Posted on 07/03/2014 4:10:21 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Vatican City (AsiaNews) - "We are not isolated and we are not Christians individually, each on his or her own". Instead, we are all part of the Church, "a large family, where one is welcomed," where "one learns to live as believers and disciples of the Lord Jesus," Pope Francis said.
Speaking in the last general audience before the July break, the Holy Father devoted his catechesis to the Church before a crowd of 35,000 in St Peter's Square. Despite a few drops of rain, he walked extensively among the assembled faithful.
In his address, he warned against those who "think they can have a personal, direct, immediate relationship with Jesus Christ outside of the communion and the mediation of the Church."
In the Church, he noted, there is no "do it yourself", no "free agents." For him, "Our Christian identity is belonging! We are Christians because we belong to the Church. It is like a surname. If the name is 'I am a Christian', the surname is 'I belong to the Church'." Such sense of belonging was born from the alliance between God and Abraham, to whom he donated a great people for his loyalty.
"God's relationship to his people comes before all of us, it comes from that time," and thus, "in this sense, our thoughts go first, with gratitude, to those who have gone before us and who welcomed us into the Church. No one becomes a Christian by himself! Is this clear? Nobody becomes a Christian by himself. Christians are not made in a lab.
(Excerpt) Read more at asianews.it ...
The same could be asked about yours?
Show in Scripture where this is taught.
ealgeone:
No, my notion of sin is entirely biblical and orthodox, it is not fundamentalist American protestant, but neither were the early church.
“LOL Nice try at obfuscation.”
I’ve never used obfuscation. I just let the Protestants do that since they need to.
“Now, about that “queen of heaven” nonsense and praying to those so called “saints” and all the pagan paraphernalia, rituals, and vestments.”
Christ is a King. That means His mother is a queen. I realize Protestants really struggle with logic (as well as reading, thinking, making an argument, etc.) but that’s how it works.
Scripture and Tradition goes hand in hand, so says the Catholic Church, the institution responsible for the Bible. So deal with it. It’s fact. The United Pentacostal Assemblies Church of God of Pastor Billy Bob didn’t have a thing to do with compiling the Bible. Pastor Billy Bob knows the Word of God because the Catholic Church shared it with him.
You wrote:
“when you’re own your knees before someone, it’s worship.”
So everyman in America has worshipped his wife when he asked her to marry him???? Yeah, a Protestant would be stupid enough to believe that.
“btw...that’s a catholic priest in the photo in his knees before a statue of Mary.”
So would you falsely accuse him of worshipping the statue OF Mary or Mary herself? Yeah, again, an anti-Catholic Protestant would be stupid enough to believe either thing.
“She was pierced as any mom would be by the death of their son.”
No. Her piercing was FORETOLD. How many “any Moms” do you know who have that happen to them? Right, none.
“Mary did not hang and die on the cross for us.”
Of course not.
“Only Christ can save us.”
Yep, and Mary cooperated with His plan from the start.
“Where? Need the verse.”
I realize Protestants are often grossly ignorant about scripture, but you really need to learn how to use a search engine. I told you it was in St. Paul. Use the word “tradition” in a search engine at biblegateway or something.
“however, the Bible notes the following:”
The Bible notes nothing that conflicts with what I have said. Again, read St. Paul. Learn how to use that search engine yet?
Then you posted this:
“Mediatrix of All Graces is a special Marian title that some Roman Catholics give to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the mother of Jesus Christ, encompassing the belief that all the graces and blessings that her son gives come through her.”
Which looks remarkably like this from Wikipedia:
“Mediatrix of All Graces is a special Marian title that some Roman Catholics give to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the mother of Jesus Christ, encompassing the belief that all the graces and blessings that her son gives come through her.”
So, you’re cutting and pasting without attribution now? Gee, that really makes me think you’re honest. . . not.
“Vatican Website: Encyclical of Pope Leo 13th on the Rosary, Octobri Mense, Pope Leo 13th, 1903-1914)”
First, you didn’t get that from the Vatican website or else you would have simply posted a link. Also, the fact that anti-Catholic Protestants are generally stupid people made me realize that “13th” would show that this is from an anti-Catholic website. Confirmed: http://carm.org/roman-catholicism-mary-compare-god
What you forgot to leave out is this:
“With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ.[6] Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother. How great are the goodness and mercy revealed in this design of God! What a correspondence with the frailty of man! We believe in the infinite goodness of the Most High, and we rejoice in it; we believe also in His justice and we fear it. We adore the beloved Savior, lavish of His blood and of His life; we dread the inexorable Judge. Thus do those whose actions have disturbed their consciences need an intercessor mighty in favor with God, merciful enough not to reject the cause of the desperate, merciful enough to lift up again towards hope in the divine mercy the afflicted and the broken down. Mary is this glorious intermediary; she is the mighty Mother of the Almighty; but-what is still sweeter — she is gentle, extreme in tenderness, of a limitless loving-kindness. As such God gave her to us. Having chosen her for the Mother of His only begotten Son, He taught her all a mother’s feeling that breathes nothing but pardon and love. Such Christ desired she should be, for He consented to be subject to Mary and to obey her as a son a mother. Such He proclaimed her from the cross when he entrusted to her care and love the whole of the race of man in the person of His disciple John. Such, finally, she proves herself by her courage in gathering in the heritage of the enormous labors of her Son, and in accepting the charge of her maternal duties towards us all.”
Thus, since Mary’s effort in that regard is all INTERCESORY and happens whether appealed to or not there can be no dispute. Protestant anti-Catholics are shown to be morons yet again.
“says nothing about people having to come to Peter and ask for forgiveness. “
Sure it does: Peter had no way of giving or retaining forgiveness unless someone told him what their sins were. THINK. Look up 2 Corinthians 2:10 in an old pre-1966 Bible (Catholic or Protestant). See it? Look for the word “person”. Do you know why it is there?
Once again we see that anti-Catholic Protestants don’t know anything about the Bible, or Christianity, or logic. I’ve never taught special ed, but I often think working with anti-Catholic Protestants is probably similar except that the special ed kids probably don’t pretend to know things they don’t know.
The RCC did not give us the Bible. The OT and NT canons had been decided long before the RCC came into being.
I almost stopped reading at this juvenile reply. What are you? 14 years old?
“btw...that’s a catholic priest in the photo in his knees before a statue of Mary.” So would you falsely accuse him of worshiping the statue OF Mary or Mary herself? Yeah, again, an anti-Catholic Protestant would be stupid enough to believe either thing.
In either case it's a graven image and the Bible clearly teaches we are not to worship or pray to graven images...or even make them for worship.
“Where? Need the verse.” I realize Protestants are often grossly ignorant about scripture, but you really need to learn how to use a search engine. I told you it was in St. Paul. Use the word “tradition” in a search engine at biblegateway or something.
Oh gee...thanks o' wise one...I never would have thought to do that. Hence the reason I asked you to show the verses that support tradition. There are three verses the RCC hangs their hat on for tradition. When read in their context, and not lifted out like the RCC does, there is no support for the "tradition" the RCC claims. Let's see if you can find them.
Only Christ can save us.” Yep, and Mary cooperated with His plan from the start.
Outside of giving birth to Christ and raising Him, Mary has NOTHING to do with our salvation. She plays zero part in our salvation. There is NOTHING in the Bible to support the allegations of the RCC.
Which looks remarkably like this from Wikipedia: “Mediatrix of All Graces is a special Marian title that some Roman Catholics give to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the mother of Jesus Christ, encompassing the belief that all the graces and blessings that her son gives come through her.” So, you’re cutting and pasting without attribution now? Gee, that really makes me think you’re honest. . . not.
Hey look...you know how to use a search engine! Regardless of the source and that it was not referenced, it remains a title the RCC give to Mary and it blasphemy. Sorry you don't like it.
“Vatican Website: Encyclical of Pope Leo 13th on the Rosary, Octobri Mense, Pope Leo 13th, 1903-1914)” First, you didn’t get that from the Vatican website or else you would have simply posted a link.
I don't give the reference and you're not happy and then I give the reference and you're not happy. Does it alter what is said?
I also left this out:
How grateful and magnificent a spectacle to see in the cities, and towns, and villages, on land and sea -- wherever the Catholic faith has penetrated -- many hundreds of thousands of pious people uniting their praises and prayers with one voice and heart at every moment of the day, saluting Mary, invoking Mary, hoping everything through Mary. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13ro1.htm
Happy?
oh and there's lots more on the false teachings of Mary I haven't provided:
We notice that Vatican II did not add the words "of all graces." However, as many papal texts point out, Mary's role in dispensation flows logically from her role in acquiring all graces. Further, the Council itself added a note on the above passage, in which it refers us to the texts of Leo XIII, Adiutricem populi, St. Pius X, Ad diem illum, Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, and Pius XII, Radiomessage to Fatima. Leo XIII, in the text referred to, spoke of her, as we saw above, as having "practically limitless power." St. Pius X said she was the "dispensatrix of all the gifts, and is the "neck" connecting the Head of the Mystical Body to the Members. But all power flows through the neck. Pius XII said "Her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her dominion." These and many other texts speak in varied ways of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces, so often that the teaching has become infallible. https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htmn
And that is a fabrication right out of the pit.
Sure it does: Peter had no way of giving or retaining forgiveness unless someone told him what their sins were. THINK. Look up 2 Corinthians 2:10 in an old pre-1966 Bible (Catholic or Protestant). See it? Look for the word “person”. Do you know why it is there?,
have you ever had a course on interpreting the Bible and looking at the verse in question in its context??
I await your enlightened answer.
Are we even supposed to argue with them? God said that if they want to believe a lie he will help them to believe it. Obviously God has kept his promise.
ealgeone:
My understanding of Sin is in line with the Great theologians of the early Church. Just a few examples.
1) Saint Jerome [347-420AD] in his Writing Against Jovinian [393AD] speaks of the differences between great sin and lighter sin [i.e. mortal and venial] and quotes 1 John 5:16-17 to boot [see Book 2: Chapter 30]
http://newadvent.org/fathers/3009.htm
2) Origen [185-254 AD] some 150 years before Saint Jerome develops a theology on “mortal vs venial sin” in his Homily on Levictus [244AD], most clearly in the discussion on the 7 fold repentance of sins.
http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@texts/0250_origen/04_hom2_on_lev.htm
3) Saint Augustine also defends the notion of Mortal vs. venial sin. For Saint Augustine in a Letter to Saint Jerome {#167, Chapter 2, paragraph 4} written in 415AD states “The Stoics alone dared to argue the equality of all sins, against every experience of the human race. In following that opinion of theirs Jovinian showed himself a Stoic, though he was an Epicurean in grasping after and defending pleasures. You refuted him brilliantly from the Holy Scriptures. In that most delightful and noble dissertation you have made it abundantly plain that it has not been the doctrine of our authors, or rather of the Truth Himself, who has spoken through them, that all sins are equal. I shall now do my utmost in endeavouring, with the help of God, to show how it can be that, although the doctrine of philosophers concerning virtues is true, we are nevertheless not compelled to admit the Stoics’ doctrine that all sins are equal.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vii.1.CLXVII.html
Saint Basil The Great in his First Canonical Letter to the Bishop of Iconium goes through all types of sins and how penance/confession is to be administered and when or if those who commit some sins vs. others are to be or can be readmitted to Holy Communion. Some sins, he labels unforgivable, citing the Matthew 12:31-32 passage of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but their is a clear distinction among how some sins are handled vs. others.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.clxxxix.html
So as for my view of sin is not biblical, then if mine is not then all of these Great Fathers of the Church are wrong as well and thus “ealgeone is correct???? Sorry, the converse is true, their view is correct because the Catholic Church’s view is correct, and thus mine is indeed correct.
Finally, in addition to all of the NT passages I cited earlier, Christ own words are kind of interesting when he was standing before Pilate when he states “For this reason, the one who handed me over has the greater sin” [John 19:11].
In closing, perhaps you should re read the NT passages I cited and read how the great theologians of the early Church such as Saint Jerome, Saint Augustine, Saint Basil the Great, Origen, etc, understood the scriptures in reference to sin rather than either your own personal interpretation or the interpretation of your local unaffiliated independent protestant church and its pastor.
Even earlier than Saint Jerome,
“I almost stopped reading at this juvenile reply. What are you? 14 years old?”
Just as I thought: What I was so obviously true that you can’t actually deal with it. Again, if you’re going to claim “when you’re own your knees before someone, it’s worship” then I suggest you actually think it through. If you knelt down on one knee to ask your wife to marry you, you, according TO YOUR LOGIC, worshipped your girlfriend.
“In either case it’s a graven image and the Bible clearly teaches we are not to worship or pray to graven images...”
Catholics don’t worship or pray to graven images. Period.
“or even make them for worship.”
False. 1 Kings 6:23. Once again we see that Protestant anti-Catholics just don’t seem to know the Bible very well.
“Oh gee...thanks o’ wise one...I never would have thought to do that.”
Apparently not. So far you apparently didn’t think about kneeling in front of a woman you want to marry you is worship according to your logic, nor (apparently) did you about the statues of cherubim in the Temple.
“Hence the reason I asked you to show the verses that support tradition.”
You’re the one who needs to find them.
“There are three verses the RCC hangs their hat on for tradition. When read in their context, and not lifted out like the RCC does, there is no support for the “tradition” the RCC claims. Let’s see if you can find them.”
I don’t have to find them. Post as you want.
“Outside of giving birth to Christ and raising Him, Mary has NOTHING to do with our salvation.”
That’s not how orthodox Christians see it. Only Protestant sectarians see it as you do. Their Johnny-come-lately opinion (and yours) simply doesn’t matter.
“She plays zero part in our salvation. There is NOTHING in the Bible to support the allegations of the RCC.”
True is not an allegation. I can see why a Protestant anti-Catholic might see truth as a mere allegation, however.
“Hey look...you know how to use a search engine!”
But you apparently struggle to post simple attributions.
“Regardless of the source and that it was not referenced, it remains a title the RCC give to Mary and it blasphemy. Sorry you don’t like it.”
What I like or don’t like is immaterial. Passing off someone else’s material as your own, however, is another matter. Protestant anti-Catholics do that sort of thing, however.
“I don’t give the reference and you’re not happy and then I give the reference and you’re not happy. Does it alter what is said?”
Relying on a an anti-Catholic website like CARM – which is what you did – shows that you probably only know the anti-Catholic view and probably aren’t interested in the truth in any case.
“Happy?”
I have no reason to be unhappy about people praising God’s work in and through Mary.
“oh and there’s lots more on the false teachings of Mary I haven’t provided:”
Again, there’s nothing wrong with the quote.
“And that is a fabrication right out of the pit.”
No, it isn’t. Anti-Catholic Protestants fabricate things all the time.
“have you ever had a course on interpreting the Bible and looking at the verse in question in its context??”
Yes.
I appreciate your discussion and the way you approach it. No name calling ,etc. Just a good discussion.
Are there sins with varying consequences to their outcomes? Yes. We would all agree that the consequence of murder is greater than the consequence of a "little white lie" from a human perspective.
However, from God's perspective they are both sins and in committing either one, even if it was only the little white lie, then that person would, apart from faith in Christ not have entrance into Heaven. Romans 6:23...the wages of sin is death.
But we do know that we all sin according to Romans 3:23...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Now the question becomes is what can we do to gain entrance into Heaven?
The only Biblical answer is faith in Christ as noted in John 3:16; 1 Peter 3:18, Colossians 2:13-14. I really like Colossians 2:13-14 "when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us ALL of our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." You just can't get any better than that!
The question of different types of sins, mortal or venial, which if I have the definition of the RCC(http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm ) correct is:
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.
1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.
1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."
While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.
I would say based on this reading that the idea of mortal or venial sins do not line up with the Biblical teaching on sins as Paul writes in Romans....or the NT.
For example, Christ taught that there was no difference between the actual physical act of adultery and the thought of adultery. Both were sin in His eyes.
If we took the idea of mortal sins then we're pretty much are all going to be guilty. Have we always honored our moms and dad? No we haven't.
The idea that we can commit a sin so grievous that it is not covered by the blood of Christ is also not supported by the Bible. I know people will bring up Matthew where Jesus speaks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, but if we look at the context of that verse, the circumstances in which this occurred cannot occur today.
I would say the only sin that cannot be forgiven though, is that of unbelief in Christ. I think we would all agree on that.
So back to the question...can our sins separate us from God?
Jesus didn't think so when He said in John 10:27-28 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.” Paul also wrote in Romans 8:1 “therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” He also went on to declare in Romans 8:38-39 “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
There are many other passages in the NT that talk about the security of the believer.
Good discussion and I hope you're having a good 4th of July.
Is this your attempt at logic??
when you can't argue the facts, just argue, eh?
That’s not how orthodox Christians see it. Only Protestant sectarians see it as you do. Their Johnny-come-lately opinion (and yours) simply doesn’t matter. “She plays zero part in our salvation. There is NOTHING in the Bible to support the allegations of the RCC.” True is not an allegation. I can see why a Protestant anti-Catholic might see truth as a mere allegation, however.,
Again, you cannot offer any Biblical support for this position of the RCC so you duck and dodge the issue.
“Is this your attempt at logic??”
You were wrong. You often are. You’ll have to deal with that.
“when you can’t argue the facts, just argue, eh?”
Habitual dishonesty from Protestant anti-Catholics is still dishonesty.
“Again, you cannot offer any Biblical support for this position of the RCC so you duck and dodge the issue.”
I didn’t duck anything. I simply see no reason to answer your beck and call. When dealing with bigots like Protestant anti-Catholics - who often uncritically lift things from anti-Catholic webpages, don’t cite other things they post, don’t know the Bible while hypocritically acting as if they know the Bible better than Catholics - I see no reason to assume they care about truth.
If I were Pope I’d build an army and destroy Islam.
That’s what a good cult leader should do.
Thank you for proving my points. I now conclude with this conversation.
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.