Posted on 02/27/2020 1:31:39 PM PST by ebb tide
A person either trusts in Christ, and Christ alone OR they trust in the Brown Scapular.
>>A person either trusts in Christ, and Christ alone OR they trust in the Brown Scapular.<<
Nope. That's the truth as the two are mutually exclusive.
In the New Testament we have this from Christ.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24
Now compare to the false promise of the apparition claiming to be Mary.
The Blessed Virgin of Mount Carmel has promised to save those who wear the scapular from the fires of hell; She will also shorten their stay in purgatory if they should pass from this world still owing some debt of punishment.
*****
It's either faith in Christ OR faith in the apparition.
Which say you?
Hail Mary, full of Grace...
And if you check your "bible", you might find:
"And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." [Luke 1:28]
or:
"And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." [Luke 1:42]
What say you?
Yes...he speaks of those who've died in "mortal sin". Roman Catholic theology says if you die in mortal sin you've lost Heaven. This would be a huge change in RC theology.
Did not Paul tell us to pray for one another?
Yes...but that addresses people on earth praying for each other.
Have you not prayed for someone’s salvation?
Praying for several Roman Catholics for this very issue.
However, my prayers are they will be receptive to the Gospel. I cannot pray them into Heaven nor forgive their sin.
Do you not believe that your prayers are heard by God?
Yes they are. The NT is clear God hears and answers our prayers.
14This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him. 1 John 5:14-15 NASB
If yours are, how much more those of Mary?
The Bible makes no distinction that Mary can 1) hear our prayers, 2) that her prayers are any better than anyone elses.
The NT is clear...all believers can approach the Throne of Grace with confidence.
Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. Hebrews 4:16 NASB
In Him and through faith in Him we may enter God's presence with boldness and confidence. Ephesians 3:12 NASB
Hail Mary, full of Grace...
Which translation?
The newer and better translations approved for Roman Catholics do not render the passage this way.
And if you check your "bible", you might find:
"And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." [Luke 1:28]
or: "And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." [Luke 1:42]
What say you?
Announcing Mary is to be the mother of Jesus.
Which again has nothing to do with what was asked of you.
Everytime I've put this question to you, you avoid it for some reason.
Saint Thomas speaks of those" who have died in mortal sin the Divine Mother has obtained from God a suspension of their sentence, and return to life to do penance." Thus their death was not final. Do I really need to speak of Lazarus? Is not God free to do this? This requires no change in theology.
The Bible makes no distinction that Mary can 1) hear our prayers, 2) that her prayers are any better than anyone elses.
Except that Mary is Jesus' mother, not just some faceless, nameless character in the Bible. Jesus would naturally have a greater regard for her, as would any loving son. To deny this would be to deny his humanity. It also shows a legalistic approach to the Bible that anything that is not explicitly stated there is not true.
Is that all?
Boy, Luther must have really butchered your "bible".
Either that, or you prots have been cherry-picking it ever since. Luther never held such hatred of Mary as y'all do.
[31] Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. [32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. [33] And of his kingdom there shall be no end. [34] And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? [35] And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke Chapter 1.
Let's see now: the Son of God was born of "thee", the Blessed Mother.
I can already envision the foam coming out your mouth, so I'll say another Hail Mary in advance.
No, but respect for the Mother of Our Savior does.
Then Rome should tear down and throw away ALL of the idols of Mary and accord to her what Scripture has. Nothing more, nothing less.
Saint Thomas speaks of those" who have died in mortal sin the Divine Mother has obtained from God a suspension of their sentence, and return to life to do penance." Thus their death was not final. Do I really need to speak of Lazarus? Is not God free to do this? This requires no change in theology.
Whoa....that is a HUGE change in RC theology and a complete rejection of what is taught in the NT.
It is appointed once for man to die and then comes the judgment.
Now, the apparition that some Roman Catholics trust in claimed to "save those who wear the scapular from the fires of hell; She will also shorten their stay in purgatory if they should pass from this world still owing some debt of punishment."
It's two different things. One is the person in Hell due to their "mortal sins"...the other is marking time in purgatory.
The apparition is claiming those who wear a man-made idol will be sprung from both. Hence why I say that's a HUGE change in RC theology...aside from a complete rejection of the NT.
I'm beginning to see why some Roman Catholics cling to that idol called the Brown Scapular. They are so scared to death of Hell they think they will get a "second chance" if they die in a "mortal sin".
Those who do wear the Brown Scapular are not trusting in Christ for their salvation.
*****
>> The Bible makes no distinction that Mary can 1) hear our prayers, 2) that her prayers are any better than anyone elses.<<
Except that Mary is Jesus' mother, not just some faceless, nameless character in the Bible. .
Again your position denies the NT.
Believers have been given the Holy Spirit to guide them and to intercede for them (Romans 8:26-27). Your position means Mary has to be able to hear, understand, interpret and convey the prayers of every Roman catholic who prays to her....all 1.3 billion...perfectly and without fail. This puts her on the same position as the Holy Spirit.
There's no other way to say that. And that, my friend, is complete falsehood and another rejection of the New Testament.
Jesus would naturally have a greater regard for her, as would any loving son. To deny this would be to deny his humanity.
Did He love His mom AND dad here on earth? No doubt. To use your logic here, the prayers of Joseph would be of equal value as he was the man who reared Jesus, taught Him a trade, etc.
But again, this would negate the NT teaching that ALL believers have access to the throne of grace. God values all of our prayers...each and every one (1 John 5:13-15).
It also shows a legalistic approach to the Bible that anything that is not explicitly stated there is not true.
To allow your statement allows the Mormon their Pearl of Great Price. It allows the Muslim the Haddiths and the Koran. It also allows the NT Apocrypha to be sought out for truth.
One of the reasons the early ekklesia put together the canon was to have an agreed upon set of writings all agreed upon. The writings you're citing are not part of the NT canon.
Rome had an opportunity at Trent to put them in the canon but did not.....and for a reason.
Is Christ deaf or unable to attend to all our prayers at once that He needs Mary’s help? I think not. Christ hears our prayers and responds while we are still praying. Mary is not needed to pass anything along.
Roman Catholics seemingly reject the New Testament on this issue.
26In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. Romans 8:26-27 NASB
Is that all?
Pretty much.
Nothing there to support the Roman Catholic claim that Mary can hear all prayers, has promised the Brown Scapular, etc, etc.
And yet Jesus did raise the dead to new life. Would you deny this ability to God today? Also, what St. Thomas speaks of is being returned to life before the soul is judged.
Now, the apparition that some Roman Catholics trust in claimed to "save those who wear the scapular from the fires of hell; She will also shorten their stay in purgatory if they should pass from this world still owing some debt of punishment."
It's two different things. One is the person in Hell due to their "mortal sins"...the other is marking time in purgatory.
First, it should be pointed out that while there is nothing about the promises of the brown scapular that are contrary to the faith, this is not Church doctrine. Second, you misunderstand the idea of saving someone from the fires of hell. This is not to be understood as snatching a soul away that is in hell. For these souls there is no relief. Rather it is preventing them for going there in the first place by opening their souls to the grace of God that will lead them to repentance. I would recommend that you should try to understand Catholic teachings and practices as Catholics understand them before you critique them, rather than forcing them into the purely legalistic understanding of Protestantism, seeking only a way to discredit Catholicism.
because Scripture does. Or to be more precise...."And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Hebrews 9:22 NASB
But there is real shedding of blood, the blood of Jesus on the Cross. The Last Supper and the Crucifixion were not two distinct events. There were the same event, the new Paschal sacrifice. What the Mass does is make that one sacrifice present though the unbloody offering of the bread in wine. But while the appearance may be that of the offering of ordinary bread and wine, the reality is the one sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross by the shedding of his blood.
For this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Poured out: In the OT the blood sacrifice was never consumed; it was always poured out. We further have the drink offering which was poured out before God as a sacrifice (Ex 29:40, Numbers 15:4-5).
But this is the sacrifice of the New Covenant and it is our Lord himself that commands us to drink his blood. As the supreme lawgiver, Go is free to change the Law, or do you still keep all of the sacrifices of the Old Covenant?
. . . do this in remembrance of Me . . .
You present this as if this somehow negates the reality of the sacrifice. Did you even read the note that you appended at the end of your chart:
‘but in those (sacrifices) there is a yearly reminder of sins’ or ‘… that people have sinned’ He 10:3The full quote from Hebrews:
Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of them, it can never make perfect those who come to worship by the same sacrifices that they offer continually each year. Otherwise, would not the sacrifices have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, once cleansed, would no longer have had any consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is only a yearly remembrance of sins, for it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats take away sins. (Hebrews 10:1-4)Again in Numbers:
Then the man shall bring his wife to the priest as well as an offering on her behalf, a tenth of an ephah of barley meal. However, he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense over it, since it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance which recalls wrongdoing. (Numbers 5:15)Thus the remembrance is made by means of a sacrifice.
I notice that you passed over completely the reference to I Corinthians 10 where Paul relates the partaking in the body and blood of Christ with the Jewish and pagan sacrifices. The argument of Paul makes sense only if this is the sacrifice of the Christians.
Let's see....which opinion of which ECF have you selectively chosen to quote out of context to try and support your claim?
St. Clement and St. Ireneus were not some obscure theologians, they were well respected and renowned and their writings were well known. If you reject their testimony as representing the common belief of Christians at the time, then please post the response of the proto-Protestants at the time who rejected and opposed what they wrote. History is not on your side.
Christians don't accept their "authority" as they have none. They are writing at best what could be considered commentaries.
If the early Christians did not have any authority in teaching the truths of the Gospel, how could they have any authority to teach us what are the books of the Bible? And if it were not them, who did?
And yet Jesus did raise the dead to new life. Would you deny this ability to God today? Also, what St. Thomas speaks of is being returned to life before the soul is judged.
Once you're dead your eternal destination is determined....Heaven or Hell.
For those who believe in Christ He raises them to new life in Him.
For those who reject Him their life is consigned to Hell....forever.
*****
First, it should be pointed out that while there is nothing about the promises of the brown scapular that are contrary to the faith, this is not Church doctrine.
It is a very strongly held belief among many Roman Catholics and endorsed by various popes. This seems to be more of Rome's attempt to say this isn't official but we allow it.
In either case, it's against the New Testament.
Will you be willing to condemn the message of the apparition and those who wear the Brown scapular as being wrong?
*****
Second, you misunderstand the idea of saving someone from the fires of hell. This is not to be understood as snatching a soul away that is in hell. For these souls there is no relief. Rather it is preventing them for going there in the first place by opening their souls to the grace of God that will lead them to repentance.
"...that for many who have died in mortal sin the Divine Mother has obtained from God a suspension of their sentence"?"
These are people who have already died.
Once you're dead there is no second chance of being pulled out of Hell.
To use your scenario of trying to keep someone from Hell....the Brown Scapular condemns that person to Hell as they are trusting in it vs having trust in Christ. As I noted to another poster on this thread....it's trust in either the Brown Scapular or trust in Christ. The two are mutually exclusive.
*****
I would recommend that you should try to understand Catholic teachings and practices as Catholics understand them before you critique them, rather than forcing them into the purely legalistic understanding of Protestantism, seeking only a way to discredit Catholicism.
Legalistic protestantism??? Now that's comical coming from a Roman Catholic.
Roman Catholicism is a purely legalistic denomination....from mandating certain days of obligation or it's a mortal sin....having, well as least ya'll used to, eat fish on Fridays....to having to attend Mass, etc.
I understand Roman Catholic theology. It does not lead to Heaven.
I'd suggest Roman Catholics study the NT in order to understand how to have eternal life in Christ.
There was a real shedding of blood. It was a one time event never to be repeated again.
The Last Supper and the Crucifixion were not two distinct events. There were the same event, the new Paschal sacrifice.
No, they are separate events.
What the Mass does is make that one sacrifice present though the unbloody offering of the bread in wine.
Again, without the shedding of blood there is no sacrifice nor forgiveness of sins. That's the error of the Mass.
*****
Did you even read the note that you appended at the end of your chart:
‘but in those (sacrifices) there is a yearly reminder of sins’ or ‘… that people have sinned’ He 10:3
Yes I read it as I typed it.
Now, read it in context of Hebrews. The passage is referencing the OT sacrifices. We're in the NT now.
Rome though, has seemingly re-established the OT system of priests and sacrifices in rejection of the NT.
History is not on your side.
The ECFs, when read in context, are not on the Roman Catholic's side.
How old did Irenaeus says Jesus was?
Care to discuss his recapitulation theory?
Roman Catholics would do well to avoid CatholicAnswers type apologetics.
I point to the only collection of infallible writings we have for my defense....the Scriptures.
Clement and Irenaeus were and still remain fallible men who wrote their opinion of the issues at hand.
That Rome did not include their writings in their canon at Trent is telling.
What have I wrought with my modest treatise?
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.