Posted on 04/03/2013 3:43:07 PM PDT by NYer
That’s a circular argument, btw. Arguing “You should already know” isn’t a great argument.
“how does one determined which books were inspired?”
“Just as I would discount any other cults high councils.”
Which is why you accept Chalcedon, Nicaea, First Constantinople and Ephesus?
“The idea of an “Alter Christos” is anathema and an abomination”
So sayeth Pope CynicalBear. When did you become Pope, CB?
“So it is incorrect to say that the Vulgate was the first ‘Catholic’ bible.”
I never said that.
“That’s a circular argument, btw.”
What exactly is a circular argument?
““You should already know” isn’t a great argument.”
It wasn’t so much an argument as a retort, as I’ve already answered that question on this thread and I don’t see any point in rehashing that again, since I doubt it would have any effect on you.
“St. Paul was a celibate Catholic priest and bishop.”
Who ordained him? Who elevated him to bishop? What diocese did he preside over?
St. Paul was ordained when Ananias placed his hands on him (Acts 9:17), the same way ordination takes place today within the Catholic Church.
St. Paul, along with Barnabas, was made a bishop (set aside) by the laying on of the hands of Barnabas, Simeon (Acts 13:3).
Peace be with you
“
Ok, you are aware that Catholic theology teaches that indulgences are only sold for those who are in Purgatory?
You only get to Purgatory after you have already been saved.
“
Purgatory is another issue. I find no scriptural basis for it.
To think that you go get punished after you get saved denies the work of Christ. He took your punishment. His sacrifice was sufficient.
To think you can somehow pay God to get time off of a place of torment where you for some reason go even though Jesus already paid for your sins is so anti-gospel. There is not a crumb of truth there. Also, God is not in need of any of your money.
“temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven,”
Hmm.
There are temporal punishments for sins that have been forgiven. Were I to commit adultery, and my spouse were to forgive me, and Jesus also, still, I might have the STD to deal with or the shame or the baby or etc.
However, a hell-like place where punishments are meted out for sins already forgiven is a fabrication.
“An indulgence will not shorten your time in purgatory?” That is news to me. It is my understanding that indulgences help you skip purgatory, or get out early. Otherwise, what is their purpose? To shorten or eliminate the effects of our sins upon us in this life? That is news to me.
“She dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the the satisfactions won by Christ AND THE SAINTS,” oh, that is so terrible, really, if the saints were able to win us satisfactions with God, what need do we have of a Savior? Christ is our sacrifice, His sacrifice was sufficient; we need no other; and no man is capable of satisfying God on his own behalf, let alone on mine.
Purgatory is not a time or place, nor bound by time or space. Purgatory is a cleansing process (purgation) in which the final perfection of our imperfect souls is made possible by Jesus dying on the cross. If you believe that the Blood of the Lamb washes away your sins you believe in Purgatory.
Peace be with you.
God's Holy Spirit inspired WORD is The FINAL Authority and JESUS IS THE WORD made flesh.
I already have many takers for my offer, but thank you for giving me an opportunity to forgive and the grace that accompanies forgiveness.
Peace and Blessings.
“Purgatory is another issue. I find no scriptural basis for it.”
If Heaven puts you in God’s presence - we know that from the OT - nothing can sin and see God.
“To think that you go get punished after you get saved denies the work of Christ. He took your punishment. His sacrifice was sufficient.”
For our salvation, yes. Again, purgatory concerns itself with purging our sins committed after becoming a Christian. Not with whether we are or are not save.
So what happens when you sin after becoming a Christian? Is it all just ‘swept under the rug’ so to speak?
“To think you can somehow pay God to get time off of a place of torment where you for some reason go even though Jesus already paid for your sins is so anti-gospel.”
Only if you believe that Purgatory is for those who are not saved.
“Also, God is not in need of any of your money.”
Then why does Jesus himself praise the lady who tithes? Indulgences are for the soul of those in Purgatory.
So rather than address the question (which you haven’t done so), you’d rather ignore it? Fair enough.
Like I said, I’ve already addressed the question on this thread. If you’re keen to find out the answer, you can dig back through the hundreds of posts, but I don’t see any point to rehashing the same questions we’ve already been over.
“St. Paul was ordained when Ananias placed his hands on him (Acts 9:17), the same way ordination takes place today within the Catholic Church.”
Ananias laid hands on Saul to restore his sight, and give him the gifts of the Holy Spirit. A great many people received the gifts of the Holy Ghost that way in Acts, so they are all now Catholic priests?
For example the 12 men in Acts 19, who had just been baptized when Paul laid hands on them. Were they priests now, having only been baptized a moment ago?
Scripture is pretty clear that the laying on of hands is for two purposes, healing, and conferring the Holy Spirit. Those who had hands laid on them had the power to prophecy and speak in tongues. Do Catholic priests demonstrate those gifts, if the ordinance is the same, as you claim?
“St. Paul, along with Barnabas, was made a bishop (set aside) by the laying on of the hands of Barnabas, Simeon (Acts 13:3).”
Paul was already an Apostle at that time, was he not? How can someone who is lesser than an Apostle confer a lesser office upon an Apostle? Why would an Apostle need to have a lesser office conferred on them? Also, aren’t you saying here that Barnabas laid hands upon himself to make himself a bishop?
And what diocese was Paul the bishop of?
Sorry. I’ve been away for a while and haven’t followed this thread. However, after reading the article I would say that the issue is moot. Catholics no longer follow the written word but the teachings of the Church. They can have their dusty canons. They gave Protestants the copyright long ago.
That Popes are not bound by the decisions of councils without his consent is not a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching, as it is the Pope which makes conciliar teaching binding, and which i knew.
Nor is my statement that it is "Rome that makes the individual the supreme authority, that being an assuredly infallible pope as supreme over councils," "a deep misunderstanding of what Papal Infallibility means," as in fact that is what it means, despite what you read into my statement in typical Roman reaction.
I accept what? Where ever did you get that idea? Are you just assuming for some reason?
>>So sayeth Pope CynicalBear. When did you become Pope, CB?<<
LOL That pope nonsense is only a Catholic thing you know. There is no such thing as a pope in the true body of Christ. All believers are priests.
No, but all Catholic priests received their ordination in that manner. Through Apostolic succession all priests have a direct and unbroken line to the first Pentecost.
"Were they priests now, having only been baptized a moment ago?"
It is entirely possible.
Scripture is pretty clear that the laying on of hands is for two purposes, healing, and conferring the Holy Spirit.
Every priest regularly performs the Anointing of the Sick. Further, not everyone receives the same gift from the laying on of the hands (1 Corinthians 12:1-11)
"Paul was already an Apostle at that time, was he not?"
There were 120 persons present at the first Pentecost, St. Paul was not among them. In order to participate in the Apostolic Succession directly to the Pentecost St. Paul received his ordination from one who had been present.
Also, aren’t you saying here that Barnabas laid hands upon himself to make himself a bishop?"
There was more than one Barnabas.
And what diocese was Paul the bishop of?"
The word diocese is from the Greek dioikēsis, it simply means an administrative jurisdiction. Which ever church or churches St. Paul had temporary or permanent jurisdiction over was his diocese.
Peace be with you
“I accept what? Where ever did you get that idea? Are you just assuming for some reason?”
So you reject Nicaea?
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.