Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

[Porknpie]

I think he is not talking of all the people but from all the region . Not everyone went but the news went everywhere as in all of Judea. That is a big deal cause they had no Twitter/Facebook…But I agree there may be figurative speech to discern at all times, such as “eat my flesh”.

Benhur, so we can agree that when the bible says “all”, it doesn’t necessary mean “all”.

Regarding “eat my flesh” as being a figure of speech: no where does one read in the early apostolic Church a “protestant” like belief of a symbolic or figurative Eucharist. Wherever the apostles went, they established communities of faith that held to a literal understanding of Christ’s words reflected in John 6.

There are the words of St. Ignatius who was a disciple of St. John:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110)

Then there is Justin Martyr writing a few years after St. Ignatius.

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

More reading is available here.

And one can read of the words of Malachi foretelling of this pure sacrifice to come, world-wide, 24 hours a day…(frequently with incense at Mass).

11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.

PnP

 

[guanophore]

It says these gifts are given to all. How many of these gifts are evident in your local church?

Yes, I believe that these gifts are given to all, and this is what the CC teaches. While I do think that some have discovered and learned how to use their gifts for the common good, I also think there are far too many who have not figured out how to unwrap and use them. It was something I learned while sojourning among my separated brethren. What could you do to help the people in your parish unwrap and use their gifts?

It says the exact opposite that these gifts are not given to all.

The fullness of the HS, with all His gifts, is given to everyone (baptized and confirmed).

“Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6and there are varieties of activities, bu**t it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. **7To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” 1 Corinthians 12:4–7

The potential to manifest any and all gifts resides within each person. The gifts that are brought forth are manifested for the common good. So both things are true. Gifts are given to everyone, but the ones most needed will be brought forth by the HS. That being said, most Catholics are not shown how to identify and yield to the HS so that the gifts can be manifested. It is one reason that the Church is not as powerful as she could be.

---

 "persons who willfully and knowingly commit such an act die in a state of mortal sin"

There has been no change, Dalphon.

No

How can it not be a sin to commit murder?

The giving hope part and the Christian burial. They should have said it the first time.

I think you lost me here.

It is wrong to despair - it is an act of faithlessness in God. That applies to those like Judas, who despaired of hope, and also to their loved ones, who should not despair of hope even if their loved one did.

baltimore-catechism.com/lesson33.htm

PREVIOUS TEACHING

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TODAY

Nothing has changed, Dalphon.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

We cannot know if they did this act in a state of mortal sin, or not. We know that some commit suicide are not able to give full consent because they are impaired. Of course we should always pray for our loved ones.

They pray now. No church funeral before - that means your out. If you died in the state of mortal sin there was no hope. That was a constant teaching. Venial sin = purgatory. Mortal sin = hell. Nothing about "by ways and means known to Him" or "God is not bound by His own sacraments."

There is a difference between praying for a loved one who has passed, and not having a Christian burial. In the past, the sin of despair that precipitated suicide was considered to be a rejection of God’s saving grace (such as in the case of Judas). Of course no one can be saved who reject saving grace.

Now we understand that there are mitigating factors, that not everyone who commits suicide has rejected God’s grace.

You seem to be angry that the Church is able to explain the faith in a way that makes more sense today than when the Baltimore Catechism was written.

Do you disagree with these principles? I think you already agreed that God can save whoever He wants, however He likes. I think you will also agree that God is not bound by the sacraments. Why is this so annoying for you?

 

[guanophore]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.

Nothing has changed, Dalphon. Catholics, (contrary to popular belief) are not to at liberty to pick and choose which parts of the Apostolic faith they will accept, and which they will reject. The council of Florence anathemized a wide variety of heresies.. This is the duty of the Church - to protect the faithful by clarifying what is Truth, and what is not.

Any and all of the heresies listed there can cause a person to pass through the gates of hell.

1. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.

This has been the constant teaching of the Church, Dalphon. The Apostles taught that all those who are in unity with Christ are in unity with the authority He appointed. This is why those who separate themselves from His One Body, the Church, endanger their immortal souls.

I don’t hold on to it. I never believed it. I’m only showing what the church taught before Vatican II.
baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm
Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

What about this is unclear to you? Why do you reject the Teaching of Jesus?

" He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16–17

Denying this is basically calling Jesus a liar.

Well I really did not want to get into this. It’s a personal issue with a family member. You can contact me if you want to know about it.

I don’t want to press any personal issues, but it is certainly understandable that you and your family may have been very hurt by the Church’s position on suicide. I know how this is, and suicide is not the only way it can happen. Pastors used to tell the battered women that it was their Christian duty to go back to love, forgive, and stick with their husbands. Certainly a root of bitterness can shoot up and be hard to get out.

 

[Dalphon]

Do you think this has changed? This is the reason that the Church accepts valid baptisms administered in any other ecclesial community. Modern Protestants can’t be charged with the sin of separation, since they have grown up apart from the unity of the One Body. And the last phrase is referring to excommunication.

This has not changed, Dalphon. Everyone, by the time they get to heaven, will have Catholic faith. They may not have realized it during this life, and they may not be a visible member of the earthly CC, but there is only One Body, and all who are saved are members of it.

I think what you are seeing is that our understanding of the TEachings has changed over time. But the Apostles taught that Christ has One Body, the Church. No one is saved outside of it.

I didn’t write this but it expresses my viewpoint very clearly.

“Those who disagree with the Church’s interpretation of the teaching “outside the Church there is no salvation” claim that the Church has contradicted itself in its teachings on faith and morals. They say that the medieval Church statements indicate that no person could possibly be saved unless a visible member of the Catholic Church on earth, and that this was the meaning intended by the Popes of the time, who made no “lenient statements” on the matter. People like Father Leonard Feeney and some traditionalists believe their understanding of the original doctrine to be correct and that, if the Church were now to teach that the salvation of non-Catholics is possible, it would contradict its earlier teaching, and would violate the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility. Some sedevacantists hold that the Second Vatican Council did in fact defect from the Church’s infallible teaching, and that what is today generally recognized as the Catholic Church is a counterfeit, which therefore is not infallible.”

This has not changed, either. What has changed is that we understand depression and other mental illnesses better, so we realize that not all those who commit suicide have committed the mortal sin. A mortal sin has conditions, and those conditions have not changed.

The difference is this: before V2 the families of those who committed suicide or lost an infant were left in despair. If only one side of the coin was presented, that’s not the whole truth. That could be considered deception or manipulation if they knew about it and didn’t mention it. If they didn’t know about it then they didn’t have the full counsel of God for 1963 years

This has not changed either, Dalphon. This is a discipline of the Church, and Catholics are bound to obey the leaders Jesus has appointed for us. What has changed is how the fast is implemented. It is still considered a mortal sin to disobey.

It doesn’t make sense. Once a year when I renew my baptismal vows I have to denounce satan and all his ways but I have to sit under the authority of those who participate in deeds of darkness.

How has this changed? We still do not know what God does with unbaptized children. The Church no longer teaches limbo as a way to conceptualize it, but since God has made it clear that all who are born into the human race are under a death sentence, and that baptism saves…we entrust their souls to a faithful creator.

We didn’t entrust them to a faithful creator before.

It does not seem like you have been frequenting Catholic environments, since these readings are part of the liturgy. Apparently you have not encountered the Charismatic Renewal either, or you would never make such a false statement.

I went to many Catholic healing service and Catholic charismatic groups. It’s not something that is taught or has been taught to the whole church all the time. A very small percentage of Catholics know about it. If you factor in all Catholics from previous centuries it’s an even smaller percentage.

Well, there have been Catholics that have made mistakes, and it is clear you have lost a lot of trust over it.

Not mistakes - crimes.

This is very good news, because it means if you can put the principles above personalities, you will be able to find your way back to the fullness of the faith. It is hard to forgive people who have done wrong to us, but we cannot allow our resentments to keep us away from Christ, and the unity He desires for us. Perhaps there is a part of your heart that knows this, which is why you are on CAF?

Nobody wronged me.

I agree with you that it is not within the power of man to change what God has established. Christians chose to keep the Lord’s day. If you prefer, we don’t need to go into that “routine”. SUffice to say that Jesus is our Sabbath rest, and He is the fulfillment of the Sabbath. We are called to enter into His rest.

That’s fine but when I go to the Old Testament and see that what I’ve been taught is not exactly the same as the original commandments, I feel someone should have said something about that like - “we revised the commandments and here’s why.”

I would say it applies even MORE to leaders. But the evildoing of a leader does not set aside the authority that God has appointed.

Evil leaders keep the Church from it’s full potential. God does not bless evildoers. Their influence spreads like black ink in a swimming pool.

Perhaps you are wounded because of wrongdoing by a leader, and you are still angry because there was no justice. The wrongdoer was not put away as should have been done.

I was not wronged or wounded by any member of the Church.

No, Jesus was teaching a principle, and at the end of His ministry, He transferred the Seat of Moses to His Apostles. He knew they were not going to be perfect, either.

Perfect no - but criminals? That’s OK?

 

[MaryT777]

Dalphon,

Not one Catholic has said that criminal behavior is acceptable in the Catholic Church.

If you could quit beating around the bush and hinting at what the real problem and beef you have is with the Catholic Church is and state it directly then perhaps we can address that issue.

Until then, we’ll continue this song and dance…

My own thought is if you were really that happy in the Church where you currently worship you wouldn’t be spending so much time here complaining about the Catholic Church.
That’s just my own personal opinion.

Mary.

 

[Dalphon]

Nothing has changed, Dalphon. Catholics, (contrary to popular belief) are not to at liberty to pick and choose which parts of the Apostolic faith they will accept, and which they will reject. The council of Florence anathemized a wide variety of heresies.. This is the duty of the Church - to protect the faithful by clarifying what is Truth, and what is not.

Any and all of the heresies listed there can cause a person to pass through the gates of hell.

All non-Catholics had no hope of salvation - now they do. If the Church always had the full council of God they should have said “non-Catholics too can achieve salvation” at the Council of Florence in 1438.

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

What about this is unclear to you? Why do you reject the Teaching of Jesus?

" He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16–17

Denying this is basically calling Jesus a liar.

I don’t remember calling Jesus a liar.
Babies are innocent. Why should they be kept away from God just because someone wan’t there to baptize them?

I don’t want to press any personal issues, but it is certainly understandable that you and your family may have been very hurt by the Church’s position on suicide. I know how this is, and suicide is not the only way it can happen. Pastors used to tell the battered women that it was their Christian duty to go back to love, forgive, and stick with their husbands. Certainly a root of bitterness can shoot up and be hard to get out.

I have no bitterness about that.

 

[Denise1957]

Dalphon,

Not one Catholic has said that criminal behavior is acceptable in the Catholic Church.

If you could quit beating around the bush and hinting at what the real problem and beef you have is with the Catholic Church is and state it directly then perhaps we can address that issue.

Until then, we’ll continue this song and dance…

My own thought is if you were really that happy in the Church where you currently worship you wouldn’t be spending so much time here complaining about the Catholic Church.
That’s just my own personal opinion.

Mary.

I very much agree that Dalphon needs to quit beating around the bush and just state directly what the problem is. He goes on and on about the crimes that Church leaders have committed, and how they are evildoers, but doesn’t say at all what those “crimes” are. It quite rediculous, and it seems pointless to go on debating him, which has already been pointed out by some here, and now I see why.

 

[Dalphon]

Dalphon,

Not one Catholic has said that criminal behavior is acceptable in the Catholic Church.

If you could quit beating around the bush and hinting at what the real problem and beef you have is with the Catholic Church is and state it directly then perhaps we can address that issue.

Until then, we’ll continue this song and dance…

My own thought is if you were really that happy in the Church where you currently worship you wouldn’t be spending so much time here complaining about the Catholic Church.
That’s just my own personal opinion.

Mary.

The facts that I spend so much time on here talking to people I don’t know concerns me too. I’m outta here.

 

[Denise1957]

Evil leaders keep the Church from it’s full potential. God does not bless evildoers. Their influence spreads like black ink in a swimming pool.

I can see that you have extreme animosity for the Catholic Church. And you don’t pay much attention to anything that the Catholics here are trying to explain to you. Perhaps you’d be better off participating on a Protestant forum, rather than a Catholic one.

 

[Nanotwerp]

The facts that I spend so much time on here talking to people I don’t know concerns me too. I’m outta here.

Good riddance. Your arguments, though I could understand them at first, started becoming repetitive. To be honest, I have a feeling you’re not sincere, but I may be wrong. Have a nice life.

 

[Tomyris]

I very much agree that Dalphon needs to quit beating around the bush and just state directly what the problem is. He goes on and on about the crimes that Church leaders have committed, and how they are evildoers, but doesn’t say at all what those “crimes” are. It quite rediculous, and it seems pointless to go on debating him, which has already been pointed out by some here, and now I see why.

From what I see, his issues are pastoral in nature and really do not belong getting discussed on this forum, particularly with the lack of gentleness and compassion exhibited by the strident. Allow me to encourage us to get away from him, and whatever problems he has, being the subject of this thread, and instead pursue something (read anything) of interest to ahem change the subject and allow the thread to end in something resembling one looked back on with some measure of contentment.

So, says the Protestant termagant, must you ALWAYS obey your leaders? When they lead you into sin? Since they tell you what is sin, it seems to me that you are up a creek. The Protestant looks back at those who found themselves torn between obeying God and the church. A terrible choice forced by terrible rulers at the time.

“Ja, we were only following orders,” has been said.

A nice, gentle, temperate segue into …what? That is up to you.

 

[benhur]

“Death is a consequence of sin?” says the Muslim.
Muslim continues, “It gets curiouser and curiouser, these Christians who claim all have sinned yet Jesus didn’t.”

Muslim then asks you, “So how is it that you say that your Jesus…died. Wouldn’t that mean it was a consequence of the fact that he sinned?”

He continues, “Maybe your Jesus didn’t really die, benhur. He just swooned. Because only sinners die.”

Now you’re in an even deeper predicament, “Christian evangelist to the Muslims benhur”

That is the beauty of language and the human heart. Like a double edged sword. It can be understood (or misunderstood) this way or that way, depending on the heart and its intent.

 

[Tomyris]

“Death is a consequence of sin?” says the Muslim.
Muslim continues, “It gets curiouser and curiouser, these Christians who claim all have sinned yet Jesus didn’t.”

Muslim then asks you, “So how is it that you say that your Jesus…died. Wouldn’t that mean it was a consequence of the fact that he sinned?”

He continues, “Maybe your Jesus didn’t really die, benhur. He just swooned. Because only sinners die.”

Now you’re in an even deeper predicament, “Christian evangelist to the Muslims benhur”

No, no, say I, He willingly died so that you and I do not need to die an eternal death. You could say His death is a consequence of your sin, but He died to destroy death. And He did destroy death. He used death to destroy death.

 

[adrift]

No, no, say I, He willingly died so that you and I do not need to die an eternal death. You could say His death is a consequence of your sin, but He died to destroy death. And He did destroy death. He used death to destroy death.

John 1:29
The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

1 Peter 2:24
and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

 

[guanophore]

(With apologies for continuing to discuss suicide below…)

Presumably the relaxation of the discipline regarding burial rites for suicides is due to the recognition that ‘full knowledge’ and ‘complete consent’ are unlikely to be found in those troubled individuals who feel so desperate as to be unable to continue in this life. The fearful, despairing suicide of the modern world is a far cry from the proud Roman falling on his sword etc. It is far easier, and appropriate, to commend the former to the mercy of God within the bosom of the Church.

I fear that Dalphon has never been taught the difference between a disciple, pastoral guidance, and the doctrines of the Church.

The difference is this: before V2 the families of those who committed suicide or lost an infant were left in despair. If only one side of the coin was presented, that’s not the whole truth. That could be considered deception or manipulation if they knew about it and didn’t mention it. If they didn’t know about it then they didn’t have the full counsel of God for 1963 years.

I don’t doubt that some people fall into despair. It is wrong to do so, but it is a normal human reaction to grieve for our lost loved ones. Some people are not taught that Christians are not to grieve like those who have no hope. This is a reflection of poor spiritual formation.

Of course, the Church does not cause or promote despair, since it is a sin.

As to your last point, it does not make any sense. The teaching of the Church did not change, nor has there been a shortage of the whole counsel of God. What has changed is our knowledge and understanding of psychology and mental illness.

It’s not a tradition. It’s a discipline.

I am glad you are learning those distinctions!

That’s Paul’s advice to the Corinthian church. A man had his father’s wife and it was tolerated.
He’s saying don’t tolerate immoral behavior.

That was not “advice” but a directive from an Apostle. The successors of the Apostles are the Bishops. Those are the ones that are given the authority by Christ to manage the discipline in the Church. That being said, of course as a member of the Church you have the right to confront immorality, and bring it to the attention of the bishop. Running away does not solve the problem.

Well he’s not saying that. He’s saying expel the immoral person. If they expelled the immoral person or people then the problem and any future problem of that kind will not happen again. But if you let that problem conti nue over a period of 7 decades then you are saying “We tolerate that here.” In that case I’m not sticking around.

This sheds a lot of light on your decision, Dalphon. I will pray that God will heal you of your hurt and resentment.

 

[guanophore]

Because I question the ability of those in heaven to hear and see all things on earth, as in prayers to them, I am derided by saying I must think them all deaf and dumb, and I lack understanding ?

No, I am talking about your apparent lack of understanding of God’s plan for humanity. We are not destined to become God, but to partake of His divine nature. No one is suggesting that the saints become omniscient or omnipotent. They hear and know whatever God wants them to hear and know. They become partakers of the divine nature by grace.

No I meant being Godlike with His qualities of being all hearing and all seeing as in everywhere present, as in hearing prayers from down on Earth.

This is where your ignorance lies, Ben. One must not be “godlike” to hear what God wants them to hear in a supernatural way.

Paul saw a vision of a man from Macedonia telling him “come over here and help us”. This is because God allowed this supernatural communication to occur.

Twist and turn . On one hand when scripture says all have sinned you say well it is just an expression with exceptions, as in Mary.

Actually, ,I don’t. I say that Protestants are taking the passage out of context. If you read the passage where it came from it is clear that it is a comparison between the righteous and the unrighteous. Anyway, what you are pointing out is the difference between Sola Scriptura and reading the scriptures in the light of the Apostolic faith. When we read scripture through the faith of those who penned it, we reach different conclusions than those who read it separated from this faith.

And when the Transfiguration occurs for validation of the Messiah, it means we too can talk to the saints beyond, even bring them up in visions (Mary again). OK but it is a stretch.

Do you think that Jesus needed to have this little chat? He had it for the sake of the Apostles, and those who follow in faith. It is for our instruction. The passage makes it clear that the Saints are able to converse with those in this life, and that they are aware of what is happening here on earth.

As far as “bring them up in visions” I am not sure what you are talking about. Christians should not be “bringing up visions” of any kind. We can receive a vision from God, but we are not to seek them, or try to manufacture them.

Don’t forget these: “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh” Exodus 7:1 and Psalm 82:1 says, “God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the gods”.

Not sure how this is relevant. Are you admitting that you do understand that we are partakers of the divine nature?

 

[guanophore]

If you read on he says “Put away the evil one from among yourselves.”
He also says their corruption will spread. If they’re not obedient to this teaching I’m not staying.

So Dalphon…how did you obey this Apostolic command? What did you do to address the situation? How does another person’s disobedience justify yours?

No just common sense and a conscience. Like that old song says "He can't even run his own life, I'll be damned if he'll run mine."

Such a statement indicates that you were not ready to take responsibility for your own faith. It is unlikely that you were accepting of the authority under which you were baptized.

**

When they don’t change they’re saying “we accept this here.” **

When did you change what you were saying? It doesn’t sound like you were very accepting…but, maybe you were.

Dalphon:

The people who stay are accomplices. Then they say “We’re OK. People are still coming.”

I have not met any people like this. Were you like this? Were you an accomplice to immorality?

When people leave they say “Gee, I wonder what the problem is?”

Actually, I think it is one of the best ways to avoid taking responsibility for anything. A person who really is interested in confronting problems does not leave.

That’s not related to the discussion. You can contact me for that. But I think the main reason is what has already been said: corrupt leadership.

Many Catholics are still at a very childlike state in their faith. They are so dependent upon the leadership to function in the faith, that if there is a problem in the leadership they fall away, or fall apart.

 

[benhur]

]No, I am talking about your apparent lack of understanding of God’s plan for humanity.

No I think you know we are in agreement on what the plan is , Godlike means exactly what you purport . We are not God but become Godlike, partakers of His nature, “We shall be like him” scripture says.

No one is suggesting that the saints become omniscient or omnipotent.

Omnipotent no, for I did not say that . I said your view suggests saints have more omniscience and ability to see as in omnipresence just as the Paraclete sees us and hears us. I say this because that is the practice of folks praying to saints, as if they were ever present and ever hearing to them .Yes, I will limit omnipresence and knowing to that(prayers/intercession) and that only for this conversation.

They become partakers of the divine nature by grace. They hear and know whatever God wants them to hear and know.

You say the same thing I just said. They have enough omnipresence and omniscience to hear our prayers from all around the world and simultaneously, just as the Paraclete. Yes, I understand you say they get this “gift” of sharing in this particular aspect of His divine nature. We don’t need to quibble in semantics. I just differ that God has bestowed that upon the departed in the fashion that it is practiced.

This is where your ignorance lies, Ben. One must not be “godlike” to hear what God wants them to hear in a supernatural way.

Did not know we were not made in His image. Did not know gifts of the spirit were not God like or make us God like. No, I am not ignorant for we both are on the same page

Paul saw a vision of a man from Macedonia telling him “come over here and help us”. This is because God allowed this supernatural communication to occur.

Yes, via the Holy Spirit and not a departed saint. Actually this is a gift of knowledge that is practiced and still exists today amongst some believers. I would totally agree that this is the closest and best possible argument one could make as to the how, or the "mechanics’’ of heavenly saints being able to “hear/see” us. On that we are totally on the same page. I just disagree as to the why, or the need.

Actually, ,I don’t. I say that Protestants are taking the passage out of context. If you read the passage where it came from it is clear that it is a comparison between the righteous and the unrighteous.

Not sure, but thought the CC teaches all is all except Mary (I know Augustine said that)

Anyway, what you are pointing out is the difference between Sola Scriptura and reading the scriptures in the light of the Apostolic faith

Kind of nonsensical for scripture is apostolic faith.

When we read scripture through the faith of those who penned it, we reach different conclusions than those who read it separated from this faith.

Again nonsensical. Sorry when I read John I don not read it thru the eyes of say Luther, but strive to read it thru the eyes of John as inspired by the Holy Ghost, and that I may also see it as the Holy Ghost meant it,thru His eyes. That is not to say that I do not covet/cherish shared illuminations from any forefather, even present day brothers. …But I know what you mean and understand your sense. You mean to understand it as you have received from others in the faith and not apart from it. You mean to understand it not apart from CC teaching.

Do you think that Jesus needed to have this little chat? He had it for the sake of the Apostles, and those who follow in faith. It is for our instruction.

Totally agree. Now just what instruction or what do we gleen from it ?

The passage makes it clear that the Saints are able to converse with those in this life, and that they are aware of what is happening here on earth.

This is where we differ, on the why. First of all the apostles did not converse with the departed saints.Moses/Elijah conversed with Jesus, and that a glorified Jesus while the apostles slept and were just awakening. They did not speak to the apostles. The *instruction *is primarily that God’s glory resided in flesh, the incarnate Son of God. The flesh veiled His glory , but that which is within (and within us) is pure Light and was revealed outwardly temporarily at the transfiguration. Clearly the *instruction *was , “This is my beloved Son, hear Him”. It is also to show the reliability of “judaism”, of the OT, of the continuance of the use of “prophets” for pointing to the “Son”,as Moses had and Elijah .Again also to show, “this is the one”,for many thought the two prophets would “accompany” the Messiah… Don’t know of any early father saying this shows that Jesus gifts departed saints to hear and see us, therefor to pray to them also for intercession… The purpose of intercession is not to add to a grace bank so that God will use and spend it on our behalf. It is for our benefit to see that He is God and a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him, for building up the faith and the Body, the Body on earth still in conflict. The departed do not need to build up their faith or grow or be encouraged in a conflict (answered prayer does encourage both recipient and intercessor , on earth). That is not say the departed do not pray before the throne (even the rich man “prayed’’ in hell to send messengers to his brothers). But what we see in scripture ,the prayers are of a general knowledge that also may have been known while still on earth. Like the rich man knew his brothers were not “righteous” and were also destined for hell because they were like him before he died, or the saints know Jesus is to return triumphantly to earth-part of eucharisting on earth-,but they pray, " please hurry up Lord” .

 

[guanophore]

No I think you know we are in agreement on what the plan is , Godlike means exactly what you purport . We are not God but become Godlike, partakers of His nature, “We shall be like him” scripture says. Omnipotent no, for I did not say that .

Ok, good. Thanks for clarifying. I got thrown off by your posts:

Because I question the ability of those in heaven to hear and see all things on earth, as in prayers to them,

**No I meant being Godlike with His qualities of being all hearing and all seeing ** as in everywhere present, as in hearing prayers from down on Earth.

Being partakers of the divine nature just means we can do things that His grace enables us to do,not that we become omnipotent or omniscient.

I said your view suggests saints have more omniscience and ability to see as in omnipresence just as the Paraclete sees us and hears us.

I guess you just lost me here. If I ask you to pray for me, I don’t see how that give you the impression I think you are omniscient or omnipotent. Catholics don’t believe that those who die in the Lord “lose” anything of their relationship with Him, or with us. Nothing can separate us from the love of God, and there is even less (the world, the flesh, and the devil) separating our brothers and sisters from us.

 I say this because that is the practice of folks praying to saints, as if they were ever present and ever hearing to them .

I will stipulate that certain assumptions are made. If I ask you to pray for me, I have no way of knowing that you will actually do this, even if you say you will. It is an act of faith.

Allowing the saints to hear prayers does not make them onniscient or omnipresent. THEY are not everywhere! Nor can they hear “everything” as God does. They are not privy to every one’s thoughts, or even necessarily what the devil and his minions are doing.

What we have are examples of those who have gone before us in the faith having communication with those of us who remain, so we have confidence that we can ask for their prayers.

Yes, I understand you say they get this “gift” of sharing in this particular aspect of His divine nature. We don’t need to quibble in semantics. I just differ that God has bestowed that upon the departed in the fashion that it is practiced.

I don’t think that Catholics believe what you are asserting, either. If they do, then they have not been very well catechized.

Did not know we were not made in His image. Did not know gifts of the spirit were not God like or make us God like. No, I am not ignorant for we both are on the same page

Perhaps more so than I thought at first, but your ideas about the saints being omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent is a significant departure from the Apostolic faith.

Yes, via the Holy Spirit and not a departed saint. Actually this is a gift of knowledge that is practiced and still exists today amongst some believers.

Yes. Any communication is facilitated only through the Holy Spirit. And yes, I would say that the gifts of the Spirit exists today among all believers, but that most have not learned how to unwrap it and put it to use.

I would totally agree that this is the closest and best possible argument one could make as to the how, or the "mechanics’’ of heavenly saints being able to “hear/see” us. On that we are totally on the same page. I just disagree as to the why, or the need.

I think sometimes that one of the unfortunate effects of the Reformation was to leave many Christians with a readers digest (abbreviated) version of the faith. There is so much richness that has been lost, because people don’t see the “need”. But James tells us that the effectual fervent prayers of the righteous have great power in it’s effects, and when did we not have a need for that?

[/QUOTE]

 

[guanophore]

David must have been wrong when he penned, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." but there is hope atheists for he also wrote, “Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.”
Psalm 51…and besides the provided cleansing is this : “My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
*How precious are your thoughts about me, O God. *They cannot be numbered!I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.” Psalm 139…oops sorry , just saw moderators warning back to topic

These verses are excellent support for the Apostolic teaching on the nature of man. The Apostles taught that we are made in the image and likeness of God, but that this image was wounded/marred by original sin, so that we cannot now walk in the Garden with God as He intended. He created us for Himself, though, and in His love, has sacrificed Himself to restore us to his grace.

Not sure, but thought the CC teaches all is all except Mary

Yes, we do believe that Mary was conceived without original sin.It is also said that John the Baptist came from the womb already cleansed, as he was filled with the Spirit while still unborn. But righteous means that one walks by grace, through faith before God, such as Enoch:

24 Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.Genesis 5:24–25

In the same way, the parents of John the Baptist:

5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Luke 1:5–7

1 Blessed are those whose way is blameless,
who walk in the law of the LORD! 2 Blessed are those who keep his testimonies,
who seek him with their whole heart, 3 who also do no wrong,
but walk in his ways! Psalm 119:1–4

Does Scripture contradict itself, or could it be that Paul was not using this term inclusive of all humanity? Could he have been taking a quote from the OT to illustrate that Jews had no advantage over Gentiles when it came to walking by faith?

Jews, as well as Gentiles, can be faithless. “Fall short of the glory of God” is the state of man when he is outside of grace through faith. Because he has not the life of grace in him, he is not properly orientated towards his supernatural end, is deprived of the right to heaven that sanctifying grace confers, and consequently does not have these divine perfections which supernatural life gives him.

The most solid refutation of this interpretation comes from within the text itself, where in Psalm 14, from which Paul is quoting, it states “the fool has said in his heart, there is no God”. This is the statement of the faithless. After describing the state of the faithless, the Psalmist continues:

  for God is with the generation of **the righteous.**
   6 You would confound the plans of the poor,
  but the LORD is his refuge. (Ps. 14).

So I would say that most evangelicals have failed to understand the context of the verse, and that clearly there are “righteous” that do not fall short of God’s plan. Those that walk with God are blameless in His sight.