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

[Tanner9188]

Now we do agree brother because “based on the parable their is indication that more than just God is rejoicing”. That is contrary to what you said before, when you tried to exclude the possibility of “more than just God” rejoicing.
Now we know there is a possibility of more than just God rejoicing in heaven. But why not look at the possibility of angels and saints rejoicing with God? Or, who else is in heaven?

placido

**I agree it is possible and maybe probable; but the passage is silent and uses the word in the “presence of angles”; therefore I will not take liberty in imposing on the text unless somewhere else in Scripture speaks of the same or similar. Especially since it does not mention saints at all.

One explanation from you own Church theology is that maybe all of them are doing time in purgatory…I don’t personally believe in such a place, but from a Catholic perspective maybe that could be possible…see now I just speculating and I don’t like doing that.**

 

[elvisman]

Not exactly. I was just being a little facetious in my reply to guanophore. I don’t think that the Catholic practice of praying to the saints is as serious as Saul’s attempt at consulting a necromancer to talk to the dead. I think that Catholics do it out of ignorance for the most part, and I don’t think that God takes offense at their actions. I am sure that God hears their prayers regardless, and may even decide to answer them in His own ways because of their sincerity notwithstanding their follies. Nevertheless, I don’t think that those prayers have any efficacy in their own right, and I don’t think that they are in accordance with the will of God or the order which He has established.

I don’t think that you are trying to conjure them up either; and if you think that what you are doing is okay, that is fine by me. But it does not prevent me from having a different theological opinion about it than you do.

From my point of view, prayer is an act of worship that should only be addressed to a deity. I am already familiar with the Catholic arguments. They say that praying to the Saints is like asking a friend to do you a favor. But that really is not the case. A friend is someone you can see and know if you can trust. A (dead) saint is a supernatural being whom you cannot see. It is purely an act of faith. You are putting your faith or trust in the belief that that saints is able to hear your prayers, is able to act on them, and his actions are effective on your behalf. It is an exercise of faith. But what if that faith is misplaced? And what is the justification for that faith? I see none in what God has revealed.

Another argument that the Catholics bring is that they are only asking the saint to intercede on their behalf, rather than do anything directly for them. That is even worse!

Firstly, if they believe that God is omnipotent, they should believe that He is able to hear and answer their prayers without any intermediate link in between, as Jesus said: “. . . for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him” (Matthew 6:8). Do you not believe that? If you do, why do you think you need a postman in heaven to pass on your messages to Him?

Secondly, if there is the need for someone to act as a mediator between God and man, there is such a Mediator provided and He is Jesus Christ. There is not, never need be, and never can be any other, again as Paul said: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5); or as Peter said: “there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12); or as Paul again says: “. . . but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Hebrews 9:12); or again: “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25). There are more such references if you wanted to look for them, that only one mediator is required between man and God, and that is Jesus Christ. And both of them are God, and both are omnipotent and omniscient, and can hear our prayers direct, and there is no need for a postman in heaven to convey our messages to them.

These are the theological arguments that you need to look at, rather than getting worked up about accusation that you are “worshipping the saints”.

Hey - if you don’t want me to get “worked up” - then don’t make ignorant accusations.
Disagreeing on a theological position IS fine on this board. It’s this business of knocking the Catholic faith by passing on your opinions as fact that is wrong. This thread is FULL of that by disingenuous anti-Catholics who hear our position, yet pretend that they didn’t. You are guilty of this.

I have stated over and over on this thread that the Church DOES consider Jesus our only intercessor - in that only HIS sacrifice before the Father is what saves us. I have also pointed out that your argument about intercession is DEAD wrong. Jesus mediates for us in the New Covenant - just as Moses mediated for the Jews in the Old Covenant.

James 5:16 tells us that we SHOULD pray for each other because "The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful". **
Are YOU truly righteous? Is Tanner? Am I? NO - but those in heaven have been made righteous because nothing unclean can enter heaven (Rev 21:27).**

---

Rev 5:8 illustrates that those in heaven are interceding to the Father on our behalf.

---

Heb. 12:1 tells us to live accordingly because "we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses" (not “dead people”).

---

**Furthermore - 1 Timothy 2:1–4, Rom. 15:30–32, Eph. 6:18–20, Col. 4:3, 1 Thess. 5:25 and 2 Thess. 3:1 ALL speak to the importance of intercessory prayer. Your problem - like MANY anti-Catholics on this board including Tanner, 1beleevr is that you all consider those in heaven to be merely “dead people” and NOT members of the Living Body of Christ. **
Shame on everybody who holds this position.

Lastly, you haven’t read the earlier posts in which the fact that prayer is NOT reserved for God alone was pointed out. Ignorance is the only reason somebody would come to this conclusion.

**There are prayers of confession, gratitude, worship and adoration, etc., that are reserved for God alone. Prayers for help and inquiry are made daily by you and other anti-Catholics when you ask favors of somebody. **
Crack open a dictionary and you’ll see what is lacking in your understanding of the English language.

 

[Tanner9188]

Here are just a few of the many writings by Early Church Fathers
in support of keeping the traditions. Show me similar writings which say,
‘Do not keep the traditions’. Show me a mention of the protestant false
doctrine of Sola Scriptura…

---

Keeping the Tradition…

Polycrates, Letter to Victor of Rome 5:24:1. J190a
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:10:2, 2:9:1. J192,198,209
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2, J210-213,226,242,257
Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus 5:20:4. J264
Tertullian, Demurrer Against Heretics 19:3. J291-296,*298
Tertullian, The Veiling of Virgins 2:1. J328a,329
Tertullian, Against Marcion 4:5:1+. J341,371
Hippolytus, Against Heresy of Noetus 17. J394
Origen, Fundamental Doctrines 1reface:2,4. J443,445,785
Athanasius, Letters to Serapion 1:28. J782
Foebad of Agen, Against Arians 22. J898
Basil The Great, Transcript of Faith 125:3. J917
Basil The Great, The Holy Spirit 27:66. J954
Basil The Great, Faith 1. J972
Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius J1043
Epiphanius, Against All Heresies 61:6,73:34. J1098,1107
Chrysostom, On Romans 1:3. J1181
Chrysostom, On Second Thessalonians 4:2. J1213
Jerome, Dialogue between Luciferian & Christian 8. J1358
Augustine, Letter to Januarius 54:1:1,3. J1419,1419a
Augustine, Against Letter of Mani 5:6. J1581
Augustine, Baptism 2:7:12, 4:24:31. J1623,1631
Augustin, Literal Interpretation Genesis 10:23:39. J1705
Augustin, City of GOD 16:2:1. J1765
Augustin, Against Julian 1:7:30, 2:10:33. J1898-1900
Innocent I, Letter to Council of Carthage 29:1. J2015f
Theodoret of Cyr, Letter to Florentius 89. J2142
Vincent of Lerins, The Notebooks 2:1, 9:14. J2168,2169,
Vincent of Lerins, The Notebooks 20:25, 22:27. J2172-2175
Gregory I, Homilies on Ezechiel 2:4:12. J2329
Damascene, Homilies 10:18. J2390

The Jxxxx references are paragraph numbers for
“The Faith of the Early Fathers”, by William A. Jurgens.

**I hope you did not need to spend too much time on this list; I do appreciate the time however. We do not disagree entirely concerning traditions as I mentioned before.

Water baptism and the Lord’s Supper are 2 traditions the Lord Himself commanded of all Christians to keep.

It is when traditions define Scripture is where I have a problem because then anything goes because in essence one is adding or subtracting from what has been revealed; thus putting traditions outside of Scripture above divine revelation; which is okay for man, but not with God.

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

It does not mean that all revelation from God or all general knowledge is contained in Scripture. We know the is the general revelation of God as seen by His creation and also by the conscience as Romans 1 and beginning of chapter 2 clearly exhibit.**

 

[Convert66]

Tanner,

Peter was not infallible; he is human and no human is infallible even when he speaks excathedra

I was referring to Peter’s writings. Are you saying that even the Scriptures are not infallible? That was my point. In the Book of Acts St. Peter speaks about the circumcision and dietary controversy and his ruling is considered binding, and then his writing of two NT epistles has historically been considered inspired by the HS, which makes the teaching infallible.

The Holy Spirit works through individuals; not church institutions

Hmm . . .“Upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” Who said that? Jesus. Infallible? Yes. So, if the HS only works through individuals then Jesus must have been referring to Peter, which you would deny. So, He must have meant the Church, which you have denied above. Which is it?

It is debateable among historians as to when the Roman Catholic Church actually began; seems like most determine that Pope Gregory was first Roman Catholic Pope and by the following listed below; if you read between the lines in blue; you get a hint this is true from Catholic writing.

Well, historians are not infallible, are they? There is no denying that there was only one Church and as early as 110 A.D. it was referred to as “catholic,” by St. Ignatius of Antioch, meaning “universal,” as in “one verse,” or “one story.”

Regarding St. Ignatius’ epistles and their meaning, famed Protestant scholar A. Harnack says: “Ignatius is our first external witness in regard to the Roman church. After making all allowances for exaggerations of language in his letter to the Romans, it remains clear that Ignatius assigns a de facto primacy to the Roman church among its sister churches, and that he knew of an energetic and habitual activity of this church in protecting and instructing other churches.” (Dogmengeschichte, 4th ed., p. 486).

To him we must look for an explanation of the religious situation of the Middle Ages;

But for the religious situation of the first few centuries we must look to the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers like Ignatius, Clement of Rome and Polycarp, etc.

Protestants do not accept books as inspired or God-breathed because they contain, historical, geographical, chronological and doctrinal errors contrary to Scripture.

Yet, they were in the LXX which is the version that the NT writers quoted from, and the version that the early Church used in its readings, which is why they were included in the Canon authorized by the Church. It was over a thousand years before the books were removed from the Canon. So, either Jesus lied and the gates of hell prevailed from the beginning, or it took a thousand-plus years before the heresies of the Reformation sought to silence the deutero-canonicals and their witness. History and the witness of Scripture and the Church is on my side here.

The Jews rejected this as canon

Uhmm . . the Jews included them in the LXX to begin with. LXX=Seventy. The “seventy” were Jewish scholars that translated the Torah, the Prophets and the writings into Greek. The deutero-canonicals were included in the writings by Jews and the Jewish early Church used the LXX in their quotations for the NT.

I trust them more than the Catholic Church.

So then you agree with the Talmud that Jesus was the product of a rape by the Roman centurion Panthera? The Catholic Church defended the doctrines of Christianity against the Jewish invectives against them. Ever hear of Justin Martyr? Dialogues with Trypho the Jew? Which Jews do you trust more? The Sadduccees which ceased to exist after the destruction of Jerusalem? The Pharisees? (this puts you at odds with Jesus and St. Paul and the NT). The Rabbinic schools? Which one? Reformed Jews? Hassidic? Secular?

when you look at the timing of the second canon; it is obvious that it was canonized in haste in response to the reformation movement that threatened Rome.

Why look at the second instead of the first? Why not look at the Scriptures that the NT writers themselves looked to for their quotations of the OT? Trent reaffirmed the 1st Canon, which was over a thousand years before the Reformation.

Quote:
You are being evasive.

No I’m not.

Yes you are. You know full well that the teachings and sayings of Jesus came prior to the formulation of the Gospels themselves, but you do not like the implications vis., Tradition.

Subjective and wishful thinking IMO and no I’m not being evasive or dismissive just because an answer does not satisfy you personally. Questions such as that are not always as simple as appear to be and so careful thought must be taken and in light of His word and His character and attributes; something I don’t take very lightly.

Your opinion is the epitome of “subjective.” Historical facts are not subjective. The traditions came before the NT, and it can’t be denied by evasion or dismissal. That is the epitome of “subjective.”

Before their was none; meaning I read parts of the Bible from time to time, but not with any prayer and supplication, nor with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Now I understand a great deal with the holy Spirit as the guide, who imparts spiritual wisdom, discernment and guidance concerning the Scriptures. This is how most of God’s “elect” come to the truth of the gospel and the deeper things of God through the Scripture.

Let’s be logical here. Your interpretation differs from the NT writers and the universal witness of the Church for over 1500 years. Jesus promised the HS would lead the Apostles and their disciples into “all truth.” You make the claim that the HS is your guide. Therefore, we must conclude that the Apostles were liars in what they wrote, what they taught and what their successors taught until the Reformation 1500 years afterwards, at which time, the HS finally got around to safeguarding what Jesus really meant, and another 400-plus until you interpreted the scriptures for yourself.

I think I’ll stick with the Church founded by Jesus Christ and entrusted to His Apostle’s and their successors.

I got to go tobed; I’m sure i will review this post in the morning and see something wrong or skipped, but I’m so tired I just got toget some sleep…good night and Lord willing; i 'll be back soon.

I had to go to bed too. I hope you rested well.

I see no need to continue, as you are active with several others already and I have presented a case you will refuse regardless of the facts of history. You are your own pope, and that is your right.

All my best . . .

 

[Tanner9188]

No - you’re playing games.
You’re intimating that praying to the saints could be as sinful as conjuring up the dead.
You’re arguing against what you charge is the Catholic position - and yet don’t have a clue. That’s how anti-Catholics operate on this board.

We Catholics have explained over and oner again on this thread that we do NOT worhip the saints - we do NOT try to conjure them up and we do NOT
and it falls on deaf ears.
**I think those ears are as prideful **as thay are deaf - and THAT, my friend IS a sin…

The pope and the bishops are the proper authorities to act in these matters, for to them belongs the regulation of worship, both public and private, and it is the duty of every Catholic to abide by their decision.

The Catholic devotions which are connected with holy places, holy shrines, holy wells, famous relics, etc. are commonly treated as superstitious by non-Catholics who either reject all worship of saints and relics or assume pious frauds on the part of the priests who benefit by the worship. It must be admitted that these hallowed spots and things have occasioned many legends; that popular credulity was in some cases the principal cause of their celebrity; that here and there instances of fraud can be adduced; yet, for all that, the principles which guide the worshipper, and his good intentions, are not impaired by an undercurrent of errors as to facts.

There are several degrees of this worship:

* if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria. This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry.
* When *worship is addressed only indirectly to God*, that is, when *its object is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints,* it is a subordinate worship dependent on the first, and relative, in so far as it honours the creatures of God for their peculiar relations with Him; it is designated by theologians as the worship of dulia, a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration (cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, and Bouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis, I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.).
* As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the *worship paid to her is called hyperdulia *(for the meaning and history of these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, 1728).

---

In accordance with these principles it will readily be understood that *a certain worship may be offered even to inanimate objects, such as the relics of a martyr, the Cross of Christ, the Crown of Thorns, or even the statue or picture of a saint. *There is here no confusion or danger of idolatry, for this worship is subordinate or dependent.

Hi Elvis; yeah you are right there is no worship of saints, angles, relics, stautes, pictures or Mary of the Church.

We all stand corrected!!**

 

[Tanner9188]

He does not separate Himself from His Holy Bride, the Church. He reveals Himself through the Written word, and the Living Word in the Church. The Church produced the NT because Jesus revealed Himself through the Church.

**But it is not the Catholic Church He refers to; He refers the the body of individual believers, the royal priesthood, the called, the elect, the chosen of God; which come from all nation, tribes and tongues.
**

Catholics believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. However, this does not mean that we should ascribe characteristics to it that we should not. Jesus founded a church, and appointed teachers (persons gifted) to build up the saints for the work of the ministry. Teaching is an activity of persons. You teach yourself from the Bible, and believe it is God teaching.

**They just don’t treat it that way IMO, including yourself IMO. The Bible is part of God; therefore you are technically correct that persons teach; except the Holy Spirit is a spiritual “person”; not a fleshly person.
**

Do you then agree that some people make an idol out of their bible? Or have you no comment because you realize you might be one?

** I have not witnessed that; but knowing mankind and all the other things that man worships, I would not be surprised to see someone worship the Bible; although in the sense I spoke of that the Bible, being the Living Word and as such; part of God, than in that sense only I would be guilty of worshiping the very Word**.

The thing with Scripture, like any other writing or speaking that goes into our senses, is that our brains interpret/filter what we hear and read. The problem is not that it is the Word of God, but the condition of the filters/perceptions through which it passes. For example, you cannot see that the Scriptures reflect Catholic teaching because you have an anti-Catholic prejudice that prevents you. If you find honor in this state of mind, I guess that is your perogative.

** I very thankful to God for that Holy Spirit filled filter.
It is not an anti-Catholic people perspective; it is anti-Catholic precepts and traditions that are not contained in Scripture; which I object to. Just as you reject the plain and simple message of the gospel because of your pro-Catholic precepts and traditions IMO.

So in the end we agree to disagree and in the end one of the gospels will prevail over the other and if we both stay on the same course in our conviction; one of us will be in hell and the other in heaven IMO.**

Do you not think that the Jews were familiar with the use of smoke as a metaphor for prayers rising to heaven?

Yes they were and that was the point to the other poster; but they believed the incense was literally the prayers. Metaphor: A figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity

**If that opinion is truth, then it always stands above what is not true…right? **

No. Truth is high above any of our individual opinions. If it is Truth, then it is not your opinion. It means you have clung to a higher order of reality. However, it does seem clear that you believe your opinion is, indeed, synonomous with Truth, and therefore, is high above all others. If the opinion is truth, then the opinion stands above because it is the truth. That’s all I said and the statement id logical and accurate. If the opinion is not the truth, then the opinion is false because the truth is always supreme. i never said my opinion is synonymous with the truth; often it is and sometimes it is not and I always look forward to correction and openly admit when I make a mistake.

Yes, it does surprise me. It seems to me that common sense would be sufficient to see that so many different people coming up with so many opposite conclusions, cannot all be led to their conclusions by the same HS. It seems like you believe that those who do not agree with your interprestation are lacking “the resident Truth Teacher”. Again, we come to the standard. How are we to measure why you are right, and they are wrong. The last time I asked this, you basically responded that it is based upon your expereinces.
That makes you the ultimate authority.

There is only one “Holy Spirit” and there are many who profess the Name of the Lord and there are few that He professes; therefore it should not come as a surprise of the many defective interpretations because the natural man cannot understand the things of God; jsut as the Bible declares.

You cannot measure whether I am right or wrong; God knows who are His and who are not; the wheat and the tares. You have to be like the Bereans, which no one can unless they have the Holy Spirit because without the Holy Spirit you will come up wrong almost every time. Since we cannot see the Holy Spirit inside someone; there is no way to verify, but the spirit of the man knows because the Holy Spirit will confirm as the Scripture teaches. As I have said before you cannot have God dwelling inside you and not know it with certainty; especially in light of Scripture.

 

[Tanner9188]

On the contrary, the Church ws defined by the Apostles as those who are in communion with the bishop. These individual believers were joined to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, about which Paul is talking…

You are declared the winner by the pope, by the Holy Spirit, by the Father (God not Catholic Priest), Jesus, the Apostles and all the saints of all the ages; I give up and it is unforunate for me because I will be in hell for all eternity because I just don’t see Catholicism in Scripture. It been nice knowing everyone; hope I don’t see anyone there with me, i hear it is real hot and weeping and gnashing of teeth as my conscience bears witness for all eternity the erros of my way, but with good intentions. God, please have mercy on my sad and pathetic soul.
:sad_bye:
:bighanky:
:tanning:
:coolinoff:

 

[onenow1]

You are declared the winner by the pope, by the Holy Spirit, by the Father (God not Catholic Priest), Jesus, the Apostles and all the saints of all the ages; I give up and it is unforunate for me because I will be in hell for all eternity because I just don’t see Catholicism in Scripture. It been nice knowing everyone; hope I don’t see anyone there with me, i hear it is real hot and weeping and gnashing of teeth as my conscience bears witness for all eternity the erros of my way, but with good intentions. God, please have mercy on my sad and pathetic soul.
:sad_bye:
:bighanky:
:tanning:
:coolinoff:

onenow1. Just a guess here Tanner, it seems to me the word Catholic itself, is distasteful to you.Your prejudices clearly point to this.St. Ignatius uses the word Catholic in 107 AD. and was probably a disciple of St. John the Apostle. More then likely he used that word before this date ?

Thanks for the quote lesson.:

Peace and God Bless your Journey,onenow1

 

[avflf]

Firstly, if they believe that God is omnipotent, they should believe that He is able to hear and answer their prayers without any intermediate link in between, as Jesus said: “. . . for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him” (Matthew 6:8). Do you not believe that? If you do, why do you think you need a postman in heaven to pass on your messages to Him?

.

Let’s go one further and say that if one believes that God is omniscient prayer, through Jesus or any other entity, is a waste of time and indeed a denial of such omniscience.

 

[elvisman]

The* pope and the bishops* are the proper authorities to act in these matters, for to them belongs the regulation of worship, both public and private, and it is the duty of every Catholic to abide by their decision.

The Catholic devotions which are connected with holy places, holy shrines, holy wells, famous relics, etc. are commonly treated as superstitious by non-Catholics who either reject all worship of saints and relics or assume pious frauds on the part of the priests who benefit by the worship. It must be admitted that these hallowed spots and things have occasioned many legends; that popular credulity was in some cases the principal cause of their celebrity; that here and there instances of fraud can be adduced; yet, for all that, the principles which guide the worshipper, and his good intentions, are not impaired by an undercurrent of errors as to facts.

There are several degrees of this worship:

• if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria. This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry.
• When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worship dependent on the first, and relative, in so far as it honours the creatures of God for their peculiar relations with Him; it is designated by theologians as the worship of dulia, a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration (cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, and Bouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis, I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.).
• As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the *worship paid to her is called hyperdulia *(for the meaning and history of these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, 1728).

---

In accordance with these principles it will readily be understood that *a certain worship may be offered even to inanimate objects, such as the relics of a martyr, the Cross of Christ, the Crown of Thorns, or even the statue or picture of a saint. *There is here no confusion or danger of idolatry, for this worship is subordinate or dependent.

Hi Elvis; yeah you are right there is no worship of saints, angles, relics, stautes, pictures or Mary of the Church.

We all stand corrected!!

Well, I see the semantic games continue.

Oh, Tanner -
**When will you learn that the English language is not the most complete and end-all source in the history of mankind? **
**When will you stop looking at history and etymology with 21st century blinders on? **
**When will you learn that we are not stupid morons who follow blindly? **
And, finally, when will you open your eyes and see the Church for what she is? She is the ONLY Church established by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:15-19) and the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

**The word worship (Saxon weorthscipe, “honour”; from worth, meaning “value”, “dignity”, “price”, and the termination, ship; Latin cultus) in its most general sense is homage paid to a person or a thing. **
**In this sense we may speak of hero-worship, worship of the emperor, of demons, of theangels, even of relics, and especially of the Cross. **

Ummmm . . . are you still reading? Good - I’ll continue:
Latria - is the honor given to God ALONE
**Dulia - is a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration *(cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, and Bouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis, I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.). ***
(Ummm . . . let me know if you need more info. I have other sources with smaller words, in case the big ones are too difficult).

**YOUR limited understanding of these terms is the basis for these ignorant assaults against the Church. **
**I am, therefore, convinced that the reason a seemingly intelligent person as yourself makes these ludicrous claims and pastes only half-truths in his posts is because the alternative is unthinkable. **

A****greeing with God’s truth via the ONLY source that he left us (guided buy the Holy Spirit) means that you and the rest of your rebellious, divorced sects are wrong and God’s Church is right.

 

[Convert66]

Tanner,

Just a tag . . .I don’t think anyone here thinks your errors will put you into hell. It’s obvious that you have love for God, the Scriptures and you know Jesus alone is the Savior of all. We may think you prejudiced (as we are as well) when it comes to Catholicism, but you have been humorous, respectful and pretty kind overall in your objections and replies.

We will meet one day, perhaps, on the beautiful shore and we will likely have a good laugh at these disagreements in Light of the Beatific vision. We may have differing theology, but at it’s core we share a “mere” Christianity. The Lord will correct us all, and maybe while we are in Purgatory together we will be able to hammer out our differences once and for all.

All my best . . .

 

[1beleevr]

I don’t recall ever saying that the saints were “dead”, in fact I’m not sure what their stat is, exactly! But, when you say on this forum, that you have never ask the saints to pray for you, you are labeled as "anti-catholic, by the anti noncatholics! And who on earth is righteous? If we are saved and baptized, and following Christ, are we somewhat righteous? Why would James say,“Pray for each other,” as does Paul on several occasions? Is the pope righteous; not sure, exactly; he is wearing flessh, like the rest of us! So, what it boils down to is , some pray through the saints, some don’t. Personal choice is at work here. I’m not telling you(nor have I ever) to not pray through the saints

 

[1beleevr]

placido: I think we have a difference of opinion between evangelizing, and witnessing! If a catholic has gone through confirmation, been saved and then baptized, then evangelizing would be excess verbiage, as evangelizing, means to preach the Gospel in an attempt to convert someone to Christianity! Witnessing, however is something we as Christians should do daily! To share with other Christians or even non Christians about what God has done for us, or to encourage fellow brothers and sisters in Christ! We need to edify the Body. And I can only call one Holy Father, no matter what you believe. But if that is what catholic tradition is , to call the pope, holy father, then that is fine; for catholics:thumbsup:

 

[SimonArizona]

placido: I think we have a difference of opinion between evangelizing, and witnessing! If a catholic has gone through confirmation, been saved and then baptized, then evangelizing would be excess verbiage, as evangelizing, means to preach the Gospel in an attempt to convert someone to Christianity! Witnessing, however is something we as Christians should do daily! To share with other Christians or even non Christians about what God has done for us, or to encourage fellow brothers and sisters in Christ! We need to edify the Body. And I can only call one Holy Father, no matter what you believe. But if that is what catholic tradition is , to call the pope, holy father, then that is fine; for catholics:thumbsup:

A sincere life of virtue and love for fellow man converts more than sermons.

Paul said in the Bible “I have become your father.”

 

[SimonArizona]

It is more like the Holy Spirit witnessing that He is true by the glorious ministry at work in the believer.-2 cor, 1john

 

[1beleevr]

placido: This is John Paul II, right? He was a very popular pope; even the noncatholics liked him! Especially after he said, that ALL men COULD be saved. If I were to meet the pope, I would shake his hand, say,“God bless you”, and I guess sir would be an appropriate address to him.

 

[SimonArizona]

placido: This is John Paul II, right? He was a very popular pope; even the noncatholics liked him! Especially after he said, that ALL men COULD be saved. If I were to meet the pope, I would shake his hand, say,“God bless you”, and I guess sir would be an appropriate address to him.

Everyone loved him because he brought love and unity where there was hated and divison by traveling to our enemies and kissing them on the face.

 

[Des]

Wow now i have seen it all. Thank you for the passages but nowhere in the NT does God’s Word talk about purgatory. Instead in talks about one dying and then judgement or to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

freedomwriter, why do you have that decieving ‘born again Catholic’ in your profile when you sound so very protestant?

 

[Tanner9188]

Well, I see the semantic games continue.

Oh, Tanner -
When will you learn that the English language is not the most complete and end-all source in the history of mankind?
When will you stop looking at history and etymology with 21st century blinders on?
When will you learn that we are not stupid morons who follow blindly?
And, finally, when will you open your eyes and see the Church for what she is? She is the ONLY Church established by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:15-19) and the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

The word worship (Saxon weorthscipe, “honour”; from worth, meaning “value”, “dignity”, “price”, and the termination, ship; Latin cultus) in its most general sense is homage paid to a person or a thing.
In this sense we may speak of hero-worship, worship of the emperor, of demons, of theangels, even of relics, and especially of the Cross.

Ummmm . . . are you still reading? Good - I’ll continue:
Latria - is the honor given to God ALONE
Dulia - is a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration *(cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, and Bouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis, I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.). *
(Ummm . . . let me know if you need more info. I have other sources with smaller words, in case the big ones are too difficult).

YOUR limited understanding of these terms is the basis for these ignorant assaults against the Church.
I am, therefore, convinced that the reason a seemingly intelligent person as yourself makes these ludicrous claims and pastes only half-truths in his posts is because the alternative is unthinkable.

**A****greeing with God’s truth via the ONLY **source that he left us (guided buy the Holy Spirit) means that you and the rest of your rebellious, divorced sects are wrong and God’s Church is right.

Hey Elvis; tell it to the writers of the website, perhaps they would enjoy your corrections. I guess worship doesn’t mean worship; even in the subordinate. At least the site is honest about it, which you are not. Why do you deny your faith?; are you ashamed of it; it appears you are. You won’t admit you work your way; yet I provided from you own sites to the contrary; yet you still deny it; you must be ashamed of your faith. Or you know better than they.

 

[SimonArizona]

The Catholic Church does not teach us to worship Mary with the same worship which we give to God. two things to be said…

1)Mary is praised with human acknowledgment and reflection, not in the sense of supreme Good and Holiness as God deserves.

2)The Catholic Churches recognizes that some of her children are apt to “Mary excessiveness” which can become sinful idolotry if she is placed above Almighty God.