Did I say that my mum would answer my prayers? I did not. I just said they would be answered.
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Did I say something to the contrary that you address me? And everything you just said is an oxymoron: " Actually, the Church gave credit to Luther for bringing the abuses to light, and banned all money associated with indulgences at the Council of Trent" Then you follow with:"that is another anti-Catholic myth."
Of course it is a myth , because it is against the teachings of Christ. But clearly it is a mythological teaching that has been acknowledged by the Church :"and banned all money associated with indulgences at the Council of Trent."
You figure it out. Just catching those little foxes as I am called to do.
I gave you a direct answer. You just can't or won't answer my questions. The Apostles were given Christ's authority to teach and baptize, they did not "supersede" Christ's authority. The earthly physical Church is Christ on earth. How many supporting scriptures would you like?
Your question presupposes the authority of the Catholic Church supersedes that of God. God cannot contradict Himself, and I tried to explain a little something of where the Church gets her authority. Just admit you can't or won't answer my questions, or ignore me all together.
Maybe somebody else would like to answer my 5 questions:
Matthew 28? KJV
16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
The Eleven were given special graces to be Apostles, how do you reconcile that with their doubt? Is Jesus talking to each individual believer, or just the Eleven?
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, (the Eleven) saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
How do you interpret "therefore"? Is this not a conjunctive verb with Jesus having all power and authority granted to the Eleven to teach and baptise??
How can 11 men, travelling on foot, without jet planes and helicopters, even reach all nations to teach them? In order for the 11 to accomplish this impossible task,
A) either the 11 were disobedient, or
B) the verse doesn't mean just Apostles, it means individual believers are commissioned to teach
C) successors are required.
A and B are not remotely biblical, C holds up to scripture, logic, reason and the facts of history.
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
We take that as a promise from God. Jesus is not promising the Eleven would live "unto the end of the world". You are left with re-defining "CHURCH" and are forced to re-write and/or deny history to deny His promises. That's why the post-biblical writings of Christians of the first 3 centuries, as witnesses to what Christians believed, are not acceptable to you. When exactly did Jesus abandon His Church, contrary to His promises? How is it that nobody noticed this monumentous event until the middle of a revolt in the 16th century?
Last edited:
Would you agree that the authority of God supersedes that of the Catholic church? I would like a yes or no answer please. But I bet I won't get it.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
Well...you are wrong on most of that. You seem to take what I say as a challenge or an attack. It's not. There is simply more to "all truth" than has been revealed in times past, but was promised by Christ. You have no reason to be offended. This is exactly how these time are suppose to unfold. But I will address your different points:
- I never claimed what you say I claim, at least not the way you describe it.
- The scriptures do in fact hold to what I have said.
- The bible does not give a list of what makes a man of God. It gives lots of many different points of what it is to follow God, but your list simply your list, as is your conclusion.
- Religious interpretation of sacramental ordination is far from accurate.
- Signs and wonders are most likely according to God.
- I am not saying anything that is not consistent with scripture. I am simply saying it according to all scripture and according to what is revealed by "our Father who is in heaven" promised by Christ.
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,431
- 1,687
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,431
- 1,687
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Every word you write shows me who you really are....and it's not looking good kiddo
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,431
- 1,687
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Hi Giuliano,
For us Christians our goal is to help the blind see so that they will open their eyes.
What is your goal? NM...you already answered that.
You would not want the blind to follow you and help them open their eyes because you don't care about their soul. (Acts 26:17-18).
Keep digging kiddo....your hole is getting deeper and closer to Gehenna.
Bible study Mary
There is a big problem catholics have.
They depend more on their church than on their God.
This has created a big problem for the traditional (conservative) ones because the church is changing and they refuse to accept this.
I have nothing against that church -- it's not perfect; no church is.
But we all should learn to DEPEND ON GOD....
and not on an institution.
Banning all money associated with indulgences is not an admission that indulgences were purchased. Now I have to paste the link you ignored (which I don't like to do) because it clarifies my point.
Indulgences. The very word stirs up more misconceptions than perhaps any other teaching in Catholic theology. Those who attack the Church for its use of indulgences rely upon—and take advantage of—the ignorance of both Catholics and non-Catholics.
What is an indulgence? The Church explains, “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints” (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1). To see the biblical foundations for indulgences, see the Catholic Answers tract A Primer on Indulgences.
Step number one in explaining indulgences is to know what they are. Step number two is to clarify what they are not. Here are the seven most common myths about indulgences:
Myth 1: A person can buy his way out of hell with indulgences.
Since indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell, no amount of indulgences will ever change that fact. The only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God’s eternal mercy while still alive. After death, one’s eternal fate is set (Heb. 9:27).
Myth 2: A person can buy indulgences for sins not yet committed.
The Church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes, “[An indulgence] is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power.”
Myth 3: A person can “buy forgiveness” with indulgences.
The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven” (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1, emphasis added). Indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven.
Myth 4: Indulgences were invented as a means for the Church to raise money.
Indulgences developed from reflection on the sacrament of reconciliation. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline and were in use centuries before money-related problems appeared.
Myth 6: A person can buy indulgences.
The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, “in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions” (Catholic Encyclopedia). (abuses rendered indulgences null and void, abuses are not doctrines)
Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.
One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.”
Being able to explain these seven myths will be a large step in helping others to understand indulgences. But, there are still questions to be asked:
“Isn’t it better to put all of the emphasis on Christ alone?”
If we ignore the fact of indulgences, we neglect what Christ does through us, and we fail to recognize the value of what he has done in us. Paul used this very sort of language: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Col. 1:24).
Even though Christ’s sufferings were superabundant (far more than needed to pay for anything), Paul spoke of completing what was “lacking” in Christ’s sufferings. If this mode of speech was permissible for Paul, it is permissible for us.
Since indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell, no amount of indulgences will ever change that fact. The only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God’s eternal mercy while still alive. After death, one’s eternal fate is set (Heb. 9:27).
Myth 2: A person can buy indulgences for sins not yet committed.
The Church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes, “[An indulgence] is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power.”
Myth 3: A person can “buy forgiveness” with indulgences.
The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven” (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1, emphasis added). Indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven.
Myth 4: Indulgences were invented as a means for the Church to raise money.
Indulgences developed from reflection on the sacrament of reconciliation. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline and were in use centuries before money-related problems appeared.
Myth 6: A person can buy indulgences.
The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, “in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions” (Catholic Encyclopedia). (abuses rendered indulgences null and void, abuses are not doctrines)
Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.
One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.”
Being able to explain these seven myths will be a large step in helping others to understand indulgences. But, there are still questions to be asked:
“Isn’t it better to put all of the emphasis on Christ alone?”
If we ignore the fact of indulgences, we neglect what Christ does through us, and we fail to recognize the value of what he has done in us. Paul used this very sort of language: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Col. 1:24).
Even though Christ’s sufferings were superabundant (far more than needed to pay for anything), Paul spoke of completing what was “lacking” in Christ’s sufferings. If this mode of speech was permissible for Paul, it is permissible for us.
Last edited:
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,431
- 1,687
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
No, you did not say he was pagan.
You said he was "heavily influenced by pagan thinking".
What does that mean?
Curious Mary
That is not what you simply said. You simply said, in so many words, according to what is revealed by "our Father who is in heaven" has been given to you directly by God. Therefore everybody else is wrong, especially the historic institutional Church, and you are not. You keep saying the spirit makes you infallible. Not in those exact words, but that is what you mean.
WRONG. I was trying to be brief, but here goes:
There is the relationship: the Scriptures are a tool for "teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," but who is to use this tool for these purposes? That is, who has the authority to teach, reproof, correct, and train others in righteousness? The "man of God" has this authority.
But, who is the "man of God?" You may wish to claim this title for yourself as well, but a short survey of Scripture's use of the title will reveal that this, too, is a privileged title that cannot be simply taken upon oneself:
Moses - "This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death." (Deut. 33:1)
"Then the people of Judah came to Joshua at Gilgal; and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said to him, 'You know what the LORD said to Moses the man of God in Kadesh-barnea concerning you and me.'" (Josh. 14:6)
The Angel of the Lord - "Then the woman came and told her husband, 'A man of God came to me, and his countenance was like the countenance of the angel of God, very terrible; I did not ask him whence he was, and he did not tell me his name...' Then Manoah entreated the LORD, and said, 'O, LORD, I pray thee, let the man of God whom thou didst send come again to us, and teach us what we are to do with the boy that will be born.'" (Jud. 13:6, 8)
Samuel - "The servant answered Saul again, 'Here, I have with me the fourth part of a shekel of silver, and I will give it to the man of God, to tell us our way.'" (1 Sam. 9:8)
Elijah - "And she said to Elijah, 'What have you against me, O man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance, and to cause the death of my son!'" (1 Kings 17:18)
Elisha - "And she went up and laid him on the bed of the man of God, and shut the door upon him, and went out... When Elisha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed." (2 Kings 4:21, 32)
David - "According to the ordinance of David his father, he appointed the divisions of the priests for their service, and the Levites for their offices of praise and ministry before the priests as the duty of each day required, and the gatekeepers in their divisions for the several gates; for so David the man of God had commanded." (2 Chr. 8:14)
St. Timothy - "But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness." (1 Tim. 6:11)
Contrary to the opinion that the "man of God" can be any Christian without distinction, (which you claim to have a direct line to God) Scripture itself will not allow such an interpretation, insisting that the "man of God" is a figure of authority, either commissioned by God directly through Divine Intervention (such as Moses or the Angel), or appointed by another holder of authority (such as Samuel, David, Elisha, and St. Timothy).
From this very brief survey of the phrase "man of God" (there are perhaps a dozen or so more passages, relating to the characters listed above - I have chosen representative verses), we see that what holds true for "pastors" holds true for the "man of God": it is a title of authority that can in no way be taken upon oneself, but rather, it is bestowed upon a man by a higher authority. A man must be called by God to hold this title of "man of God."
But there is another objection here: you will say, "I have been called by God to be a pastor." Very well, let us take another look at Scripture to measure your claim.
Biblically, there is only one way to become a legitimate ambassador of Christ, or "pastor": by appointment from a superior. This can be done in two ways: being commissioned by a legitimate ambassador (apostolic succession), or being called directly by God. We saw examples of this in Scripture already: Ss. Timothy and Titus were appointed to their positions of authority by succession, Moses was appointed to his position directly by God, with no human mediation.
As to the first method, apostolic succession comes through the laying on of hands in ceremony: "Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands... guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us." (2 Tim. 1:6, 14)
When St. Paul imposed his hands on St. Timothy, he passed on a legitimate apostolic authority, "entrusted" the "truth" to him, and imparted the gift of "the Holy Spirit" for the safekeeping and preservation of the Gospel.
By What Authority - A Challenge to Protestant Pastors
You cannot claim to have a direct line to God, (you do this all the time) without claiming to be a man of God. It just doesn't work.
You guys are always demanding scripture, scripture, scripture. But when I give you scripture, scripture, scripture, you call it my opinion.
Last edited:
ScottA
Well-Known Member
If I fill in the missing pieces in accordance with the whole word of God unto all truth, I am not speaking for myself. Thus, if you mock under those circumstances...you are not mocking me. You have no reason to be offended by me or consider it personal, this is how this was all foretold to occur during these times.
It is by God's design to give us a Church with the authority to teach and baptise all nations. This mentality of, "me, the Bible and the Holy Spirit" as authoritive is an ideology that is not biblical, let alone impossible.
It's a big problem for pseudo-schismatics who are still in the Church. The growth and development of the Church is not a problem for faithful Catholics.
See above.
I agree that we need churches.
Many times I've said that, as humans, we need an institution just so we could keep the glue tight and stay together.
What I'm saying is that we should not put our FAITH into that institution...
our faith goes to God. When Jesus gave the Great Commission, of course we'd need places to baptize, assemble ourselves, and learn from those who teach. I just find that my catholic friends speak about the church all the time and not too much about God.
I also agree that the Holy Spirit does not teach us everything but He surely helps us to understand. There are scholars and theologians to teach us...they know biblical knowledge much more than we do here on these threads.
I do, however, have some of my own beliefs that I could not reconcile with church teaching. I don't believe purgatory exists...I don't believe it's necessary to confess to a priest unless one wants to. If God could forgive a venial sin, He is also capable of forgiving a mortal sin.
As to schismatics:
WHO is the schismatic??
Some believe this pope is.
I only need to defend the faith and the FAITHFUL. You can defend whatever misbehavior the wolves created. You can do whatever damage control. And that story goes on and on and on, to this very day. But clearly there is a lot of defending and explaining not because the behavior has been good but bad. I am well aware of the spin factor. But the spin stops here, because like I said , I defend the FAITH and the FAITHFUL. And there is no need for a Barack Obama type apology tour in that. I simply defend what Christ says, His prophets and all the saints who too uphold THAT. Just as I have been doing. All the rest is like a hot mess in a diaper , which continues with all the other scandals produced today by the wolves in sheep's clothing. And you know what those scandals are. Continue on.
- Status
Similar threads
