to heaven. I get the impression that you seem to think that Christianity is a popularity contest, whoever attracts the most converts has to be right. If anything that is a sign that there is something wrong with that particular religious denomination. Read Matthew 13:3-9. The parable of the seeds. It talks about sowing seeds and how few of those seeds actually grow and mature to be reaped. Most people fall away from Christianity because they were not truly born again.

The fact is, we don’t know how many people will get to Heaven. If only one person doesn’t make it to Heaven that might be too few from Jesus’ point of view. If only one person goes to Hell that may be too many. The answer is reserved for the Father alone.

 

[Anonymous_1]

I pasted this quote from your link

Caesarius of Arles
“Although the apostle [Paul] has mentioned many grievous sins, we, nevertheless, lest we seem to promote despair, will state briefly what they are. Sacrilege, murder, adultery, false witness, theft, robbery, pride, envy, avarice, and, if it is of long standing, anger, drunkenness, if it is persistent, and slander are reckoned in their number. Or if anyone knows that these sins dominate him, if he does not do penance worthily and for a long time, if such time is given him . . . he cannot be purged in that transitory fire of which the apostle spoke [1 Cor. 3:11–15], but the eternal flames will torture him without any remedy. But since the lesser sins are, of course, known to all, and it would take too long to mention them all, it will be necessary for us only to name some of them. . . . There is no doubt that these and similar deeds belong to the lesser sins which, as I said before, can scarcely be counted, and from which not only all Christian people, but even all the saints could not and cannot always be free. We do not, of course, believe that the soul is killed by these sins, but still they make it ugly by covering it as if with some kind of pustules and, as it were, with horrible scabs” (Sermons 179[104]:2 [A.D. 522]).

I am a bit confused. Correct me if I am wrong but the above paragraph that I posted from your link sounds like every sin is a mortal sin. The Bible says that looking upon a woman with lust is adultery even if the actual act has not been commited. Is that still a mortal sin? Can a venial sin turn into a mortal sin? For example if one uses a white lie every day for the rest of that persons life does it then turn into a mortal sin and if I commit adultery only one time during my life and ask for forgiveness than it is not a mortal sin…right? It is hard for me to explain myself because I do not enjoy writing. It would be a lot easier to discuss the subject verbally.

Often through our fallen nature and the temptations of the evil one immoral thoughts enter our minds. As Christians with the assistance of the Helper, the Holy Spirit, we can resist these thoughts and temptations. Suppose however that a lustful fantasy enters my mind, I have no control over the first thought,however if because of the wicked desires within me, i choose to pursue that fantasy in my mind, knowign very well that it is despical in Gods eyes than I would be guilty of mortal sin.

Not every sin is mortal. The Church teaches that the three conditions mentioned must be present for a sin to be mortal. This sin could be in our thoughts our words or our acts whether by ommision or commision.

First, the mater must be serious
Second there must be full knowledge that the matter is seriously wrong. One cannot sin Mortally through ignorance.
Third, There must be full consent of the will.

No number of venial sins can amount to be a mortal sin. a mortal sin is a conscious and deliberate rejection of God and His ways in a matter that is serious. From what I understand, please correct me in im wrong, but mortal sin is essentially the same as the Original Sin cept that through the merits and mercy that Christ obtained for us upon the Cross it is possible to be restored unto His grace through the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Penance.

Ok I was on the slopes snowboarding yesterday, i fell hard and uttered a profanity. Well we are not to curse, but i certainly did not reflect on the choice that I was going to make. It just came out, lol. Not to play down my failure but are we to say that this is the equivalent as say first degree murder?

 

[Church_Militant]

Hey Alfie!
Did ya miss this post?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1200535#post1200535

 

[Alfie]

Church Militant:

Hey Alfie!
Did ya miss this post?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1200535#post1200535

No, I didn’t miss it. I never heard of Boettner until Scott Hahn spoke about his book on ETWN. His book has been an eye opener to me. I never heard of Jack Chick either. I will be sure to check him out.

A lot of people on this forum seem to be rather testy. Feel free to make any negative comment to me… that you desire. It doesn’t bother me in the least. When you compare a few uncharitable remarks to what is happening to Christians in Indonesia (having their heads chopped off) it is a mere drop in the bucket.

 

[Sherlock]

Alfie:

I live in an area of the country that has a large Catholic population. From what I know about the Catholic churches in this area is that Catholic parishoners are assigned to a parrish. They do not have the choice to move from one parrish to another like a protestant can. Some people come to a protestant church when they have a major crisis in their personal lives. When that crisis is over than they are through with church until the next crisis…

Nonsense, I am free to go to the parish I wish—and in my case, that means driving 45 minutes to the one I like. It’s preferable to live close to one’s parish, because it’s easier to be involved, but so far, the Swiss Guard hasn’t tried to impale me with those spikey things they carry and drag me back to the local church with the Marty Haugen songs.

Alfie:

Some people come to a protestant church when they have a major crisis in their personal lives. When that crisis is over than they are through with church until the next crisis…

Does that sound like worshipping God? It sounds like looking for a therapist.

Alfie:

You obviously believe in a division of sin into venial and mortal. The Bible does not speak about a division of sin into two catagories. If you were playing a football game and you either lost by 1 point or 100 points it does not matter you still lost the game.

Read your Bible, Alfie: 1 John 5:16-17 “If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not mortal.”

 

[NotWorthy]

Alfie:

No, I didn’t miss it. I never heard of Boettner until Scott Hahn spoke about his book on ETWN. His book has been an eye opener to me. I never heard of Jack Chick either. I will be sure to check him out.

You may not have heard about Mr. Boettner, but he is the ultimate source to many anti-catholic rhetoric. I believe Kar Keating was able to trace a distorted fact through three authors books before finding it originally started with Lorraine Boettner’s book. I’ve seen a list of Lorraine’s distortions, there’s about 40 of them. The problem is, even though they’ve all been proven false, people still use them to attack Catholics. Even when their falsehoods are exposed, people will still use them to convert Catholics.

Alfie:

A lot of people on this forum seem to be rather testy. Feel free to make any negative comment to me… that you desire.

Hang in there, brother! I’ve been on CARM’s forums lately, and I’ve found it lacking in charity sometimes, too. If you stick around, I think you’ll learn a lot of good things about us.

Take Care!

Notworthy

 

[Church_Militant]

Alfie:

No, I didn’t miss it. I never heard of Boettner until Scott Hahn spoke about his book on ETWN. His book has been an eye opener to me. I never heard of Jack Chick either. I will be sure to check him out.

A lot of people on this forum seem to be rather testy. Feel free to make any negative comment to me… that you desire. It doesn’t bother me in the least. When you compare a few uncharitable remarks to what is happening to Christians in Indonesia (having their heads chopped off) it is a mere drop in the bucket.

“Rather testy?” Dude! Go back and look at your very fisrt post on this thread and then tell me why anyone here would feel a bit “testy” about the stuff you’ve been saying.

You have badmouthed everything you can find about our faith and stated that the conversion stories of guys like me and others on here are not authentic.

In return, I and others have shown that you have believed incorrect info or outright misrepresentations of Catholic teachings and you call that testy?

Get it in context here willya…moreover I have been/am on some non-Catholic forums that make me glad this is my home forum because they are so rabidly and uncharitably anti-Catholic. Yeah there are few folks on here who lack charity sometimes, but this is NOTHING compared to the trash that I’ve faced on some of the boards that I attempted to discuss on. One right now is under a silent Catholic boycott because they are so bad and it’s the forum founder and her mods who are as bad as anyone. I was never suspended there, but I don’t post there any more because of the way they are there. They actually got downright pornographically offensive in an attack on Catholic belief about the Blessed Virgin, and then “apologized” but the mods did nothing to the culprits and a couple of Catholics were warned for speaking out about it. We sure won’t go back, nor will we encourage other Catholics to go there.

If that’s their idea of “witnessing” to us then it’ll sure be an artic cold day in hell before they get me into their churches.
Pax tecum,

 

[Zooey]

$100 on Jack Chick please!

http://bestsmileys.com/freak/5.gifh...om/wink/3.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/lol/9.gif

 

[x4us]

Dear Alphie - would you please comment on my post #158? Thanks

 

[x4us]

Dear Alfie - I meant to ask your comment on post #156. Thanks -

 

[seabird3579]

Kendy:

Well, I am sorry that you have been treated this way. There are a lot protestants who don’t see catholics as the enemy, but you probably haven’t encountered them because they are more likely to leave you alone.

Generally, there are some protestants who feel like the RCC doesn’t teach the bible, and they want to help you leave an institution that is doing this.

God Bless,
Kendy

As a Catholic revert myself, I might be able to spread a little light on the subject. First as background, let me state that I was born a Catholic back in the 1950s, went to Catholic schools, later from the late 1980s to the late 1990s I left the church and attended a number of Protestant denominations including Calvary Chapel, First Baptists, Presbyterian, and some “large box” nondenominational types. Around 2001, I returned “Home” to my Roman Catholic roots, re-evangelized by authors such as Patrick Madrid and Scott Hahn. EWTN has been a very valuable tool for most cradle Catholics as well as uninformed Protestants in bringing the Truth of Christ and the Catholic Church to light.

Now, having said all of that, I would say it is good to remember that the Catholic Church is the one that compiled and edited the first authentic Bible. It would stand to reason that we would indeed use it as a reference point for all christian doctrine.

However, here is the main difference. Most Protestant denominations adhere to the *sola scriptura * doctrine, meaning the Bible is the last and final word for them. Many believe the words must literally be written in the Bible to be doctrinally true. Many of their assumptions about certain passages are not at all what Rome originally interpreted the passages to mean.

Catholics, on the other hand, see Rome as the Final Authority for christian doctrine and they see the Bible as a “whole picture” rather than in bits and pieces extracted and protracted to fit a greater agenda. And, who better than the Roman Catholic Church’s Magisterium (the teaching branch of the Church) to decipher what is and what isn’t meant by Scripture, in context?

A very good oversight for this entire controversy can be found in the book, “Catholicism and Fundamentalism,” by Karl Keating.

P.S. The Lord has reminded me that another instrumental in my coming “Home” was my mother, who “prayed without ceasing” her Rosary novenas, until I was safely back home. The Rosary is a very powerful weapon against false doctrine. Try it, you’ll like it.

 

[Alfie]

x4us:

Dear Alphie - would you please comment on my post #158? Thanks

John 16:17 John has just spoken about the privilege of Christian prayer. He is talking about the power of intercessory prayer in regard to anyone who is in danger of straying from the faith. Any fellow believer may intercede for another believer and commit that brother to the grace of God.

 

[x4us]

But what about John 17? That’s what my post was talking about. Jesus was imploring the Father for unity in the Church - and that unity would be a witness to the world. You said that you thought the Protestants converting to Catholiciam was a hoax - and I pointed out that Christ’s prayer in John 17 had a lot to do w/ me examining the teachings of the Catholic Church. Do you really believe that the converts in this forum are a hoax, or was that just an off-the-cuff comment?

 

[Anonymous_1]

Alfie:

John 16:17 John has just spoken about the privilege of Christian prayer. He is talking about the power of intercessory prayer in regard to anyone who is in danger of straying from the faith. Any fellow believer may intercede for another believer and commit that brother to the grace of God.

If you are referring to 1 John 5:16,17 I want to exhort you to consider this:
So you interpret this as meaning what you have stated above: that John is merley referring to the Christian privledge of intercession but not to the existence of Mortal sin. Im really not sure how you came up with that conclusion, but nevertheless, what authority do you have to say that your interpretation of this verse is correct and the Catholics incorrect? We can not both be correct can we?

This brings us to one of the major problems that I found: if there is no Authority in the Church to illuminate scripture in the light of truth, than every person would be justified in believing whatever they wanted to about any particular verse in Sacred scripture. And this is how it is outside the Catholic Church. Every person, pastor and laity alike becomes a magisterium unto him or herself. This leads to very many problems like two different denominations taking contradictory positions on critical issues like Baptism or the intricacies of our Salvation. Any person remotley familiar with laws of logic knows that two things that are contradictory can not both be true at the same time. So the only way of reconciling this is to say that there is no absolute truth within the Church but this is relativistic and absurd!

**If **each denomination were justifiably able to read Sacred Scripture and within reason draw conclusions and form doctrine accordingly, than the Catholic Church can not be accused of wrong doing either. You say that verse refers to intercessory prayer, Catholics believ it refers to Mortal sin. How can both positions possibly be right? If both positions can’t be right than how do we determine who is?

However, if reason shows that there cannot possibly be such discord and discrepency within the One Church, than there must be some mechanism for examining Sacred Scripture and forming Doctrine and discerning meaning, then we must seek to discern what that mechanism is.

The only Church that I have found with an adaquate mechanism in place to deal with this is the Catholic Church. That mechanism is the Magisterium or the Authoritative Teaching Body of the Church, the body of Bishops under the leadership of the vicar of Christ(the Pontiff) which operates under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and with help from sanctioned Theologians. Unlike any other church, the Catholic Church is not and never has been afraid to boldly proclaim that it holds and teaches the fullness of Truth as Christ handed it to the Apostles, and the Apostles to their succesors. It is difficult to believe that Christ would leave us without such a mechanism, leaving it up to us to fend for ourselves when it comes to such important issues of learning and truth.

I dont know if this makes sense, im having a hard time articulating the idea that im trying to put forth. Does this make sense?

 

[seabird3579]

Anonymous_1:

I dont know if this makes sense, im having a hard time articulating the idea that im trying to put forth. Does this make sense?

Good job Anonymous_1

 

[Alfie]

Anonymous_1:

If you are referring to 1 John 5:16,17 I want to exhort you to consider this:
So you interpret this as meaning what you have stated above: that John is merley referring to the Christian privledge of intercession but not to the existence of Mortal sin. Im really not sure how you came up with that conclusion, but nevertheless, what authority do you have to say that your interpretation of this verse is correct and the Catholics incorrect? We can not both be correct can we?

This brings us to one of the major problems that I found: if there is no Authority in the Church to illuminate scripture in the light of truth, than every person would be justified in believing whatever they wanted to about any particular verse in Sacred scripture. And this is how it is outside the Catholic Church. Every person, pastor and laity alike becomes a magisterium unto him or herself. This leads to very many problems like two different denominations taking contradictory positions on critical issues like Baptism or the intricacies of our Salvation. Any person remotley familiar with laws of logic knows that two things that are contradictory can not both be true at the same time. So the only way of reconciling this is to say that there is no absolute truth within the Church but this is relativistic and absurd!

**If **each denomination were justifiably able to read Sacred Scripture and within reason draw conclusions and form doctrine accordingly, than the Catholic Church can not be accused of wrong doing either. You say that verse refers to intercessory prayer, Catholics believ it refers to Mortal sin. How can both positions possibly be right? If both positions can’t be right than how do we determine who is?

However, if reason shows that there cannot possibly be such discord and discrepency within the One Church, than there must be some mechanism for examining Sacred Scripture and forming Doctrine and discerning meaning, then we must seek to discern what that mechanism is.

The only Church that I have found with an adaquate mechanism in place to deal with this is the Catholic Church. That mechanism is the Magisterium or the Authoritative Teaching Body of the Church, the body of Bishops under the leadership of the vicar of Christ(the Pontiff) which operates under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and with help from sanctioned Theologians. Unlike any other church, the Catholic Church is not and never has been afraid to boldly proclaim that it holds and teaches the fullness of Truth as Christ handed it to the Apostles, and the Apostles to their succesors. It is difficult to believe that Christ would leave us without such a mechanism, leaving it up to us to fend for ourselves when it comes to such important issues of learning and truth.

I dont know if this makes sense, im having a hard time articulating the idea that im trying to put forth. Does this make sense?

There has always been plenty of discord in the Catholic church. One of the threads on this forum is about how the new Pope will probably downsize the church because of the liberal Catholics. From what I have read the Jesuits don’t agree with the Franciscans. You have just as much discord as other churches only it is under one roof. It is like a large disfunctional family. If the Catholic church is the fullness of the truth than why aren’t you still using Latin and eating fish on Fridays? What about a doctrine like the Immaculate Conception that was not issued until pope Pius lX decreed it in 1854? Over the years the various popes and bishops claim to be guided by the Holy Spirt. Why? What would there be to change if the church has always had the fullness of the truth?