I’m speechless (almost) at your equating mocking the saints (which I didn’t do. It’s called disagreeing with them) with God Himself. Wow, that seems like an idol more than a Buddha statue. I would say that you should heed your own advice my friend. If you can’t question saints, bishops and priests on spiritual matters then I would say you are a blind follower.
It is just a matter of respect not idol worship.
It has nothing to do with insecurity. It is a holy teaching of the Church - There is no salvation outside of the Church. It would however, be an insecure or poorly catechized Catholic who would pray as if there were salvation outside the Church.
The key here is “in his name”. This man was casting out demons in the name of Christ, not the name of Buddha. If one believes that salvation can be attained through Buddha, or through nirvana - then they are indeed against Christ.
This is a saint - this a person who is in heaven. This person has attained salvation - if only we could all follow her lead!
This can be said of all people - immigrant or American. The opposite can also be said of various people. The point is, we can’t paint broad strokes and stereotype -for better or for worse.
You told a saint to have a spiritual check-up - that’s quite derogatory to us Catholics. If you disagree with the saint simply say so - the way in which you “disagreed” with the saint was quite distasteful.
Thank you for this brief and concise observation of some of what
If the saint is going against what was taught in the Bible then yes, they need a spiritual check-up. Just because your church canonized them as a saint doesn’t make them any more holy or right than you or me. I tell it like I see it.
I model my life after the teaching of Christ, knowing that even the disciples were not perfect and even the saints. If I follow a saint, priest or bishop (all the same category to me) instead of what the Bible is saying then there’s a problem. And the Bible would settle the issue, not church authority or a canonized saint.
I believe it does. I do not follow the teachings of your church and am not bound by them. Salvation is found outside the Catholic Church, in the Orthodox churches and in Protestant churches and outside the organized churches. Your God is too small.
You missed what I was talking about. I was referring to the saints mention of praying with protestants, not talking about Buddhists.
Evil is the absence of good, the absence of God, the absence of light. The Church is not Christ. The Church universal belongs to Christ. Therefore they are not one and the same.
It’s not our idea of God that is too small - it’s your idea of our Church which is too small.
Can one be secure in their faith and hold to this ancient teaching? Have the millions upon millions, of Catholics throughout the last two millenia who have professed this teaching - have they all been “insecure”? Really, the notion that this view is born out of insecurity is hardly an argument at all, and is actually quite absurd. I could easily turn around and say the same of your beliefs, whatever they may be.
The Catholic Church holds the fullness of the Truth, if salvation is to be found by anyone who belongs to those groups/Churches it is only because they share partly in what the Church holds most fully.
Your God is meaningless. What is the purpose of pursuing any religion if all roads to lead to heaven? If salvation is found in Nirvana, the predestined, faith or good works - what does it matter? Heck, might as well be an atheist and stop all this Church stuff. As long as I’m a good person, right?
I confess I don’t know much of this saint, but seeing as she was martyred - it seems she was right. The Catholic position believes that there is only one Truth. She believed this with all her heart and was martyred evidently for it. She said her “amen” and they said their own “amen”.
Actually, it’s both. To you He only saves some. And apart from your church there is no salvation. Whatever modern spin about what that means theologically doesn’t change the fact that those outside the Catholic Church cannot be saved.
Oh yes, I’ve heard that before. Salvation is found in none other than Jesus Christ himself (as Scripture says), not an institution you believe He created or those He gave his teachings to.If you are saved it is through the Catholic Church, which is no less than the Body of Christ. Full stop.
If you are saved then you are of the Body of Christ and are thus part of the Catholic Church, albeit imperfectly
Let’s be fair here–I’m pretty sure that Protestant clergy were trying to pray with her before her execution, as a way of showing compassion but also as a kind of religious imperialism–making it clear whose religion had won and depriving her death of its power as a witness for Catholicism. Catholic clergy did the same thing to Protestant martyrs. It’'s quite understandable that a martyr would refuse this kind of manipulative “ecumenism” coming from the people who were torturing and killing her.
You can’t be saved by Jesus Christ - that is, saved at all - if you know of Him and His teachings (and he said those who love Him will obey His teachings) but don’t believe in Him or them, surely. It’s ridiculous to think otherwise.
I know many people who will not study other religions because they are afraid of being “tainted” and drawn away from their faith. However absurd it may seem to you doesn’t negate this truth. I have studied various religions, and I’m not in the least insecure. I don’t feel threatened by studying Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Paganism, etc.
According to your church, yes. I could say that Bob Marley is a god but that doesn’t make it so.
Again, I don’t know where you are getting this stuff. I didn’t say it, so you must have me confused with someone else. I never said anything about nirvana or atheism, etc. I never said your God was meaningless either. I said he was too small. Not big enough and beyond your comprehension.
So, if I’m martyred tomorrow by a raging mob of Muslims that would mean I’m right too? Bad logic my friend.
I think this is an episode from the Twilight Zone. Again, I’ve never compared salvation through Christ and nirvana.
From the post of Fatima I didn’t see that information. It just said that she said that in response to protestants asking her to pray with them. Then later in the quote fatima mentioned the saint refused to go to trial for harbouring Catholic priests and was killed because of that.
No, it’s against your beliefs for it to be otherwise. I have counseled many who knew of him, but did not follow his teachings and were accepted by him. You cannot accept that. Logic, tradition and Scripture seem to tell you otherwise. My experience tells me otherwise.
Scripture says the Christ is married to his church. The Church is the bride and Christ is the bridegroom. It’s about a relationship, and Christ owning what belongs to Him. It’s not about your particular denomination, no matter who started it.
According to your church authority which I do not accept. God cleanses his creation of their mistakes. He did it with the flood. He did it in Egypt with the plagues. The people didn’t do it. He did. All those who die without Him will be cleansed and brought into the fold.
According to your interpretation of Scripture. Tell me, who gave John the Baptist authority to baptize with water for the remission of sins? Did Peter? Did the Sanhedrin? No, God gave him authority and even the Lord Jesus submitted himself to this itinerant preacher who lived in obsurity in the wilderness.
That Jesus founded a church upon the Apostles and gave them if not their successors His own authority and power is not interpretation - it’s written on the plain face of scripture. You may be claiming that scripture itself isn’t what Jesus actually said, you can’t say we’re misinterpeting it though, it’s plain as day in there!
No, no, no. Your church claimed it was founded on ONE apostle.
Cleansing is both corporeal and individual. Of course we make mistakes. We ask forgiveness and they are gone. I just believe that after death people can still receive forgiveness.
I’m not sure what “rot” is. No, his baptism wasn’t symbolic. He truly baptized with water (as Scripture points out), but the Lord baptized with fire. John’s baptism was a necessary precursor to the baptism of the Lord.
My point (which you missed) is that John the Baptist was anointed by God to do what he did without having Paul, Peter, John the Apostle or anyone else giving him that authority. God also gave the prophets authority to preach and perform miracles, which they did. The point was they didn’t need a church authority to do so. Uh…I never said John was greater
John himself said that he was unworthy to loosen the Lord’s sandals.
Of course he was humble and so was the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph. Jesus was submissive to the will of God and had more authority and power than John, of course. I didn’t mean to imply that his authority was less than John’s. Obviously, you took it that way.
Again, I’m not sure why you’re on this tangent about the power of Christ. I agree with you. Christ was and is the Son of God and has authority over everything as given by the Father.
More tangents. I’m not sure really why you think I believe Jesus was lesser than John. Ummm…I repeat, Jesus was and is the divine Son of God, far above any person or authority on earth, which is exactly my point.