N
ntisawesome
Guest
If I were to pick one thread that concisely demonstrated the nice things that happen at this forum, this would be it.
- Status
M
MrsHall
Guest
I don’t have time to read all the responses to your inquiry, so please do forgive me if I happen to repeat what’s already been said.
Before our reception into the Catholic Church, we were plagued with doubts and questions about if we were doing the right thing or not. It lasted a couple of years. However, from that day when we first received the Eucharist, there has been nothing but true peace of soul. I am not sure whether you are a lapsed Catholic or considering the Church, or what your “status” is. I just wanted to share my experience. I can see now, in hindsight, that all of the doubts we exerienced were probably the devil’s attacks, trying to keep us out of the Fold.
I will pray for you.
God bless.
Before our reception into the Catholic Church, we were plagued with doubts and questions about if we were doing the right thing or not. It lasted a couple of years. However, from that day when we first received the Eucharist, there has been nothing but true peace of soul. I am not sure whether you are a lapsed Catholic or considering the Church, or what your “status” is. I just wanted to share my experience. I can see now, in hindsight, that all of the doubts we exerienced were probably the devil’s attacks, trying to keep us out of the Fold.
I will pray for you.
God bless.
Y
yankee_drifter
Guest
Murphy Bhoy-
What is “sacred tradition”? Where can I find it? Is it written somewhere? Is there a book that has all the traditions compiled in it? How do I know its authoritative?
Who said Scripture can only be viewed in the light of tradition? Did Jesus say that? The apostles? You do exactly what most RC on here do. You make statements and claims but cite absolutely no evidence. Saying something is so, does not make it so. There’s a lot of parroting that goes on here with no validation. It shows just how familiar with the Scriptures you are. Have you really read it?
What is “sacred tradition”? Where can I find it? Is it written somewhere? Is there a book that has all the traditions compiled in it? How do I know its authoritative?
M
Murphy_Bhoy
Guest
Have I read every word of Sacred Scripture? No.
Wikipedia said:
The Catholic Church.
Not as such.
Catechisms, Papal Encyclicals etc.
It was handed down by the Apostles. I find it hard to believe Protestants can really go on Scripture alone, when the Church predates Sacred Scripture.
Yours sincerely,
Murphy Bhoy.
Y
yankee_drifter
Guest
Murphy Bhoy,
What traditions were handed down by the apostles? Can you list them for me? Just because some are in the catechism or other catholic source, it still doesn’t tell me that it came from the apostles themselves. Your church has many traditions that came late in Christian history. For example: Veneration of Mary-431 AD, Purgatory- 593 AD, Prayers to Mary and dead saints-600, veneration of the cross, relics, images-788. You have quite a few that came after 1,000 AD. Papal infallibility wasn’t declared until 1870. Before that it was completely unheard of. It wasn’t until 1545 that tradition with the apocrypha was considered equal to the Scriptures.
What traditions were handed down by the apostles? Can you list them for me? Just because some are in the catechism or other catholic source, it still doesn’t tell me that it came from the apostles themselves. Your church has many traditions that came late in Christian history. For example: Veneration of Mary-431 AD, Purgatory- 593 AD, Prayers to Mary and dead saints-600, veneration of the cross, relics, images-788. You have quite a few that came after 1,000 AD. Papal infallibility wasn’t declared until 1870. Before that it was completely unheard of. It wasn’t until 1545 that tradition with the apocrypha was considered equal to the Scriptures.
Does the RCC predate all the writings of the New Testament? Where was the RCC in say, 60 AD? When the apostles and those who were eyewitnesses of Jesus wrote of the time Christ walked the earth and taught many things, performed miracles, etc, was the RCC in existence? Peter claimed that Paul’s writings were scripture. Was the RCC formed and organized then?
G
GeorgeSword
Guest
Veneration of the saints is actually much earlier. We have writings carved into the walls of the Roman catacombs asking the saints to pray for us (see Penguin Encyclopedia of Saints, Introduction). These were written around 100 AD.
Purgatory itself is found in Scripture, not through direct mention but by logical reasoning based on a number of passages.
Relics were venerated even in Jewish worship. Elisha’s bones restored life. Paul’s veil healed men, didn’t it?
Papal Infalibility was widely believed and yes, the norm, long before 1870. When the Church declares something dogma it doesn’t mean it hasn’t been believed, it only means that it is clarifying the doctrine if there is confusing around it.
The same goes for the use of the deuterocanon. It was widely used, but when controversy around it was caused by Luther, it was declared dogma. I invite you to look at these quotes: catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp
Yep
Y
yankee_drifter
Guest
Murph Bhoy,
Can you please qualify your statements. Saying something is so doesn’t make it so. Could you please show me what verses in the Bible substantiate purgatory. That papal infallibility was a unanimous belief before 1000AD. Can you validate that the RCC was formed and organized by 60 AD. Was it not when Constantine legalized Christianity and made it the state’s religion that the roman church ceased being underground and began to organize?
The catacombs were used by pagans as well as Jews and Christians. There are drawings done by pagans that have Christian themes. For example: a portrayal of Christ as the Shepherd was modeled on a statue of Mercury carrying a goat. If the Bible tells us not to have any type of communication with the dead, then does that not cause a problem if you believe in praying to dead saints? Worship belongs to God alone. Even Michael the archangel trembled and said Do not worship me! Worship only God! So how does this square with your approval of worship of relics?
The roman catholic must deal with the fact that many of its practices/traditions came late in christian history. This hurts the RCCs claim for apostolic authority.
Can you please qualify your statements. Saying something is so doesn’t make it so. Could you please show me what verses in the Bible substantiate purgatory. That papal infallibility was a unanimous belief before 1000AD. Can you validate that the RCC was formed and organized by 60 AD. Was it not when Constantine legalized Christianity and made it the state’s religion that the roman church ceased being underground and began to organize?
The catacombs were used by pagans as well as Jews and Christians. There are drawings done by pagans that have Christian themes. For example: a portrayal of Christ as the Shepherd was modeled on a statue of Mercury carrying a goat. If the Bible tells us not to have any type of communication with the dead, then does that not cause a problem if you believe in praying to dead saints? Worship belongs to God alone. Even Michael the archangel trembled and said Do not worship me! Worship only God! So how does this square with your approval of worship of relics?
The roman catholic must deal with the fact that many of its practices/traditions came late in christian history. This hurts the RCCs claim for apostolic authority.
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
The best way to show that the Roman Catholic Church existed prior to the time of Constantine, is to show the succession of Popes prior to that time. Not only will any encyclopedia provide the list of Popes, but this can also be found in the writings of the Church Fathers. There are at least three Church Fathers I am aware of who gave a complete list of Popes up to their time. I have two of those quotes handy…
In the first quote, Optatus of Milevis provides a list of Popes up to his day:
Optatus of Milevis: “You cannot deny that you know that the Episcopal Chair was first assigned to Peter; in the city of Rome, in which sat Peter, the head of the Apostles. Peter, therefore, first filled that pre-eminent Chair, which is the first of the marks of the Church; Linus succeeded Peter, Clement Succeeded Linus, (then those succeeding each other in the following order): Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zepherinus, Callixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Anterus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephan, Sixtus (II), Dionysius, Felix, Eutychians, Caius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus. The successor of Damasus was Siricius, who is now our fellow bishop and with whom the whole world, together with us, is in agreement in one fellowship of communion by mutual exchange of formal corresponsence”.
Here are two quotes from St. Augustine. The second provides a complete list of Pope up to the time it was written:
St. Augustine 397AD: In the Catholic Church, there are many things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heresies wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should… With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me… No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." (Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam Vacant Fundamenti, written 397 AD)
St. Augustine: "For if the very lineal succession of Bishops is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, “Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it…” [Matt. 16:18]. The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus… [he continues up to his time]… and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist Bishop is found. (St. Augustine, Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412])
The other list of Popes is from the writing of St. Irenaus titled Against the Heresies. It was written in 189AD.
The next quote, which was written in the year 251 (before the time of Constantine), confirms the position of Peter as the head of the other apostles:
Cyprian of Carthage: "“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ (Mt 16:18-19)… ‘On him (Peter) he builds his Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep’ (Jn 21:17), and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was (ie. apostles), but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all (the apostles) are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he (should) desert the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian of Carthage, 251 AD)
From these quotes we can see that 1.) prior to the time of Constantine Peter was considered the head of the other apostles, and 2.) that there was a continual succession of Popes from the time of Peter through the first four centuries. This should confirm that the Roman Catholic Church exists, in its current form, prior to the time of Constantine.
Y
yankee_drifter
Guest
Ultima Ratio,
Although my questions were directed to Murphy Bhoy and I am still waiting for him to respond, I appreciate you’re (name removed by moderator)ut.
You wrote:
There is no evidence from the Scriptures that Peter passed on any authority. No evidence that he was the head of the church of Rome. The best we can gather is that he came to Rome late in his life because he was buried there. But so was Paul. In Paul’s letter to the church at Rome, he mentions some 27 people who were there, but never mentions Peter’s name once. Very odd omission if Peter was pope.
Not all of the church “fathers” believed Peter was the “rock.” There were some that believed Christ is the rock, or that Peter’s confession (thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God), is the rock. So we have a problem when we try to rely on early church writers. They often contradicted one another, especially the more time passed and the further they were from the 1st century. There’s also the problem with merely having a list of names. The RCC believes Linus was the first pope after Peter. But which Linus? Nothing is documented about this Linus. It seems that if he were the first “pope” after Peter much would be written or known about him. If we know nearly nothing about this man, how can we say any authority was passed on or that the list is legitimate and verifiable?
Although my questions were directed to Murphy Bhoy and I am still waiting for him to respond, I appreciate you’re (name removed by moderator)ut.
You wrote:
Where is the evidence that before Constantine (312-324 AD) there was a RCC like today with its celebration of Mass, indulgences, penances, rosary, statues, etc? You must remember that Christianity was illegal before the time of Constantine. It was underground and there were no church buildings. They could not form and organize for fear of persecution and death.
There is no evidence from the Scriptures that Peter passed on any authority. No evidence that he was the head of the church of Rome. The best we can gather is that he came to Rome late in his life because he was buried there. But so was Paul. In Paul’s letter to the church at Rome, he mentions some 27 people who were there, but never mentions Peter’s name once. Very odd omission if Peter was pope.
Not all of the church “fathers” believed Peter was the “rock.” There were some that believed Christ is the rock, or that Peter’s confession (thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God), is the rock. So we have a problem when we try to rely on early church writers. They often contradicted one another, especially the more time passed and the further they were from the 1st century. There’s also the problem with merely having a list of names. The RCC believes Linus was the first pope after Peter. But which Linus? Nothing is documented about this Linus. It seems that if he were the first “pope” after Peter much would be written or known about him. If we know nearly nothing about this man, how can we say any authority was passed on or that the list is legitimate and verifiable?
J
Jacafamala
Guest
About Catholics
There’s a lot more good stuff on this website about the papacy and the biblical proof for it. You should check it out.
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
It is true that the Church was hidden prior to the time of Constantine, but it does not follow that it was not organized while it was hidden. As soon at it was legalized, it immediately emerged as an organized body with Bishops as leaders - just as it was described in the Bible and by the Church Fathers prior to the time of Constantine.
Well, most of the books were written prior to Peter’s death, so it makes sense they wouldn’t mention it directly; however, we do see Judas’ Bishopric passed on to another (Acts 1:20). If Judas’ Bishopric was passed on, why would anyone assume that Peters’ wasn’t also - especially when the Church Fathers said it was?
Who is “we”? Do you mean you, who lives about 2000 years later? Why not consult those who lived much closer to the time, such as the great Biblical scholar St. Jerome who said Peter held the sacerdotal chair in Rome for 25 years.
St. Jerome: "Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).
I believe Christ is the rock. I also believe Peter’s confession of faith can be called a rock, and that Peter himself is the rock. There are various levels of interpretation of the Scriptures and one does not exclude the other.
Jesus, who is the ultimate head of the Church, is referred to in Scripture as both the “cornerstone” of the Church and, like St. Peter, as a Rock. In fact, the Hebrew word “tsur”, which is translated as “God” in the Old Testament, is sometimes translated as “rock”.
“As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried. He is a buckler to all those that trust in him. For who is God save the Lord, or who is a rock (Tsur) save our God?” (Psalm 18).
Yet for some reason, Jesus gave this same name rock, which belongs to Himself, to St. Peter. "And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou are Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter (rock) (John 1:42). Is it merely a coincidence that Jesus, who is called a Rock (1Cor. 10:4, 1Peter 2:8, Rom. 9:33), gave Simon the name Rock (Mt 16:18)? Not likely.
We have one person in the Old Testament who is called by this name rock (tsur), and it is no less a figure than Father Abraham. As I’m sure you know, the Old Testament has many “types” and “images” of New Testament realities. The Paschal Lamb, for example, that was sacrificed by the Jews during Passover foreshadowed Our Lord who was sacrificed for us on Mt. Calvary during Passover. The Old Testament Lamb could not take away sins, but rather pointed to the One who would. That is why, when John the Baptism saw our Lord, he declared “behold the Lamb of God, the one who taketh away the sins of the world”. There are countless other examples of the Old Testament foreshadowing the New Testament. We will look at one other.
continue…
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
continuation
In the Old Testament, God is often referred to as “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”. This threefold name is an Old Testament “image” of the Blessed Trinity. This image becomes clear when we consider that Father Abraham (who represents God the Father) led his son Isaac up Mt. Moria to be sacrificed to God. Isaac, his son (who represents Jesus) carried the wood up the Mountain, just as Our Lord carried the wood of the cross up Mt. Calvary. Mt. Moria was later re-named Calvary, and is the same mountain upon which Our Lord was crucified. Jacob, the third person, represents the Holy Ghost who is the third person of the Blessed Trinity. This explains why the New Testament Church - whose members have become “a temple of the Holy Ghost” (1 Cor. 6:16) - is called in Scripture “the house of Jacob” (Luke 1), for Jacob represents the Holy Ghost who dwells within the Church. So we can see that “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” was an image of the Blessed Trinity, which explains why God was called by that triune name.
Now, Father Abraham, who was a “type” of God the Father, is called in scripture by the same name rock, which was also given to St. Peter in the New Testament. “Look unto the rock (tsur) whence you are hewn … look unto Abraham your Father” (Isaias 51:1-2).
This same name - rock - which properly belongs to God, was given to Abraham who was the Father of the Old Testament and an image of “God the Father”, and to St. Peter who is the Father of the New Testament and visible representative of Our Lord, the true rock.
When God imposes a name on someone, the name conveys a meaning that describes the person. Since Abraham was a type of God the Father, and Father of the Jewish race, God changed his name from Abram, to Abraham, which means “father of a multitude”. In re-naming Abram Abraham, God designated him as the Father of the Jewish people. So likewise, when Our Lord renamed Simon Peter, which means rock, he designated him as the visible representative of Himself, who is the true rock. And at the same time he conveyed His own authority upon him when He declared: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. “And I will give unto you the keys to the kingdom of heaven” (which properly belong to Me) “and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:20).
St. Basil: “Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou are Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock *. For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants” (St. Basil).
As we can see, the name rock (Peter), which Jesus gave to Simon is a very important name in the Bible, for it is a name that belongs first and foremost to God!
Regarding Linus, there are actually many quotes found in the writings of the early Church that discuss him. They may not give his life story, but they all describe him as Peter’s successor.*
In the Old Testament, God is often referred to as “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”. This threefold name is an Old Testament “image” of the Blessed Trinity. This image becomes clear when we consider that Father Abraham (who represents God the Father) led his son Isaac up Mt. Moria to be sacrificed to God. Isaac, his son (who represents Jesus) carried the wood up the Mountain, just as Our Lord carried the wood of the cross up Mt. Calvary. Mt. Moria was later re-named Calvary, and is the same mountain upon which Our Lord was crucified. Jacob, the third person, represents the Holy Ghost who is the third person of the Blessed Trinity. This explains why the New Testament Church - whose members have become “a temple of the Holy Ghost” (1 Cor. 6:16) - is called in Scripture “the house of Jacob” (Luke 1), for Jacob represents the Holy Ghost who dwells within the Church. So we can see that “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” was an image of the Blessed Trinity, which explains why God was called by that triune name.
Now, Father Abraham, who was a “type” of God the Father, is called in scripture by the same name rock, which was also given to St. Peter in the New Testament. “Look unto the rock (tsur) whence you are hewn … look unto Abraham your Father” (Isaias 51:1-2).
This same name - rock - which properly belongs to God, was given to Abraham who was the Father of the Old Testament and an image of “God the Father”, and to St. Peter who is the Father of the New Testament and visible representative of Our Lord, the true rock.
When God imposes a name on someone, the name conveys a meaning that describes the person. Since Abraham was a type of God the Father, and Father of the Jewish race, God changed his name from Abram, to Abraham, which means “father of a multitude”. In re-naming Abram Abraham, God designated him as the Father of the Jewish people. So likewise, when Our Lord renamed Simon Peter, which means rock, he designated him as the visible representative of Himself, who is the true rock. And at the same time he conveyed His own authority upon him when He declared: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. “And I will give unto you the keys to the kingdom of heaven” (which properly belong to Me) “and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:20).
St. Basil: “Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou are Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock *. For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants” (St. Basil).
As we can see, the name rock (Peter), which Jesus gave to Simon is a very important name in the Bible, for it is a name that belongs first and foremost to God!
Did I contradict myself when I said I believed the name rock refers to both Jesus and Peter? Or do I think the name can be attributed to both, since it is attributed to both in the Bible?
That’s not a very good argument. Just because we don’t have 1900 year old writing about the life of Linus, does not mean he wasn’t Peter’s successor. After all, how much do you know about the life of Luke, or Mark? When know very little about their life, yet they wrote books of the Bible that you accept as Divinely inspired. Why?
Regarding Linus, there are actually many quotes found in the writings of the early Church that discuss him. They may not give his life story, but they all describe him as Peter’s successor.*
M
Markway
Guest
I largely agree with these statements. Too often the RCC equates itself with the Christian Church, whereas it is only one of many branches. Some popes were at best non-believers . There were many wonderful god-loving-fearing men as well, but infallibility? I don’t think so.
I have a lot of respect for the RCC and have stood up for it among Evangelical Christians at times. Frankly, my exposure to RCC theology here, outside study of the catechism etc I found horrifying.
In Christ’s own teaching there is no hint that Mary might share some part of Christ’s redemptive role. Christ’s teaching leads us away from the need for an intermediary priesthood. The addition of Saints (distinct from the individual christian’s role as saint) is yet another brick in the edifice that places the RCC as a BARRIER between God and man.
I am perfectly willing to accept RCC’s as Christians and their communion as efficacious. I only ask for the same recognition in return. So long as they resist this I can only see them as doing the Devil’s work for him.
G
GeorgeSword
Guest
The saints aren’t a barrier to God. Mary isn’t a barrier to God. If I do not want there help, I do not have to ask it. If we go to them and ask them to pray for us it is so we can have a stronger relationship with God. It’s not as though we go to the saints instead of God.
F
Filioque
Guest
Your sources need a bit of updating. First while the persecutions existed prior to Constantine, they were not universal the entire time. Even in Rome they were sporatic, and followed the whim of the Emperor. An easy target to blame for problems when they occured, any non-Romans who did not pay at least lip service to the Pagan Romans was fair game, when a scapegoat was needed. Kind of like the Catholics that were hunted down in England and Holland after the Protestant Reformation. Sometimes they were rounded up and tortured and killed for practicing the Catholic Faith in secret, and at other times they were left in relative peace.
A careful read of the Bible in the Hebrew, and the NT in Greek would reaveal that the Bible does not forbid the intercession of the Saints, what it does forbid is using a form of witchcraft to conger the dead in order to make predictions, and cast hexes. If the contention is that once one had died they are asleep and uncontious until the Second Coming, so they cannot as members of the Mystical Body of Christ give honor to God, or interceed for us, (as described in the Apocolypse, or as Protestant Bibles call it Revelation) then what of the promise of Jesus to the Good thief on the cross that he would be with Him in heaven?
In the modern manner of defining Worship, Catholics do not worship relics. There is however biblical evidence that relics are permitted by God. Paul sends out hankerchiefs that he has touched, and they heal the sick. Relics of Saints, do not deserve worship, and the relic itself does not preform any miracles, the proper use and the faith of the individual who honors a close friend and servant of God, is a means that God can use to Heal someone, just like the hankerchiefs that Paul had touched. Jesus Himself gives us an example when He mixed spittal and dirt to make mud for the blind man’s eyes. He shows us how earthly things when used in conjunction with our faith, and His authority can be used to effect healings, and to increase our spiritual growth.
Let alone evidence of first and second century graffiti in the Catecombs and around the tomb of St. Peter that show evidence that Christians visited their tombs and asked the (by then dead) Saints to pray for them. Sometimes the Graffiti combines the Saints name with a Chi Rho, (XP) or other symbols of Christ to show their connection to him, now that they are in heaven with them. Why visit the tombs and ask for the intersession if they were “dead” and could not hear our petitions to join us in honoring and asking God with us for a request?
More later, as I do believe that the Bible does support the teachings of the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus.
B
bluelake
Guest
I have always wondered, Are saints omnipresent? Can they hear everyones prayers? Do they possess the same attributes as the Lord?Veneration of the saints is actually much earlier. We have writings carved into the walls of the Roman catacombs asking the saints to pray for us (see Penguin Encyclopedia of Saints, Introduction). These were written around 100 AD.
Purgatory itself is found in Scripture, not through direct mention but by logical reasoning based on a number of passages.
Relics were venerated even in Jewish worship. Elisha’s bones restored life. Paul’s veil healed men, didn’t it?
Papal Infalibility was widely believed and yes, the norm, long before 1870. When the Church declares something dogma it doesn’t mean it hasn’t been believed, it only means that it is clarifying the doctrine if there is confusing around it.
The same goes for the use of the deuterocanon. It was widely used, but when controversy around it was caused by Luther, it was declared dogma. I invite you to look at these quotes: catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp
Yep
bluelake
B
bluelake
Guest
yankee,
Church membership doesn’t save anyone. We, as Christians must have a personal relationship with Christ. All christian churches worship and love our One and Only Savior, Jesus. However, being as we are, human, and opinionated in certain areas, we tend to disagree. This, in my opinion, is the main reason we have so many different christian demoninations. of course some are closer to the truth than others.
But, as Pilate said, “What is truth?” Keep praying.
God bless,
bluelake
G
GeorgeSword
Guest
No, they are not. They are in heaven with Him, and are currently bodiless. You may ask how they can hear all of our prayers. This is because heaven is outside of time, and since there is no time in heaven this is made possible.
B
bluelake
Guest
Fil,
Where does it say, the Bible supports the teachings of the Cathoilc church ,f ounded by Jesus?
I thought it was called ,‘Apostolic,’ the teachings of the Apostles. Any comments?
God bless,
bluelake
B
bluelake
Guest
George,
Your reasoning makes sense, howvever, if they are not omnipresent, which I agree with, they cannot hear our prayers. I think I’ll look this up.
God bless,
bluelake
- Status