Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[epostle]

The question I have is if Pope Leo XIII ever had such a vision.

Pope Leo's vision is for Catholics, not mockers and atheists. You get a much better picture if you stay away from hostile sites that complain about everything because they have nothing better to do.

recommended reading : The 100 year test - CNA Columns: The New (& the Old) Evangelization

 

[BreadOfLife]

If I ever start promoting any denomination as perfect, feel free to cut my claims to ribbons.
Can't answer the question? Does it make you feel better inside to tell me I'm a hypocrite? Who's the hypocrite with the excuse, "But look at what the Protestants do!" That's no defense of the Catholic Church. That's saying the Catholic Church is no better than they are. Weak. . . .

I DID answer your question.
I said, "Nope" - then I asked YOU a question that YOU can't seem to answer.

Looks like I hit a nerve . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I guess you're blessed then since you know what phrases can be crossed out of our Bibles.

Have you ever heard of monks and nuns who don't own anything? They don't starve to death.

Monks and nuns are wonderful - but that wasn't the lesson Matt. 19.

Jesus was showing the crowd how riches can interfere with spiritual wealth. He wasn't condemning wealth.
There are MANY rich people who do a lot of good with their wealth.

 

[Giuliano]

Pope Leo's vision is for Catholics, not mockers and atheists. You get a much better picture if you stay away from hostile sites that complain about everything because they have nothing better to do.

What are your sources for this vision?

 

[Giuliano]

I DID answer your question.
I said, "Nope" - then I asked YOU a question that YOU can't seem to answer.

Looks like I hit a nerve . . .

You really want an answer? I don't think I'm attacking the Catholic Church. I am attacking the hypocrites and fraudsters in it; and the sooner the Catholic Church rids itself of them, the better. If you want to defend them, you're part of the problem.

 

[Giuliano]

Monks and nuns are wonderful - but that wasn't the lesson Matt. 19.

Jesus was showing the crowd how riches can interfere with spiritual wealth. He wasn't condemning wealth.
There are MANY rich people who do a lot of good with their wealth.

He was talking to that man. He loved him. You seem to think Jesus was using him as an object lesson instead of treating him with humanity and compassion. He didn't say to a "crowd" either. He said it to his disciples.

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

The lesson was that some people do need to sell all they have. That man could have been a disciple. That's the only way they can learn to stop trusting money instead of God. Are you unaware of what I actually write or something? I never condemned wealthy. I don't know however how many rich people there are who actually do good with their money. You say "many." Jesus said not. That man was so close to the kingdom, but he had one idol remaining. If he had trusted Jesus that God would provide, he would have entered the kingdom. I hope monks and nuns receive a reward if they are called and answer the call:

Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
26 And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?
27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
28 Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee.
29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,
30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

 

[Philip James]

The question I have is if Pope Leo XIII ever had such a vision.

Maybe you'll get to ask him in the next world.

Peace!

 

[Giuliano]

In some cases, bishops cannot deny the obvious. The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, or the Miraculous Image of Guadalupe, or Fatima, believers and skeptics alike where thousands witnessed the spinning of the sun that dried everything up during a rain storm, for example. But even those, common sense demands that investigations be carried out, it doesn't mean bishops have no discernment. Mary on a taco or stains on a cement wall are silly and not worth the time. Bishops usually step in when a large number of people are affected. Bishops can only determine if something is worthy of belief, they never say they must be believed.

Your history is off when it comes to Our Lady of Guadalupe. More on that later.

 

[epostle]

You really want an answer? I don't think I'm attacking the Catholic Church. I am attacking the hypocrites and fraudsters in it; and the sooner the Catholic Church rids itself of them, the better. If you want to defend them, you're part of the problem.

I don't see the Church denying problems. It seems to be a rule in every forum like this on the internet: whenever you are losing a debate, play the sex abuse card, it's guaranteed to derail any thread.

On June 10, we showed that .006% (3 priests) of the over 50,000 members of the clergy had a substantiated accusation made against them between June 1, 2017 and July 31, 2018. No religious or secular body can beat those numbers.
CLERGY ABUSE SURVEY SHOWS MEDIA INFLUENCE
​

This is not reported in main stream media. The sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church WAS the worst scandal in history. We don't deny this. Scandal 1. But there is another scandal: pretending it is ongoing and the Church hasn't done anything about it. Scandal 2. The opposite is true. This is not reported in main stream media either. Protestants cannot deal as effectively with scandals because there is no centrality. What is hypocritical is the endless drumbeat of Scandal 2 in the media and in forums. That is the hypocrisy that BofL is referring to. The question is, "are you part of Scandal 2?"

Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations

New norms for the whole Church against those who abuse or cover up - Vatican News

This is not reported in main stream media either. IMO, Pope Leo XIII saw Scandal 1.​

Your history is off when it comes to Our Lady of Guadalupe. More on that later.

I'm sure there are plenty of sites that explain away or ignore the fact that 9 million Aztecs converted in a few short years, and human sacrifices came to an end. Previous efforts to convert them failed before Guadalupe. History is off when it is ignored.

 

[brakelite]

He was talking to that man. He loved him. You seem to think Jesus was using him as an object lesson instead of treating him with humanity and compassion. He didn't say to a "crowd" either. He said it to his disciples.

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

The lesson was that some people do need to sell all they have. That man could have been a disciple. That's the only way they can learn to stop trusting money instead of God. Are you unaware of what I actually write or something? I never condemned wealthy. I don't know however how many rich people there are who actually do good with their money. You say "many." Jesus said not. That man was so close to the kingdom, but he had one idol remaining. If he had trusted Jesus that God would provide, he would have entered the kingdom. I hope monks and nuns receive a reward if they are called and answer the call:

Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
26 And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?
27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
28 Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee.
29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,
30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

Remember also that the dude had asked Jesus "what must I do to receive eternal life'. Jesus answered, keep the commandments. Jesus listed 5 of the 6 commandment that deal with all human relationships... But left out the one remaining that dealt solely with the heart... Covetousness.
The wealthy young man them replied, been there, done that.
Jesus reminded him of the tenth commandment. Sadly, that was one step to far... Covetousness for anything makes an idol of that which is lusted for. Jesus was challenging... Put Me first... And I will look after you.

 

[Giuliano]

I don't see the Church denying problems. It seems to be a rule in every forum like this on the internet: whenever you are losing a debate, play the sex abuse card, it's guaranteed to derail any thread.

On June 10, we showed that .006% (3 priests) of the over 50,000 members of the clergy had a substantiated accusation made against them between June 1, 2017 and July 31, 2018. No religious or secular body can beat those numbers.
CLERGY ABUSE SURVEY SHOWS MEDIA INFLUENCE
​

This is not reported in main stream media. The sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church WAS the worst scandal in history. We don't deny this. Scandal 1. But there is another scandal: pretending it is ongoing and the Church hasn't done anything about it. Scandal 2. The opposite is true. This is not reported in main stream media either. Protestants cannot deal as effectively with scandals because there is no centrality. What is hypocritical is the endless drumbeat of Scandal 2 in the media and in forums. That is the hypocrisy that BofL is referring to. The question is, "are you part of Scandal 2?"

Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations

New norms for the whole Church against those who abuse or cover up - Vatican News

This is not reported in main stream media either. IMO, Pope Leo XIII saw Scandal 1.​

Did I mention the sex abuse scandal? Why do you keep bringing this sort of thing up? If you really want me to discuss it, I can; but remember I didn't bring it up. I can summarize however: It stopped in the US not because the Catholic Church acted but because secular forces acted. It's still a problem in some other places. It's going to take time to sort out. Do you want me to dredge up the current problems in other places? I don't get it why you bring things up like this.
​

I'm sure there are plenty of sites that explain away or ignore the fact that 9 million Aztecs converted in a few short years, and human sacrifices came to an end. Previous efforts to convert them failed before Guadalupe. History is off when it is ignored.

You are assuming things again. Why not stop trying to read my mind?

 

[epostle]

Did I mention the sex abuse scandal? Why do you keep bringing this sort of thing up? If you really want me to discuss it, I can; but remember I didn't bring it up. I can summarize however: It stopped in the US not because the Catholic Church acted but because secular forces acted. It's still a problem in some other places. It's going to take time to sort out. Do you want me to dredge up the current problems in other places? I don't get it why you bring things up like this.
​

You are assuming things again. Why not stop trying to read my mind?

OK, it wasn't you that brought it up, but somebody always does. Any thread with "Catholic" in it no matter what the topic is; Scandal II-obsessed Protestants come out of the wood work, or I wouldn't have posted on it.

Your history is off when it comes to Our Lady of Guadalupe. More on that later.

I responded to this in post #1089. I am not assuming anything. Fanciful "histories" dominate the internet. Make sure your sources are reliable and not some wanna-be-preacher nut case, or atheists, or anti-Catholic cults. Together these "sources" number in the billions.

 

[BreadOfLife]

He was talking to that man. He loved him. You seem to think Jesus was using him as an object lesson instead of treating him with humanity and compassion. He didn't say to a "crowd" either. He said it to his disciples.

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

The lesson was that some people do need to sell all they have. That man could have been a disciple. That's the only way they can learn to stop trusting money instead of God. Are you unaware of what I actually write or something? I never condemned wealthy. I don't know however how many rich people there are who actually do good with their money. You say "many." Jesus said not. That man was so close to the kingdom, but he had one idol remaining. If he had trusted Jesus that God would provide, he would have entered the kingdom. I hope monks and nuns receive a reward if they are called and answer the call:

Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
26 And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?
27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
28 Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee.
29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,
30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

WRONG.

Everything Jesus said and did in Scripture was a lesson. That’s WHY it was written down.

The overarching lesson with the Rich Man was that he clung to his wealth more than he did to God. Christ showed him and those around him that this was his folly.

There wasn't any need for the man to literally sell everything and become homeless. The point was for the man to rid himself of his worldly obsessions for the kingdom of God. You’ve perverted this lesson for a literalist view . . .

 

[Giuliano]

But you don't cite "fake miracles", you just assert it. Why don't you find an instance of "fake miracles" and we can discuss it rationally, instead of making it up? And what is a "fake relic"? Another rabbit hole to derail the discussion?

Now let's look how this came up. You wrote, "To those who believe, evidence is not necessary. To those who refuse to believe, no amount of evidence will suffice. Validation through science is for unbelievers, not believers." Do you realize what you were saying? That kind of thinking is an open door for abuses and scandals that damage the reputation of the Church. Or do you not care if Catholics look gullible and superstitious? Think of what you're saying, please.

That is a phrase taken out of context, and I know of no instance where heretics made it mean something different.

The context is perfect. Who was talking about heretics? I was talking about how the Catholic theology has evolved.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Not once and then some more dribble by dribble over the centuries.

You ignore all my posts on the meaning of development of doctrine, and come up with this lunacy. Clarification and deeper understanding only means "added" to those who love their hostilities over and above the truth.

I will continue to fail to understand how you can say something can change but still remain the same.

So the doctrine of the Trinity is a glaring contradiction of 5 centuries of additions??? You are being ridiculous. You ignore all my posts on the meaning of development of doctrine, and come up with this lunacy.

Did I mention the Trinity? I was speaking of how doctrines in general have evolved.

Catholics don't put the Pope on such an insane pedestal. So you invent ridiculous expectations, a straw man fallacy. Infallibility has nothing to do with a pope having super powers invented by bigots, and apostolic succession is a different topic from infallibility. .

You think the Pope can speak infallibly about heavenly things -- things science can't disprove -- but he's incapable of speaking infallibly about earthly things? Surely you jest.

Shall we rewrite John?

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you (and all Catholic bishops and Popes) into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak (he's not speaking about anything so he's not hearing): and he will shew you (not the Popes or bishops but someone else) things to come.

That's true. The majority of bishops before the first Ecumenical Council (Nicea, 325) were Arians. This proves the Church was/is guided by the Holy Spirit, and not a show of hands apart from that.

I wonder why they didn't go to Nicea to vote then. Only 22 Arians showed up out of 318? From a Catholic site:

Arianism and the Council of Nicea

The number of the bishops of the Council was 318. Twenty-two of them were in the Arian faction, with Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia as their leader. It is interesting to remark here that unlike many of the other bishops, neither the Bishop of Nicomedia nor any of his Arian companions bore on his body any marks of persecution.

You are making things up as you go -- it's either that or you're forgetful.

It means "from the Chair of Peter"; their is a list of requirements before that can happen. Information is free on anything Catholic. Use the search engine: www.catholic.com But first you have to WANT to know, otherwise, don't waste your time. Ignorance may be blissful but it is never illuminating.

The reason I asked was I've searched to see how times Popes have spoken ex cathedra, and nobody knows although some people say only twice.

Just read the titles. The reason anti-Catholics avoid RECENT encyclicals is because they are not equipped, they would rather harp on 500 year old arguments that have been refuted a million times.

If they've been refuted a milliion times, you should be doing a better job of it.

I have a big book of encyclicals by Pope Leo XIII. I bought it years ago before I had the internet. I don't recall which one I wanted to read; but I remember that's why I bought it. I didn't read much of it.

I said that verse implicitly applies to them, (three times) I did not say it explicitly applies to them. You are doing that, not me. "Seem to"? How? Giuliano was not able to give an expiry date of "things to come" and neither can you.

I happen to be Giuliano. Implicitly doesn't cut the mustard unless you want to apply the second "you" to them as well. Why should I explain "expiry date" of things to come when you used the phrase, not me? Are you mad, sir? I am weary of you repeating such a foolish question. You're the one who seems to think there was an expiry date on "things to come," not me. You explain it.

Bishops don't "inherit" all truth, they are guided into it as scripture says, and this happens over time.

So the Apostles were not led into all truth? Future generations of more spiritually gifted men would be guided into all truth?

Why didn't the Apostles know the future of the immorality of test tube babies and human cloning? You are not being reasonable.

Don't confuse practices and culture with doctrines. To use the example of the Trinity (since it seems to be a favorite subject), are you saying the Apostles didn't know about the Trinity because it didn't exist yet?

Please quote me instead of making things up. I was paraphrasing John 3:8.

And inappropriately too.

You wrote: "You asked why there is no prophecy in the Catholic Church, and I proved otherwise. Now you are raising the bar because you have, again, been proven wrong. Prophecy is not a power, it is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who blows where He wills. There is nothing in Scripture that demands that prophecy accompanies ordination."

I wrote: "Some of the Apostles had it. If you want to "infer" that bishops inherited the "all truth" part, you should "infer" that they also would inherit the prophetic part. A shepherd needs to know where water is, where food is, where predators are. The earthly shepherd learns those things by experience; but a spiritual shepherd should have access to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in matters so he knows where potential dangers lie in the future so he can avoid them.

You are undermining yourself by saying no one can tell where the gift of prophecy may turn up. If that's the case, then consistency in logic would dictate that the ability to be guided into all truth could pop up anywhere too."

John 3:8 is about being born of the Spirit, not about ordaining clergy.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Padre Pio could move like that. He could be in two places at once even. St Faustina could visit purgatory because she could move like that. I believe Padre Pio did too. I also believe the story of the Venerable Mary of Jesus of Algreda preaching to people in America while her physical body remained in Spain. Native Americans told missionaries when they arrived about her visiting them already. Do not be misled about this sort of thing. St. Faustina said her Guardian Angel led her into purgatory. It was more than a vision. She went there.

Do not try to apply John 3:8 to how the gift of prophecy appears. If you say the "you" in the first part of the sentence in John 16:13 is promising "all truth" to the Apostles and their successors, then the "you" in the second half means them too.

 

[Giuliano]

WRONG.

Everything Jesus said and did in Scripture was a lesson. That’s WHY it was written down.

The overarching lesson with the Rich Man was that he clung to his wealth more than he did to God. Christ showed him and those around him that this was his folly.

There wasn't any need for the man to literally sell everything and become homeless. The point was for the man to rid himself of his worldly obsessions for the kingdom of God. You’ve perverted this lesson for a literalist view . . .

Of course it is; but it was not the way you portrayed it. You said Jesus used the man to teach a lesson. "Christ showed him and those around him that this was his folly" as if Jesus humiliated him to teach a crowd of people a lesson.

Don't complain to me about a literalist view. Take it up with monks and nuns who take vows of poverty -- or are they also not literal? Do they sneak in personal possessions?

 

[Giuliano]

OK, it wasn't you that brought it up, but somebody always does. Any thread with "Catholic" in it no matter what the topic is; Scandal II-obsessed Protestants come out of the wood work, or I wouldn't have posted on it.

Very good. I live in Pennsylvania and was offended myself by the grandstanding antics of the state Attorney General in dredging things up from the far past -- may so far in the past the statute of limitations expired. If he couldn't prosecute them, what was he doing? Wasting tax payers money. I'm tired of hearing about it. My guess is he has political ambitions and was trying to look like a hero. I believe in following the law -- and he had no valid reason to be doing that in my book.

I responded to this in post #1089. I am not assuming anything. Fanciful "histories" dominate the internet. Make sure your sources are reliable and not some wanna-be-preacher nut case, or atheists, or anti-Catholic cults. Together these "sources" number in the billions.

We'll see how it goes.

 

[Grailhunter]

@Giuliano @epostle @Philip James @BreadOfLife

Although fun to watch, I have some advice for you. When you are debating with Giuliano, you are sparring with intellect and some sort of achieve system that has to be impressive. He can chew you up, and spit you out at his leisure. I don’t mean that in a bad way. The only way to keep up with him is to stay with the real. The strong side of the Catholic Church are the Catholics in the pews. If you try to defend the history of the Catholic Church or the intelligence or processes of the Vatican administration or “doctrine makers” you are doing it from a doorway of a burning church and some of those are built on piles of dead bones… literally like millions of bones stacked in piles of bones. The Vatican is the weak link in the Church, for the most part the Vatican is a perfect example of what Christian leadership should not be. Over the years their own doctrines have herded themselves into a corner where they cannot grow in knowledge or correct the numerous errors of past decisions. The power of the Catholic Church, the integrity of the Catholic Church, the Holiness of the Catholic Church is sitting in their pews. Catholics complain that everyone points to the sexual abuse of children and women by priests, when they setup the conditions themselves. No form of common sense would come to the conclusion that celibacy would do anything but bring disgrace to the Church. This is a problem that is only going to get worse! Even if they stopped the requirements for celibacy today it would take decades to resolve and recover from this. The Church needs to act now! Stop celibacy and take a hard line legal action against sex abusers, not hide them away….Oh my gosh! How can you make it worse! I can tell you how, the testimony of mothers that do not allow their child to be alone with Catholic priests is extremely damning to the Church. Critical?!! No, hopeful and honest, sometimes even a good friend need a smack upside the head. I love the Catholics, I want to see the Catholic Church survive and grow, but if they do not make some big changes, it is going to go bad for them.

As far as miracles; God knows where the faithful are. If you look at these Catholic miracles, most are not happening in Catholic churches or with the Bishops, Cardinals, or Popes, they are happening with the believers. And one of the questions that has already been asked is; Are miracles supposed to be proven? Are they blessing for the believers? It does not matter if it involves Catholics or Protestants miracles, it is a matter of belief. Miracles that occur with Protestants generally go unreported because they do not have system of investigation. Protestant miracles are accepted by believers on their own merit.

The study of the power of faith: If you compare the number of times the word faith occurs between the Old Testament and the New Testament, 58 for the OT and 280 for NT and that is not counting words regarding belief and that comparison is with a section of the Bible that is one third the size of Old Testament. Most get the point that faith is part of the process of salvation, but most do not understand that faith is the power of the believer(s) to draw miraculous events and answer to prayers. Mary is mostly going to engage those that believe in her. The miracle of stigmata occurs mostly with Catholic believers. The Holy Spirit is going to engage those that believe in speaking in tongues with the gift of tongues. Miracles of healing are going to happen more often with people that believe that God will perform miracles of healing. I wish everyone could have miracles happen to them, because it concretes the faith. I have had big miracles in my life, but these miracles are so personal and so precious that I generally do not share them with non-believers because I am not going to allow those events to be ridiculed, they are too precious to me. There are probably a lot of people that feel that way.

For the benefit of non-Catholics, it would be good to review the Catholic process and procedures for verification, acknowledgements, and veneration. Since the Church’s reputation is on the line, politics are in the forefront nearly before any truth to the event. Because they want un-biased confirmation they use science as part of the process for verification. Then there are the varying degrees of acknowledgements. All in all no one is more critical of miracles than the Catholic Church itself.

Proving history is a difficult thing, proving religious history and the events therein is much harder, even if there are witnesses. If you went to a baseball game yesterday, let’s say the World Series, tens of thousands of witnesses, millions of television viewers, umpires which are professional witnesses, and tens of thousands of dollars worth of cameras, video equipment, and electronic measuring devises. And yet seconds after the throw of the ball there can be controversy as to what exactly happened. There is nothing like that for those that witness and or try to prove the miracle happened. So the burden of proof should be on those attempting to deny it happened. Miracles are about the faithful, they benefit those that believe and should be judged on the merit of that.

And BreadOfLife there is nothing about you that reflects any kind of Christian spirit, you are a disgrace and you do no service to the Church!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Of course it is; but it was not the way you portrayed it. You said Jesus used the man to teach a lesson. "Christ showed him and those around him that this was his folly" as if Jesus humiliated him to teach a crowd of people a lesson.

Don't complain to me about a literalist view. Take it up with monks and nuns who take vows of poverty -- or are they also not literal? Do they sneak in personal possessions?

Once again – you are missing the point.

Monks and nuns don’t give up their worldly possessions because they were greedy and hopelessly attached to their possessions like the rich Man. They practice mortification of the flesh, which is something that Paul endorsed. They deny themselves for the Kingdom of God, living a life of constant self-sacrifice.

The Rich Man whom Jesus addressed couldn’t do this. His possessions were at the center of his life and he couldn’t imagine life without them.

 

[BreadOfLife]

@Giuliano @epostle @Philip James @BreadOfLife

Although fun to watch, I have some advice for you. When you are debating with Giuliano, you are sparring with intellect and some sort of achieve system that has to be impressive. He can chew you up, and spit you out at his leisure. I don’t mean that in a bad way. The only way to keep up with him is to stay with the real. The strong side of the Catholic Church are the Catholics in the pews. If you try to defend the history of the Catholic Church or the intelligence or processes of the Vatican administration or “doctrine makers” you are doing it from a doorway of a burning church and some of those are built on piles of dead bones… literally like millions of bones stacked in piles of bones. The Vatican is the weak link in the Church, for the most part the Vatican is a perfect example of what Christian leadership should not be. Over the years their own doctrines have herded themselves into a corner where they cannot grow in knowledge or correct the numerous errors of past decisions. The power of the Catholic Church, the integrity of the Catholic Church, the Holiness of the Catholic Church is sitting in their pews. Catholics complain that everyone points to the sexual abuse of children and women by priests, when they setup the conditions themselves. No form of common sense would come to the conclusion that celibacy would do anything but bring disgrace to the Church. This is a problem that is only going to get worse! Even if they stopped the requirements for celibacy today it would take decades to resolve and recover from this. The Church needs to act now! Stop celibacy and take a hard line legal action against sex abusers, not hide them away….Oh my gosh! How can you make it worse! I can tell you how, the testimony of mothers that do not allow their child to be alone with Catholic priests is extremely damning to the Church. Critical?!! No, hopeful and honest, sometimes even a good friend need a smack upside the head. I love the Catholics, I want to see the Catholic Church survive and grow, but if they do not make some big changes, it is going to go bad for them.

As far as miracles; God knows where the faithful are. If you look at these Catholic miracles, most are not happening in Catholic churches or with the Bishops, Cardinals, or Popes, they are happening with the believers. And one of the questions that has already been asked is; Are miracles supposed to be proven? Are they blessing for the believers? It does not matter if it involves Catholics or Protestants miracles, it is a matter of belief. Miracles that occur with Protestants generally go unreported because they do not have system of investigation. Protestant miracles are accepted by believers on their own merit.

The study of the power of faith: If you compare the number of times the word faith occurs between the Old Testament and the New Testament, 58 for the OT and 280 for NT and that is not counting words regarding belief and that comparison is with a section of the Bible that is one third the size of Old Testament. Most get the point that faith is part of the process of salvation, but most do not understand that faith is the power of the believer(s) to draw miraculous events and answer to prayers. Mary is mostly going to engage those that believe in her. The miracle of stigmata occurs mostly with Catholic believers. The Holy Spirit is going to engage those that believe in speaking in tongues with the gift of tongues. Miracles of healing are going to happen more often with people that believe that God will perform miracles of healing. I wish everyone could have miracles happen to them, because it concretes the faith. I have had big miracles in my life, but these miracles are so personal and so precious that I generally do not share them with non-believers because I am not going to allow those events to be ridiculed, they are too precious to me. There are probably a lot of people that feel that way.

For the benefit of non-Catholics, it would be good to review the Catholic process and procedures for verification, acknowledgements, and veneration. Since the Church’s reputation is on the line, politics are in the forefront nearly before any truth to the event. Because they want un-biased confirmation they use science as part of the process for verification. Then there are the varying degrees of acknowledgements. All in all no one is more critical of miracles than the Catholic Church itself.

Proving history is a difficult thing, proving religious history and the events therein is much harder, even if there are witnesses. If you went to a baseball game yesterday, let’s say the World Series, tens of thousands of witnesses, millions of television viewers, umpires which are professional witnesses, and tens of thousands of dollars worth of cameras, video equipment, and electronic measuring devises. And yet seconds after the throw of the ball there can be controversy as to what exactly happened. There is nothing like that for those that witness and or try to prove the miracle happened. So the burden of proof should be on those attempting to deny it happened. Miracles are about the faithful, they benefit those that believe and should be judged on the merit of that.

And BreadOfLife there is nothing about you that reflects any kind of Christian spirit, you are a disgrace and you do no service to the Church!

Spoken like yet another person who is used to spewing lies with impunity.

The problem with people like you is that you LOVE to spread falsehoods – but you HATE getting caught – and that’s where I come in.

I am the “bad guy” who exposes people like you and Giuliano and the rest.

Anyway – it doesn’t matter one single iota what YOU think about me. I’m not here to be your buddy – I’m here to expose lies and misrepresentations of the Catholic Church so that others reading this manure don’t get seduced by them . . .

 

[Giuliano]

Spoken like yet another person who is used to spewing lies with impunity.

The problem with people like you is that you LOVE to spread falsehoods – but you HATE getting caught – and that’s where I come in.

I am the “bad guy” who exposes people like you and Giuliano and the rest.

Anyway – it doesn’t matter one single iota what YOU think about me. I’m not here to be your buddy – I’m here to expose lies and misrepresentations of the Catholic Church so that others reading this manure don’t get seduced by them . . .