Posted on 05/25/2025 4:05:48 AM PDT by JosephJames
Your attempt to paint the Catholic Church as contradictory between Vatican I and Vatican II is a weak gotcha that doesn’t hold up. The Church’s doctrine doesn’t flip-flop—it develops, rooted in the same truth, as Christ promised the Spirit would guide (John 16:13). Let’s set the record straight.
Vatican I (1869-1870) didn’t “condemn” non-Catholic Christians as heretics in the way you imply. It defined papal infallibility and upheld the Church as the fullness of truth (Matt 16:18, Greek: ekklēsia on Peter), warning against formal heresy—rejecting revealed truth with full knowledge and consent. It never damned baptized Christians who, through no fault of their own, are outside full communion.
Vatican II (1962-1965), in Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio, clarified that baptized non-Catholic Christians are “separated brethren” (Latin: fratres seiuncti), united to Christ by baptism and sharing partial communion with the Catholic Church. This isn’t a reversal but a development, emphasizing shared faith while still calling for full unity under the one Church (John 17:21). The Greek koinōnia (communion) in 1 John 1:3 underpins this: we’re brothers in Christ, even if separated.
The Church’s core teaching—salvation through Christ in His Church—never changed. Vatican II refined how we express the status of non-Catholics, reflecting pastoral charity, not doctrinal contradiction. Your cherry-picked jab ignores this continuity and the Church’s authority to clarify its teaching (Acts 15:28).
Your response sidesteps the evidence, misrepresents the Catholic canon, and peddles tired Protestant objections about the Deuterocanonical books. Let’s dive into the biblical, historical, and theological facts to dismantle your claims with precision and clarity. The Catholic Church’s 73-book canon, including the Deuterocanonicals, is rooted in apostolic tradition, affirmed by early Christians, and consistent with the Scriptures used by Jesus and the apostles. Your arguments don’t hold up.
Biblical Evidence: The Septuagint and the Deuterocanonicals
You claim the Catholic canon “doesn’t reflect the entire Septuagint” and that Jesus defined a narrower canon. This is factually incorrect and lacks evidence.
1. The Septuagint as the Early Christian Scripture
The Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures completed by 200 BC, was the dominant Bible for Greek-speaking Jews and early Christians in Jesus’ time. It included the Deuterocanonical books (e.g., Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees). New Testament writers frequently quote the Septuagint, often matching its wording over the Hebrew Masoretic text. For example, Matthew 1:23 cites Isaiah 7:14 using the Septuagint’s parthenos (virgin) rather than the Hebrew almah (young woman). Hebrews 11:35 alludes to 2 Maccabees 7, where martyrs are tortured and hope for resurrection, a concept absent in the Protestant canon but clear in the Deuterocanonicals. Jesus Himself never defines a closed canon, and your claim that He endorsed the later Jewish Tanakh is pure speculation.
2. Paul’s Use of Non-Canonical Sources vs. Deuterocanonicals
You argue that Paul quoting non-biblical sources (e.g., Epimenides in Acts 17:28 or Menander in 1 Cor 15:33) doesn’t make them canonical, so the Deuterocanonicals shouldn’t be either. This is a false equivalence. Paul’s passing references to pagan poets are not treated as Scripture, whereas the Deuterocanonicals were widely read as sacred texts in Jewish and Christian communities. Early Christians, like Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), quote Wisdom and Sirach as authoritative, not as mere cultural references. The Deuterocanonicals’ consistent use in worship and teaching sets them apart from random quotations.
3. No Fixed Jewish Canon in Jesus’ Time
You imply Jesus endorsed a fixed Old Testament canon excluding the Deuterocanonicals. However, no universal Jewish canon existed in the 1st century. The Sadducees accepted only the Torah, the Pharisees a broader canon, and the Essenes included other texts. The Septuagint, with the Deuterocanonicals, was the Scripture of choice for Hellenistic Jews and early Christians. The Jewish Tanakh, finalized post-70 AD by non-Christian Jews, excluded the Deuterocanonicals, possibly to counter Christian use. As Christians, we’re bound by apostolic tradition (2 Thess 2:15, Greek: paradosis), not a post-Christian Jewish decision.
Historical Evidence: The Deuterocanonicals in Early Christianity
Your claim that the Deuterocanonicals were only “officially” declared inspired at Trent (1545-1563) and were viewed as “useful but not inspired” by many Catholics is a distortion of history.
Early Christian Acceptance The Deuterocanonical books were part of the Christian canon from the start. Early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), Irenaeus (c. 180 AD), and Tertullian (c. 200 AD) cite them as Scripture. The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 AD) includes Wisdom. Regional councils like Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) formalized the 73-book canon, including the Deuterocanonicals, reflecting widespread practice, not innovation. These councils, while not ecumenical, carried authority under the Church’s apostolic mandate (Acts 15:28). Your dismissal of them as “limited” ignores their influence and consensus.
Pre-Trent Catholic Consensus You suggest “many” Catholics viewed the Deuterocanonicals as non-inspired before Trent. This is misleading. While some, like Jerome, initially preferred the Hebrew canon, he later accepted the Church’s broader canon, including the Deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate translation (c. 405 AD). Medieval theologians like Thomas Aquinas and Church Fathers like Augustine consistently treated them as inspired. The Council of Florence (1442) reaffirmed the 73-book canon before the Reformation. Trent’s decree was a formal response to Protestant challenges, not a new invention.
Trent’s Context You claim Trent declared the Deuterocanonicals inspired “primarily” to support Catholic practices like praying for the dead or almsgiving. This is a half-truth. Trent reaffirmed the historic canon against Protestant reductions, which followed Luther’s preference for the Jewish Tanakh. The Deuterocanonicals do support practices like praying for the dead (2 Macc 12:44-45), but these were already part of Christian tradition, not invented to counter Protestants. Your narrative flips cause and effect.
Addressing Alleged Errors in the Deuterocanonicals You assert the Deuterocanonicals “teach many things that are not true” and are “not historically accurate.” This is a sweeping claim with no specifics, but I’ll address common objections.
Theological Consistency The Deuterocanonicals align with biblical theology. Wisdom 2:12-20 eerily prefigures Christ’s Passion, describing a righteous man persecuted by the wicked. Sirach emphasizes wisdom and virtue, echoing Proverbs. 2 Maccabees 12:44-45 supports prayers for the dead, a practice consistent with early Christian liturgy and Paul’s prayer for Onesiphorus (2 Tim 1:16-18). Your claim of “untrue” teachings seems to target Catholic practices you reject, like intercession of saints or almsgiving for atonement (Tobit 12:9). These don’t contradict Scripture but reflect a fuller understanding of grace, consistent with James 2:17 (faith without works is dead).
Historical Accuracy Critics often point to alleged errors, like Judith’s anachronisms or Tobit’s narrative style. These books blend historical and literary elements, a common ancient genre (e.g., Esther’s embellishments). 1-2 Maccabees align with secular histories (e.g., Josephus) on the Maccabean revolt. The Church reads them as inspired, not as modern history textbooks. Your vague charge of inaccuracy demands specifics—name the errors, or it’s just hot air.
Catholic Practices You claim the Deuterocanonicals support “unbiblical” practices like petitioning saints or almsgiving for grace. Petitioning saints aligns with Revelation 5:8 (saints offering prayers) and Hebrews 12:1 (cloud of witnesses). Almsgiving as meritorious reflects Daniel 4:27 (atoning for sins through charity) and Jesus’ teaching in Luke 11:41. These practices predate Trent and flow from the whole canon, not just the Deuterocanonicals.
On Church Structure: Papacy and Hierarchy You claim the New Testament lacks the papacy or Catholic hierarchy. This is a red herring, but I’ll address it briefly. The papacy is rooted in Matthew 16:18-19, where Jesus gives Peter the “keys” (Greek: kleis, symbolizing authority) and the power to bind and loose. Acts 15 shows Peter leading the Jerusalem Council, a model for papal primacy. Bishops (episkopos, 1 Tim 3:1) and priests (presbyteros, Titus 1:5) are clear in the Epistles, evolving into the Catholic hierarchy by the 2nd century (see Ignatius of Antioch, c. 107 AD). The “college of cardinals” is a later development, but the Church’s authority to organize itself is biblical (Acts 15:28). Your objection ignores this organic growth under the Spirit’s guidance.
Your claim that the Deuterocanonicals are “added” or erroneous is a Protestant invention, not a biblical or historical truth. The 73-book canon, rooted in the Septuagint, was used by Jesus, the apostles, and early Christians. Councils like Hippo, Carthage, and Trent affirmed apostolic tradition, not Roman whim. Your appeal to a post-Christian Jewish canon and vague charges of “errors” lack evidence and context. The Catholic Church’s structure and canon stand on Scripture, Tradition, and history—your objections are a 16th-century innovation, not a return to some pure original. Bring specific evidence or stop recycling tired tropes.
Metmom, you keep saying you are an ex Catholic, yet none of your posts show even a rudimentary understanding of Catholic theology.
Meaning, you are posting falsehoods about what the church believes.
Your assertion that Christ’s death and bloodshed, not His suffering, atoned for our sins, and that Catholic teaching on purgatory somehow contradicts this, is a flawed caricature of both Scripture and Catholic doctrine.
You attempt to divorce Christ’s suffering from His death, claiming only the latter atones. Scripture paints a unified picture of Christ’s redemptive work, where His suffering and death together form the Paschal mystery.
Christ’s Suffering in Atonement Isaiah 53:4-5, a messianic prophecy, states: “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows… he was wounded for our transgressions… and with his stripes we are healed” (RSV). The Hebrew chabburah (stripes/wounds) points to Christ’s suffering, not just His death, as redemptive. Hebrews 5:8 adds that Christ “learned obedience through what he suffered” (Greek: pathein, to suffer), linking His suffering to His perfect sacrifice. The Passion—scourging, crowning with thorns, carrying the cross—is inseparable from the crucifixion in atoning for sin.
Death and Bloodshed as Culmination You’re correct that Christ’s death and bloodshed are central. Hebrews 9:22 says, “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Greek: haimatekchusia, blood-shedding). But this doesn’t exclude suffering. The blood shed during the Passion (e.g., John 19:1, scourging) and on the cross (John 19:34) is part of one sacrificial act. Romans 5:8-9 ties Christ’s death to our justification, but the context includes His entire self-offering, not a single moment.
Unified Paschal Mystery The New Testament presents Christ’s atonement as a single redemptive act encompassing His suffering, death, and resurrection. 1 Peter 2:24 says, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree,” implying the whole ordeal of the cross, not just the final breath. Your attempt to isolate death from suffering is a false dichotomy, unbiblical and reductive.
Catholic Teaching: Purgatory and Suffering Your claim that Catholicism teaches “suffering can cleanse from sin” via purgatory misrepresents the doctrine. Let’s clarify.
Purgatory’s Biblical Basis Purgatory is the process of purification for those already justified, ensuring they are fully sanctified before entering heaven, where “nothing unclean shall enter” (Rev 21:27). 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 describes a post-death purification: “The work of each will be made manifest… it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done.” The Greek pyr (fire) suggests a transformative process, not eternal punishment. 2 Maccabees 12:44-45 (part of the inspired canon) supports prayers for the dead to be “freed from their sin,” implying a state of purification. Even Jesus hints at post-death atonement in Matthew 12:32, noting sins forgivable “in the age to come.”
Purgatory and Christ’s Atonement Catholicism teaches that only Christ’s sacrifice atones for sin (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 613-615). Purgatory applies the merits of Christ’s atonement to purify venial sins or temporal punishment due to sin for those already forgiven. It’s not about “suffering cleansing sin” independently but about Christ’s grace perfecting the soul. Your claim distorts this, suggesting Catholics bypass Christ’s work, which is flat-out false.
Suffering in Catholic Theology Catholics believe suffering, when united to Christ’s cross, can have redemptive value, but this is distinct from atonement. Colossians 1:24 says Paul “completes what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” (Greek: thlipsis, suffering), not adding to Christ’s atonement but participating in its application through sacrificial love. The suffering in purgatory is a passive purification, not an autonomous act of atonement. Your conflation of these concepts is a sloppy misreading.
You imply Catholicism diminishes Christ’s death by emphasizing suffering or purgatory. This is a strawman. The Church teaches that Christ’s sacrifice—suffering, death, and resurrection—is the sole source of redemption (John 19:30, Greek: tetelestai, it is finished). Purgatory applies that finished work, not competes with it. Your attempt to pit suffering against death is a false binary, and your attack on purgatory rests on a caricature, not the Church’s actual teaching.
Metmom, Your Argument Fails Scripture unites Christ’s suffering and death as one atoning act, from Isaiah 53 to Hebrews 9. Purgatory, grounded in 1 Corinthians 3 and 2 Maccabees, is Christ’s grace purifying the saved, not a denial of His atonement. Historically, the Church has always seen the Passion holistically and upheld purification for the dead. Your claims misrepresent Catholic teaching, ignore biblical evidence, and recycle Protestant distortions.
Boatbums, your testimony is built on misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on salvation, grace, and works. The Holy Spirit, who inspired 1 John 5:13, also guides the Catholic Church, which upholds the full truth of the Gospel
You cite 1 John 5:13—“that you may know that you have eternal life” (Greek: eidēte, to know)—to claim assurance of salvation through faith alone, rejecting Catholic “works.” But Scripture and Catholic teaching align more closely than you realize.
Faith and Works in Catholic Soteriology Catholicism teaches that salvation is a gift of God’s grace through faith in Christ, not earned by works. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “By grace you have been saved through faith… not of works” (Greek: ergōn). But verse 10 adds, “Created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand.” James 2:17 clarifies, “Faith without works is dead” (Greek: nekra). Catholics believe justification begins with faith, but works, empowered by grace, complete it (Phil 2:12-13, “work out your salvation”). Your fear of “earning” salvation misrepresents Catholicism, which rejects Pelagianism—salvation by human effort alone—as heresy (Council of Carthage, 418 AD).
Assurance in Catholic Teaching You cherish assurance from 1 John 5:13, but Catholicism affirms this in context. John writes to those who “believe in the name of the Son of God” and obey His commands (1 John 3:23-24). Assurance isn’t a one-time guarantee but a living hope, contingent on perseverance (Matt 24:13, “He who endures to the end will be saved”). The Catholic Church teaches we can have moral assurance of salvation through faith, love, and the sacraments, while acknowledging human freedom to fall away (1 Cor 10:12, “Let anyone who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall”). Your Protestant “once saved, always saved” view ignores warnings like Hebrews 6:4-6 about apostasy.
Love and Fear in Catholic Life You say you don’t live in fear of damnation but love God because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). Catholics agree! The Church teaches that perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18), and we strive for holiness out of love, not dread. The sacraments—Baptism, Eucharist, Reconciliation—strengthen this love, uniting us to Christ’s sacrifice (John 6:54, “He who eats my flesh… has eternal life”). Your claim that Catholics strive to be “good” to avoid hell is a caricature, not the reality of grace-filled Catholic life.
Your departure from Catholicism seems rooted in Reformation-era critiques, but the Church has always taught salvation by grace.
Early Church on Grace and Works Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD) wrote, “We are justified by faith, but not apart from works of righteousness” (Letter to the Corinthians, 31). Augustine (c. 400 AD) battled Pelagius, affirming that grace precedes and enables good works (On Grace and Free Will). The Council of Trent (1545-1563) clarified that justification is “by faith, freely bestowed,” but works, as fruits of grace, are necessary for salvation (Session VI, Canon 24). This isn’t “earning” salvation but cooperating with God’s grace, as Paul urges (Rom 6:22).
Purgatory and Sanctification You may have misunderstood purgatory as “earning” salvation. Purgatory, rooted in 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 (“fire will test each one’s work”) and 2 Maccabees 12:44-45, is for those already saved by Christ, purifying them of venial sins or temporal punishment (Catechism, 1030-1032). It’s Christ’s grace at work, not human merit, preparing us for heaven’s purity (Rev 21:27)
Your Protestant assurance, while comforting, misses the richness of Catholic soteriology, which integrates faith, works, and sacraments under grace.
The Sacraments as Channels of Grace Jesus instituted the sacraments to assure us of His presence. Baptism washes away sin (Acts 2:38), and the Eucharist is “the source and summit” of Christian life (Catechism, 1324), fulfilling John 6:54. Confession restores grace after sin (John 20:23, “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven”). These aren’t “works” to earn salvation but gifts to sustain it, offering tangible assurance your Protestant faith lacks.
The Church’s Authority You trust the Holy Spirit’s guidance, but Christ gave the Church authority to teach (Matt 16:18-19, “bind and loose”). The Catholic Church, guided by the Spirit (John 16:13), defined the 73-book canon, including 1 John, and guards the Gospel’s truth. Your personal interpretation, while sincere, risks subjectivity, as 2 Peter 1:20 warns against private interpretation of Scripture.
Transformation by Grace You celebrate God’s transforming work over 56 years. Catholicism agrees: grace molds us into Christ’s image (Rom 8:29). But the Church offers a structured path—liturgy, sacraments, community—to ensure this transformation aligns with apostolic truth (2 Thess 2:15, “hold to the traditions”). Your journey reflects God’s mercy, but it’s incomplete without the fullness of Catholic faith.
You wave Hebrews 11:1 like a flag, but faith as “assurance” (Greek: hypostasis) demands action. Hebrews 11 praises Abraham’s works—offering Isaac (Heb 11:17)—and James 2:22 says his faith “was completed by works” (Greek: synergeō). Galatians 3:5-6 credits Abraham’s faith, but Ephesians 2:10 ties it to “good works” God prepared. Catholicism nails this: salvation is by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9), but dead faith without works is worthless (James 2:17, Greek: nekra). Your faith-only view is a Protestant shortcut that ignores Scripture’s call to “work out your salvation” (Phil 2:12).
You call Catholic caution “presumption,” but your “once saved, always saved” is reckless. Romans 5:8-11 assures reconciliation, but 1 Corinthians 10:12 warns, “Let anyone who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” Hebrews 6:4-6 shows even the justified can apostatize. Catholics have moral assurance through faith and sacraments, but your guaranteed salvation dismisses Jesus’ “endure to the end” (Matt 24:13). That’s not faith—it’s complacency.
You claim Catholics obey out of “fear of hellfire,” not love. That’s a lazy stereotype. The Church teaches charity drives obedience (Catechism, 1828), rooted in God’s love (1 John 4:19). The Eucharist and Confession deepen this love (John 6:54; James 5:16), not dread. Your gratitude for Christ’s sacrifice (Rom 5:6-11) thrives in Catholicism, where sacraments make His love tangible. Stop peddling this fear myth—it’s not our faith.
You likely see purgatory as fear-based works. Wrong. It’s Christ’s grace purifying the saved (1 Cor 3:13-15, “fire will test each one’s work”; 2 Macc 12:44-45). It ensures heaven’s purity (Rev 21:27), not “earning” salvation. Your rejection of it cheapens God’s call to holiness.
Your sola fide echoes Luther’s 16th-century rebellion, not the early Church. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD) tied faith to works (Letter to the Corinthians, 31). Augustine (c. 400 AD) said grace enables meritorious works. Trent (1547) crushed Protestant errors, affirming salvation by Christ’s merits (Session VI). Ignatius (c. 107 AD) called the Eucharist “the medicine of immortality.” Your faith lacks these apostolic anchors.
A Lutheran, a Baptist and a Congregationalist go into a milk bar...
In short all of your arguments show a profound lack of understanding about what the Bible and the Church teach.
You claim to be ex Catholic yet don’t show even the base modicum of knowledge of what the church believes.
Your claim that Catholics can’t understand a faith free from the “threat of Hell” and need to ditch “spiritual pride” for grace is a smug distortion of Catholic teaching. You lean on John 6:37 to push a once-saved-always-saved narrative, but you’re cherry-picking Scripture and ignoring the Church Christ founded. Catholicism offers the complete Gospel—grace, faith, and love-driven obedience, not fear. Let’s tear down your misconceptions with Scripture,
You cite John 6:37—“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out”—to claim God’s sovereignty ensures salvation for the elect, dismissing human responsibility. Scripture tells a fuller story.
Grace and Human Cooperation John 6:37 emphasizes God’s initiative, but John 6:44 adds, “No one can come to me unless the Father… draws him” (Greek: helkyō, draw). This grace requires response—faith and obedience. Hebrews 5:9 says Christ is “the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him” (Greek: hypakouō, obey). Catholicism teaches salvation is God’s gift (Eph 2:8), but we cooperate through faith and works of love (James 2:22, “faith was completed by works,” Greek: synergeō). Your view sidesteps this, risking presumption warned against in 1 Corinthians 10:12: “Let anyone who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.”
Hell and Human Freedom You dismiss the “threat of Hell” as unneeded, but Jesus Himself warns of it: “Fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt 10:28, Greek: Gehenna). Not fear for fear’s sake, but a call to persevere. Matthew 7:13-14 urges the “narrow gate,” and Hebrews 6:4-6 warns of falling away after receiving grace. Catholicism doesn’t peddle fear but respects human freedom to reject God (Catechism, 1033-1037). Your claim that no one goes to hell for lack of the Gospel ignores Romans 10:14: “How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?” Evangelism matters—God uses us, and we’re accountable.
Assurance and Perseverance You twist John 6:37 into a guarantee that the saved can’t be lost. But Jesus says, “If you abide in my word… you will know the truth” (John 8:31-32, Greek: menō, remain). Salvation requires endurance (Matt 24:13, “He who endures to the end will be saved”). Catholicism offers moral assurance through faith, sacraments, and love (1 John 3:23-24), but your “no one’s lost” view ignores warnings like 2 Peter 2:20-21 about those who “escape defilements” yet fall back.
You accuse Catholics of clinging to fear, not love. That’s a lazy stereotype. The Church teaches charity is the heart of Christian life (Catechism, 1822), rooted in God’s love (1 John 4:19). The Eucharist unites us to Christ’s sacrifice (John 6:54, “Whoever eats my flesh… has eternal life”), and Confession restores grace (John 20:23). Hell isn’t a scare tactic but a truth about rejecting God’s love. Your claim that Catholics “can’t understand” grace is arrogant—Augustine (c. 400 AD) crushed that lie, teaching grace enables all good works (On Grace and Free Will).
Your theology echoes Calvin’s predestination, not the early Church. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD) tied salvation to faith and works (Letter to the Corinthians, 31). Ignatius (c. 107 AD) saw the Eucharist as “the medicine of immortality” (Ephesians 20). Trent (1547) affirmed justification by grace through faith, with works as its fruit (Session VI). Your “sovereignty” excuse—God saves whom He wills, so evangelism’s optional—contradicts the Great Commission (Matt 28:19) and early Christian zeal for souls.
You say God ensures the elect hear the Gospel, so no one’s in hell for lack of it. That’s a cop-out. Acts 1:8 commands us to be “witnesses” (Greek: martys). Paul says, “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel” (1 Cor 9:16). The Church teaches we’re co-workers with God (1 Cor 3:9), sharing the Gospel to draw souls to Christ. Your view risks apathy, undermining the urgency of 2 Timothy 4:2: “Preach the word… in season and out.”
You call Catholics prideful for not grasping your “grace.” Look in the mirror. Dismissing the Church Christ founded (Matt 16:18, Greek: ekklēsia on Peter) as ignorant of grace is the real pride. The Holy Spirit guides the Church (John 16:13), not your private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). Humility means submitting to the apostolic truth preserved in the 73-book canon and sacraments, not cherry-picking verses for a feel-good Gospel.
Come Back to the Full Gospel Your faith is sincere, but it’s a half-truth. Catholicism fulfills John 6:37 with grace, sacraments, and love-driven obedience, not fear. You’ve traded the Eucharist—Christ’s real presence—for a watered-down assurance that ignores human freedom and responsibility. The Church isn’t a fear factory; it’s Christ’s Bride, offering the fullness of salvation. Drop the smugness, face the whole Scripture, and return to the Catholic faith where grace and truth meet.
well stated! I have learned from your posts. thanks.
There are many baptized Catholics not practicing their faith, many are children and relatives of practicing Catholics that are concerned and praying.
You sharing facts and responding to misinformation about Catholicism is helpful, but God needs to give them the graces to understand His Truth and for them to accept it and live it.
God Bless all of your efforts.
Bro, you’re doing a lot of eisegesis
You're reading into Revelation 5:8 and Hebrews 12:1 something that just isn't there no matter how much you want it to be.
Nothing supports your claim these were prayers, or are prayers, directed to departed believers.
Further, as the Roman Catholic really has no idea who actually has made it to Heaven they have no sound guide on to whom prayers should be directed....IF that were a biblical position.
Bottom line is all the prayers in the OT and NT are directed to God. He is the One we are instructed to pray to.
Daniel 4:27
. 27‘Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you: break away now from your sins by doing righteousness and from your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor, in case there may be a prolonging of your prosperity.’
The verse in no way supports what you claim.
How many Roman Catholic priests are enuchs??
You claim history is on your side....how many enuchs are in the priesthood? It's not a practice in the early church.
Were any of the disciples enuchs?? Nope.
Jesus also endorsed marriage....it also goes back to the Garden of Eden. Not that Romans believe in a literal reading of Genesis.
As far as you "exegesis" of 1 Corinthians goes....wow....just...wow.
You're off the mark completely.
You sure you want to appeal to The Council of Elvira??
21. If anyone who lives in the city does not attend church services for three Sundays, let that person be expelled for a brief time in order to make the reproach public.
Gonna be a lot of expulsions on Roman Catholicism
24. Individuals shall not be admitted as clergy in a province other than the one where they were baptized. Otherwise their life would not be known by those who examine them.
Every RC priest is working in the area he was baptized in??
36. Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.
uh-oh.....
42. Those with a good reputation who seek to become Christians shall remain as catechumens for two years before being baptized. Should they become seriously ill, they may request and receive baptism earlier.
I guess all those folks who were baptized immediately after becoming believers were in error.
*****
Thanks for pointing out this Council and its canons....I see Rome is failing to live up to these as is the case with so many of these prior councils Romans claim as "tradition".
It would be comical if it wasn't so sad.
67. A woman who is baptized or is a catechumen must not associate with hairdressers or men with long hair. If she does this, she is to be denied communion.
Guess Roman Catholic women can no longer go to their hairdresser!
*****
And here's the winner.....gonna wipe out a lot of Roman Catholic priests.
71. Those who sexually abuse boys may not commune even when death approaches.
Gotta tell ya, Cronos.....that Council was a doozy.
Don’t be mean, ealgeone. You know that Catholic laity isn’t allowed to think; you don’t need to rub it in.
Thing is, they don't even care.
They just want to cite "tradition" to justify their non-Biblical teachings and customs. We're supposed to believe that all of the canons Rome has complied were handed down from the Apostles. I wonder if anyone has actually taken the time to compile these and compare 1) with Scripture, and 2) does Rome still adhere to these today. The answer is going to be no.
It's really that simple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.