purgatory

[JacobG]

Quoted from bmw8901

I don’t believe in works alone. I don’t think they can save me. I don’t know why you can’t understand this as I have said many times that Christ died for all of our sins and saved us.

Lastly you said, “One that gives glory to God and Jesus Christ our Lord and not to men and their fine works? Could it be that you may have actually missed this glorious, Divine principle and the simplicity of it?” Again, I believe Christ saved us. And I am kind of put off by your condescension here. I am sorry I don’t understand the New Testament as you do. Are we not free to disagree and yet worship Christ anyway?

I mean no condescension here, but this is the very complaint that biblical Christians have concerning catholics. The catholic keeps saying they don’t believe in a works salvation and yet they turn around and say: “I can’t miss Mass, its a sin”. “I have to do everything in the sacramental system in my church. Obey my church rules and rituals. I have to confess to the priest, say my rosary”, etc etc. This is all we hear. We never hear: I am trusting in Christ alone. Or, I accept His finished work at Calvary.

Where is the simplicity of Jesus’ teachings in roman catholic theology? Catholics are so caught up in personal works that Jesus gets pushed aside. The average catholic spends more time venerating, praying and bowing to Mary than to Jesus who paid for your sins, suffered and died for you, making it possible for you to have eternal life. Jesus is confined to the host/wafer. I have never once heard a catholic say: “I pray to Jesus all the time.” “He’s my personal Savior and I trust him alone for my eternal salvation”. Instead, the catholic goes to the priest and asks for absolution.

This is why roman catholics vehemently balk at: justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone… You cannot accept the word: “alone” in this sentence. Why? Because you are trusting more in your church works than in Christ.

If you believe Christ died for ALL sins, then why the need for purification after death. Did he or did he not nail those sins to the cross? If he did, then why the distinction of venial and mortal sins and why the need for purgatory? No matter how many times Protestants tell the catholics on here that Christ completely purifies the sinner who comes to him in true repentance and quote all the scriptural references, you all ignore, deny or claim Christ doesn’t do that.

Are we not free to disagree and yet worship Christ anyway?

There’s a way that seems right to a man but the end thereof leads to death. The road to destruction and hell is wide but the one that leads to eternal life is narrow and few that be that find it. Matt. 7:13

 

[Thing]

JacobG:

I have to do everything in the sacramental system in my church. Obey my church rules and rituals. I have to confess to the priest, say my rosary", etc etc. This is all we hear. We never hear: I am trusting in Christ alone. Or, I accept His finished work at Calvary.

Where is the simplicity of Jesus’ teachings in roman catholic theology?

Well you made one mistake here. You mean Christian Theology not Roman Theology.

John 20:22 - the Lord “breathes” on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins.

Acts 19 18 And many of them that believed, came confessing and declaring their deeds.

“Such are the words and deeds by which, in our own district of the Rhone, they have deluded many women, who have their consciences seared as with a hot iron. Some of them, indeed, make a public confession of their sins; but others of them are ashamed to do this, and in a tacit kind of way, despairing of [attaining to] the life of God, have, some of them, apostatized altogether; while others hesitate between the two courses, and incur that which is implied in the proverb, ‘neither without nor within;’ possessing this as the fruit from the seed of the children of knowledge.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:13 (A.D. 180).

Jesus has said, “The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mk 2:10) and “Your sins are forgiven” (Mk 2:5, 10, Lk 7:48). Jesus also gave this authority to his apostles (Jn 20:21-23).

Christ wanted his whole Church to be a sign and instrument of the forgiveness which he gained by shedding his blood. He entrusted this power of absolution to the apostles who received the “ministry of Reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:15). Paul makes the appeal “Be reconciled to God” (2 Cor 5:20).

Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of the Church, especially for those who have fallen into grave sins after Baptism. This sacrament gives Christians the possibility to recover baptismal grace. Penance is “the second plank (of salvation) after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace” (Tertullian).

Over the centuries, the Church has had two forms of this sacrament. In the early Church, there was an “order of penitents” for those who committed grave sins (as idolatry, murder or adultery). This involved a rigorous discipline, often for years. People were admitted rarely to this order and sometimes, only once.

In the seventh century, Irish missionaries to Europe (inspired by the Eastern monastic practice) began “private penance,” the form we have today. The sins were told secretly to a priest and the penance was not prolonged. This allowed for frequent receiving of the sacrament and the forgiving of both grave sins and venial sins at the same time.

Although the forms have changed, two equally essential elements remain. First, the person undergoing conversion makes acts of contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Secondly, the Church (through the priest) forgives the sins in the name of Jesus Christ so that the sinner is healed and returned to Church communion.

The Absolution (1449)
The Church’s absolution formula expresses the three essential elements:

1.The Father is the source of the forgiveness
2.He reconciles by Christ’s death and Resurrection and by the Spirit’s gift.
3.The action happens through the ministry of the Church.

Confession In Early Medieval Ireland;

In the sixth century Irish monks introduced the second stage of the sacrament with their practice of discussing their sins with a spiritual guide. This developed into the rite of private confession and in 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council gave it official recognition.

Confession In early medieval England;

“In the week immediately before Lent everyone shall go to his confessor and confess his deeds and the confessor shall so shrive him as he then may hear by his deeds what he is to do [in the way of penance].”
– Anglo-Saxon “Ecclesiastical Institutes” translated from Theodulphus by Abbot Aelfric about A.D. 1000; explaining the English term “shrovetide” (from “to shrive”, or hear confessions)

continued…

 

[Thing]

…continued.

(a description of confession in a medieval British manuscript called

The Holy Feast of Pentecost -

Secondly, they had the Holy Ghost when he breathed on them saying: Take ye the Holy Ghost in to you, to whom ye loose their sins they shall be loosed, and of whom ye retain, the shall be retained. Nevertheless none save God may forgive sins as to the sin that is in the soul, and which is the obligation to pain perdurable, or as to the offence of God, the which is only forgiven by the infusion of the grace of God, and by the force and Virtue of contrition. Nevertheless we say that the priest assoilleth [absolves] of sins, as for that he is insinued, or showeth that the sinner is *assoilled [absolved] of God. As to that, that the pain that should be perpetual, he changeth into temporal of purgatory, and also for that the pain temporal is due he releaseth part. Thirdly, the Holy Ghost was given to them on this day when he confirmed so their hearts that they dreaded no torment by the virtue of the Holy Ghost, which all overcometh. Whereof saith S. Austin: Such is the grace of the Holy Ghost that if he find heaviness in the heart he breaketh it; if he find desire of evil, he destroyeth it; if he find vain dread, he casteth it out. And S. Leo the Pope saith: The Holy Ghost was hoped of the apostles, not for then first he had inhabited in them, but because that the hearts to him sacred and dedicated, he more shouId visit them, and more abundantly by grace should abide increasing his gifts not then begun, of which was not newly showing his operation, for his largess passeth all abundance.

*assoil
vb tr
Archaic 1 to absolve; set free

2 to atone for
(C13: from Old French assoldre, from Latin absolvere to absolve)

In the 16th century Henry III broke from the Pope simply because he wanted to divorce his wife.
Heny III began the rejection of the Christian Faith in England as it had aways been known from Apostolic Times.

This then, became the new order; the New Christianity in England;

[2] as well for the abolishing and extirpation of the Bishop of Rome, his pretensed and usurped power and jurisdiction, as for the establish-ment and confirmation of the king’s authority, jurisdiction, and supremacy of the Church of England and Ireland.

New Laws;
Of Ministering in the Congregation

It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching or ministering the sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.

Gods servants are now not called by God but by man.

Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity
(1559),

[Page 460] And that if any manner of parson, vicar, or other whatsoever minister, that ought or should sing or say common prayer mentioned in the said book, or minister the sacraments, from and after the feast of the nativity of St. John Baptist next coming, refuse to use the said common prayers, or to minister the sacraments in such cathedral or parish church, or other places as he should use to minister the same, in such order and form as they be mentioned and set forth in the said book, or shall wilfully or obstinately standing in the same, use any other rite, ceremony, order, form, or manner of celebrating of the Lord’s Supper, openly or privily, or Matins, Evensong, administration of the sacraments, or other open prayers, than is mentioned and set forth in the said book (open prayer in and throughout this Act, is meant that prayer which is for other to come unto, or hear, either in common churches or private chapels or oratories, commonly called the service of the Church), or shall preach, declare, or speak anything in the derogation or depraving of the said book, or anything therein contained, or of any part thereof, and shall be thereof lawfully convicted, according to the laws of this realm, by verdict of twelve men, or by his own confession, or by the notorious evidence of the fact, shall lose and forfeit to the queen’s highness, her heirs and successors, for his first offence, the profit of all his spiritual benefices or promotions coming or arising in one whole year next after his conviction; and also that the person so convicted shall for the same offence suffer imprisonment by the space of six months, without bail or ma(name removed by moderator)rize.

Of the Sacraments
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God’s good will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in Him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five, commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as S. Paul saith.

 

[swords99]

I’m not on here everyday. Don’t have the time. But when I do check in I see nothing’s changed. In fact, the bickering and personal attacks have increased. What would Jesus think? Nobody’s even talking about purgatory.

My question to the Catholics: Do you really believe that the Christians on here care about your extraordinarily long posts? Do you believe they are reading and savoring every word? Some of you think by your many words you are coming across as wise and people will change their views/beliefs. It doesn’t work that way. Some of you post several posts back to back in rapid succession, then complain no one’s answering all your zillions of questions. Why should they even care? This has disintegrated into a game of competition rather than a genuine search for the truth. The point I’m trying to make is unless you stick to scriptural authority i.e. the Holy Bible, and cite the references, its all meaningless. You’re riding on a treadmill to nowhere.

Compare the simple teaching of Christ with those of the pharisees and other self righteous men. Those hypocrites thought they were very spiritual by their many words, but Jesus exposed them for the frauds they were. Do you guys really want Truth? Or to be right at all costs? You keep mimicking each other, but show a serious lack of knowledge of your own history.

As for purgatory, the fact is it is NOT in the Scriptures. Not even a concept of it is. If you need an uninspired, spurious book like Maccabees than you’re in serious trouble. Many of you quote church fathers when you get desperate, but these men were not “fathers” in any sense. They were merely church leaders. Some of them had pagan beliefs which the Jews mixed in and Christianity adopted some of these beliefs. But none of these early church writers ever claimed to be inspired nor were their writings on par with Scripture. History reveals that the roman catholic church burned many writings (and I’m not talking about the heretics), and what has survived are the writings that seem to support the views of the roman church. This way it makes it appear that the church “fathers” were all roman Catholics. They were not! The very fact that they contradicted one another makes them far less reliable than God’s Word.

There were Jews ( and still are) who believed in purgatory, but they deny Jesus Christ as Messiah. So they have no hope of having their sins forgiven which is why they desperately want to rebuild their Temple and make sacrifices again. They totally missed the boat. Jesus was the one time Sacrifice.

Since Jesus Christ died for all and paid all sins in full which is what REDEEM means, then there is no hope or room for such a place as purgatory. I seriously suggest you read the book of Hebrews again carefully and prayerfully.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy are you for real. This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard! Then you might as well throw out everything you believe because you weren’t there either and neither was your church.

anyway, this is about purgatory, we are being warned to stick with the topic or else. So start a new thread if you want.

Folks, you can see how this goes…

Yankee_drifter posted one of his standard cut&paste posts from an Internet website attacking the Catholic Church for A) changing the form of baptism from immersion to pouring and B) baptizing infants.

I responded with three posts chock full of scriptures and quotes from the Early Church Fathers demonstrating that both practices were clearly known in the early centuries. I took some time to research and respond to each of his cut & paste quotes from……“Catholic” sources.

Having been silenced by my responses, Yankee_drifter attempts to divert our attention by taking me to task for being off topic.

One wonders why HE brought up baptism in the first place?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Quoted from bmw8901

I mean no condescension here, but this is the very complaint that biblical Christians have concerning catholics. The catholic keeps saying they don’t believe in a works salvation and yet they turn around and say: “I can’t miss Mass, its a sin”. “I have to do everything in the sacramental system in my church. Obey my church rules and rituals. I have to confess to the priest, say my rosary”, etc etc. This is all we hear. We never hear: I am trusting in Christ alone. Or, I accept His finished work at Calvary.

Because you aren’t really listening to what Catholics say. You prefer to read books and websites by people who TELL you what Catholics believe instead of reading CATHOLIC books about what Catholics believe.

Missing mass is a sin, but you don’t know why…so you claim it to be a “work”.

Praying the rosary is optional, but you don’t know that…so you claim it is a “work”.

Where is the simplicity of Jesus’ teachings in roman catholic theology?

What makes you think that Jesus’ teachings are “simple”?

Catholics are so caught up in personal works that Jesus gets pushed aside. The average catholic spends more time venerating, praying and bowing to Mary than to Jesus who paid for your sins, suffered and died for you, making it possible for you to have eternal life.

Prove it. Prove this outrageous statement that Catholics pray more to Mary than to Jesus is true.

Jesus is confined to the host/wafer. I have never once heard a catholic say: “I pray to Jesus all the time.” “He’s my personal Savior and I trust him alone for my eternal salvation”. Instead, the catholic goes to the priest and asks for absolution.

JacobG-

Listen carefully.

I am a Catholic. I pray to Jesus all the time. He’s my personal Savior and I trust him alone for my eternal salvation.

There. Now you’ve heard it. Happy?

Oh, I also go to confession and receive absolution for my sins just as my Personal Savior intends for me to do.

This is why roman catholics vehemently balk at: justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone… You cannot accept the word: “alone” in this sentence. Why? Because you are trusting more in your church works than in Christ.

We balk at “faith alone” because the idea is not found in scripture.

The rest of your post is just rhetoric since you obviously do not know what Catholics trust in.

There’s a way that seems right to a man but the end thereof leads to death. The road to destruction and hell is wide but the one that leads to eternal life is narrow and few that be that find it. Matt. 7:13

And yet, you continue to follow in the footsteps of Luther and Calvin anyway. Go figure.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m not on here everyday. Don’t have the time. But when I do check in I see nothing’s changed. In fact, the bickering and personal attacks have increased. What would Jesus think? Nobody’s even talking about purgatory.

Perhaps this forum is not for you.

My question to the Catholics: Do you really believe that the Christians on here care about your extraordinarily long posts? Do you believe they are reading and savoring every word?

First, Catholics are Christians.

Second, do you think we would be respecting the non-Catholics by NOT giving them thoughtful (and sometimes lengthy) responses to their questions?

Asking a question can be short and simple - “Where do babies come from?”, “Why does a loving God allow suffering?” - but answering a question usually requires some explanation and some proof.

Some of you think by your many words you are coming across as wise and people will change their views/beliefs.

Appearing wise has nothing to do with it. BEING knowledgable does.

It doesn’t work that way. Some of you post several posts back to back in rapid succession, then complain no one’s answering all your zillions of questions. Why should they even care? This has disintegrated into a game of competition rather than a genuine search for the truth.

That depends on the person who originally asked the question, doesn’t it? If I ask a question and I REALLY want to learn, then no amount of information is too much. But if I’m asking merely rhetorical questions in order to provide myself a platform for preaching my own beliefs, then I’m probably not going to listen to the replies.

Trust me…after several years I can tell you that MOST non-Catholics who visit this site are NOT here to learn Catholicism…they’re here to denounce it.

But there are also those who are earnestly considering Catholicism and those who are already Catholic who benefit from learning more about their faith. So, I post for several reasons:

1. To defend the faith against those opposed to it
2. To explain the faith to those open to it
3. To teach the faith to those who are already a part of it.

And, of course, I have learned more than I have taught by simply being part of all this and being pushed to do my homework.

The point I’m trying to make is unless you stick to scriptural authority i.e. the Holy Bible, and cite the references, its all meaningless. You’re riding on a treadmill to nowhere.

Why do we have to stick to scriptural authority? What about the authority that is found in Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church?

Sounds like we need to answer some of YOUR questions (they will be lengthy answers, too.)

As for purgatory, the fact is it is NOT in the Scriptures. Not even a concept of it is.

Simply untrue. Shall we rewind the tape and play it again for you?

If you need an uninspired, spurious book like Maccabees than you’re in serious trouble.

Assume for a moment that Maccabees is not inspired. It still provides historical evidence that the Jews in Jesus’ day believed that we can pray for the dead. They still do.

Many of you quote church fathers when you get desperate, but these men were not “fathers” in any sense. They were merely church leaders.

Uh…yeah, they were Church leaders…men who were disciples of the Apostles themselves. Consequently, what these early leaders had to say is important since they were Fathers of the Christian faith.

I’m curious…can you name the five Apostolic Fathers? Have you read their works?

You’ll take notes during your own pastor’s sermons and read books by contemporary Christian authors but you’ve never listened to the sermons of the men who sat at the feet of the Apostles. That seems odd…

Some of them had pagan beliefs which the Jews mixed in and Christianity adopted some of these beliefs.

Oh…like who?

But none of these early church writers ever claimed to be inspired nor were their writings on par with Scripture.

True. But this is not the same as saying that what they wrote was untrue.

History reveals that the roman catholic church burned many writings (and I’m not talking about the heretics), and what has survived are the writings that seem to support the views of the roman church. This way it makes it appear that the church “fathers” were all roman Catholics. They were not! The very fact that they contradicted one another makes them far less reliable than God’s Word.

Prove it.

There were Jews ( and still are) who believed in purgatory, but they deny Jesus Christ as Messiah. So they have no hope of having their sins forgiven which is why they desperately want to rebuild their Temple and make sacrifices again. They totally missed the boat. Jesus was the one time Sacrifice.

And yet, the belief of the Jews regarding prayer for the dead and purgatory provides important backdrop for Christians.

And sure, Jesus was the one-time sacrifice. Catholics agree with that.

Since Jesus Christ died for all and paid all sins in full which is what REDEEM means, then there is no hope or room for such a place as purgatory. I seriously suggest you read the book of Hebrews again carefully and prayerfully.

What an arrogant statement. I have read the book of Hebrews. I have it on my nightstand next to my bed.

The problem for you is that Hebrews does not PROVE that purgatory cannot exist.

Gee, you sure had a lot to say in this post…do you think that you will be heard by your many words?

 

[bmw8901]

My question to the Catholics: Do you really believe that the Christians on here care about your extraordinarily long posts?** Do you believe they are reading and savoring every word? **

So why are these Protestants coming to a CATHOLIC message board?

 

[AwGusTeen]

I’m not on here everyday. Don’t have the time. But when I do check in I see nothing’s changed. In fact, the bickering and personal attacks have increased. What would Jesus think? Nobody’s even talking about purgatory.

That’s because many NC’s favorite tactic here is often the doctrinal dance - especially when they get backed into a theological corner from which they are unable to extracate themselves.

My question**** to the Catholics: Do you really believe that the Christians on here care about your extraordinarily long posts?

Thanks for differentiating Christians from Catholics. Who’s got the attitude problem here?Nice

Do you believe they are reading and savoring every word? Some of you think by your many words you are coming across as wise and people will change their views/beliefs. It doesn’t work that way. Some of you post several posts back to back in rapid succession, then complain no one’s answering all your zillions of questions. Why should they even care? This has disintegrated into a game of competition rather than a genuine search for the truth.

swords’s deffinition of truth = The Gospel according to swords - “Christians” (I.e. Non-Catholics)

The point I’m trying to make is unless you stick to scriptural authority snip…

Scriptural authority? You complain about going off topic and proceed to do that very thing.
The bible gives the Church that authority - not itself. Just search here on Sola Scriptura - it’s simply a man-made doctrine.

snip… the Holy Bible and cite the references, its all meaningless. You’re riding on a treadmill to nowhere.

So history, logical discourse, the opinions of the Early Church Fathers, 1,500 years of Catholic Church’s teachings are all meaningless. Who do you think selected the books in your New Testament?

Compare the simple teaching of Christ with those of the pharisees and other self righteous men. Those hypocrites thought they were very spiritual by their many words, but Jesus exposed them for the frauds they were. Do you guys really want Truth? Or to be right at all costs? You keep mimicking each other, but show a serious lack of knowledge of your own history.

Oh really? Please enlighten us.

As for purgatory, the fact is it is NOT in the Scriptures.

As you know, Catholics do not hold to Sola Scriptura - that would be your position and thus, your problem.

Not even a concept of it is. If you need an uninspired, spurious book like Maccabees than you’re in serious trouble.

So you say. However, Maccabees along with the other deuterocononicals were in the canon of scripture for 1500 years before the Protestant deformation.

Many of you quote church fathers when you get desperate, but these men were not “fathers” in any sense. They were merely church leaders. Some of them had pagan beliefs which the Jews mixed in and Christianity adopted some of these beliefs.** But none of these early church writers ever claimed to be inspired nor were their writings on par with Scripture. History reveals that the roman catholic church burned many writings (and I’m not talking about the heretics), and what has survived are the writings that seem to support the views of the roman church. This way it makes it appear that the church “fathers” were all roman Catholics. They were not! The very fact that they contradicted one another makes them far less reliable than God’s Word**.

You are making the accusations here, so prove them:thumbsup:

Since Jesus Christ died for all and paid all sins in full which is what REDEEM means, then there is no hope or room for such a place as purgatory. I seriously suggest you read the book of Hebrews again carefully and prayerfully.

I will. And I seriously suggest that you take ALL of scripture into account before you start criticizing Holy Mother Church. I believe it was the famous reformer Martin Luther who said “…scripture is like a wax nose - you can twist it anyway you want.”

What we have here is someone who, when challenged about the validity their beliefs, (or better yet challenged about what they THINK Catholics believe) complains that we do not have the truth and expects us to simply shut up and stop the “…the bickering and personal attacks.” Sorry swords, but this is what logical discourse is about - so just deal with it.

 

[paul_c]

I mean no condescension here, but this is the very complaint that biblical Christians have concerning catholics. The catholic keeps saying they don’t believe in a works salvation and yet they turn around and say: “I can’t miss Mass, its a sin”. “I have to do everything in the sacramental system in my church. Obey my church rules and rituals. I have to confess to the priest, say my rosary”, etc etc. This is all we hear. We never hear: I am trusting in Christ alone. Or, I accept His finished work at Calvary.

This is all you hear about catholics from anti-Catholic Protestants. Catholics don’t talk like that. Trust me on this, I would know. How Catholics really describe it is that as members of his Church we are called to do the will of God, which is to love God and love our neighbors as ourself. You can describe this as a works salvation if you want but Catholics would never describe it that way. We know we can not work our way to heaven.but we also know we can’t get to heaven if we don’t cooperate with God’s grace, avoid sin and do the good deeds he calls us to do.

As for the rest of your statements here. Catholics don’t go to mass to avoid sin, but to gain the graces associated with it. The same goes for confessing to a priest and praying the rosary. We do what we do for the positive aspects, not to for fear of punishment, which is the lowest level of moral development

and of course you don’t here in trusting in Christ alone or I accept his finished work at Calvary. The are errand Protestant doctrines. We know whe need to cooperate with Christ to be saved. His work at Calvary is finished in us, only if we follow his example and do his will.

Where is the simplicity of Jesus’ teachings in roman catholic theology? Catholics are so caught up in personal works that Jesus gets pushed aside. The average catholic spends more time venerating, praying and bowing to Mary than to Jesus who paid for your sins, suffered and died for you, making it possible for you to have eternal life. Jesus is confined to the host/wafer. I have never once heard a catholic say: “I pray to Jesus all the time.” “He’s my personal Savior and I trust him alone for my eternal salvation”. Instead, the catholic goes to the priest and asks for absolution.

Why do you say these untrue things? You have been greatly decieved. The simplicity of Jesus teaching is summed up in the new commandment. “Love one another as I have loved you.” Have you ever once been to a Catholic mass? It is all about Jesus. Except for the statement that Jesus was born of the virgn Mary in the Creed, Mary is not typically mentioned at all. Jesus is definitely not confined to the host. And I can tell you that our parish has eucharistic adoration form 9AM-9PM Monday through Friday where we come to be in the presence of Jesus in the consecrated host. This is typical of most parishes, although the amount of time spent in adoration at the Parish level varies. the Catholic goes to a priest for absolution because he trusts in Jesus as his lord and savior and he follows the sacramental proecedure for reconciliation as Jesus set it up.

This is why roman catholics vehemently balk at: justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone… You cannot accept the word: “alone” in this sentence. Why? Because you are trusting more in your church works than in Christ.

We vehemently balk at justification by Grace alone, faith alone and Christ alone because it is not true. We are called to be holy and if we sin without reconciling, our salvation will be lost.

If you believe Christ died for ALL sins, then why the need for purification after death. Did he or did he not nail those sins to the cross? If he did, then why the distinction of venial and mortal sins and why the need for purgatory? No matter how many times Protestants tell the catholics on here that Christ completely purifies the sinner who comes to him in true repentance and quote all the scriptural references, you all ignore, deny or claim Christ doesn’t do that.

Because even you do not believe Christ died for all sins. What about the sins of unbelievers? Do you believe that he died for these sins as well. Protestants like to Quote Romans but do so very selectively. Have you never read romans 3: 24-26
:
They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed, through the forbearance of God–to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus

Notice, Paul says that Jesus’ redemption applies to sins previously committed, not to all sin , past , present and future, like so many Protestants insist. We agree with the statement that Jesus redemption frees us from all sins prior to our Baptism. But after that we are called to live in Christ, free from sin. that is the point of Romans 4-6.

There’s a way that seems right to a man but the end thereof leads to death. The road to destruction and hell is wide but the one that leads to eternal life is narrow and few that be that find it. Matt. 7:13

So let me ask you. Who is quoting men here (Luther, Calvin) and who is quoting God through the Apostles?

 

[Des]

My question to the Catholics: Do you really believe that the Christians on here care about your extraordinarily long posts? Do you believe they are reading and savoring every word?

Do you honestly believe they are making these long posts for the intention of one non believer they are debating with who we all pretty much know aren’t here looking for answers? There are many ‘lurkers’ on this CF form actually seeking the truth with an open heart so you my want to reconsider thinking that the Catholic posters here are making these more in-depth posts for them as well.

 

[JustaServant]

Do you honestly believe they are making these long posts for the intention of one non believer they are debating with who we all pretty much know aren’t here looking for answers? There are many ‘lurkers’ on this CF form actually seeking the truth with an open heart so you my want to reconsider thinking that the Catholic posters here are making these more in-depth posts for them as well.

Exactly. For genunine lurkers looking for answers, they will find it. For the person with an agenda, we already know they probably don’t read half of what is posted.

 

[Thing]

Swords99:

My question to the Catholics: Do you really believe that the Christians on here care about your extraordinarily long posts? Do you believe they are reading and savoring every word?

Unless you are a Calvinist you can always choose whether to read those long posts or not; if you are a Calvinist, however, you have, of course, no choice but to read those long posts or not.

 

[PRmerger]

Unless you are a Calvinist you can always choose whether to read those long posts or not; if you are a Calvinist, however, you have, of course, no choice but to read those long posts or not.

Oh. My. Gosh. That made me

 

[moondweller]

paul c:

He’s telling you to believe everything Jesus says, not only the parts you agree with.

He simply said “everything.” I think he was also referring to extra-biblical tradition as well. And most probably those words supposedly communicated by any of the Marian apparitions sanctioned by the CC.

As for the Words of Jesus, I do agree one is to believe them all, not only the one’s with which one might agree. However, it’s quite foolish to assume that Jesus was always talking in the context of salvation. That one’s salvation was contingent on “doing” everything He ever said - that would apply equally to the writers of the N.T. Epistles. Not everything said by them was said in the context of salvation.

You are quick to accuse Catholics of a works based theology.

No, not quickly at all. I’ve taken a lot of time to study Rome’s theology.

Actually, what we have is a love based theology. Love god. Love your Nieghbor as yourself.

This may surprise you, but what you present is a “Law based” soteriology (Matt. 22:36-40). But the irony is that salvation never was, nor ever will be, based on Law because the Law is not “of faith” (i.e., faith based, Gal. 3:12). The Epistles are replete with this Divine revelation. But instead it is revealed that the Law was given to define sin, and that by transgressions of definite commandments. Hence, Law (Commandments) cannot impart life, only condemnation and death (2 Cor. 3:4-9):Gal 3:21b-26 "…For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith." But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus."Believing in Christ Jesus is not believing that all His words recorded in Scripture are to be met as a condition for salvation. To believe in Him is to believe what HE HAS DONE, once for all, through the sacrifice of Himself.

Tell me, moondweller, Are Christians required to love in your theology? Or is it truly Faith alone?

In Biblical soteriology men are saved through faith in Christ alone. The saved then are exhorted to love the brethren and to be at peace with all men if possible (1 Thess. 4:9; Rom. 12:18

Because you know that St. Paul says in 1corinthians: If I have Faith enough to move mountains but don’t have love, I am nothing…

Yes, but Paul wasn’t at all talking in the context of salvation there. He was, however, exhorting the saved “by grace through faith…the gift of God, not as a result of works” (Eph. 2:8-9).

 

[bookgirl32]

I’ve taken a lot of time to study Rome’s theology.

Rome has a theology? Does London? Or maybe Budapest, I’d like to know what Budapest’s theology is.

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

 

[moondweller]

bmw8901:

You say only “those who know what kingdom he is referring to.” Where do you get this in the text? I think that the fact that Christ says “therefore” in the next paragraph clearly means he was continuing on with His message here. But let’s assue you’re right and stick to versus 21-23.

He says in versus 21: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. That’s action! Not knowing the right kingdom.

I meant knowing which kingdom Jesus was referring to is vital to understanding the context of Christ’s words in that particular passage.

You say they wanted to [go to] Heaven based on their works. Where do you get that? They weren’t doing anything to begin with. That’s why he is condemning them. You ignore the context of the whole chapter to make what you want fit. And I can’t find it anywhere.

I said nothing about heaven itself. Nor does Jesus. He does make reference to “the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus said that not everyone who says to Him “Lord, Lord,” will enter the “kingdom of heaven,” but only those who do the will of His Father who is in heaven (Matt. 7:21). He said that on that day when the entrance into the kingdom is opened, many will say that they prophesied in His name, cast out demons and performed miracles (Catholicism elevates these to the status of “saints”). I would say they were definitely “doing something,” wouldn’t you?

Now here’s the crux of that passage, BMW (and you completely avoided this point in my post). They were denied entrance into the kingdom because Jesus said “I never knew you.” Hence, entrance into the kingdom obviously is not based on works at all, but whether or not one is known by Christ. Astonishingly, one might do many great works during his life time in the name of Jesus, even miracles, only to hear the Words from Him, “I never knew you.” Works, then, is not the criterion by which one is known by Christ, and only those who are known by Him will enter the kingdom.

I don’t believe in works alone. I don’t think they can save me.

So you believe that works plus something can? Jesus, however, dismisses works altogether and reveals that it’s those who are known by Him that enter the kingdom.

I don’t know why you can’t understand this as I have said many times that Christ died for all of our sins and saved us.

Saved? Please define this word according to your understanding.

Lastly you said, “One that gives glory to God and Jesus Christ our Lord and not to men and their fine works? Could it be that you may have actually missed this glorious, Divine principle and the simplicity of it?” Again, I believe Christ saved us. And I am kind of put off by your condescension here. I am sorry I don’t understand the New Testament as you do. Are we not free to disagree and yet worship Christ anyway?

I simply asked you a question, BMW. According to the text in question, to be known by Christ is not based at all on works, therefore, it must be based on an entirely different, Divine principle. So I asked, is it possible you may have missed this Divine principle and the simplicity of it? :sad_yes::nope:

 

[PRmerger]

I Astonishingly, one might do many great works during his life time in the name of Jesus, even miracles, only to hear the Words from Him, “I never knew you.” Works, then, is not the criterion by which one is known by Christ, and only those who are known by Him will enter the kingdom.So you believe that works plus something can? Jesus, however, dismisses works altogether and reveals that it’s those who are known by Him that enter the kingdom.

Moon, do you think that the Good Samaritan knew Christ? Do you think that Jesus was dismissing the Good Samaritan’s works?

Remember, there was a question asked of Jesus that prompted His teaching the parable of the Good Samaritan. It involved a question about eternal life, right?

 

[paul_c]

He simply said “everything.” I think he was also referring to extra-biblical tradition as well. And most probably those words supposedly communicated by any of the Marian apparitions sanctioned by the CC.

I guess there is no point is speculating what he meant. We could just ask him.

As for the Words of Jesus, I do agree one is to believe them all, not only the one’s with which one might agree. However, it’s quite foolish to assume that Jesus was always talking in the context of salvation. That one’s salvation was contingent on “doing” everything He ever said - that would apply equally to the writers of the N.T. Epistles. Not everything said by them was said in the context of salvation.

So now, you not only decide what the NT authors write, but what their intent is?

No, not quickly at all. I’ve taken a lot of time to study Rome’s theology.This may surprise you, but what you present is a “Law based” soteriology (Matt. 22:36-40). But the irony is that salvation never was, nor ever will be, based on Law because the Law is not “of faith” (i.e., faith based, Gal. 3:12). The Epistles are replete with this Divine revelation. But instead it is revealed that the Law was given to define sin, and that by transgressions of definite commandments. Hence, Law (Commandments) cannot impart life, only condemnation and death (2 Cor. 3:4-9):Gal 3:21b-26 “…For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.” But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus."

If you have studied Catholic sotierology , then you know that no Catholic would claim that they are saved through works of the Jewish law. So this is a wasted discussion.

 

[paul_c]

Believing in Christ Jesus is not believing that all His words recorded in Scripture are to be met as a condition for salvation. To believe in Him is to believe what HE HAS DONE, once for all, through the sacrifice of Himself.

So you are claiming that you don’t actually need to follow what Jesus said to do to be saved? Don’t the Demons believe that Jesus died to save us from sin? They just don’t chose to follow Christ in what they DO…

In Biblical soteriology men are saved through faith in Christ alone. The saved then are exhorted to love the brethren and to be at peace with all men if possible (1 Thess. 4:9; Rom. 12:18Yes, but Paul wasn’t at all talking in the context of salvation there. He was, however, exhorting the saved “by grace through faith…the gift of God, not as a result of works” (Eph. 2:8-9).

You are over stating your case. Why don’t you read Roman’s in its entirety instead of cherry-picking selected quotes?

In romans 2: 5-8 , Paul says :
By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness

Notice, he is unequivocal in saying that God will judge us based on WORKS, those that persevere in good works will have eternal life. This is clearly talking about SALVATION.

He goes on to say that it doesn’t matter if you follow the Jewish law or not, because god has imprinted the natural law on everyone’s heart.

Chapter 3 discusses whether or not Jews have an advantage in the economy of salvation. He says that they do have an advantage since the message of Salvation came through the Jews, but that God justifies us outside the law, so that Gentiles to can be saved. Take out of context. Note, in this chapter, Paul also says (3: 24-26):They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed, through the forbearance of God–to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus
In this way, Paul says that when we were redeemed, the only sins were those previously committed.

Chapter 4 and 5 describe the fact that Faith in Jesus is required for Salvation and that works without Faith are insufficient. Unlike many Protestants claim, it does not say that Faith alone is sufficient for salvation. Instead, it says that works of the law, absent Faith in Jesus, are insufficient. In short, Paul is arguing that Faith in Jesus is critical to salvation but never does his say that this is all that is required. In fact. He has already said in Chapter 2, that good works are required for Salvation.

In chapter 6, He further clarifies to say that if you believe in Jesus, you must refrain from sin. This has often been misunderstood by Protestants to say that oru sin doesn’t count, but that is not at all what he says. in fact, he concludes Chapter 6 (22-23) with:

But now that you have been freed from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit that you have leads to sanctification, and its end is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Note, this statement lays waste to a few Protestants doctrines. first of all, it clearly says that if we sin we will not have eternal life (the wages of sin is death). Secondly, it clearly lays out the sequence necessary for salvation. we are Justified (feed from sin and become slaves of God, doing his will), that leads to sanctification, and sactification leads to eternal life.

I hope you will take the time to contemplate this. Read Romans yourself. You will see that Paul completely supports Catholic sotierology.