P
paul_c
Guest
Ralph, if you were a Catholic for 43 years, why don’t you know any of this?Can I assume that the doctrine of the “communion of saints” is Roman catholic driven? Ralph
Ralph, if you were a Catholic for 43 years, why don’t you know any of this?Can I assume that the doctrine of the “communion of saints” is Roman catholic driven? Ralph
The Communion of Saints is a truth of faith. It consists in an intimate union and in a mutual influence among the members of the Church Militant, Church Suffering, and Church Triumphant (the Church on earth, in Purgatory, and in heaven). This union and participation of the proper goods of the Church is founded chiefly on the truth of the Mystical Body of Christ, through which all men in the large sense belong to Christ in virtue of the Incarnation and the Redemption; in the strict sense they are but one thing in Christ, as members of a sole organism, by force of baptism, and, therefore, of faith and charity. In this mystical organism, which is the Church, Christ the Head injects the supernatural grace by means of the Holy Spirit, who is like the soul. United to Christ, the faithful are united among themselve; and this union is reinforced by the sacraments, channels of that grace which is the participation of the divine nature and the cause of the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in each sanctified soul. The gospel image of the vine (Christ) and the tendrils (Christians), the doctrine developed by St. Paul (1 Corinthians, Collosians, Ephesians, Romans) about the Mystical Body and the Church, are a living expression of the dogma of the Communion of Saints.Can I assume that the doctrine of the “communion of saints” is Roman catholic driven? Ralph
Another most excellent question which will probably go unanswered!Ralph, if you were a Catholic for 43 years, why don’t you know any of this?
So the “communion of saints” is a Roman catholic doctrine and therefor not scriptural, something added for again. RalphThe Communion of Saints is a truth of faith. It consists in an intimate union and in a mutual influence among the members of the Church Militant, Church Suffering, and Church Triumphant (the Church on earth, in Purgatory, and in heaven). This union and participation of the proper goods of the Church is founded chiefly on the truth of the Mystical Body of Christ, through which all men in the large sense belong to Christ in virtue of the Incarnation and the Redemption; in the strict sense they are but one thing in Christ, as members of a sole organism, by force of baptism, and, therefore, of faith and charity. In this mystical organism, which is the Church, Christ the Head injects the supernatural grace by means of the Holy Spirit, who is like the soul. United to Christ, the faithful are united among themselve; and this union is reinforced by the sacraments, channels of that grace which is the participation of the divine nature and the cause of the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in each sanctified soul. The gospel image of the vine (Christ) and the tendrils (Christians), the doctrine developed by St. Paul (1 Corinthians, Collosians, Ephesians, Romans) about the Mystical Body and the Church, are a living expression of the dogma of the Communion of Saints.
Ralph, how could you possibly ask a question like this if you were a Catholic for 43 years as you claim? Isn’t the truth, that you were never a Catholic as you claim because these are not complex doctrines. My 8th great students (at least those that were paying attention) could easily explain that the members of the church work together to help each other achieve salvation. Do you think that helping each other achieve salvation is non-scriptural?So the “communion of saints” is a Roman catholic doctrine and therefor not scriptural, something added for again. Ralph
Ralphy, you really need to read your bible more often and with greater comprehension:So the “communion of saints” is a Roman catholic doctrine and therefor not scriptural, something added for again. Ralph

When I attended the Roman catholic church from childhood, I was told that the Roman catholic was the right church, every other church was wrong. I accepted all that I was taught and questioned nothing. If the priest was at fault, one was not to say anything to him or about him. Many things that were done in the church were (and still are) very “religious” and done a certain way, with a lot of pomp and ceremony. I even served on the altar as an altar boy. I was safe and pretty sure of going to heaven,of course that is why I never questioned anything. The bible was only exposed on the altar and no catholic that I know of ever read the bible or even had one at home. The catechism was the book for sunday school, it indoctrinated a person into the teaching of the catholic church, which would keep one from reading the bible (if one had one). I look at it now as a brain washing system, ingraining one into a certain “system” as a young boy. That system stayed with me until I was 43, at that time I went to a bible study where I could see for myself in Gods word what was going on. It disturbed me that I didn’t know a thing about the real meaning of salvation and how to obtain eternal life in heaven, scary, after the fact, that I would have gone to hell the way I was going, because I had “religion”, but did not have Christ as my Savior. I did come out of that “system” and now I serve the Lord as He leads me. I am on the internet to hopefully inject some light into this religious system, as the Holy Spirit directs me. When I reach the point on the internet: Mark 6:10-11, then I will depart. Ralph43 years, ralphy? Really? paul c really has a point here.
I’ve been a Catholic for 2. Before that, I knew very little. Why is it I know all these things and more, already? I mean, I’m not suggesting that you should have accepted everything you learned in 43 years…but it seems painfully obvious that either you learned very little, if anything, in those 43 years, in which case I would conclude you did not practice your faith that much…
or you do know it all, and are just feigning ignorance, creating questions about basic Catholic teaching, so that when you get the answer, you pick your pre-rehearsed cut-and-paste rebuttal.
Either way, it is painfully clear that you’ve been seduced by anti-Catholic rhetoric, and that you couldn’t care LESS about what our answers are. Not one iota do you care.
I have a question for you…
If you were to ask us what aspect of our Christian faith is most important to us, and what aspect of our faith does the Catholic Church engrain within us the most…
and if our answers to both of those questions was this: Our relationship with Jesus Christ…
what would your response to that be? (hint: that IS what our answer would be)
God Bless
Sounds like 43 years of spiritual confusion for you, ralphy. And I sympathize with your frustration with the Christian upbringing you endured for all those years.When I attended the Roman catholic church from childhood, I was told that the Roman catholic was the right church, every other church was wrong. I accepted all that I was taught and questioned nothing. If the priest was at fault, one was not to say anything to him or about him. Many things that were done in the church were (and still are) very “religious” and done a certain way, with a lot of pomp and ceremony. I even served on the altar as an altar boy. I was safe and pretty sure of going to heaven,of course that is why I never questioned anything. The bible was only exposed on the altar and no catholic that I know of ever read the bible or even had one at home. The catechism was the book for sunday school, it indoctrinated a person into the teaching of the catholic church, which would keep one from reading the bible (if one had one). I look at it now as a brain washing system, ingraining one into a certain “system” as a young boy. That system stayed with me until I was 43, at that time I went to a bible study where I could see for myself in Gods word what was going on. It disturbed me that I didn’t know a thing about the real meaning of salvation and how to obtain eternal life in heaven, scary, after the fact, that I would have gone to hell the way I was going, because I had “religion”, but did not have Christ as my Savior. I did come out of that “system” and now I serve the Lord as He leads me. I am on the internet to hopefully inject some light into this religious system, as the Holy Spirit directs me. When I reach the point on the internet: Mark 6:10-11, then I will depart. Ralph
Wrong again.So the “communion of saints” is a Roman catholic doctrine and therefor not scriptural, something added for again. Ralph
“Our Lady, whose co-redemptive dignity has been recognized by the church”. I have a problem with statements like this, which are made up by the"church", and are not backed up by scripture. This is another “gospel”, God will not tolerate this type of teaching. RalphWrong again.
Try and grasp these theological points Ralphy. All the faithful who are openly and fully of the Church are, by vocation, members of Christ the Redeemer. They should, by vocation, take upon themselves the burden of salvation of all men, known or unknown, now journeying with them on this planet towards eternity. Not only that, they should help to bear the sufferings of those in Purgatory, who still need their prayers. It is by vocation that the Church prays for the salvation of the world. But it is clear that the faithful of the Church, and the whole Church on earth, will not be able to support this unless interiorly sustained by the cross of Christ which, in one instant of time whose efficacy always remains present, bore upon its sole self the weight of all the sins of all nations and all ages.
But if all the children of the Church are called to be co-redemptive members, if they are all co-redeemers in respect of their state and virtually, only those who are fully faithful, those who follow their vocation to the end and live only that Christ may live in them, are co-redeemers effectively and actually. These are noble men, useful to all Christendom; they avail for the betterment of mankind, for the glory of God, and the consolation of all men. These are they on whom the Holy Church relies, and if they did not exist in Christendom, Christendom would not survive for an hour. Their mere existence, the sole fact that they are, is something more precious and more useful than all the activity in the world. For these are at the heart of the Church. Such are the Saints, filled with the apostolic spirit, which is nothing other than the spirit of Christ. Such, above all, was Our Lady, whose co-redemptive dignity has been recognized by the Church.
Twenty centuries after Christ the Church, the great Church, is still no more than a little flock. She alone is chosen, not the rest of the world; but chosen for the redemption of the rest of the world. Her way of being saved in Christ is to save others in Christ. And thus the whole immense human multitude may be divided into two parts: those whom Christ’s action reaches through the hierarchy and who become redemptive members, savior members, by vocation: and those whom He reaches only by action from a distance, and who, in part, on account of the prayers and sufferings of the others, can be members redeemed, members saved. When they approach the Church, and enter the zone ofthe indirect action of the hierarchy, they too may begin to have a part in redeeming the world.
This is a glorious thing for the Church, but a difficult vocation for Christians. The Church exults in the witness that she has to bear, and the Christian exults in the Church. She knows it to be her strict duty to confess the holy reality of the privileges she has received. The divine Liberty gives as It pleases. But it is in a frail vessel, as St. Paul says, that every faithful soul bears grace.
just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean God doesn’t ralphy ,unless you think that you are God…“Our Lady, whose co-redemptive dignity has been recognized by the church”. I have a problem with statements like this, which are made up by the"church", and are not backed up by scripture. This is another “gospel”, God will not tolerate this type of teaching. Ralph
Read Eph 2:8,9 to find out about salvation. Ralphjust because you don’t like it doesn’t mean God doesn’t ralphy ,unless you think that you are God…
ralphy how does mankind’s salvation come about? does come by that which is purely spritual or that which is purely pysical? or by both?
so then you believe mankind"s salvation came about by that which is only spiritual…then you truly do not believe in Christ Jesus…for He is spiritual and physical. and He obtained our salvation by a PHYSICAL act,not a purely spiritual act.Read Eph 2:8,9 to find out about salvation. Ralph
Try reading this:“Our Lady, whose co-redemptive dignity has been recognized by the church”. I have a problem with statements like this, which are made up by the"church", and are not backed up by scripture. This is another “gospel”, God will not tolerate this type of teaching. Ralph
Jesus shed His blood on the cross of Calvary for all mankind," without the shedding of there is no remission of sin". You asked me how we get saved, again Eph2:8,9. Ralphso then you believe mankind"s salvation came about by that which is only spiritual…then you truly do not believe in Christ Jesus…for He is spiritual and physical. and He obtained our salvation by a PHYSICAL act,not a purely spiritual act.
EisogesisJesus shed His blood on the cross of Calvary for all mankind," without the shedding of there is no remission of sin". You asked me how we get saved, again Eph2:8,9. Ralph
read the question ralphy…“how does mankind’s salvation come about?” now you change your tune and say it comes about by a purely phsical act.Jesus shed His blood on the cross of Calvary for all mankind," without the shedding of there is no remission of sin". You asked me how we get saved, again Eph2:8,9. Ralph