If God wills that they hear, they will hear.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
Since you seem to have rejected the postings about Jesus founding the Church on Peter (with primacy), and the Apostles as the Catholic Church, vs. an ever expanding number of those who accept some of what the Apostles taught, and creating new teachings that contradict the one teaching of Christ. I’m still waiting to see where the Bible says that it alone is the source of All doctrine, vs what is does say about it being profitable, or useful in determining doctrine. You show me yours and I’ll show you mine. But just a peek at mine from the Bible, and as held by Christians until the start of the “Reformation”.
While alluded to in the Gospels, we see clearly that Jesus told the Apostles things that are not written down. “He talked to them about the Kingdom of God” and “after giving His Chosen Apostles further instruction from the Holy Spirit”. If He was instructing the Apostles, why is it not written down, if He is instructing them from the Holy Spirit, and on the Kingdom of God, and the Bible was the only source of doctrine, I would think it should be “spelled out” in the Bible. The next verses show how He was recognized through the Eucharist, but that is another subject…
Now that made no sense to me. You have stood up for the Catholic Church. you accept the Catholic Church as Christians, and communion as efficacious, but you think that it is doing the Devil’s work?
What is a relic? iIm really not sure.
You say the persecutions were sporadic. Thus you admit there were small groups of Christians everywhere besides Roman Catholics?
Then why is it that the catholic church has unamimous interpretation on only 7 passages of the entire Bible?
Well if you want to get “Biblical”, Yes, but not in the mythical invention of Protestantism in the 17th and 18th Century. There were Judaizers and others who taught a false Gospel like the Protestant errors of the Reformation and up to today. However those who maintained the Gospel that the Apostles taught, and did not seek to undermine these teachings were Catholics, united to Peter and his successors.
I don’t have to watch these documentaries, I’ve probably been in a few of these crowds. However kneeling, which is one of the traditional positions that people get into when praying does not always mean worship. (at another time we can discuss linguistics, and the development of language.) However I’d like to ask if you have any photos of relatives who have died? Ever placed flowers on a grave? You too will have to label yourself as one who “Worships” the dead. Have you been to a funeral where a photo and possibly a pipe, glasses or other posessions of the deceiced are placed on a side table, in order to recall the memory of the person into ones mind and heart? Or if you have not seen it yourself have you heard of this happening in a Protestant Church? (I have) Was the body up in the front of the Church, in or near the sanctuary, where the Choir and Minister are worshiped in the place of God. Where the Minister takes the place of God and becomes the center of attention? (You may balk and tell me that I distort the position of the minister, the body or the photos and the glasses etc., but I say you are doing the same exact thing with the claims you make against the Catholic Church and the use of statues, and relics.)
Well I do have to disagree with you to some extent, and ask for some support for your position on another. First, and this is an ongoing debate that only gets settled when a Protestant comes to Biblical Christianity by becoming Catholic, (Or in my case a Jew, who having reviewed the claims of Protestantism and the Catholic Faith, becomes Catholic). *Where does the Bible teach that only the Bible can be used to inform our Faith? * Where does Protestantims really teach that either. I’ve heard many a Protestant “Preacher, Minister, Apostle, Bishop, or any other title they have given themselves when they started a new sect.” Teach many things that are either not Biblical because they say “God reveled it to them.” Or who have taken perfectly good Biblical verses and made them say what the original lanugages have not. Let alone followed what their Pastor or others have taught that the Catholic Church teaches as final authority, and not checked to see if it really is a Catholic position.
How in the world could you dishonor God by talking to heavenly creatures?
While the standard Catholic reply would be the final versed of St. John’s Gospel, “These and may other things did Christ say and do…” and the fact that nowhere in the Bible are we instructed that the Bible alone contains all the teachings we need to know. (If you can find it I’ll give you a Chocolate Bar.) But a read of the book of Acts, tells us that Jesus after rising from the dead and before He Ascended into heaven, taught the Apostles, but the Bible does not record what he taught, (see previous postings) Show me where in the Bible, when the families that came into the Church were baptized it says, that they came in and were baptized, “except the babies and children.” or where it says, “As for me and my adult members of the family. we choose Christ.”
The Catechism itself is a document, susceptible to human damages, but what it contains are the teachings of the Church, the sacred traditions not put into writing. Hence, while the Catechism itself is only the words of men, these words are used to describe the unwritten Word of God.
Christ is our only mediator. He is unique because He is both man and God. He is our very special and lone mediator. How does asking the saints to pray for us violate this? It is no different than me asking you to pray for me.
Examine more closely the words. Vain repetitions, not repetitions, but vain ones. Furthermore it says ‘for they think they shall be heard, for their much talking.’
Baptism of children is the new initiation ritual. As the Jews circumcised, we baptize.
.
Where were their catholics in the NT? The Bible says they were first called Christians, in Antioch and not Rome. Where is the record that Peter was pope? Cite references and documents please. Where did Peter ever say he was pope? He referred to himself as a fellow elder. Paul was never subordinate to him, instead he corrected and rebuked Peter in public. Where is it recorded that Peter found the church in Rome and sat on a throne in a robe and a crown and acted as Christ? Maybe he died there, but so did Paul. What does that prove?
You praying for me while we are both still alive is VERY different from you asking a dead saint to pray for you! Since you admit Jesus is the only Mediator between man and God, then why do you ask Mary to intercede? Why has your pope claimed Mary as Mediatrix?
.
Not one shred of evidence that baptism replaced circumcision. Besides, circumcision in the Old Testament was for boys. This is physical circumcision. What do you do with the girls in the New Covenant if baptism has replaced circumcision? Besides, Paul talks about circumcision of the heart not of the body. The New Testament never “replaces” anything, but fulfills the Old Testament. Jesus came not to abolish it but fulfilled it. That’s also why we do not need priests today. They are not found in the New Testament church. God’s Word teaches that one cannot be baptized until they are “saved.” Salvation must come first. No infant baptism took place in the New Testament. If your tradition is correct, then why did Christ, who set the example for all of us, wait until adulthood to get baptized?
Excuse me, then why did Paul tell the Jews that we are the gentiles and we do not have to follow the Old law we are not bound to it. Was circum. not the old law?
JL: The Church as defined 7 passages of scripture. The whole scriptures cannot be defined as the Word of God is inexhaustible.
Dr. Martin Luther was anything but a good Catholic. He is however a good example of what can go wrong when someone has grave psychiatric and spiritual illnesses. A read of his life, (Erik Erikson’s, Young man Luther is a good start) shows that he was not the first nor the last person who did not have a real vocation to the monastic life, let alone the priesthood who slipped into the life and never should have. He lived a life of extremes, both before, during and after his time as an Augustinian. His behavior was more like a Bipolar than a saint. (By the way having treated hundreds and hundreds of persons with a diagnosis of Bipolar Personality disorder over the years, many if not most are intellectually brilliant, mental illness aside.) His early life showed the traits with Alcohol abuse, and conformity to then rebellion against very strict moral and social standards as well as expectations that his family and society placed on him. Never good enough because he became a Monk, rather than a lawyer who would have pulled the families social status up with him. His vow to become a Religious, which he made during a lightning storm and felt compelled to keep, even when he appears to have no interest in Religious life was null, as it was made during a moment of fear. His mastery of the Sacred Scriptures was thanks to the Catholic Church that not only preseved the Scriptures, but taught them widely, just as it does today. His downfall, was that he began the movement of interpreting individual passages out of contex to the Bible itself, and imposing his own personal opinion, which at first he advocatd for all, as he explained the Scriptures as an open book could and should be left to the individual with the prompting of the Holy Spirit, be allowed to all, later he recanted that as he saw the confusion and spiritual sickness that his ideas had on Europe, and Christianity.
The Dominican Friar who promoted this error, and was disiplined by the Church for causing people to be misled (Johann Tetzel) was not teaching in line with the Catholic Church. Unlike Luther, he did recant and admit he like Luther was excessive and was teaching something that was not Catholic. To make what Tetzel recanted of because the Church told him he was wrong in teaching it into Catholic Dogma is dishonest. Just as to think that simply waving a wand, and saying, OK everyone reform (given the political and social issues in Northern Europe at the time) is a gross oversimplification. Reform movements were already in place, however in God’s time, (which is not our own) they did not come to blossom until after Luther’s ideas caused so much death and destruction, (Spiritual and Temporal).
More on this and other errors taught by Luther later. (BTW Luther’s errors are hard to pin down, since his doctrines changed so much over time. The question is really, which of the Lutheran teachings does one accept as authentic Lutheranism. Or does one like Private Interpretation, simply choose what one likes, and ignore the rest.)
