Jesus Christ is our only 'mediator' as stated by St. Paul

[guanophore]

1478 An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.89

You may say no but here it is in black and white. This from the catechism of the CC. An indulgence is obtained through the church "to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins."

I am not taking issue with the catechism, I am taking issue with your lack of understanding of it. You seem to believe that this indulgence occurs apart from the blood of Christ, and it cannot. I know you say you used to be Catholic, but you were never properly catechized. It is clear you have no clue what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. Of course you felt like you had to leave, because these things obviously make no sense to you.

You’re pretty good at pointing out when you feel someone is outside the apostolic teaching I have yet to see you affirmatively give what the apostles did teach on anything.

The Divine Deposit of Faith is held by the Church. You have rejected the Apostolic Teachings that are found in the Church. You reject that the Church has the authority to forgive sins, that priests have the authority to remit and retain sins, and that the Church has the authority to give an indulgence.

Anyhow, let’s go over it again, to see if we can figure out what John is saying and not to just discount what you think he isn’t saying.

1John5:16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

Ok, John says that if we see someone sin a sin that is not unto death, he shall ask (pray) and He shall give him life. Is this sin that is not unto death what the CC would call a venial sin. No, it isn’t because as 1Jn 3:4 says Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And Rom6:23 says For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. It can’t be venial because all sin is a transgression of the law and all sin leads to death unless you recieve the gift of God, Jesus Christ.

Persons who commit venial sins have not rejected the gift of God, Jesus Christ. That is the difference between mortal and venial sins. When one sins mortally, one rejects that saving grace of Christ.

So what are these sins then, Well the one not unto death is the sin repented of.   The sin unto death is the sin not repented of.

This is what has to be invented, so that the sacramental principle can be rejected.

Now you can’t use your old worn out expression that it’s not apostolic because John wrote 1 John and Paul wrote Romans. Both apostles. If you can see some other possibility, please explain.

Your interjection into the text about repentance is a departure from the Apostolic Teaching. There is nothing about repentance in that passage.

What would that be?

One is to call for the elders of the church, and make a confession, so that he can be healed. This is the teaching of the Apostles. The Apostles taught that Jesus gave them the authority to remit and retain sins. They passed this on to their successors, the bishops, and they to theirs. It is called the sacrament of reconciliation because the repentant person is reconciled again to God, being restored to a state of grace.

 

[SHW]

I would add that it is not necessary to be in Purgatory after death, if we do our purging here. The Church teaches us how to be purfied in this life as well.

Thank you for your kind words.

I agree with you, however, I think it highly unlikely that many persons go directly to heaven without passing through purgatory.

I also disagree that we must “pay the debt of all of our own sins we commt after baptism”. This thinking does, indeed, reinforce Richard’s misunderstanding that the “cross is not enough”. Only Jesus can “pay the debt” of all of our sins. What remains to us are the consequences of our sins. Sometimes, God also sets these aside, unless the payment of them is purifying for us, in which case, He will allow us to pay. A good example is the thief on the cross. He testified that “we are paying the just punishment for our sins, but this Man has done nothing wrong”. We note that Jesus did not spare the thief the temporal punishment for his sins, but did promise him that his soul would be saved. This type of purging, suffering the temporal consequences of our sins, is purifying for our soul, if we embrace the cross with joy.

The indulgences are able to set aside the temporal consequences of our sins in the here and now. Jesus wants to free us from all sin, and the consequences of our sins. This promise is for right now, as well as for eternity.

I am speaking of the temporal debt only, not the Blood debt which Jesus already paid. (Luke 12:59) We reap what we sow so we must pay this part of the debt ourselves before we can enter eternal life. (Galatians 6:7)

We are already saved, but our venial sins still need purging from our souls when we die (unless all of our sins have already been atoned for on earth by our prayers, alms, etc.)** before we can enter heaven because nothing impure can enter heaven.** (1 Corinthians 3:15)

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I am pleased to here that it fails you, Richard. This is a great start. If it becomes clear that what you have been taugth about the Catholic faith makes no sense, then you may be able to eventually accep that what you have been taught is wrong.

So you’re pleased that you’re post made no sense. Is it your intention to be vague and unclear. I admitt that many times you accomplish that end, whether or not intended. My only question is why would you want to be misunderstood for not posting clearly, especially about your religion. 1Peter 2:9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Why not make your posts a beacon of light to those in darkness. Uh oh there I go again preaching and teaching. You’re not going to turn me in are you?

They are not “two ways”, Richard. Both things are true. The Catholic Church teaches that forgiveness of sins happens only through the blood of Christ. We participate in that forgiveness when we are also covered by His Blood. We can extend His forgiveness to others, and we can participate in activities that will cover sins.

Again you contradict yourself. First you say: The Catholic Church teaches that the only forgiveness of sins is through the blood of Christ.
Then you say:
Quote:
“James, it says clearly that it is the righteous who have great power in prayers, and that the prayer of FAITH is what heals the sick, and forgives sins.”

Here’s that post again. Your second statement says " that the prayer of FAITH is what heals the sick, and forgives sins." This is clearly a dicotomy with your first statement and both cannot be true. This second statement is taken from a misinterpretation of scripture. The first is the only one that is true

Great! I am glad we can agree that the belief you espouse cannot be found in the text. Rather, it is your interpretation (attempt to explain) what you are reading.

Never said my beliefs cannot be found in the text. Merely expressing frustration at your inability or unwillingness to see the glaringly obvious fact that what I am saying is exactly what John is only with an explanation.

What seems obvious to you, accroding to what you have been taught, is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

Show me.

I think we are all in agreement that sins will lead to death if the sinner does not ask for mercy. However, that is not what this passage is about.

Yes it is.

One must be mindful to whom the writing is addressed. John is writing to BELIEVERS! He is addressing those who are IN CHRIST by new birth:

1 John 5:16
" If any one sees his **brother **committing…"

So, you’re saying believers never sin and don’t need prayer.

Your perceptions of what the Scripture means is a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

How so?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

continuance

Are you trying to say that temporal punishment means that the cross is not enough? This is a preposterous idea, but I want to be sure I understand what you are saying.

That’s not what I am saying that’s what the catechism of the CC says.

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it** merits temporal punishment**. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134

So what we have here is a sin that does not need to be confessed because it can be “humanly reparable”. In other words it doesn’t need the blood of the Lamb. This is clearly in conflict with what the bible says 1Jn. 3:4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And Rom. 6:23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

It is true that doing good works can cover a multitude of sins. However, it is not “payment” in the sense that you are using it.

May I refer you back to the quote from the catechism above it says the venial sin is “humanly reparable” This would be “payment”

Doing good is an active process of avoiding evil.

So you think doing good is an avoidance process. Good luck with that.

When we embrace purification,

What do you mean by this?

The only reason we can do these things is by grace, through faith, because Jesus paid for us by His blood on the cross. It is He who enables us to pick up our cross, and carry it.

Finally something we can agree on. I’m almost tempted to put one of those goofy little faces on here. Nah!

I agree it would be blasphemy if the merits of Christ were “usurped”. However, this is not possible. No one can rob God.

Well, actually not. Blasphemy is the attempt to take what rightfully belongs to God and we can rob God. Malachi 3: 8Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
9Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
10Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
11And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the LORD of hosts.

God, in His mercy and generosity, gives Gifts to the Church, and allows the Church to dispense His mercies to the faithful.

Gifts are given to men not the church 1Cor 12:1Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. 4Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 7But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

No, Richard, you have misunderstood the Apostolic Teaching. Punishment for sins can only be remitted by God. He allows us to participate in the remission of sins.

This is from the catechism of the CC
1479 Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted.

This clearly says the temporal punishment is remitted by indugences. Which are obtained by the church. So according to this. These sins are remitted by the church.

 

[guanophore]

I agree with you, however, I think it highly unlikely that many persons go directly to heaven without passing through purgatory.

All Protestants that believe that nothing impure can enter heaven also believe in purgatory, they just don’t call it that. They also believe that we will be changed and transformed from “this body of death” before we can enter heaven. Most believe it happens “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye” as described about the second coming.

I am speaking of the temporal debt only, not the Blood debt which Jesus already paid. (Luke 12:59) We reap what we sow so we must pay this part of the debt ourselves before we can enter eternal life. (Galatians 6:7)

Gal 6:7-10
7 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart. 10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.

I think this passage is talking about sowing toward eternal life, or toward the flesh. The two are opposed to one another. Those that sow to the flesh do not reap eternal life.

I am not sure it relates to the temporal punishment of sins as much as it does eternal.

We are already saved, but our venial sins still need purging from our souls when we die (unless all of our sins have already been atoned for on earth by our prayers, alms, etc.)** before we can enter heaven because nothing impure can enter heaven.** (1 Corinthians 3:15)

I think it is best t focus on the purging right here, right now. Toward that end, to the extent that we sow to the Spirit, we can enter heaven in the here and now.

 

[guanophore]

So you’re pleased that you’re post made no sense.

No, I am pleased that your perception of what the Catholic Church believes and teaches makes no sense to you. You have a warped perception of the faith. If you can accept that what you have been given to believe is wrong, there is hope that your misunderstanding can be corrected.

Is it your intention to be vague and unclear. I admitt that many times you accomplish that end, whether or not intended.

No, it is not, but now that I have read a number of your posts, it is clear that you are a very concrete thinker, and it seems hard for you to see the “both/and” that exists in Apostolic Teaching. Many of your responses are of the "you can’t have it both ways’ kind, and in fact, there is only “one” way that contains both elements which you see as diametrically opposed to each other.

My only question is why would you want to be misunderstood for not posting clearly, especially about your religion.

I accept the fact that you may not be ready, willing, or able to understand the Catholic faith.

1Peter 2:9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Why not make your posts a beacon of light to those in darkness. Uh oh there I go again preaching and teaching. You’re not going to turn me in are you?

No. What you have posted here is Catholic teaching. That is allowed here.

There are some for whom my posts may shed some light. For those who are intractibly committed to reject what the Apostles believed and taught, they will be nothing but cloudy, I am sure.

Here’s that post again. Your second statement says " that the prayer of FAITH is what heals the sick, and forgives sins." This is clearly a dicotomy with your first statement and both cannot be true. This second statement is taken from a misinterpretation of scripture. The first is the only one that is true

Both things are true, Richard. I think you have trouble seeing this because you are one of those black and white thinkers. You also seem to have it in your head that healing and salvation are not the products of grace, purchased for us by the blood of Christ.

Never said my beliefs cannot be found in the text.

You have posted beliefs here that cannot be found in the text. You inserted the concept of “unforgiven/unrepented” into the text of John.

Merely expressing frustration at your inability or unwillingness to see the glaringly obvious fact that what I am saying is exactly what John is only with an explanation.

I am sorry you are frustrated, Richard. I am willing to see your point. In fact, your point is quite clear to me. That is how I know it is a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

Show me.

Efforts have been made, Richard. If you are unwilling to accept the Sources, or the evidence, what you will be able to “see” when you are shown is very limited. If you are willing to try to see this from a Catholic point of view, just for the sake of discussion, it might work. However, with the level of resistance you have, it is not likely to happen. Could you try a role play? Pretend for a minute that you are a catechumen and you really want to see the Catholic point of view?

What is preventing you from seeing is that the eye is the lamp of the body. Since your eye (perception) toward the Catholic Church is full of darkness, it is nearly impossible for you to see a point of view contrary to the one you have espoused.

Yes it is.

Your belief that this passage is referencing unrepentant sin is a departure from the Apostolic Teaching. Although I do agree with you. All unrepentant sin is mortal.

So, you’re saying believers never sin and don’t need prayer.

No, I am saying that believers have repented of their sins, and become washed in the blood of Christ. This passage is not directed toward persons who are separated from God, but those who are “in Christ”. One cannot be “in Christ” and still be in a state of sin, separated from God.

How so?

You have interpolated the notions of apostasy and unrepented/unforgiven sin into this passage to justify dispensing with the sacrament of reconciliation.

 

[guanophore]

That’s not what I am saying that’s what the catechism of the CC says.

No, Richard. You are giving your perception of what the CC says, which is an anti-Catholic perception. This is not what the CC says.

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it** merits temporal punishment**. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134

So what we have here is a sin that does not need to be confessed because it can be “humanly reparable”.

There are no sins that do not need to be confessed. This is why there is the confiteor at daily Mass.

Though wrongdoing merits punishment, sometimes we are spared from that as well. I can give many testimonies myself.

You seem to focus on the “humanely reparable” to the exclusion of “with God’s grace”. This is an example of the myopia I mentioned. Humans cannot repair anything do do with sin, apart from God’s grace. What it is saying is that we are able to participate, in our humanity, in the repairs of the damage done by sins.

This is what the Apostle means when he says “love covers a multitude of sins”.

In other words it doesn’t need the blood of the Lamb. This is clearly in conflict with what the bible says

No Richard, that is not correct. Nothing in Catholic Teaching conflicts with what the bible says because Catholics wrote it, and they reflect the Catholic faith. If there appears to be a “conflict” it is in your perception of what is written.

No reparation for sins can occur apart from the blood of Christ. No “human effort” isof any avail apart from the Grace of God.

Rom. 6:23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

May I refer you back to the quote from the catechism above it says the venial sin is “humanly reparable” This would be “payment”

It is not payment in the way you are using the term. Humans cannot pay the eternal consequences for their sins. We can, with God’s grace, participate in repairing the damage done by our sins. This usually involves sacrifice on our part, so it could be considered offsetting a debt, but it is the temporal debt, not the eternal.

 

[guanophore]

So you think doing good is an avoidance process. Good luck with that.

Doing good deeds does indeed help people avoid evil. People are not meant to function in a vacuum. To avoid evil works best when goodness is in place. That is part of what it means to keep the house swept and clean.

1 Thess 5:15
15 See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all.

I do note that you seem to be looking for reasons to be hostile and contrary to the Catholic faith. There really is no need for you to quibble about replacing evil with good. I suspect that you are in agreement with this principle. Why be contentious about the things we share?

What do you mean by this?

To embrace purification is what most Protestants call “sanctification”. It means to surrender our whole lives to lives to Him, and put to death the old man. We are purified by His fire, the fire of His love. He burns out everything in us that is not of Him (if we let Him).
It is part of taking up our cross, and following HIm.

1 John 3:2-3
2 Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.

Finally something we can agree on. I’m almost tempted to put one of those goofy little faces on here. Nah!

Anything that we can give to one another, or give back to God, comes from His grace. He is generous, and He allow us to participate in His giving. The Church is a wellspring of His mercy, and can communicate that mercy to the members, as well as the world.

Well, actually not. Blasphemy is the attempt to take what rightfully belongs to God and we can rob God. Malachi 3: 8Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

The Church does not attempt to rob from God. God has poured out His grace upon the Church, His Bride. She is therefore in a position to dispense this grace.

Gifts are given to men not the church 7But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

Because those so gifted are members of the Church, then the Church is blessed.

Eph 5:25-27
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

The Church is sanctified, cleansed, washed, without spot, wrinkle or any such thing. Not all the members are as clean.

1 Cor 12:27-29
28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.

We see that those gifted are “in the church”. There is no separation between those recieving the gifts, and the One Body in which they are members one of another.

This is from the catechism of the CC
1479 Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted.

This clearly says the temporal punishment is remitted by indugences. Which are obtained by the church. So according to this. These sins are remitted by the church.

Yes. This is not a problem for Catholics, who understand that the Church is the Body through which His grace flows.

Eph 3:8-13
9 and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; 10 that **through the church **the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. 11 This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him.

Our bold and confident access through faith in Him comes through the Church.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

No, I did not say that, however, if I did, it would not be arrogant. What I said was “proof” is in the thread itself. Obviously, those of us that have received the teaching of the Apostles understand the passage differently, which proves that there is more than one way to interpret the text.

Originally Posted by guanophore
No, this is not the absolute “only thing left”. Proof of this can be found in this thread,where we are telling you that the Apostles and their successors believed and taught differently. Even if you reject what they taught(and still teach) if you are intellectually honest, you have to admit there is at least one other point of view.

Here’s your post. In it you say “Proof” is “where we are telling you that the Apostles and their successors believed and taught differently.” So the “Proof” is what you say. Maybe you didn’t mean this to be arrogant but, that’s the way it comes off to me.

The reason that you say “the only thing left” is that you have to rule out all other possibilities so as to dispense with the sacramental teaching of the Apostolic Church.

The “sacramental teaching of the Apostolic Church.” never entered my mind. What I am saying is that if you take a logical look at the text. Something you repeatedly refuse to do. You can come away with no other conclusion.

Yet this passage clearly indicates that intercessory prayer for non-mortal sins is effective.

The word non-mortal does not appear in the text. You added that in order to promote "sacramental teaching " of what you call the “Apostolic Church.”

You seem to be laboring under the error that everything God committed to the Church can be found in the NT.

Where can it be found?

Your assertion that the passage under discussion about moral sin refers to unrepented sin is a departure from what the Apostles believed and taugtht.

Moral sin is not used in the passage.

We know what they believed and taught because it has been preserved in the churches founded by Apostles. If you don’t want to take my word for it. go over to the Orthodox forum, and try your new fangled idea there.

So, it’s preserved in your church, but you nor your church wants to let an infidel like me to study it, why would that be. Isn’t this against what Jesus taught Matt 28: 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
No offence, but why would I take your word for anything. You have made glaring errors on this thread about scripture. Why would I not assume that you have made errors about your apostolic teachings?

I respond to your posts for the sake of others who are reading,

Me to.

CAF is here for evangelistic purposes. That is no secret! It is not here to serve as a venue for your evangelistic endeavors.

So, evangelism on CAF is only for Catholics. It is prohibited for non-Catholics then. Even on the non- Catholic segment of the forum? Sounds rather segregationist to me.

You will have to form your own site for that, or join some other SDA’s in the task.

Sounds like you are trying to get rid of me.

 

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by guanophore
No, this is not the absolute “only thing left”. Proof of this can be found in this thread,where we are telling you that the Apostles and their successors believed and taught differently. Even if you reject what they taught(and still teach) if you are intellectually honest, you have to admit there is at least one other point of view.

Here’s your post. In it you say “Proof” is “where we are telling you that the Apostles and their successors believed and taught differently.” So the “Proof” is what you say. Maybe you didn’t mean this to be arrogant but, that’s the way it comes off to me.

There is nothing that is “arrogant” about the Truth, Richard.

Either the Catholic Church is arrogant to proclaim that it has the fullness of Truth, *or *it is true and she is only claiming what Christ claims.

Similarly, *either *Christianity is arrogant to proclaim that we know that God Himself came down to testify to the Truth, *or *Christianity is simply announcing what’s true.

And more! If Christ is not God as He claims then He is the most arrogant human being that ever lived. Yet, He proclaimed it, and if it’s true, then it’s not arrogance.

 

[heiscominginthe]

guanophore…No, heis. No one is a prisoner of hell until after the judgement. There were many righteous who died before Christ, who awaited Him to redeem them. The prison in which they waited is not the same prison as the one where Satan rules.

You say they were not the same prison and you are right. For there was a prison for the unrighteous which was below the prison known as the bosom of Abraham which was the prison for the righteous. REGARDLESS, both were under the yoke of death which was controlled by satan.

Yet, once Jesus defeated death, he went and preached to those in the bosom of Abraham and set the captives free. For Romans 10:9-10 says a man believes with the heart, but must make confession unto salvation with the fruit of the lips. Those being held in the bosom of Abraham were there because of their faith, believing in their hearts, but they could not make confession unto salvation until after Jesus defeated death. The deed of crucification had to happen first.

This is why it is so peculiar when Protestants come here to CAF and tell us we cannot pray to saints.

Why would you want to pray to anyone other then Jesus himself? No man cometh unto the Father, but through the Son.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

It will not be possible for you to accept the teachings of the Apostles

I accept 100% The teachings of the apostles. It’s just that what you say are the teachings of the apostles that I have a problem with

because you are laboring under the error of Sola Scriptura.

Don’t you believe in the inerrancy of scripture. and that everything you need for salvation is contained in it?

Not only that, you have some gross misunderstanding of what the Catholic faith teaches.

What would that be?

These impediments are prohibitive, I fear.

So, you are saying that my belief in the inerrancy of the word of God and my misunderstanding of the Catholic faith are impediments and prohibitive. Impediments and prohibitive to what?

In order to accept alternative information, you would have to have some chink in the armor open.

Eph6:11Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. Thank God for His armor

Many people tried to show you another way to look at the passage in John, to no avail.

Actually only you and shw.

I cannot pursuade someone who is not open to any evidence to the contrary of his own view

The only evidence you give is what you say. Which really isn’t evidence at all.

No. I said that some sins are more severe than others. There are specific requirements that define a sin as mortal. Not all sins meet those requirements.

Ya its these specific requirements that I have a problem with because they are not only not in scripture but are contrary to what scripture says.
1Jn 3:4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Rom 6:23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

One of those requirements we have discussed,that being knowledge. The Jews knew the prophesies about the messiah, and refused to accept Christ. They are therefore more culpable than Pilate, who was more ignorant than they.

So are you saying Pilates sin was venial?

John is talking about two kinds of sin. One is mortal, the other is not. “Venial” is the Latin term used to refer to sins that are not mortal.

Now who is adding to scripture? Mortal and venial are not terms that appear in the v. To say that this is what “John is talking about” is to add your interpretation to the v. Something that you are continually telling me that I cannot do, But unlike me, you have no precedent for it.

An example would be the hypocritical behavior of Peter when he was visiting the Church. Peter withdrew from the Gentiles when the Jews came, even though Peter believed that he was not subject to the Mosaic laws concerning contact with Gentiles. This is not a sin unto death, but clearly a problematic shortcoming, and not glorifying to God. It is falling short (missing the mark) which is the definition of a sin.

Well again, falling short or missing the mark, whatever that means, may be your definition of what sin is, but it’s not the bibles. 1Jn 3:4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Just another example of the error you are teaching. So you are saying that no matter if Peter has repented of his “sin” of indiscretion and accepted the blood of Christ. 1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. He still has to sit in purgatory to purge the temporal punishment due this “sin”. This is absolutely against scripture. Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

 

[AwGusTeen]

snip…
Why would you want to pray to anyone other then Jesus himself? No man cometh unto the Father, but through the Son.

Using that logic, why would you ask anyone on earth to pray for you or anyone? Why not just go directly to Jesus? All prayers/supplications go directly through Jesus – there is no end run around him. We pray to Jesus AND we ask (pray) to the saints and Mary for their intercessory prayers on our behalf and on the behalf of others.

 

[guanophore]

"guanophore:

No, this is not the absolute “only thing left”. Proof of this can be found in this thread,where we are telling you that the Apostles and their successors believed and taught differently. Even if you reject what they taught(and still teach) if you are intellectually honest, you have to admit there is at least one other point of view.

Here’s your post. In it you say “Proof” is “where we are telling you that the Apostles and their successors believed and taught differently.” So the “Proof” is what you say. Maybe you didn’t mean this to be arrogant but, that’s the way it comes off to me.

I am glad you understand my point. You say there is only one way to look at the passage. A lot of us have told you that we see it differently. Clearly this is evidence that there is more than one way to interpret the passage.

The “sacramental teaching of the Apostolic Church.” never entered my mind. What I am saying is that if you take a logical look at the text. Something you repeatedly refuse to do. You can come away with no other conclusion.

But we do come to another conclusion. This is because we have received the Teaching of the Apostles with regard to it. This Teaching informs our perceptions of what we read. We do not interpret the passages apart from the Holy Gospel that was committed to the Church.

You have chosen not to be informed by this Source, therefore, when you read the passage, you perceive it’s meaning differently.

The word non-mortal does not appear in the text. You added that in order to promote "sacramental teaching " of what you call the “Apostolic Church.”

Yes. There is a sin that is mortal, and there are sins that are not mortal. The word “venial” was added by the Latin Rite to describe non-mortal sins that respond to prayer. The Eastern Rites do not use this terminology.

Where can it be found?

The Revelation of God has been given to us in two forms, the Sacred Scripture, and the Sacred Tradition. The portion of the Revelation you are missing is in the Teaching of the Apostles preserved in the Church.

Moral sin is not used in the passage.

Just a typo of mine. Here is how it should read:

Your assertion that the passage under discussion about mortal sin refers to unrepented sin is a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

So, it’s preserved in your church, but you nor your church wants to let an infidel like me to study it, why would that be.

Your resentment is leaking out again Richard. The Catholic Church does not consider you an “infidel”. That would be the Muslims!

There is no reason that you cannot study the Teaching of the Apostles that was committed to the Church. The only thing that really holds you back is this attitude, which is a product of resentment. Lack of forgiveness and hostility lalways cloud the mind, heart, and perceptions.

Isn't this against what Jesus taught Matt 28: 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

The desire of the church for people to be taught will not necessarily meet with faith in the hearers. The rebellious and disobedient are not receptive to the teaching of the Church.

No offence, but why would I take your word for anything. You have made glaring errors on this thread about scripture. Why would I not assume that you have made errors about your apostolic teachings?

Oh, I have no expectation that you will take my word for anything. Better people than I have forwarded ideas that you reject. I have no fantasy of effectiveness. Indeed I believe that you will assume that I , along with all other Catholics, will make errors. You have begun with the presupposition that the Catholic Church is in error. For this reason, anything that you hear from a Catholic will be suspect.

So, evangelism on CAF is only for Catholics. It is prohibited for non-Catholics then. Even on the non- Catholic segment of the forum? Sounds rather segregationist to me.

I dont’ think so. It is a private board funded for a specific missionary purpose. CAF has no obligation to promote what is considered by the Church to be error. In fact, such promotion would be contrary to the mission.

However, CAF would not in any way interfere with you setting up an “anti-CAF” site where you could ply your evangelistic wares.

Sounds like you are trying to get rid of me.

If you are not able to follow the rules of the forum, you will get yourself suspended, or banned. You will not need any of my help. If you are no longer permitted to post here because you thwart the authority of CAF to manage their own forum, someone else, preaching your same “different gospel” or another twist of it, will soon appear. There are many here who have been members longer than I , but that is how it has been since I came.

 

[guanophore]

Yet, once Jesus defeated death, he went and preached to those in the bosom of Abraham and set the captives free. For Romans 10:9-10 says a man believes with the heart, but must make confession unto salvation with the fruit of the lips. Those being held in the bosom of Abraham were there because of their faith, believing in their hearts, but they could not make confession unto salvation until after Jesus defeated death. The deed of crucification had to happen first.

No, heis. All those who were held in the bosom of Abraham were there BECAUSE they believed in their heart, and confessed with the mouth. They could not enter heaven because the gates were shut.

Why would you want to pray to anyone other then Jesus himself? No man cometh unto the Father, but through the Son.

We are all members one of another. To “pray” means to supplicate (ask). We ask our loved ones to pray with us, so that the power of their prayers will add to our own. Jesus joined us together in a Body so that we could help one another. This is the way He set things up.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I am not taking issue with the catechism, I am taking issue with your lack of understanding of it. You seem to believe that this indulgence occurs apart from the blood of Christ, and it cannot. I know you say you used to be Catholic, but you were never properly catechized. It is clear you have no clue what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. Of course you felt like you had to leave, because these things obviously make no sense to you.

1478 An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins.

Didn’t you read this excerpt from the catechism. It clearly states that an indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. My question is why is there a need for an indulgence at all, if the sinner accepts the blood of Christ. Heb 8:12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. This whole idea of venial sin purgatory and temporal punishment minimizes not only the hateful and exceeding wicked nature of sin but also the all encompassing grace of God.

The Divine Deposit of Faith is held by the Church.

What does this mean?

You have rejected the Apostolic Teachings that are found in the Church. You reject that the Church has the authority to forgive sins, that priests have the authority to remit and retain sins, and that the Church has the authority to give an indulgence.

Yes, I do reject all of these Catholic teachings, they are not teachings of the apostles.

Persons who commit venial sins have not rejected the gift of God, Jesus Christ. That is the difference between mortal and venial sins. When one sins mortally, one rejects that saving grace of Christ.

There is no such thing as a venial sin. All sin is mortal if not repented of.

This is what has to be invented, so that the sacramental principle can be rejected.

I certainly didn’t invent it this is what Jn is talking about. This from the SDA bible commentary. I know that you will not accept this, but here it is anyway.
There is a sin unto death. Or, “there is sin unto death.” Since John does not define one particular sin as resulting inevitably in death, it is probable that he is here referring to a type of sin that will certainly produce death. If he had known of one specific sin that would leave a man without hope of salvation, he might have been expected to identify it, so that all might beware of falling into irrevocable condemnation. While it is true that all sin, if persisted in, will lead to death (Eze. 18:4, 24; James 1:15), there is a difference in the degree to which any particular act of sin will bring a man near to death. The sins committed by those who are genuinely anxious to serve God, but who suffer from a weak will and strong habits, are very different from those sins that are deliberately committed in brazen and willful defiance of God. It is more the attitude and the motive that determine the difference, than the act of sin itself. In this sense, there are distinctions in sins. The minor error, quickly repented of and forgiven, is a sin not unto death. The grievous sin, fallen into suddenly through failure to maintain spiritual power, is still not a sin unto death, if followed by genuine repentance; but refusal to repent makes ultimate death certain.
Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 7. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978; 2002, S. 679

Your interjection into the text about repentance is a departure from the Apostolic Teaching.

Prove it.

There is nothing about repentance in that passage.

You’re just not reading it closely enough.

One is to call for the elders of the church, and make a confession, so that he can be healed. This is the teaching of the Apostles.

Where can I find this teaching so that I can check it out for myself?

The Apostles taught that Jesus gave them the authority to remit and retain sins. They passed this on to their successors, the bishops, and they to theirs.

No they didn’t Jn 20: 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
What Jesus is expressing here is a confidence that through the Holy Spirit The apostles would not remitt or retain any sins that had not already been remitted or retained in heaven, because the only place sins can be forgiven or not is at the throne of God, Our Savior.
Mark2:7Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
Jn 1:9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

It is called the sacrament of reconciliation because the repentant person is reconciled again to God, being restored to a state of grace.

Sins need to be confessed to God only.

 

[guanophore]

I accept 100% The teachings of the apostles. It’s just that what you say are the teachings of the apostles that I have a problem with

Understandibly so. Since you have separated yourself from the Apostolic Succession, you no longer have access to them, so you have to rely on your own perceptions, or those of others who are also separated. I do believe you are very sincere about your faith.

Don’t you believe in the inerrancy of scripture. and that everything you need for salvation is contained in it?

What you are asking here is not about the doctrine of SS. Yes, Scripture is inerrant. It has material sufficiency. If scripture were all that were needed, Jesus would not have established a Church and given gifts, authority, and duties for them to build up the saints for the work of the ministry.

What would that be?

One might be that the Catholic Church does not value the scriptures. The fact that we don’t misuse them does not mean they have not value, or that they are not inerrant and sufficient. you have made many comments on this thread that indicate you do not understand what the Catholic Church teaches. Most of them are off topic.

So, you are saying that my belief in the inerrancy of the word of God and my misunderstanding of the Catholic faith are impediments and prohibitive. Impediments and prohibitive to what?

No. Your belief in the inerrancy of the Word is one of the small parts of Catholic doctrine that your sect has retained.

Your misunderstanding of the Catholic faith is certainly an impediment, but that is not the bulk of it. What prevents you from fully understanding what the Catholic Church believes and teaches is your attitude.

Eph6:11Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. Thank God for His armor

I was speaking of the walls created by your resentments and hostility toward Catholicism. It seems that you are suggesting that the Catholic Teaching is part of the “wiles of the devil” and that is why you cannot explore or learn about it, because you may be spiritually compromised.

Actually only you and shw.

Perhaps you can find someone you respect more, to whom you would be willing to listen?

The only evidence you give is what you say. Which really isn't evidence at all.

Indeed, it is. You purport that there is only one way to understand the passage. We have offered another perspective. The fact that other people see it differently is proof that there is more than one way.

Ya its these specific requirements that I have a problem with because they are not only not in scripture but are contrary to what scripture says.

I don’t doubt that they are certainly contrary to how you perceive what the scripture says. The Apostles taught differently.

So are you saying Pilates sin was venial?

No. I am not in a position to judge that. I can say that the Jews are more culpable because they had a fuller revelation about God’s plan. Salvation is “of the Jews”, so they were given the oracles. They refused to act upon the revelation given to them.

Now who is adding to scripture? Mortal and venial are not terms that appear in the v.

I thought we were in agreement that the passage contains a reference to mortal sins?

No one is adding words to Scripture. “venial” is the term used by the Latin Rite to refer to sins that are not mortal.

 To say that this is what "John is talking about" is to add your interpretation to the v. Something that you are continually telling me that I cannot do, But unlike me, you have no precedent for it.

I have not told you that you cannot interpret the scriptures. Everyone who reads interprets what they read. The difference in a Catholic interpretation is that we interpret what we read in the light of the Deposit of Faith given to the Church by the Apostles. This deposit pre-dated the Scripture, created the NT, and informs how we understand it. Those persons such as yourself who are separated from this perspective usually interpret what is read outside of what they believed and taught. However, you need not take my word for it. There are plenty of Catholic documents that will make it clear it is not my personal opinion.

Well again, falling short or missing the mark, whatever that means, may be your definition of what sin is, but it’s not the bibles.

Indeed, it is! If you are willing to study the Gk “hamartia” (sin) you will find that it was used commonly in archery to describe a failure to hit the bull’s eye.

 1Jn 3:4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Just another example of the error you are teaching.

No, Richard. I do not disagree with what is written in Scripture. Some transgressions are worse than others. Jesus was clear about this when He referred to “greater sin”. Anyway, I am not here to teach. Teaching is not my role. I am here to represent the Catholic faith. The teachers are the Apostles, and their successors. We call them the Magesterium (Latin for Teachers). They are the authorities appointed by Christ.

 

[guanophore]

So you are saying that no matter if Peter has repented of his "sin" of indiscretion and accepted the blood of Christ.

I am sorry, I do not understand the question. Perhaps if you take a couple breaths, and calm down, you can say it differently?

 1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. He still has to sit in purgatory to purge the temporal punishment due this "sin". This is absolutely against scripture. Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

I do not know who had to “sit in purgatory” or not. I do not conceive of purgatory as a “place” but a state, during which we are cleansed of all impurities so that we can enter heaven. I have never yet met any Christian who believes they are perfect. Yet, we all agree that nothing imperfect can enter heaven. Therefore, there must needs be a stop between here and there to get off any mud remaining.

Forgiveness of sins does not necessarily mean that the consequences of the sins are gone.

Didn’t you read this excerpt from the catechism. It clearly states that an indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins.

Yes, I read it. I suspect that, when you read it, you perceive it differently than I do.

My question is why is there a need for an indulgence at all, if the sinner accepts the blood of Christ.

Because there are consequences for our sins. The sins may be forgiven, and remembered no more, but damage has been done. A good example is Moses. God told him to speak to the rock for water. He got frustrated and hit it with his staff. God forgave him, but the consequence was that he could not enter the promised land. Another example of a temporal consequence of sin is David. God forgave David for murder and adultery, but he still took the life of the child.

This whole idea of venial sin purgatory and temporal punishment minimizes not only the hateful and exceeding wicked nature of sin but also the all encompassing grace of God.

I can understand why you would see it that way. You don’t understand the apostolic teaching on sins and purification, so it is difficult to fit these notions into your truncated gospel message.

What does this mean?

The fact that you ask this question is a good example of what I meant when I said that you did not understand Catholicism. A properly catechized Catholic would know this.
Jesus explained and committed everything to His Apostles. They committed it to the Church. The Church then produced the NT. Both the Sacred Writings and the Apostolic Teaching (sacred tradition) are equal parts of the one divine deposit of faith.

Yes, I do reject all of these Catholic teachings, they are not teachings of the apostles.

Which leaves me with the question, what are you doing here? Why come to a Catholic Answers Forum, when you reject Catholic Answers? You know this is not a venue for you to pull Catholics away from their faith, so what is left here for you?

There is no such thing as a venial sin. All sin is mortal if not repented of.

The two are not contradictory, Richard. Of course all sin is mortal if not repented of! This is why the Liturgy has the Penitential Rite, so that Catholics can confess sins daily at Mass!

 

[guanophore]

I certainly didn’t invent it this is what Jn is talking about. This from the SDA bible commentary.

Ok. I suspected that you got it from an SDA commentary.

“… there is a difference in the degree to which any particular act of sin will bring a man near to death. The sins committed by those who are genuinely anxious to serve God, but who suffer from a weak will and strong habits, are very different from those sins that are deliberately committed in brazen and willful defiance of God. It is more the attitude and the motive that determine the difference, than the act of sin itself. In this sense, there are distinctions in sins. The minor error, quickly repented of and forgiven, is a sin not unto death. The grievous sin, fallen into suddenly through failure to maintain spiritual power, is still not a sin unto death, if followed by genuine repentance; but refusal to repent makes ultimate death certain.
Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 7. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978; 2002, S. 679”

Well, your commentary has very well explained here the difference between mortal and venial sins. It is refreshing to see when our separated brethren have retained such elements of Catholic Teaching.:extrahappy:

Prove it.

I do not think this will be possible, Richard. In order for something to be proven to you, you would have to be open to the evidence, and you are not.

Yes, I do reject all of these Catholic teachings, they are not teachings of the apostles.

You have rejected the Teachings a priori, so how can you access the Truth that is contained within what has already been rejected?

You're just not reading it closely enough.

Perhaps you can help me out? Show me where the concept of repentance appears.

Where can I find this teaching so that I can check it out for myself?

James 5:14-16
14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

You can also find it in the earliest post-apostolic documents, such as the Didache.

No they didn’t Jn 20: 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
What Jesus is expressing here is a confidence that through the Holy Spirit The apostles would not remitt or retain any sins that had not already been remitted or retained in heaven, because the only place sins can be forgiven or not is at the throne of God, Our Savior.

You have to believe this, so that you can justify to yourself rejecting the authority that God has appointed over the Church. However, your modern eisogesis of the passage bears no resemblance towhat the Apostles believed and taught. this is clear in the documents of the Church. I do agree with you, though, the only place sins can be forgiven is at the the throne of God. The power to be there with the priest is what was given by Jesus.

Mark2:7Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

Jn 1:9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

God gave the power ot remit sins to men. He did not do this “instead” of Himself, but as an extension of His love for us. Why would you espouse the point of view of the hard of heart non-believers over those that believed?:

Matt 9:8
8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

You reject the testimony of those who are glorifying God, embracing instead the testimony of those that reject Christ.

In confession, we confess our sins to God. The priest is able to remit them because God has given such authority.

Sins need to be confessed to God only.

Why do you reject the inspired, inerrant testimony of James?

 

[PRmerger]

Ok. I suspected that you got it from an SDA commentary.

“… there is a difference in the degree to which any particular act of sin will bring a man near to death. The sins committed by those who are genuinely anxious to serve God, but who suffer from a weak will and strong habits, are very different from those sins that are deliberately committed in brazen and willful defiance of God. It is more the attitude and the motive that determine the difference, than the act of sin itself. In this sense, there are distinctions in sins. The minor error, quickly repented of and forgiven, is a sin not unto death. The grievous sin, fallen into suddenly through failure to maintain spiritual power, is still not a sin unto death, if followed by genuine repentance; but refusal to repent makes ultimate death certain.
Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 7. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978; 2002, S. 679”

Well, your commentary has very well explained here the difference between mortal and venial sins. It is refreshing to see when our separated brethren have retained such elements of Catholic Teaching.:extrahappy:

WOW. After all these postings it turns out that SDA teaches the doctrine of mortal and venial sin as well?

It seems, Richard, that the only objection you have to the CC’s doctrine on mortal and venial sin is the terminology, right? Well, that and the fact that it’s the CC that teaches it.