Roman Catholicism is the largest cult in the history of mankind. Lucifer smiles! No, Lucifer is probably grinning from ear to ear!!!
Posted on 04/22/2015 2:34:02 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Within Roman Catholicism (and within some other churches as well) there are prayers that are made for, through, and to the dead. We, as Reformed believers, reject all three of these categories but on different grounds. In discussing these issues with Roman Catholics it may be useful to be able to understand the different categories and to explain why it is that we reject each. We should pray for the living, to the living and true God, through the merits and intercession of Christ alone.
1. Prayers For the Dead
In Roman Catholicism, there is a belief in Purgatory. Although Roman Catholics give varying explanations, a popular perception is that purgatory is a place where, through a period of suffering, the soul is purged of sin (it's worth noting that some Roman Catholics today deny that Purgatory is either an actual place or that it has actual time, but we'll leave that for another discussion).
Those within Purgatory want to be purged of their sins (in Roman Catholic theology) but they also want to get out of there and on to heaven. So people are encouraged to pray for the souls of the deceased, for relief/escape from Purgatory. After all, apparently, this suffering can be alleviated through the granting of an indulgence to the person in purgatory.
The Bible, however, teaches that the souls of believers are, at their death made perfect in holiness and do immediately pass into glory. (See Thomas Watson's discussion, for a more detailed discussion.) Given this, prayers for dead believers are useless, since believers are already in heaven.
Furthermore, while certain folks have (from time to time) suggested that salvation is still possible in hell, it is not. Of course, this itself is not normally disputed by Roman Catholics, who recognize that there is no escape from hell itself. Thus, prayers for dead unbelievers are also useless, since unbelievers are already in hell, from which they cannot escape.
Thus, there is no third category - no third option that exists, where prayers for the deceased would have any value. Accordingly, we reject prayers for the dead as vain and superstitious, and we do not engage in such prayers.
2. Prayers To the Dead
In Roman Catholicism there are, from time to time, prayers to the dead. I would be quick to point out Mary, but this doctrine they have of the Assumption of Mary leaves it unclear whether they really consider Mary to be dead or resurrected (although, of course, as a matter of objective fact, she is dead and awaits the resurrection of the faithful). Aside from Mary, however, other saints are sometimes prayed to within Catholicism. One particularly popular saint in English-speaking countries is St. Jude (aka Judas not Iscariot, one of the twelve apostles), the patron saint of lost causes.
We, Reformed Christians, reject such prayers for several reasons. First, there is no reason at all to think that such prayers will be heard and understood by the dead. Second, not only does Scripture not encourage attempted communication with the dead, it condemns such attempts as witchcraft and necromancy. Third, the use of such prayers suggests a lack of faith in the efficacy of prayers directly to the Father. Fourth, the use of such prayers suggests a desire for the mediation of someone other than Christ, an issue that flows over into the next section, below.
This is one of those areas where Roman Catholic apologists are very eager these days to recast the issue in terms like "we're just asking our fellow believers to pray for us, are you saying that's wrong?" The answer to that question is that we do not object to asking fellow believers to pray for us. In fact, we ought to do so. James 5:16 Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
However, while many of the prayers to the dead are explicitly prayers that the dead would hear the person and pray to God for the person, that simply avoids the most grotesque abuses of the practice, such as when things are requested specifically from the saints or Mary, which are not theirs to give (such as success, grace, salvation, etc.). Those prayers (meta-prayers that request prayer by the saint to whom the prayers are offered) suffer from the objections as to the lack of warrant or example from the Scriptures as well as from the apparent view that these saints are to serve as mediators rather than Christ. As this is not a direct answer to the Romanist objections, I won't go on at greater length here.
3. Prayers Through the Dead
Roman Catholics sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly, offer up prayers that are through the dead. For example, the "Approved Prayer for the intercession of Pope John Paul II" (link) is a prayer that is not for John Paul II (JP2) or to JP2 but it is through JP2. It is addressed to God, "O Holy Trinity," but it requests that something be granted "Grant us," via the intercession of JP2 "through his intercession ... ."
Other times the request is more indirect. For example, sometimes when Mary (or others) are entreated it is suggested (as a justification) that since "the prayer of a righteous man availeth much" that the more righteous a person is, the more their prayer will avail (although, of course, the Scriptures do not teach such any such formula). Consequently, the idea is that we are asking these creatures to intercede before God on the basis of the merits that are theirs.
The connection between the two can be seen in this prayer to God pleading the merit and intercession of Rita of Cascia:
O God! who didst deign to confer on St. Rita for imitating Thee in love of her enemies, the favor of bearing her heart and brow the marks of Thy Love and Passion, grant we beseech Thee, that through her intercession and merit, we may, pierced by the thorns of compunction, ever contemplate the sufferings of Thy Passion, who livest and reignest forever and ever. Amen.(emphasis added - source)
(emphasis added - source)Prayer to Our Lady of Light
O radiant beam of celestial clarity,
O spotless Mother of infinite purity,
O seat of Wisdom and divine reliquary
of the Word Incarnate,
Hear my prayer,
O Queen of Light!
O Blessed Trinity,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
You glorified my Mother, Mary,
as Queen of heaven and earth
and gave to her the gift of holding
Your Omnipotence in her holy hands,
Graciously grant what I seek
through her merits and intercession.
Amen.
956 The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness.... They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus.... So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped."(emphases and elipses in original - footnote omitted - source)
If you’re being honest, and are informed, you have to acknowledge that for years there has been are far more Catholic promoting and thus anti-Protestant threads posted by Catholics, than there were threads of the reverse.
Where have you been even in just the past 3 years when RCs were posting threads like,
There Is No Salvation Outside The Catholic Church (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus)
Divinum Officium: Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian religion will be damned
Why Catholicism Is Preferable to Protestantism
The Protestant's Dilemma: A Review
Protecting God’s Word From “Bible Christians”
Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?
Protestants: It's time to come back
From Fundamentalist Baptist to Catholic
EWTN - The Journey Home - November 10, 2014 - Dale Ahlquist, convert from being a Baptist
The Trouble With Calvin – Pt. 1
Why would anyone become Catholic?
In Defense of the Immaculate Conception: Part 2
The Nature of the Mass and the need for Sacrifice
The Hail Mary of a Protestant
500 Years of Chaos: Protestantism’s Anniversary
And which is just a few, plus multitudes of pro RC polemics for herself that invite and incite debate.
But all RCs see is what reproves Rome's errors and elitism, and whine about what exposes her. Which is what their posting has resulted in, as can be shown, by God's grace.
The recent supply of pro-Truth anti-Catholic articles was in response to such, and to certain RCs who said we should post our own threads rather than object to theirs. So here you go.
As your premise is presumptuous so is your conclusion. There are RCs here who do not consider us Christian, while by their Rome-centric preaching of an elitist church which has historically often said the same, and of whom we realize no basic fellowship in Christ with, we must conclude most RCs have never realized a day of salvation, with its profound changes in heart and life.
Which is a fruit of her doctrine. Rome in particular (as the church taking up the most space on the broad way to destruction) is most manifest as standing in critical and overall contrast to the NT church. Which church, as manifested in Scripture,
1. Was not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
2. Never promised or taught a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture assured that such had assured infallibility.
3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.
4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)
5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).
6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)
7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.
9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)
10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.
12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.
13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.
14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.
15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”
16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).
Roman Catholicism is the largest cult in the history of mankind. Lucifer smiles! No, Lucifer is probably grinning from ear to ear!!!
Actually no, as the Lord Himself stated,
Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Matthew 23:2-3)
Meanwhile the "self alone" soliloquy has been often refuted, and RCs themselves decide who what to believe, but neither claim to be the supreme infallible authority on Truth, and both are subject to correction from leadership and others. Still, one must obey his conscience, right or wrong, as Ratzinger says.
However, after past refutations into silence, only to see the same fallacious charge repeated later on another thread, then it becomes wise to heed the RM's counsel regarding such goading "spitwads."
If the other guy is throwing spitwads at you on an “open” thread it probably means he has run out of ammunition. Take it as a backhanded compliment. You won, walk away.
Luther has been forgiven for his cause of creating further divisions in the “body of Christ”.
The issue of paying for indulgences has been resolved a long, long time ago.
You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Gods Word = Final Authority
&
Man’s Work: Catholic Church = Only Interpretation
God’s Word will still rule, when the Catholic Church and every other man made denomination is destroyed.
Every Christian, regardless of the Church one belongs to, is part of the “body of Christ”. PLEASE see my tagline. Thank-you! :)
Besides, that is an interesting graphic of the “Joker” from “Batman.”
Paul commended the Bereans for searching the scriptures daily to see if what was being taught was the truth. Jesus used scripture to castigate the Pharisees and often referred to scripture. I would suggest that Jesus would be displeased if we didn't use scripture to refute false teaching.
Well I’m not into the numbers thingy nor the code type stuff....but I do know that the Old Testament and the New are a complete record and they do bounce off each other in some very interesting ways.
I remember the first time the Lord “stretched”, for want of a better word, the old testament study I was doing right over the New.....it was quite a remarkable experience with him because I knew left to my own understanding I could have never seen what He showed me....never!
Once again He left me in awe that indeed His Word is alive and active. It’s just beyond vocabulary, really, to define.
Yes, everyone who is saved has the Spirit of God in them and is transformed that way. The only difference is what stage of maturity they are at and what GOD sees fit to work on them and in them at the moment. It's what HE knows is most important, not what people think.
And yes, we still sin. It happens. But it doesn't cost us our salvation. That kind of thinking, that if we sin, we lose our salvation, is exactly the kind of thinking in a works based salvation religious system. If you think you can lose your salvation because of sin, then you are depending on works to save you and keep you saved. It is no longer faith.
That’s what I am getting at. We are weak because of our free will. We all sin and all times in our life.
There is no such thing as free will. Not one human is a free, independent moral agent. Only God is. Yes, we choose, but we cannot even come to God unless the Holy Spirit draws him. Jesus told us so Himself. We are either slaves to sin or slaves to Christ.
We do not own ourselves, much as the human ego would like to think so.
Where and when do we take responsibility for our own actions?
We take full responsibility for our actions all the time. That is why we are accountible for them and guilty of sin.
No not really....there are no flags to slow you done from scrolling naturally unless you have an interest.
It’s more like that old show...name that tune......you’re familiar enough with the open thread to name that tune in one note....so scroll on by if it disturbs you.
....”Pick up your cross and follow Jesus. Why does the Bible tell us that?”.....
That does not mean to sling dead bodies on your back....which actually was a form of punishment.
His burden is light, just as he promised, so I’ll let Him do the heavy lifting.
I hear you.
Would you have also said that to Jesus who used scripture to correct teaching that was in error?
Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Matthew 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
When correcting people Jesus always used scripture.
Mark 12:10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
God said scripture would be the everlasting witness.
Isaiah 30:8 Now go and write down these words. Write them in a book. They will stand until the end of time as a witness
Jeremiah 30:2 Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book.
God commanded that His word be written down and Jesus used that written word to correct and admonish people. Only those who are being corrected by it would consider it bashing.
By it's own admission much of what the Catholic Church teaches is not contained in God's word. Jesus used scripture to excoriate the Jews for teaching things not written in scripture. I'm sure they felt "bashed" also.
Those types of questions and comments are very telling. It illustrates a total lack of understanding of the change within a person that occurs when indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Hmmmm, no Catholic Church mentioned. The comment "there is no other" really disrespects the Holy Spirit terycarl.
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.