Leeann, a question for you and anyone else who might like to answer.

  • Thread starter Thread starter RobHom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hajnalcsillag said:
Code: 
Essentially you're making the statement that anyone outside the Roman church is a heretic and possibly demon-influenced if not possessed.
Click to expand...
That is how I took it too, and I think this is inappropriate (as well as wrong).
Hajnalcsillag said:
I’m sure there are plenty of Catholics who started off by initially accepting Jesus through the ministry of Billy Graham (who has reached something like 2.5 billion people through various forms of media and seen somewhere around 3 million people accept Jesus live at his crusades, to say nothing of those in the privacy of their own homes).
Click to expand...
I can speak to that to some extent. I am a cradle Catholic who left the faith for 20+ years, sojourning in Protestant communities. God used these faith communities to teach me and improve my relationship with Himself. Eventually I returned to the faith into which I was baptized, but did not understand. While I agree that the HS always leads us to unity with one another, to assume that the HS is not leading those in the communities of separated brethren is to deny what the Church herself teaches:

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.” CCC
 
guanophore said:
Hajnalcsillag;4314739:
Essentially you’re making the statement that anyone outside the Roman church is a heretic and possibly demon-influenced if not possessed.
Click to expand...
That is how I took it too, and I think this is inappropriate (as well as wrong).
Click to expand...
I don’t think that that’s what he meant at all. It’s certainly true that Protestant denomintions have some of the Truth, but less so than the fullness of the Catholic Church. So any spirit that whispers in your ear that you should leave the Church and become, say, a Baptist (or a Muslim, or an atheist, etc.), is leading you away from at least some amount of Truth.

Of course, not everyone who leaves the Church is influenced by anything supernatural.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight
 
Does anyone know if these curses of Trent have ever been renounced by the church?:

“If any man shall say that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, even with the open worship of latria, and therefore not to be venerated with any peculiar festal celebrity, nor to be solemnly carried about in processions according to the praiseworthy, and universal rites and customs of the holy Church, and that he is not to be publicly set before the people to be adored, and that his adorers are idolaters–let him be accursed” (Canon 6).

“If anyone shall say that the ungodly man is justified by faith only so as to understand that nothing else is required that may cooperate to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is in no wise necessary for him to be prepared and disposed by the motion of his own will … let him be accursed” (Canon 9).

“If anyone shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified … let him be accursed” (Canon 12).
 
justasking4 said:
Does anyone know if these curses of Trent have ever been renounced by the church?:

“If any man shall say that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, even with the open worship of latria, and therefore not to be venerated with any peculiar festal celebrity, nor to be solemnly carried about in processions according to the praiseworthy, and universal rites and customs of the holy Church, and that he is not to be publicly set before the people to be adored, and that his adorers are idolaters–let him be accursed” (Canon 6).

“If anyone shall say that the ungodly man is justified by faith only so as to understand that nothing else is required that may cooperate to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is in no wise necessary for him to be prepared and disposed by the motion of his own will … let him be accursed” (Canon 9).

“If anyone shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified … let him be accursed” (Canon 12).
Click to expand...
Where did you get this translation?

I thought the world used was anathema.
 
justasking4 said:
Whats the difference? These curses still stand do they not?
Click to expand...
An anathema is not a curse. It is a separtion from the Church.

It makes a difference.

Where did you get that translation? Can you provide a link.
 
CHESTERTONRULES;4315325]An anathema is not a curse. It is a separtion from the Church.
Click to expand...
Here is what a thesarus from MS encarta says about anathema:
abhorrence, abomination, loathing, curse, denunciation, censure
It makes a difference.
Click to expand...
Not really. Its essentially the same thing.
Where did you get that translation? Can you provide a link.
Click to expand...
i don’t have the link. Got it off the net somewhere and converted to a word doc.
 
justasking4 said:
Here is what a thesarus from MS encarta says about anathema:
abhorrence, abomination, loathing, curse, denunciation, censure

Not really. Its essentially the same thing.

i don’t have the link. Got it off the net somewhere and converted to a word doc.
Click to expand...
As used by the Catholic Church:

Since the time of the apostles, the term anathema has come to mean a form of extreme religious sanction beyond excommunication, known as major excommunication. The earliest recorded instance of the form is in the Council of Elvira (c. 306), and thereafter it became the common method of cutting off heretics. Cyril of Alexandria issued twelve anathemas against Nestorius in 431. In the fifth century, a formal distinction between anathema and excommunication evolved, where excommunication entailed cutting off a person or group from the rite of Eucharist and attendance at worship, while anathema meant a complete separation of the subject from the Church.
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
As used by the Catholic Church:

Since the time of the apostles, the term anathema has come to mean a form of extreme religious sanction beyond excommunication, known as major excommunication. The earliest recorded instance of the form is in the Council of Elvira (c. 306), and thereafter it became the common method of cutting off heretics. Cyril of Alexandria issued twelve anathemas against Nestorius in 431. In the fifth century, a formal distinction between anathema and excommunication evolved, where excommunication entailed cutting off a person or group from the rite of Eucharist and attendance at worship, while anathema meant a complete separation of the subject from the Church.
Click to expand...
I have no problem using the term you think is most correct. However it still does not change the fact that Trent did “cut off” protestants from the church which would also mean they were condemned since salvation can only be found in the Catholic church. Would this be correct?
 
RobHom said:
You made mention of being guided by the Holy Spirit at times… and I believe it was in relation to when reading the Bible.

The question is: If you believe that you are being guided by the Holy Spirit, how do you know with certainty that it is specifically the Holy Spirit, and not another spirit…even one of a nefarious nature?

Its a serious question.
Click to expand...
By studying the gospel of John together as Christians. Your absence on this bible study on the sayings of Jesus puzzles me. 🤷

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=277468
 
Not to get too far off the track, but Sandusky is both correct and incorrect about the Trinity.

The Trinity is revealed within Scripture. Without this revelation, we could never arrive at the limited understanding that we have.

Where he is wrong is that the DOCTRINE of the Trinity as understood by Christians is not found in the Scriptures but has been revealed to us through the Church is trying to make sense of it all. Without this leadership, we would be like Mormons (one in purpose) or Christ-only or any number of other heresies.

The Bible never says that there is One God in Three Divine Persons. The Bible never says they are One in Being or Substance. It does say that the Father is God and the Son is God and the Spirit is God. That same Spirit had to lead us the rest of the way.
 
ralphinal said:
Not to get too far off the track, but Sandusky is both correct and incorrect about the Trinity.

The Trinity is revealed within Scripture. Without this revelation, we could never arrive at the limited understanding that we have.

Where he is wrong is that the DOCTRINE of the Trinity as understood by Christians is not found in the Scriptures but has been revealed to us through the Church is trying to make sense of it all. Without this leadership, we would be like Mormons (one in purpose) or Christ-only or any number of other heresies.

The Bible never says that there is One God in Three Divine Persons. The Bible never says they are One in Being or Substance. It does say that the Father is God and the Son is God and the Spirit is God. That same Spirit had to lead us the rest of the way.
Click to expand...
Bibilcal creeds and confessions are good and belong to the catholic church. I too am catholic. 👍 Creeds and confessions that are not biblical are to be rejected in light of Scirpture.
 
Reformed said:
Bibilcal creeds and confessions are good and belong to the catholic church. I too am catholic. 👍 Creeds and confessions that are not biblical are to be rejected in light of Scirpture.
Click to expand...
You crack me up sometimes. 😛

You never told me what it means for a church to be “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic” like it says in the Nicean Creed.
 
ralphinal said:
Great. Go to that site and Click the Nicean Creed. Then, after reading it, tell me what “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic” means.
Click to expand...
To be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic means to be Reformed. There is a remant chosen by grace throughtout redemptive history. 😉
 
Reformed said:
To be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic means to be Reformed. There is a remant chosen by grace throughtout redemptive history. 😉
Click to expand...
That is the single worse dodge you have ever attempted. This is a simple question. Each word means something and can be found in the Bible. You can skip Catholic. Just the other three.

Oh, by the way, what does that creed mean when it says that there is one baptism for the remission of sins?
 
ralphinal said:
That is the single worse dodge you have ever attempted. This is a simple question. Each word means something and can be found in the Bible. You can skip Catholic. Just the other three.

Oh, by the way, what does that creed mean when it says that there is one baptism for the remission of sins?
Click to expand...
Ephesians chapter 4, check it out. 🙂
 
Reformed said:
Ephesians chapter 4, check it out. 🙂
Click to expand...
So you would accept that One means unified in Faith?

That Holy means founded by Christ and contains the Holy Spirit as well as Christ?

That Apostolic means containing the unbroken line from the Apostles?

And that Baptism is not a sign but carries with it a spiritual effect of washing away sin and creating a new being?
 
ralphinal said:
So you would accept that One means unified in Faith?

That Holy means founded by Christ and contains the Holy Spirit as well as Christ?

That Apostolic means containing the unbroken line from the Apostles?

And that Baptism is not a sign but carries with it a spiritual effect of washing away sin and creating a new being?
Click to expand...
Don’t add to the Word of God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top