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

[guanophore]

1 Jn 1:7 says "the blood of Jesus, His Son, purifies us from ALL sin". Rom 8:1 "Therefore, there is NOW no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." You see we are cleansed not by some alleged fire of purgatory but by the blood of Jesus Heb 9:14. Jesus Himself is the propitiation for our sins 1 Jn 2:2. Heb 10:14 " For by one offering He has PERFECTED FOR ALL TIME those who are sanctified. In other word not purging is necessary.

Well, we read it differently. We understand that we are justified by His blood, and we are no longer under condmenation. However, there is a log road to becoming perfected and being conformed to His image and likeness. Most evangelicals call this “sanctification” (being made holy). This is not completed by the time most of us go to meet our maker.

It is because of His blood, and the grace poured out from His love that we are sanctified. If no other purging is necessary, then why does scripture say there will be purification with fire?

1 Cor 3:12-15
13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

All dead works are burned away from us, and anything we have done that is lacking in holiness wll be separated from us. We will be saved, but only as through fire. Most evangelicals say this verse is referring to our ministry, how we built the Kingdom, but the text does not say that. Why would we not need purged from EVERYTHING that is unholy? We cannot enter heaven with any stain whatsoever.

As far as the NT being catholic teaching, that has already been debunked. Sadly that is what tradition does for you. It is not even scriptural. Please read the verses slowly. I hope this helps you in your study of God's Word. I have more on purgatory if you need more help. God Bless

It may be that the you have "debunked " the teaching of the Apostles for yourself. People have been doing this ever since they started teaching. Each man has the opportunity to accept or reject what Jesus committed to the Church. I am not sure what you mean by “that is what tradition does for you”. Catholics have obeyed the Apostolic Command to hold fast to the traditions that were delivered to us by our Apostles. We have done this. Sacred Tradition is not unscriptural, but I do agree, there are elements of the Teaching that are not found in Scripture. Scripture was never meant to contain them all. That is why Jesus built a Church, not a book.

 

[guanophore]

And purgatory is only a catholic doctrine, based on an interpretation of said scripture!

This is false. This doctrine is found in all the Churches founded by Apostles, even those not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, just like the Trinity, the ever virgin Mary, and the list of what books belong in the Bible. These things were commited to the Church by the Apostles. Those who are separated from the Apostolic Teaching have lost these.

None of Catholic doctrine is “based on an interpretation of said scripture”. All of what was taught to the Apostles by Christ was whole and entire, delivered to the Church before any word of the Bible was ever written. The NT reflects what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, but is not the Source. Jesus is the Source of doctrine.

Those who have been separated form the Apostolic teaching have to glean from Scripture, and do base their doctrines on how a scripture is interpreted. This is not Apostolic.

 

[guanophore]

guanophore: I know that displaying or wearing of a crucifix, is a catholic tradition But, just because the apostles taught Christ crucified, to me, at least, is not a good enough reason to compel members to wear or display said crucifix.

It is an Apostolic Tradition. Those churches founded by Apostles do this, even those not in communion with the bishop of Rome.

There is no compelling at all. It is an honor to be marked and unified by His cross. As He did, we embrace the cross, despising it’s shame.

Is there some kind of penalty for wearing an “empty” cross? If I read my Bible correctly, the apostles also preached the resurrection, as our pastor preaches:thumbsup: To me, the resurrection is much more important, and significant!

Not a bit. The corpus adds meaning to the symbol. No compelling, no “penalty”. No cross, no crown. No death, no resurrection. The Apostles taught that these should not be separated.

It symbolizes freedom, redemption, and eternal life in Christ, the Risen King! So then, it comes down once again to a difference of opinion, and choice. To wear a crucifix or an empty cross. I prefer the empty Cross, because two of the Jewish high council took Jesus off of it! Victory!!!

No, we have no “difference of opinion” in this matter. The empty cross symbolizes to you what you have retained of the Catholic teaching.

 

[1beleevr]

awgusteen:Sorry to make an Old Testament move here, but gotta fight vapid with vapid!

 

[1beleevr]

guan: Actually, we do have a difference of opinion about crucifix or no crucifix! just like wearing blue or red, medium rare or well done,married or single! For catholics, and others who embrace similar traditions, wearing of the crucifix, may make one feel as though one must! The original apostles, taught many things, and yes they taught crucifixion, but they also taught resurrection, the very basis for our salvation, and eternity! Sure, ALL of our sins are washed away by His precious blood, which was shed by Him on the Cross, and before, during the beatings! But wearing of the crucix, at least to me, would be tantamount to re-crucifying my Saviour! Ther really is no NEED to keep Him on the Cross; two Pharisees took Him off of it! Empty Cross+Empty Tomb= Victory over sin and death:thumbsup:So the bottom line, I suppose, is, it is a matter of choice, not duty! Not knocking you for wearing it, just respect my choice not to! Would it be the same as keeping a picture of your child’s mangled body on your entertainment center? And I’m not really sure what you meant by the statement about the empty Cross and my learning of catholic doctrine Actually I have learned much more about the cc, than I knew 5 months ago. Just not enough to warrant conversion!

 

[AwGusTeen]

awgusteen:Sorry to make an Old Testament move here, but gotta fight vapid with vapid!

You are implying that the poster is a liar! You don’t need to resort to such uncharitable tactics to make your point. To do so is evidence that you are not able to logically defend your position. How sad…

 

[1beleevr]

Seems to me that in the OT, there were guidelines for dealing with intentional and unintentional sins! Here on this thread, we have been calling it deliberate, or undeliberate sin Okay, sin is sin, whether or nor it is deliberate or not! Let’s say that someone plans to commit a crime, let’s say robbery. He buys a gun, chooses his victim, plans his escape route, etc,. During the robbery, he shoots and kills the clerk; this is delberate sin, as he planned it in advance and carried it out! Now, different scenario: You are at a party, when a fistfight breaks out. Suddenly, one of the combatants pulls a knife and stabs the other one. Before he can stab again, someone hands you a gun, and you shoot and kill the knife wielder. Sin, yes; deliberate???. Did you plan to shoot this person? God does not like sin period, but He has “cast them as far as the east is from the west.”(Psalms 103:12) and He does not “mark our iniquities.” Does this mean that grace has given us a license to sin? No, most people do nort need a license; they just sin. Does it mean that we can go out partying, maybe smoke a little marijuana, get drunk, and then go to confession and everything’s fine , no! Sitting in on a parole suitability hearing in 1999, the inmate stated that “everyone makes mistakes”, when talking about his crime. One of the commisioners said,“committing a crime, is not a mistake. You must plan it out, then carry it out.” I think the diference is, realizing it was a mistake, or misjudgement, repenting, confessing, and thanking God for His forgiveness(1John 1:9).

 

[1beleevr]

awgusteen: I have defended my position, many time over; and to be quite frank with you, the poster seems to indicate that I am a liar, when what we have is a difference of opinion. We are to edify the Body, and not tear it down:thumbsup:

 

[1beleevr]

Okay, everything I read, says that purgatory is a catholic doctrine After reading carefully, I cannot find any evidence that Christ taught this practice to His apostles! Aren’t purgatory and indulgences, two of the things that Martin Luther rebelled against? And after reading 1Corinthians 3:13-15, in many different Bibles, I still could not derive purgatory from it I have heard that the first appearance before the Mercy Seat, will be to determine rewards,i.e, what have you done for the Lord. And, fire will burn away all that is not good, and leave what is good! I guess we better live like Christ, if we don’t want to be totally consumed by fire! So, are we saying that apostolic teachings, which were supposedly kept pristine through the years, is infallible, and there was no tweaking of any scripture, or tradition by anyone don the line

 

[1beleevr]

elvisman: So, it would seem, that perhaps not all parishes, conduct their services in harmony with each otherIn some, the wafer is placed on the tongue, and the priest is the only one who drinks from the cup. In others, everyone gets to hold their own bread, and drink from the cup. Is this correct? And on occasion, all of us are plagued by a plank in our eye, which we ignore, complaining about the speck in our brother’s eye.And what authority do we claim, when if we judge someone else’s behavior, that our judgement is right? Do we judge by earthly standards, or Godly standards? We certainly don’t always see others, through His eyes If we did, there would be no predjudice, bias or turning away of the sick, downtrodden, unsaved or homeless! we would see others, and welcome them as Christ would. And you are assuming that I have rejected what the disciples have said, when I like many Christians I know, use their teachings to enrich our lives, and to edify the body:thumbsup:

 

[elvisman]

elvisman: So, it would seem, that perhaps not all parishes, conduct their services in harmony with each otherIn some, the wafer is placed on the tongue, and the priest is the only one who drinks from the cup. In others, everyone gets to hold their own bread, and drink from the cup. Is this correct? And on occasion, all of us are plagued by a plank in our eye, which we ignore, complaining about the speck in our brother’s eye.And what authority do we claim, when if we judge someone else’s behavior, that our judgement is right? Do we judge by earthly standards, or Godly standards? We certainly don’t always see others, through His eyes If we did, there would be no predjudice, bias or turning away of the sick, downtrodden, unsaved or homeless! we would see others, and welcome them as Christ would. And you are assuming that I have rejected what the disciples have said, when I like many Christians I know, use their teachings to enrich our lives, and to edify the body:thumbsup:

You have shown by your many acrimonious posts that you are anti-Catholic - BUT, at least show the respect of calling the Eucharist the “host” instead of the “wafer”.
Unless you went to Mass in another country, the communicant can receive either or both species - the host and the cup. You may have gone to a mass celebrated by a renegade sect, not in communion with the Holy See.

**As for determining right judgement, of course we are to judge by Godly standards. As a matter of fact, as for who has the final word on the matter, Matt. 18:15-18 explains it perfectly. **You see - the CHURCH has the Authority to determine this:
***“If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. ***
***If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ ****If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. *
*Amen, I say to you, whatever you (the Church) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you (the Church) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” *Lovely words spoken by our Lord.

 

[1beleevr]

elvisman: mass: a central service of the Roman catholic church! And I am as much anti-catholic, as you are anti-non catholic! And no matter what each of us thinks about anything or everything spiritual, Jesus has been in my heart for 42 years, and I know that I have been born again(John 3:3-8). We are at opposite ends of many issues, but are headed in the same direction:H-O-M-E-! And in prison, the catholic inmates, even those doing life sentences, have mass, and only the priest drinks from the cup(due to regulations, I’m sure it’s only grape juice). then he places a wafer on their tongue! I will call it a wafer, you can call it the host.Read Matthew 15:15-18, and it talks about forgiving someone who wrongs you, not judgement! We are not authorized to condemn(Romans 8:1) nor judge, without being judged accordingly:thumbsup:.

 

[elvisman]

elvisman: mass: a central service of the Roman catholic church! And I am as much anti-catholic, as you are anti-non catholic! And no matter what each of us thinks about anything or everything spiritual, Jesus has been in my heart for 42 years, and I know that I have been born again(John 3:3-8). We are at opposite ends of many issues, but are headed in the same direction:H-O-M-E-! And in prison, the catholic inmates, even those doing life sentences, have mass, and only the priest drinks from the cup(due to regulations, I’m sure it’s only grape juice). then he places a wafer on their tongue! I will call it a wafer, you can call it the host.Read Matthew 15:15-18, and it talks about forgiving someone who wrongs you, not judgement! We are not authorized to condemn(Romans 8:1) nor judge, without being judged accordingly:thumbsup:.

**First of all, the priest must use grape wine for the Eucharist to be valid. You call the host a wafer because you’re anti-Catholic. Calling it a host doesn’t mean you agree that it is the body of Christ - it is the proper name for it. But, you can’t bring yourself to be charitable because of your rabid anti-Catholicism. I have no idea IF a person in prison cannot receive the cup because of an ordinance against alcohol. If that is the case, it is certainly NOT the norm in the Church. you indicated that you saw this when you went to a parish, which is a FAR cry from a prison.

Secondly - ALL Catholics are born again at Baptism (John 3:3-8).

Thirdly - either you can’t read or you blatantly overlook everything that has been written to you. I already said that we cannot condemn ANYBODY - only God can.

Lastly - you are DEAD wrong about Matt. 15:15-18 - it has much less to do with you forgiving somebody and much more to do with the Church having the FINAL Authority. Again - you read, but you do not understand.

 

[1beleevr]

elvisman: And the verbal sparring continues, with the referee about to call it a draw! It should read: All who come to Jesus, believe, accept the gift of salvation, repent,confess, ask for forgiveness and get baptized(I prefer full immersion), can be born again:thumbsup:And I’m not sure, but I think the catholics, maybe Mormons too, scream,“catholic bashing, catholic bashing!”, “You’re anti-catholic!” Come on, son, suck it up; our Saviour endured way more persecution than youse guys do And if we want to split hairs, as opposed to hares, we could say that Matthew 15:15-18, is about both, forgiving someone who has sinned against you and the final authority! So, you are saying that what this catholic priest is doing in prison, is a sham; that these catholic inmates, are to be denied communion?And lastly, do you have a comment about your blatant anti-noncatholic attitude?

 

[elvisman]

elvisman: And the verbal sparring continues, with the referee about to call it a draw! It should read: All who come to Jesus, believe, accept the gift of salvation, repent,confess, ask for forgiveness and get baptized(I prefer full immersion), can be born again:thumbsup:And I’m not sure, but I think the catholics, maybe Mormons too, scream,“catholic bashing, catholic bashing!”, “You’re anti-catholic!” Come on, son, suck it up; our Saviour endured way more persecution than youse guys do And if we want to split hairs, as opposed to hares, we could say that Matthew 15:15-18, is about both, forgiving someone who has sinned against you and the final authority! So, you are saying that what this catholic priest is doing in prison, is a sham; that these catholic inmates, are to be denied communion?And lastly, do you have a comment about your blatant anti-noncatholic attitude?

The priest may have limitations due to alcohol prohibitions in prison. I don’t know - you’re the one who brought it up.

As far as our Savior enduring more persecution than his Church, I’m not sure that’s possible.
Jesus identifies his very self with his Church in Acts 9:4-5. The Church is his body and he is the head (Eph. 1:22-23, 5:23). When you persecute his Church - you persecute HIM. Your comparison of the Catholic Church with the Mormon church is yet another blatant ad hominem attack against Jesus.

Lastly - I’m not “anti-non-Catholic”. I just refuse to put up with antagonists who spew lies and other filth about Christ’s Church like you have. No free rides on my watch, pal.
You deserve to hear the Truth.

 

[placido]

elvisman: And the verbal sparring continues, with the referee about to call it a draw! It should read: All who come to Jesus, believe, accept the gift of salvation, repent,confess, ask for forgiveness and get baptized(I prefer full immersion), can be born again:thumbsup:And I’m not sure, but I think the catholics, maybe Mormons too, scream,“catholic bashing, catholic bashing!”, “You’re anti-catholic!” Come on, son, suck it up; our Saviour endured way more persecution than youse guys do And if we want to split hairs, as opposed to hares, we could say that Matthew 15:15-18, is about both, forgiving someone who has sinned against you and the final authority! So, you are saying that what this catholic priest is doing in prison, is a sham; that these catholic inmates, are to be denied communion?And lastly, do you have a comment about your blatant anti-noncatholic attitude?

let me come in here. There are idenfifying charateristics that show someone is “anti-something”.
The characteristic of an anti-Catholic include ignoring or misrepresenting the official teaching of the Church; using derogatory names in referring to Catholic objects etc. In your case you persistently speak of a “wafer” whereas Catholics refer to it as a host. You persist in derogatorily calling the host a “wafer”. That alone makes you an anti-catholic.
Now, elvisman can only be anti non-catholic if he misrepresents non-catholics and refuses to be corrected and uses derogatory terms when referring to non-catholic objects.
But, did he do that? I don’t see any evidence.

placido

 

[1beleevr]

placido: Bravissimo! Your defense of your fellow catholic, is quite commendableYou probably need to read more of his posts, some of them laced with condescension, accusations, and, well let’s just say I couldn’t imagine elvisman having lunch with a noncatholic! So the official ruling is, that if we disagree with youse guys, we’re anti-catholic! So if you drove a Mustang, and I didn’t particularly care for Ford products, am I anti-Ford? There will be this difference of opinion, and interpretation, until that day, when we ALL see Jesus! I don’t believe there will be any name tags in Heaven! And, besides, I can’t convert, because i have divorced and remarried And my current wife wouldn’t convert, because she once dated a catholic man, who really soured her on catholicismAnd for the record, I do believe we are all anti-something, or other! May the Peace of Christ abide with you, my Christian brother:thumbsup:

 

[elvisman]

placido: Bravissimo! Your defense of your fellow catholic, is quite commendableYou probably need to read more of his posts, some of them laced with condescension, accusations, and, well let’s just say I couldn’t imagine elvisman having lunch with a noncatholic! So the official ruling is, that if we disagree with youse guys, we’re anti-catholic! So if you drove a Mustang, and I didn’t particularly care for Ford products, am I anti-Ford? There will be this difference of opinion, and interpretation, until that day, when we ALL see Jesus! I don’t believe there will be any name tags in Heaven! And, besides, I can’t convert, because i have divorced and remarried And my current wife wouldn’t convert, because she once dated a catholic man, who really soured her on catholicismAnd for the record, I do believe we are all anti-something, or other! May the Peace of Christ abide with you, my Christian brother:thumbsup:

Not only would I have lunch with a non-Catholic - 9 of my 12 siblings left the Church and are non-Catholic. As a matter of fact - 5 of them are anti-Catholics like you, although they don’t go there anymore with me or my other Catholic siblings. I couldn’t love them any more than I do. I love hanging out with them because now, we usually talk about the things that unite us, instead of the things that divide us.

No - you’re problem is that you resort to lies, half-truths and name-calling to make your points. Your immaturity - spiritual and otherwise - is what exposes your anti-Catholicism.

Simply disagreeing with the Church or its teachings doesn’t make you an anti-Catholic - it makes you a Protestant. An anti-Catholic does what you do.
There are plenty of Protestants on these forums whom I respect because they are willing to have charitable discourse about our differences. They don**'t resort to ad hominem attacks because they have much more to bring to a conversation.**
You, unfortunately, haven’t reached that maturity level yet.
**Here’s hopin’ . . .

You are right about one thing, though - there will be no name tags in heaven because everybody there will be Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

Seems to me that in the OT, there were guidelines for dealing with intentional and unintentional sins! Here on this thread, we have been calling it deliberate, or undeliberate sin Okay, sin is sin, whether or nor it is deliberate or not! Let’s say that someone plans to commit a crime, let’s say robbery. He buys a gun, chooses his victim, plans his escape route, etc,. During the robbery, he shoots and kills the clerk; this is delberate sin, as he planned it in advance and carried it out! Now, different scenario: You are at a party, when a fistfight breaks out. Suddenly, one of the combatants pulls a knife and stabs the other one. Before he can stab again, someone hands you a gun, and you shoot and kill the knife wielder. Sin, yes; deliberate???.

I think you used a poor example. It is not a sin to use force to defend the innocent, or oneself. I agree though, all wrongdoing is sin, but there are severities of sin, and mortal sins, (with deliberate intention) are much more serious than wrongdoing committed inadvertantly.

Did you plan to shoot this person? God does not like sin period, but He has "cast them as far as the east is from the west."(Psalms 103:12) and He does not "mark our iniquities." Does this mean that grace has given us a license to sin? No, most people do nort need a license;

License in this context refers to the heretical belief that all a persons sins, past, present, and future, have already been forgiven when they said the “sinners prayer” and asked Jesus into their heart. They think that no sin can keep them out of heaven, so they don’t concern themselves with what the Reformed apologists call “the sin issue”.

they just sin. Does it mean that we can go out partying, maybe smoke a little marijuana, get drunk, and then go to confession and everything’s fine , no! Sitting in on a parole suitability hearing in 1999, the inmate stated that “everyone makes mistakes”, when talking about his crime. One of the commisioners said,“committing a crime, is not a mistake. You must plan it out, then carry it out.” I think the diference is, realizing it was a mistake, or misjudgement, repenting, confessing, and thanking God for His forgiveness(1John 1:9).

Sometimes people do a wrong thing without pondering all the implications of the act (deliberation). The act is still falling short of God’s standards, but the lack of intentionality means that it is not a “greater sin”.

 

[guanophore]

guan: Actually, we do have a difference of opinion about crucifixs or no crucifix! just like wearing blue or red, medium rare or well done,married or single!

No. What you posted above is Catholic. There is no difference between what you stated, and what the Apostles believed and taught.

For catholics, and others who embrace similar traditions, wearing of the crucifix, may make one feel as though one must!

I don’t see why. I have never met anyone who felt this way, and even if they did, I am not sure how their personal quirks are relevant. The Catholic Church (and all the Aposotlic communities) do not teach this.

The original apostles, taught many things, and yes they taught crucifixion, but they also taught resurrection, the very basis for our salvation, and eternity! Sure, ALL of our sins are washed away by His precious blood, which was shed by Him on the Cross, and before, during the beatings! But wearing of the crucix, at least to me, would be tantamount to re-crucifying my Saviour!

Then it would be wrong for you to do. But, this is a personal decision based upon your own perceptions and belief. Just like a Catholic who might feel obligated to wear it.

Ther really is no NEED to keep Him on the Cross; two Pharisees took Him off of it! Empty Cross+Empty Tomb= Victory over sin and death:thumbsup:So the bottom line, I suppose, is, it is a matter of choice, not duty!

There is a need to preach Christ crucified, and this is more expedient with demonstration, as Paul used. This is the practice that was handed down to us from the Apostles. I never saw anyone here telling you that you had a duty to preach Christ crucified and present a public portrayal along with your preaching.

Jesus is our eternal sacrifice, and His death on the cross has eternal consequences outside space and time. To say “he is no longer on the cross” is to limit His sacrifice to the time space continuum.

Not knocking you for wearing it, just respect my choice not to! Would it be the same as keeping a picture of your child’s mangled body on your entertainment center? And I’m not really sure what you meant by the statement about the empty Cross and my learning of catholic doctrine

]

I did not notice anyone here knocking you for not wearing a crucifix. If someone disrespected your choice, then I missed that post as well. I do think that there are objections to Protestants portrayal of the empty cross, but I don’t think it is anything personal. Most Catholics are well aware that Protestants have been separated from part of the revelation of God through no fault of their own.

Actually I have learned much more about the cc, than I knew 5 months ago. Just not enough to warrant conversion!

I respect your willingness to learn and dialogue, and your constant efforts to keep your anti-catholic sentiments in check.