Thanks for all the email with questions about Catholic beliefs. Mony have come in. I will try to get to all of them. Here is one of the many:
Powerball,
When you ask a saint to pray for you, are you not disrespecting God?
Certainly not. Roman Catholics, in addition to praying to Jesus Christ, often pray to Mary and Saints. Protestants do not usually do this. I don't believe there is anything wrong with asking other Christians to pray to God for us. That would include those who are in Heaven.
The Bible tells us to ask for help in prayer. In Psalm 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalm 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).
Most of us ask others to pray for us. Remember, "on earth as it is in heaven".
40 comments:
The heavenly perspective: 1 Thessalonians 4:14 - "them also which sleep IN Jesus"
The earthly perspective: 1 Thessalonians 4:16 - "the dead IN Christ"
To us they are dead - we buried them.
To Christ they rest waiting the resurrection.
Ever asked a person dead OR asleep to do somethign for you?
"Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21)
The angels are ministers/servant of God, NOT US! This verse tells us they do God's will and do His Word. The Psalmist is only joiniung with them in the glory and praise of God - which we do. This verse is speaking of angels not departed saints and saints don't ever become angels.
And in Psalm 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).
This is a PRAISE, not a SUPPLICATION. Prayer is a conduit for either/both. Don't confuse the two. Again the humble Psalmist rejoices that there esists a host that is united with him in the praise of the Most High God.
The two passages have nothing to do with service from saint to saint; dead or alive.
"Most of us ask others to pray for us. Remember, "on earth as it is in heaven"."
Well we should, but not because of this verse. "on earth as it is in heaven" is preceded by "thy will be done". We should pray according to and for the fullfillment of God's holy will. Again, this isn't regarding saint to saint service.
For instruction to pray for one another ...
James 5:16 - "pray one for another"
Ephesians 6:18 - "Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints"
You must be aware of the New Life of the Christian who has been called out of this life.
Rom 6:3-4
Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.
Col 2:12
You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
We ask those who've died to pray for us. Aquinas teaches that they are not able to know, by themselves, our prayers; however, it is believed that God makes our prayers known to them.
The early Church taught because those who have left this world are much closer to God, their prayers for us are very effective.
I would encourge everyone to look at the history of the Church on this.
I would encourge everyone to look at the history of the Church on this.
What to do when the history of the church contradicts scripture...
Although I have to agree with Jerry, it doesn't hurt, but I doubt it helps. Kind of like chicken soup with a cold.
On a side note, I really enjoy your "Ask Powerball" posts. Please keep it up. :)
Thanks for the kind words. I'm no expert but I do get many questions and try my best to answer.
The question about when history contradicts Scripture is interesting.
Is it that history (ie the early church fathers) really contradicts Scripture or is it that it contradicts our interpretation of Scripture?
If my beleifs are different from what Christians belived 1000 years ago, then I would need to consider the possibility that I may be wrong.
This is where I default to the early Church and look at tradition to in light of Scripture to understand.
Good answer, Powerball. There is always the possibility of us being wrong, but I think to automatically assume we are wrong lessens our connection with the Word. We should always try to resolve contradictions. Our faith can only be strengthened by it.
I believe that very little scripture needs interpeting when taken in context of other scripture. When it does, it is usually because of OT symbolism or cultural aspects used that we may miss the nuances of.
On a side note, I've found this everytime someone points out a supposed "contradiction" in scripture, like Judas and what happened with the 30 pieces of silver.
The early Church taught because those who have left this world are much closer to God, their prayers for us are very effective.
Were this true the Apostle Paul wouldn't have said the following in the way he did...
Philippians 1
21 For for me to live [is] Christ, and to die gain;
22 but if to live in flesh [is my lot], this is for me worth the while: and what I shall choose I cannot tell.
23 But I am pressed by both, having the desire for departure and being with Christ, [for] [it is] very much better,
24 but remaining in the flesh [is] more necessary for your sakes;
25 and having confidence of this, I know that I shall remain and abide along with you all, for your progress and joy in faith;
If the Apostle thought he'd be more effective if he was 'closer' to God this wouldn't have ever been written.
Excellent point!
That is not a good point!
The simple fact is that this is what the early Church taught… and still teaches!
What Paul said could be twisted to address this issue, but it’s not meant to.
Here is what a lot of people fail to realize, using an over-simplified example:
Let’s say the Church has certain beliefs on a Monday. On a Tuesday, the compiled the Bible. They obviously aren’t going to include passages that dispute what they believed! So it is obvious that the passages don’t contradict Church teaching.
If you want to make an argument, you could make one that teachings are “extra-Biblical”, but not that they are anti-Biblical.
Or, argue that early Christians mis-read the Bible (but somehow we know better two thousand years later).
Or, argue that a doctrine promulgated centuries later was not believed by the early Church.
I wonder if Thomas would argue against the Trinity since it is not explicitly in Scripture and there are isolated passages that would seem to argue against it.
"I wonder if Thomas would argue against the Trinity since it is not explicitly in Scripture and there are isolated passages that would seem to argue against it."
There is no contradiction in the Word of God.
God is a tri-une being. Three distincts Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All work in perfect harmony with each other.
No doubt I will see a verse posted that states that God is One God. This is true and doesn't negate the tri-une aspect of His Person. It was said of Jesus that in Him ALL the Godhead dwelled bodily. Did people see three beings or one? They saw the effect of the tri-une God working; the Son in perfectly working under the power of the Spirit to accomplish the will of the Father.
In any case - post those Sciptures.
"Let’s say the Church has certain beliefs on a Monday. On a Tuesday, the compiled the Bible. They obviously aren’t going to include passages that dispute what they believed! So it is obvious that the passages don’t contradict Church teaching."
This argument is a straw-man at best - at worst it doesn't even make sense.
It also leaves the possibility open for dishonesty in the phrase "They obviously aren’t going to include passages that dispute what they believed". Be careful how you phrase things. Don't let your emotion get in the way of your conviction.
The simple fact is that this is what the early Church taught… and still teaches!
It did? I've been looking through the writing of the early Church Fathers and I haven't been able to find any mention of it. A little help, please.
Let’s say the Church has certain beliefs on a Monday. On a Tuesday, the compiled the Bible. They obviously aren’t going to include passages that dispute what they believed! So it is obvious that the passages don’t contradict Church teaching.
Unless the Holy Spirit was guiding them to include them. ;)
Exactly! The Holy Spirt was leading the early Church. But remember, Jesus said the Holy Spirit will be with us always. So the Spirit is still working through the Church.
Depending on your point of view, the Spirit is either doing a great job (i.e. One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church exists 2000 years later and is 1 billion members strong) or there are mixed results i.e. 30000 denominations.
The last time I checked, division is not one of the Fruits of the Spirt.
Ask yourself (vaguely pointed toward anyone reading this blog) are you more interested in finding the Truth, or in being right and winning arguments?
I am posting the Church father quotes below. What I'm expecting someone to do is to completely bypass everything I wrote above, and to attack the particular sayings. There is no need to. Here's a tip: if a Protestant wants a Catholic to listen to his or her arguments, he or she should not come across as reactionary. It is one of our pet peeves.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp
Hey all!
I have a question for my Protestant brethren...
What do you think the Saints are doing in heaven?
When I was a child I used to envision them sitting on clouds playing harps, but somehow the older I got the less likely that seemed correct.
It’s been my experience the closer someone gets to God, the more they wish to do his will. Now imagine seeing him face to face for eternity!
Exactly! The Holy Spirt was leading the early Church. But remember, Jesus said the Holy Spirit will be with us always. So the Spirit is still working through the Church.
That doesn't mean that the Church was LISTENING to the Holy Spirit throughout its history. Its fruits has shown conclusively that is has not!
The last time I checked, division is not one of the Fruits of the Spirt.
Yeah, and many split FROM the Catholic church, so it is just as guilty as every non-Catholic denomination. And that of that 30,000 number, about half are independent Baptist congregations.
Ask yourself (vaguely pointed toward anyone reading this blog) are you more interested in finding the Truth, or in being right and winning arguments?
You assume "the Truth" will lead we filthy heretics all back to the Catholic church. Pardon me while I vehamently disagree with that assumption.
Here's a tip: if a Protestant wants a Catholic to listen to his or her arguments, he or she should not come across as reactionary. It is one of our pet peeves.
Yeah, it is one of ours too, but that doesn't stop a lot of Catholics from doing it either.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp
Thanks for posting that. What I see is that the first mention of saints intercessory prayer occurred after 200 AD. That would be like the first instances of socialism appearing in America in the 1930's, but saying that is what the founding fathers believed. I'm sorry, but that is not conclusive.
What do you think the Saints are doing in heaven?
I believe they are asleep awaiting the ressurection.
"What do you think the Saints are doing in heaven?
I believe they are asleep awaiting the resurrection."
I don’t think Moses and Elijah seemed sleepy when they were conversing w/ Christ during the transfiguration.
Also, since the book of Revelation gives us a glimpse into Heaven, does it depict the Saints sleeping there, or doing otherwise?
This may require a whole new post but I'll give it a shot here.
I keep hearing this "they're asleep" argument.
It is argued that the fact that the Bible refers to death by the word "sleep" is proof that there is no conscious life after death.
Yet the facts do not support this. The word "sleep" is a metaphor describing the appearance and posture of the body.
The word was used by the Greeks & Egyptians to describe their dead.
These cultures indisputably believed in a conscious afterlife. That tells us what they meant by "Sleep".
So the word "sleep" in scripture cannot logically be used as an argument for soul sleep.
Not to mention when person does sleep we still exist, think, dream and experience consciousness when we sleep.
"What I see is that the first mention of saint’s intercessory prayer occurred after 200 AD.
-Name Hidden"
Actually an earlier reference, by hundreds of years, would be the “dead” prophet Jeremiah praying for the nation of Israel in, what you would most likely consider apocrypha but none the less a source, one of the books of Maccabees.
Can you post the earliest instance of someone protesting against the practice for us?
-Anony
2 Maccabees 15:12-14
What he saw was this: Onias, the former high priest, a good and virtuous man, modest in appearance, gentle in manners, distinguished in speech, and trained from childhood in every virtuous practice, was praying with outstretched arms for the whole Jewish community. Then in the same way another man appeared, distinguished by his white hair and dignity, and with an air about him of extraordinary, majestic authority. Onias then said of him, "This is God's prophet Jeremiah, who loves his brethren and fervently prays for his people and their holy city."
Bits ...
"What do you think the Saints are doing in heaven?"
Read Ephesians chapter 1. The past, present and future are all tot he praise of Hid glory. They are occupied perfectly and fully with Christ - not with us.
"I keep hearing this "they're asleep" argument.
It is argued that the fact that the Bible refers to death by the word "sleep" is proof that there is no conscious life after death."
This is a false argument. There is life after physical death - there is conciousness for the soul. The word of God is too plain for anyone to argue the contrary.
"Yet the facts do not support this. The word "sleep" is a metaphor describing the appearance and posture of the body."
They support your use of metaphor - but they also support the thought that those asleep in Jesus are not aware of US here on earth. They are departed to be with Christ which is far better. They are concious of Him, not of us.
"So the word "sleep" in scripture cannot logically be used as an argument for soul sleep."
You conclusion can't be derived as you have it here. I agree the cultures around certainly can help in the sense of things, but you can't use culture alone to derive your conclusion. Our view of derath is quite different from the worldly cultures we find ourselves in.
"Not to mention when person does sleep we still exist, think, dream and experience consciousness when we sleep."
True - but we are useless to those not in our 'realm'.
As for the Maccabees quote ... what's to say he wasn't reverring tot he vision figuratively. The Scriptures say that AFTER Elias died that he WOULD COME before the arrival of the Christ - this is strange seeing as John the Baptist was the last fo the prophets before Christ came. But we know John came in the same spirit as Elijah - the reference then was figurative. Is it not possible that the Maccabees reference is indeed figurative? If not, what's the proof of it?
Can you be sure the writer could recognize Jeremiah? We know that those who witnessed the transfiguration would not have known the participants hadn't the Lord revealed it to them - for they had never laid eyes on them. This is a possibility here, but what proof of this do we have?
Indeed I do consider Maccabees apocrypha.
Can you post the earliest instance of someone protesting against the practice for us?
Yes, the Council of Nicea (who I believe compiled the canon, I could be mistaken). The fact that Maccabees wasn't included in the canon until the counter-reformation's Council of Trent.
"As for the Maccabees quote ... what's to say he wasn't reverring tot he vision figuratively.
-Thomas"
I think the text is very plain that it wasn't. The text shows that the true faith before Christianity, Judaism, believed God's holy Saints intercede for people on earth in the after life.
"Can you be sure the writer could recognize Jeremiah?
I don't think that matters at all. If God told Onias who he was or Jeremiah told Onias who he was makes no difference. Either option doesn't change the fact of what Jeremiah was doing.
-Anony
"Can you post the earliest instance of someone protesting against the practice for us?
Yes, the Council of Nicea (who I believe compiled the canon, I could be mistaken).
-Name Hidden"
You are mistaken. The creed that came out of the Council of Nicene states, "we believe in the communion of Saints." Communion means "common union". Read the canons of the council here ---> http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
Not to bother you but, can you post the earliest instance of someone protesting against the practice?
On a side note, since you stated, "What I see is that the first mention of saint’s intercessory prayer occurred after 200 AD." makes me wonder if you hold the same standard up to the teachings that came out of the 16th century but no earlier. To me that’s intellectually dishonest and it seems like a big double standard. A gap of one century from the death of the last apostle is too big but a gap of 15 centuries is no problem.
-Anony
I just wanted to thank you for explaining what intercessory prayer is.
The discussion reminds me of a quote from Archbishop Fulton Sheen: "There are not one hundred people in this world who dislike Catholicism, but there are millions who dislike what they mistakenly believe Catholicism to be."
I'm no Church history scholar.
But one thing I do know is that councils weren't convoked for the fun of it. Usually they were aimed at resolving an emerging heresy.
You can see this with the Creed. It started out as a sentence or two, but grew to the Apostles Creed, and eventually the Nicene Creed, as the Church had to tack on statements in order to provide clarification and make matters explicit.
So to say that the deuteronical books weren't included until the Council of Trent is specious. It's true in an official sense, but it's what the Church generally believed all along. It just never needed to be defended in force until folks tried to remove books from the Bible.
I think it is interesting that Luther wanted to take books out of the New Testament, as well, including Revelation and James, because he though they conflicted with his sola fide doctrine. So I wouldn't hang my hat to heavily on what the reformers though a canon should look like.
Here is an factoid that is the opposite of conclusive, but does cause one to at least raise an eye brow. On the other hand, it would be fair to dismiss it out of hand.
What are some common numbers in the Bible associated with good things? 7, 3, and 12. Probably some others, too.
What are some numbers in the Bible associated with things that aren't especially good? 6 comes to mind.
How many books is the Catholic canon? 73.
The Protestant canon? 66.
All I'm saying is that it's interesting (the church fathers were very mathmatical oriented and would have probably found this compelling).
Not need to debunk this though, as it really doesn't prove a thing. For instance God doesn't operate on a decimal system, I presume.
But it does somehow seem right that he would capstone his Word at "73" and unlikely it would be at "66"
anon ...
The Protestant canon? 66.
WRONG! There are seventy books. The book of Psalms is actually 5 distinct books.
Now for the numbers: 70 = 7X10
7 gives us divine perfection
10 is man's number
The seventy books give us perfectly what God intends for man regarding his natural condition.
I think the text is very plain that it wasn't.
Then show from the text this.
The text shows that the true faith before Christianity, Judaism, believed God's holy Saints intercede for people on earth in the after life.
It does. But again you fail to acknowledge that at that time Israel was far from God. Look at Malachi - they had wandered yet again and that was only 40 or so years after the time of Nehemiah! Just becasue they did it, doesn't mean it's right. Israel copied many traditions from the heathen around them that are recorded in the OT - doe that make it right? No!
Another point to remember is that Christianity and Judaism are not related! Chrsit himself said, "This is the New Convenant of Blood." The writer of Hebrews takes up with that theme and goes along way to show the differences/contrasts. The two adminsitrations of God in Israel and the Church are distinct - God remains the same.
Good try, Thomas.
It's interesting that you find the mathmatics meaningful.
While what you say is true, the Psalms are not broken down like the epistles in the New Testament.
"Good try, Thomas."
Condescending ... yet another display of ecclesiastical pride.
"It's interesting that you find the mathmatics meaningful."
And so ... you make so many statements and never follow through. Tell me why it is interesting.
"While what you say is true, the Psalms are not broken down like the epistles in the New Testament."
Oh no! The common table of contents is off! So what. it doesn't negate the fact there are 70 distinct books in the Bible (or at least in the handful of translations I study from).
makes me wonder if you hold the same standard up to the teachings that came out of the 16th century but no earlier.
Uh huh. Yeah, right. NO ONE said "sola scriptura" until Luther. More like no one said "sola scriptura" and lived before Luther. The Catholic church has a long history of torture and murder of heretics, all infallibly sanctioned by various Popes. Luther's ideas spread because of the printing press. That is why they (and most likely he) were able to survive.
I think it is interesting that Luther wanted to take books out of the New Testament, as well, including Revelation and James, because he though they conflicted with his sola fide doctrine.
Ah yes, more divining of others' motivations. I don't know what you mean by "as well," as the OT Apocrypha wasn't in the canon at the time of Luther. It was added afterwards by the Council of Trent!
Not to bother you but, can you post the earliest instance of someone protesting against the practice?
Protest and survived, you mean? Either the people that protested OR the decumentation that they protested. That will take some digging.
Uh huh. Yeah, right. NO ONE said "sola scriptura" until Luther. More like no one said "sola scriptura" and lived before Luther.
Please that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Gnostic and Arian writings can still be found from early in church history. The same can be said for many other of the major heresies in church history.
Please do not try to hold the Catholic Church of the 14th century up to what we consider civil today. The CC never punished heretics, the bishops were not hanging dissenters. However, it did let the secular rulers punish them; but you are speaking of a time when the Church and state were closely united.
Today we live in the “New Secular Order”, (Read the Latin on the back of your dollar bill) but back then heresy was a crime against the Church comparable to how severe treason is to the State. (Which by the way is a capital offensive even today!) Are you unaware of Protestant leaders executing people who they considered heretics also? Ever hear the saying about glass houses and stone throwing?
You should be intellectually honest and study history. Catholics, Protestants, Pagans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Atheists have all committed crimes against humanity. Ever read about Salem Mass, or the Potato famine?
Try attacking the argument instead of diverting the attention to salacious arguments that cannot stand honest intellectual scrutiny. Sola scriptura was invented in the 16th century by an apostate monk of the Catholic Church. It is unbiblical, unhistorical, and unworkable.
"Ah yes, more divining of others' motivations. I don't know what you mean by "as well," as the OT Apocrypha wasn't in the canon at the time of Luther. It was added afterwards by the Council of Trent!
That is as much a myth as saying Martin Luther was the first person to translate the bible into German!
There are a couple thousand bibles from antiquity, and every single copy has a complete Septuagint version Old Testament. What you would consider "Apocrypha" was removed only in the 17th century by Puritan sects. Find a first edition King James Bible and tell me they weren't part of it!
You cannot believe the things you that and be honest at the same time, unless you just have not done your homework, which seems to be the most likely culprit.
-Anony
There are a couple thousand bibles from antiquity, and every single copy has a complete Septuagint version Old Testament.
I'll bet you they were "complete" translations of the Latin Vulgate. The fact remains they weren't officially added to the canon until the Council of Trent.
What you would consider "Apocrypha" was removed only in the 17th century by Puritan sects.
I thought you said LUTHER took them out! Nice self-contradiction.
Find a first edition King James Bible and tell me they weren't part of it!
So you're saying every single bible prior to Luther had the Apocryphal books in it? I find that difficult to believe, considering they were yet to be officially added to the canon. I know some considered them scripture throughout the ages, but many did not. There was a question as to whether or not they were scripture, which is why they weren't added until Trent.
You cannot believe the things you that and be honest at the same time, unless you just have not done your homework, which seems to be the most likely culprit.
Thanks for the laugh. You are worse than a liberal with your view of "you must believe what I believe or you are ignorant, stupid, or inconsistent." Try taking your Catholic blinders off and seek the truth. Or don't. Makes no difference to me.
In the days in which the KJV Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscnpts.
That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text.
They are as follows:
1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt, must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.
Please that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Gnostic and Arian writings can still be found from early in church history. The same can be said for many other of the major heresies in church history.
Um... huh?
There were plenty of pockets of believers that had nothing but the scriptures throughout history.
Please do not try to hold the Catholic Church of the 14th century up to what we consider civil today.
Why not? God's Truth doesn't change, and the Catholic church claims to be the sole vessle of said Truth, so it should hold up under what we consider civil today.
The CC never punished heretics, the bishops were not hanging dissenters. However, it did let the secular rulers punish them; but you are speaking of a time when the Church and state were closely united.
Three self-contradictions there. Ad extirpanda authorized the use of torture by inquisitors. Study your history from something other than catholic.com.
Are you unaware of Protestant leaders executing people who they considered heretics also? Ever hear the saying about glass houses and stone throwing?
Please. Every Catholic I know considers every non-Catholic Christian to be a Protestant. I'm not the one who claims my human leader to be infallible. I condemn every instance of "protestants" (by your definition) using torture and turning people over to the government as heretics to be imprisoned, tortured, and killed as acts of people acting on behalf of Satan, fully in league with Satan, and acting in the spirit of the Anti-Christ. Are you willing to do the same? Are you willing to say that Pope Innocent IV was of Satan and acting in the spirit of the Anti-Christ? Or Pope Lucius III? Or Pope Gregory IX? Or the countless other bishops and inquisitors down through the centuries?
Try attacking the argument instead of diverting the attention to salacious arguments that cannot stand honest intellectual scrutiny.
That's just laughable. Try studying history from something other than Catholic.com.
Sola scriptura was invented in the 16th century by an apostate monk of the Catholic Church. It is unbiblical, unhistorical, and unworkable.
Keep chanting your mantra. It works fine for me, and countless others.
“Um... huh?
There were plenty of pockets of believers that had nothing but the scriptures throughout history.”
Actually there were a few apostolic churches founded w/out any scripture. Furthermore, talk is cheap, where’s the proof? Gnostic writings can easily be found in a Borders Book store, that that heresy preceded Luther’s by more than a millennium. Apply logic to your assumption and pick the most reasonable answer.
If you actually took the time to read Luther’s works for yourself, you would have noticed he stated in his writings that his doctrine was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit. He never claimed it was believed by the Church from the beginning, he claimed the Church of Christ was in error until He discovered the truth. A little research could save you a bit of typing.
“Why not? God's Truth doesn't change…”
No but society does. In the 14th century an attack against the stability of the Church was equal to an attack on the stability of the state. One heretic can send thousands, or millions, of souls to hell. I’m not going to judge humans living centuries ago, in totally different societies, by the standards of the modern world today. No intellectually honest historian does so either.
” Ad extirpanda authorized the use of torture by inquisitors. Study your history from something other than catholic.com.
Have you ever read the text of “Ad extripanda”? I highly doubt it, not to mention the fact you are repeating exactly what I said it did; it allowed the secular rulers the right to punish people found to be heretics according to the church. I barely look at Catholic.com since it changed its format years ago (although I’m sure they don’t mind the plug either.), but I honestly have studied history from as many sources as I could find, Cath Ortho Prot Secular, and that’s why I left the minions of relative Christianity for the one holy catholic apostolic faith of Christ! I humbly suggest to you that possibly you should study Christian history before the 16th century. And to really go out on a limb and suggest something revolutionary… go to an actual library instead of only using bias non scholarly sources from the Internet.
” Please. Every Catholic I know considers every non-Catholic Christian to be a Protestant. I'm not the one who claims my human leader to be infallible.”
I don’t claim that the human bishops of the church are impeccable! I don’t think you understand what “infallible” means. Without infallible certainty of faith and morals, God would be unjust in his requirements for us to obey those articles of faith and morals. Again, apply logic to your assumption and pick the most reasonable answer.
“I condemn every instance of "protestants" (by your definition) using torture and turning people over to the government as heretics”
I don’t judge governments from centuries ago by our standards today.
” That's just laughable. Try studying history from something other than Catholic.com.”
Usually people resort to laughing when they cannot defend the argument at hand. Jerry seems to mention it all the time on air too, and I agree with him wholeheartedly.
“ Keep chanting your mantra. It works fine for me, and countless others.”
I guess you’d have to define what you mean by “works” before I could honestly respond. If Sola Scriptura’s fruit wasn’t so divisive I could possibly give your assumption some weight. Sadly that just isn’t the case.
I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
–St Paul
I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Luther," or "I belong to Calvin," or "I belong to Joseph Smith," or "I belong to Arian, or "I belong to King Henry the VIII." Is Christ divided?
(Paraphrased of course for dramatic effect!!!!)
PS I love the picture you use next to your username. It just depicts Christian love as plain as day!
There were the Waldensians from 1173, and the Anabaptists, who were declared criminals under the code of Justinian (A.D. 529) because of their belief in "rebaptism". Look also to the works of Dr. Ypeii, Professor of Theology in Gronigen, and the Rev. J. J. Dermout, Chaplain to the King of the Netherlands. John Clark Ridpath, a professor of history in DePauw University, cites proof that the there were Baptist-like churches back as far as 100 AD. Also, read Sir Isaac Newton's Memoirs of Whiston.
I'll leave it at that, instead of continuing this thread, which is growing more insulting, visceral, and condescending every time something is posted.
PS I love the picture you use next to your username. It just depicts Christian love as plain as day!
I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you.
And still the Apostle called them all brothers! Despite our divisions we are still One Body, One Loaf, One Family because of One Spirit — just as we were called to One hope when we were called — One Lord, One faith, One baptism; One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in us all.
"Usually people resort to laughing when they cannot defend the argument at hand."
Or they hurl insults, as NH has pointed out.
"One heretic can send thousands, or millions, of souls to hell."
So can an apostate Catholic church.
Post a Comment