Prove it!

  • Thread starter Thread starter dizzy_dave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

Let me guess: 6 yrs of elementary school, 2 yrs of junior high, 4 yrs of high school and 4yrs of college all at catholic schools. 6 + 2 + 4 + 4 = 16. I guess one should hear quite a lot of what the CC believes in that time.​

BTW, how’d I do, Leslie?
Yet, if asked today, Leslie could not give any Scriptural support for why we pray to saints, why we believe in the Eucharist, where Scripture is in the Mass, why Mary was Immaculately Conceived.

Either her Catholic education was quite impoverished, or she simply forgot everything she was taught.

Bottom line is, she did not know her Catholic faith.

Unless, she can prove me wrong and provide a good catechectical explanation of the Catholic position on the Eucharist, or purgatory, or praying to saints, or calling Mary “mother of God.” 🤷
 
No disrespect meant here to the RC’s but if your faith is the one true faith, founded on Peter as the first Pope and is to act in the manner of God the Father and Son then explain this to me. How can one call it that after the bloody history of persecution, support of that which is un-Christlike and even of late crimes against the innocent supported, endorsed or protected from retribution by the RCC?

Examples: The Crusades, Inquisition (with the killing of heretics), the Spanish Conquests in the New World, Sex Crimes Against Children (a very recent event I will note) , Supporting Slavery (mainly Spain), Destruction of Rare Texts, Suppression of the Jews if not Outright Hatred etc.

For me I see great good as well the charity, keeping of some knowledge by the Church during the Dark Ages and the like. But for me that can’t outweight the wrong done by a long shot. And saying the Pope and Magistrum can’t be held responsible when they head the Church is a cop out to me. The fact they lead made them all responsible of either open support of it or being ungodly letting these things happen with no action.

From ones fruits one can tell a believer its not less for a Church bound to Christ’s name. I would say your very history defies the claim I don’t need more than that as proof.
Well, as the saying goes, when you find the perfect Church, go join it, Libertarian.

Unfortunately, though, then it won’t be perfect anymore. 😉
 
Dokimas;6046143:
Not above the Bible.

But the Church came before the Bible of course. You certainly can’t deny that, can you, Dokimas?

Thus, it was Sacred Tradition that gave us Sacred Scripture.

No Sacred Tradition, no Sacred Scripture. 🤷

The letters that make up the Bible were written centuries before the formal CC.​

You seem to be placing the Sacred Tradition above the power of the Holy Spirit to take sinners and use them miraculously.
 
When did you either change your name or go back to an ‘original’ version of your name? I grew up in the 50’s and 60’s. The Catholic Church was called by its members the Roman Catholic Church. Ask what church you belongs to, friends would say the Roman Catholic Church.
Dokimas, it was called the RCC by its members, because they were members of the Latin rite. The CC is actually composed of many, many different rites–not just the Latin, or “Roman” rite.

No one has changed our name. We are the One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic. Church! 👍
 
Yet, if asked today, Leslie could not give any Scriptural support for why we pray to saints, why we believe in the Eucharist, where Scripture is in the Mass, why Mary was Immaculately Conceived.

Either her Catholic education was quite impoverished, or she simply forgot everything she was taught.

Bottom line is, she did not know her Catholic faith.

Unless, she can prove me wrong and provide a good catechectical explanation of the Catholic position on the Eucharist, or purgatory, or praying to saints, or calling Mary “mother of God.” 🤷

The New Testament does not tell us to pray to the saints; it tells us to pray for each believer because, as saints (all true believers), we all need help.​

The NT doesn’t say what the CC believe about the Eucharist.​

The NT doesn’t say that Mary was. immaculately conceived.​

No wonder Leslie doesn’t give Scriptural support for them.
 
PRmerger;6046374:
The letters that make up the Bible were written centuries before the formal CC.
What Church was around that accepted those letters, Dokimas?

It was a Church that practiced infant baptisms, recognized the Eucharist as the Body/Blood/Soul and Divinity of Christ, venerated Mary, had bishops.

What Church does that sound like to you?
You seem to be placing the Sacred Tradition above the power of the Holy Spirit to take sinners and use them miraculously.
Sacred Tradition* is* the power of the Holy Spirit, Dokimas!

What is* your *understanding of ST? :confused:
 

The New Testament does not tell us to pray to the saints; it tells us to pray for each believer because, as saints (all true believers), we all need help.​

The NT doesn’t say what the CC believe about the Eucharist.​

The NT doesn’t say that Mary was. immaculately conceived.​

No wonder Leslie doesn’t give Scriptural support for them.
You, also, were poorly catechized.

Can you give the Catholic explanation for these? If not, then you prove my point.
 
Dokimas, it was called the RCC by its members, because they were members of the Latin rite. The CC is actually composed of many, many different rites–not just the Latin, or “Roman” rite.

No one has changed our name. We are the One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic. Church! 👍
Sounds like the Cathlic Church has its denominations too. (called rites.)
 
You, also, were poorly catechized.

Can you give the Catholic explanation for these? If not, then you prove my point.
I was never Catholic. What I know about what the CC believes about these issues have been explained to me by those on this forum. I compared the explanations with the Bible and I get a different understanding as I compare Scripture with Itself, not taking tradition of men.
 
Dokimas;6046659:
What Church was around that accepted those letters, Dokimas?

It was a Church that practiced infant baptisms, recognized the Eucharist as the Body/Blood/Soul and Divinity of Christ, venerated Mary, had bishops.

What Church does that sound like to you?

Sacred Tradition* is*
the power of the Holy Spirit, Dokimas!

What is* your *understanding of ST? :confused:

I agree God uses sinners and as Paul said: he was nothing, Peter was nothing and neither was Apollos anything. Paul said God was everything. You make your church leaders ‘something’. Dangerous, IMO.​

There’s no ‘real’ evidence from the NT that the early church practiced infant baptism. There is little in the NT that indicates Mary was to be venerated. She isn’t mentioned in the epistles (to my knowledge).
 
Sounds like the Cathlic Church has its denominations too. (called rites.)
All the rites have teach the same Doctrines and Dogmas. It’s just different tradtions/customs that are celebrated in the different rites.

However, the (now over) 40,000 different Christians denominations each teach a different interpretation of Scripture–different beliefs on baptism, sin, salvation, sacraments, etc etc etc. Not a single denomination teaches the same thing. :eek:
 
There’s no ‘real’ evidence from the NT that the early church practiced infant baptism.
How 'bout this:

Irenaeus wrote:

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus wrote:

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen wrote:

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage wrote:

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

Gregory of Nazianz wrote:

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly *, if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom wrote:

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

source: from poster inkaneer*
 
  • I compared the explanations with the Bible and I get a different understanding as I compare Scripture with Itself, not taking tradition of men.
Yes, you get 40,000 different understandings of Scripture, Dokimas. 40,000. [SIGN1]That’s obscene.[/SIGN1]
 
PRmerger;6046697:
I agree God uses sinners and as Paul said: he was nothing, Peter was nothing and neither was Apollos anything. Paul said God was everything. You make your church leaders ‘something’. Dangerous, IMO.
We call our humble leader the *Servus Servorum Dei *

It means “the Servant of the Servants of God”. I mean, really, how much lowlier can you get with that title?
 
She isn’t mentioned in the epistles (to my knowledge).
Why would that matter? Is there something in your doctrines that say something must be stated in the epistles to be believed?

If something is mentioned in the OT, but not in the epistles, do you believe it?
What about if it’s in the Gospels, but not in the epistles?
 
How can anyone take you seriously when you caution Leslie and then do the same to her?
How can anyone take you seriously, Dokimas, when you do the same? You judge us for admonishing Leslie, yet here you are admonishing us! :sad_yes:

Must I remind you of Leslie’s style of posting?
40.png
Leslie_Polley:
[SIGN1]You are truly a moron[/SIGN1]…It sstates in LARGE PRINT…All have sinned EXCEPT>>>EXCEPT EXCEPT JESUS…This absolutally proves my point YOU DO NOT READ or your comprehension is null…EXCEPT JESUS>>>GOD>>>THE HOLY SPIRIT>>>>>EXCEPT THEM !!! Romans 3:23 and yeas that incompuses original sin… Sin is sin REAS IT argue with the book of Romans…and don’t say WE are not talking about anything. I posted what the BIBLE said. I, NOT we
signage added by me, but the [SIGN]post is all Leslie! [/SIGN]

Nothing we have said* even comes close *to this wretched level of speech.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top