Yes, you are in agreement with the Catholic Church here.
.
She could have sinned–she certainly had the free will to do so, but simply chose not to.
Yes, I agree. Those types of comments are unwarranted.
What does full of Grace mean? The truths that are contained in the Bible are wonderful and a blessing to us. But there were many things left out from a book that was brought together with ulterior motives to only bring those writtings that line up with what they were teaching at the time. Because they left them out does not mean that you throw the baby out with the bath water.
His Father was God the Father. His mother was Mary. He was in reality half perfect and half mortal. Here is the problem. If Christ had a perfect body, he would not have died. Because his mother was Mary, he was then subject to death. Because of this linage, had Christ not wanted to die, he would have lived a very long time, but his body was still part mortal. Christ had a choice. He did not have to suffer for us. Even though God’s plan would have had to change, The Father had perfect faith in his Son to carry out his will.
Fat,
Fat,
What Doctrines have Catholics pulled out of air? Back up your statement, or retract it.
So, a person who has been “called” to be a “bishop”, who has no theological training, psychological training, or medical training, can make a determination about the state of someone’s soul, and determine that baptism isn’t needed? Scary!!
Your statement shows the complete and total lack of understanding of anything Christian.
Fatboys;9991045:
I don’t think I have called Joseph Smith names like con man, so you would have to be more specific about what you think is a ‘jab.’
As I had said to Janderich who gave a similar explanation:
Baptism is just one example of Joseph Smith making up new beliefs contrary to Christianity.
Yes. I think it should be made clear that the “con man” comment was not made by you.
And could you provide one example of where the CC has pulled something out of the air?
:thumbsup:This would be Disciples:thumbsup:I have read that Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.
No MAN should ever be the center… it’s God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that is the ROCK and we are the church… all who are Christians are **Apostles **of Jesus, seeking knowledge, understanding… and speaking, showing and teaching the truth through His commandments. The members of the church have been Apostles, and you needn’t have anyone lay their human hands on you (only God’s spirit onto your heart) to be an Apostle of God. And those who have accepted the gift God has given them - to take on a higher role in the teaching of the Apostolic Church- is a blessing to us all who want to seek knowledge.
I urge you to do a little more looking around here or Catholic Answers, or just into history. The Catholic Church can point to a continuity of evidence from Scripture, history, tradition, writings of the ECFs, and other sources I’ve mentioned before to demonstrate each an every one of its teachings. Because it has continuity and other objective measures of its truth, it differs from every group started at a later date.
So the reasons that make it wrong to baptize a child younger than 8 don’t apply to the developmentally disabled?
Both And. Jesus renamed Simon for a reason. That He could use a Galilean fisherman who would betray Him to be the “Prince of the Apostles,” as the ECFs called him, is consistent with so much of the rest of Salvation History where God uses the weak to undo the mighty. It is a sign of God’s power that He can use the lowly for great purposes; indeed, it is a powerful proof, for if God only choose mighty figures like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar to work great things, people could easily look at those works and say they were done by great men.
. You can’t say the Church failed without saying that Jesus failed. He failed to build His Church. He had to start over, abandon the rock and foundation. The title and sign of Peter didn’t mean anything, for the man and his legacy was ultimately broken and cast aside.Coptic made a good correction. I’d also point out, since it was in response to a previous accusation against the Church, that we DO have ordained “apostles.” In English we call them “bishops” (as in Acts 1:20, “let his bishopric another take”). In Greek, episcopoi.
Lets take one of the traditions that you teach. The birth of Christ is the most important event that has ever happened to the fallen man. If the importance of Christ being born without original sin was so important, and your logic dictates that this must mean that Mary must likewise be born without the original sin, they why is this not mentioned in any of the scriptures. Nothing, notta. It was never taught by Christ, nor his apostles.
It makes sense as science as confirmed that children at this time has a better understanding of right and wrong for the most part.
A person who does not have the capacity to know right from wrong does not need baptism. It is not about a number, it is about the sacrifice of Christ to save those who have died without knowledge who have not been baptized.
Then you shouldn’t have any problems providing a source for this statement.