What is the one true Church?

[BreadOfLife]

Common sense dictates the futility of talking to dead people. We don't need Bible verses to tell us that dead people are dead and unable to communicate with anyone.

The Bible tells us that those in Heaven aren't dead - but are a cloud of witnesses (Heb. 12:1).
The Bible tells us that the martyrs in Hevaven are very mcu ALIVE and awaiting justice (Rev. 6:9-10).
The Bible tells us that aftter death comes judgement - not "sleep" (Heb. 9:27).

It was your false prohetess (Ellen White) who invented the false and heretical fallacy of "Soul Sleep" . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

LOL

Maybe YOU think you can forgive SIN, but I don’t believe that.
YOU are a Gentile.
YOU were NOT under Mosaic LAW.
....Mosaic LAW, provided that men who violated the LAW against another man, could be considered a TRESPASS or a SIN (according to the Law).
....ONLY “ISRAEL” was relieved of the LAW....not Gentiles.
....GENTILES “SIN” is AGAINST LORD GOD...for having DISBELIEF....and CORRUPTING your SOUL.
....ONLY the Lord GOD forgives SIN ...
FOR DISBELIEF IN HIM and FOR CORRUPTING your SOUL.

I have ZERO requirement to BELIEVE IN YOU.
And you have ZERO authority to FORGIVE SIN.

SIN is AGAINST the Lord God.
YOU have NOT authority to forgive SIN.
And NO, I can NOT SIN AGAINST YOU.
And YOU, accusing people of SINNING AGAINST YOU, is a farce.
What does that have to do with Forgiving Sin? Zip.

Ministry is TEACHING HOW TO....not stepping in and pretending you have the Authority to FORGIVE SIN AGAINST GOD!

What a pathetic perversion of God's sacred Word.
It's glaringly-apparent that you do NOT know Him . . .

Not only CAN I forgive you for your sins against ne - I an commanded to do so by Christ:

Matt. 6:12-15
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No if you could read and write we could have and an intelligent conversation.....You are not even smart enough to know that you are talking to a friend.

And I did not say that the Catholics worship Peter.....
I explained that the Protestants do not understand the Catholic beliefs and it seems that they worship Peter.
It goes along with Catholics kneeling before statues and praying to saints.....and how they relate to the Pope.....it makes people think that the Catholics worship people. You can't blame them for thinking that.....it is an outward appearance. At communion they kneel before the priest with their mouths open.....it looks a little kinky to outsiders.

The modern Catholic Church is a much better Church but there are things it does to shoot itself in the foot. The whole Peter thing and the celibacy requirement is an open wound that keeps bleeding for the Church. And infant baptisms just does not make sense.
Need a lot more focus on Christ.

I can absolutely blame them for thinking that - and people like YOU for perpetuating this nonsense.

I and othger Catholics on this forum proclaim on a DAILY basis that these things are NOT true - but people contoinue to believe the LIE instead. So, YES, I blame them - and YOU.

As for Peter and celibacy being a "open wound" - for WHOM??
Jesus's sppointment of Peter as chief earhtly shepherd (John 21:15-18) isn't a "wound" or even a remote issue for Catholics - and neither is the BIBLICAL recommendation of celibacy for the clergy (1 Cor. 7).

If YOU disapprove of these things - then don't enter the Church - but don't perpetuate myths and lies abou it.

 

[Illuminator]

Regarding the sheep that his Father gave him as per John 10:27-29, Jesus
stated:

"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch
them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than
all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand." (John 10:28-29)

It has actually been posited that the sheep are an exception. In other words;
it's been posited that the sheep of their own free will can take themselves
out of Jesus' hand. But of course they can't because God's free will trumps
the sheep's free will.

If that's true, then the sheep have no free will at all.

"This is the will of the one who sent me; that I should not lose anything of
what He gave me." (John 6:39)

John 6:39 – Jesus will not lose those the Father gives Him, but we can fall away, like Judas. God allows us not to persevere.

The posit reveals a belief that the sheep have enough strength and cunning
to overpower their shepherd and run off.

It is impossible for a sheep to overpower their shepherd. A good shepherd will break a leg of a sheep that keeps running off. (unthinkable with modern farming practices)

 

[Illuminator]

No if you could read and write we could have and an intelligent conversation.....You are not even smart enough to know that you are talking to a friend.

And I did not say that the Catholics worship Peter.....
I explained that the Protestants do not understand the Catholic beliefs and it seems that they worship Peter.

It seems the British worship the Queen of England. It seems Americans worship their president. It seems a soldier worships his generals. Respect for an office is not worship.

It goes along with Catholics kneeling before statues and praying to saints.....and how they relate to the Pope.....it makes people think that the Catholics worship people. You can't blame them for thinking that.....it is an outward appearance. At communion they kneel before the priest with their mouths open.....it looks a little kinky to outsiders.

Outward appearance is all that matters to the anti-Catholic. Never mind reason and logic.

The modern Catholic Church is a much better Church but there are things it does to shoot itself in the foot. The whole Peter thing and the celibacy requirement is an open wound that keeps bleeding for the Church.

The celibacy requirement, which only holds for one rite out of 23, is a discipline, not a doctrine. Exceptions are made. This has been explained 1000 times in this board but the anti-Catholic is too stubborn and prejudiced to receive any explanations. That's why the stupid objections to celibacy are repeated over and over again. Jesus and Paul were celibates but you don't object to that.

And infant baptisms just does not make sense.

Because you reject the doctrine of Original Sin. Luther and Calvin, the two pillars of Protestantism, baptized infants. You don't make sense.

 

[Keturah]

This is a believers stance.....the doctrine of God/ Christ......not the doctrines of men!

 

[Illuminator]

Common sense dictates the futility of talking to dead people. We don't need Bible verses to tell us that dead people are dead and unable to communicate with anyone.

Straw man fallacy. There is no "communication with the dead". That has nothing to do with the intercession of the saints. Common sense tells me you are a tricky polemicist.

1. Since the Bible says that contacting in the dead is the abominable sin of necromancy (Deut. 18:10–12), the intercession of the saints seems blasphemous to me.

This objection to the intercession of saints is an honorable and sincere one. It expresses a disposition that all Christians must have—refusing to do anything that takes away from the adoration that belongs only to God. When this objection is raised, you should affirm that if praying to saints takes away from one’s devotion to God, then it is a practice that should end at once. Expressing this to an evangelical Christian will help alleviate his presumption that you may not be as interested in serving God with single-heartedness.
When the Bible mentions necromancy, it condemns the practice of conjuring up the dead, as Saul did through the witch of Endor in 1 Samuel 28.

• When Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah during the Transfiguration, this was not necromancy.
• When David asked the angels of heaven to bless the Lord, this also was not offensive to God (Ps.103:20–21).

Likewise, when a Catholic asks St. Peter to pray for him, he is not conjuring up a spirit from Hades in order to acquire secret knowledge. After all, those in heaven are “like the angels,” and are more alive than we are, since the Lord is “not God of the dead, but of the living” (Luke 20:36–38). So, if it does not offend God when a Catholic says “St. Peter, pray for me,” we should all rejoice that God has given us the gift of Peter’s prayers.

2. But if you pray to the saints you are worshiping them.

Whenever discussing a doctrine, it is always effective to define your terms. “Pray” is an Old English word that means simply “to ask.” In Protestant theology, the word has become synonymous with worship, but that is not the original use of the term.

Any time a Catholic utters a petition to a saint, it is taken for granted that it is a request for that saint to pray to God for them. For example, the “Hail Mary” contains the request, “pray for us sinners.” If you ask a person to pray for you, it proves that you do not think that he is God. What needs to be stressed here is that none of our prayers terminate in the saints, as if they had the power in and of themselves to answer prayers. THEY DON'T.
read more here

 

[Grailhunter]

I can absolutely blame them for thinking that - and people like YOU for perpetuating this nonsense.

Why is there no true Church?....no body likes the truth. They would rather have a religion of false beliefs and fantasy.

As for Peter and celibacy being a "open wound" - for WHOM??
Jesus's sppointment of Peter as chief earhtly shepherd (John 21:15-18) isn't a "wound" or even a remote issue for Catholics - and neither is the BIBLICAL recommendation of celibacy for the clergy (1 Cor. 7).

Your worshipping Peter does not help the Church and the celibacy thing has lead to modern day atrocities.
Peter never functioned as the leader of the Apostles. He was a blessed and great Apostle....just like the rest of them.

 

[Grailhunter]

It seems the British worship the Queen of England. It seems Americans worship their president. It seems a soldier worships his generals. Respect for an office is not worship.

Respect for authority is fine.
And having favorites is fine....One guy may have Peter as a favorite the next guy could favor Paul or Luke or Matthew, and that is fine. That is not where the problem is. But for a guy to say....Paul is the absolute Apostle because Christ took him up to the third heaven and gave him special instruction and because he wrote most of the Bible and for this guy to say, our church has a direct connection to Paul. So we are the true church and have authority over others and Christ's Vicar on earth is the office we call the Bud.....and has the right to make all and any Christian rulings.....because ya know it is true what they say.....This Bud's for you!

Anyway people are just going to thumb their nose up at you and think that you are nutz! It does not help the Church at all. The Modern Catholic Church has a lot going for it.....they do not need a scope to shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[Illuminator]

This is a believers stance.....the doctrine of God/ Christ......not the doctrines of men!

Please explain how sola scriptura is not a doctrine of men, since you base all your doctrine on a man made tradition that was unheard of for 15 centuries.

 

[Taken]

YOU made the following claim:
"Scripture teaches AGAINST PRAYING TO “created” spirits, PRAYING TO dead men...FOR ANY REASON!"

I challenged you to provide even a SINGLE verse of Scripture to support this idiotic claim. I even included the dictionary definition of the word "Pray" and showed you that the primary definition simply means to "ASK".
I also inclided sa verse from the KJV (Acts 27:34 -), illustrating the use of this word as such.

Soi far, you have nervously danced around it - but you have NOT addressed my challenge.
WHERE does Scripture forbid ASKING a created beiing a question??
WHERE does Scripture forbid ASKING a created beiing a question for "ANY" readon??

If you can't come up with any Scriptural support for this manure - then simply admit it and we can move on . . .

Already provided the Scripture. (Deut 18:11) For WHAT I DID SAY.
But then I do not READ for you, or UNDERSTAND for you....nor call Scriptural teaching MANURE, as you do.

I did NOT say a person can not ask a person to pray for or with them.

Pay attention! Praying TO the DEAD or TO FAMILIAR Spirits...is an abomination, which you DO EVERY TIME YOU Pray “TO” a Saint IN Heaven!

Asking one to PRAY FOR you WITH you is one thing.
Asking, PRAYING TO the Dead, is another thing, and an abomination.
PRAYING “TO” God is Scripturally taught as ACCEPTABLE.
ASK Him, and you shall receive.
Never does Scripture teach to PRAY TO “the Dead” or TO “Familiar spirits”.

You saying SAINTS in Heaven are “more alive” than me....(which is FALSE)...and that You PRAY to them....IS Hocus Pocus.

So where is YOUR SCRIPTURAL QUOTE for your supposed teaching for You to PRAY “TO” the Dead, or “TO” the Saints in Heaven? Huh?

 

[Illuminator]

I believe the true church is made up of many congregations... In which we all have our issues. I would not want to recommend a congregation these days without knowing the senior pastor...

Good point. I would like the email address of YOUR senior pastor so I could let him know of your diabolic lies about the Council of Trent. You won't accept anything I say, but you might listen to him.

 

[Taken]

When somebody expends so much time and energy LYNG about a groups of people, it's a fair assumption that they hate that group.

Where there is a “GROUP”, there ARE individuals.

You may think YOUR Pope, YOUR Catholic Doctrine and YOUR Catholic Rituals, ..APPLY the same to ALL who call themselves “CATHOLICS”....

THEY Don’t.

Inasmuch as YOU think YOU’RE the self-appoint Catholic police patrol of this forum.

YOU are Not.

Thousands of people CLAIM to BE CATHOLIC.
Thousands of Catholic People, (like you) all have their own OPINIONS what it means to THEM, what they DO, what they DO NOT DO, what they Believe, regarding THEIR participation in a CATHOLIC “group”.

You are not the sole CATHOLIC, who speaks with people on this forum.
Seriously...there are many Catholics outside of the forum that people ON this forum converse with.

You CALLING everyone Wrong and a Liar, because OTHER Catholics have had discussions with people outside of the forum, and what OTHER Catholics have SAID becomes a topic of discussion ON this forum....and you go off on a wild accusatory rant, is old and boring.

No one appointed you top dog Catholic know it all, nor much care about you thinking you are.

If someone hates you, and wants you to know that tid bit....people are quite capable of telling you themselves.

 

[Taken]

What a pathetic perversion of God's sacred Word.
It's glaringly-apparent that you do NOT know Him . . .

Not only CAN I forgive you for your sins against ne - I an commanded to do so by Christ:

Matt. 6:12-15
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

It is obvious you do not comprehend the difference between or WHY there is a difference....between Trespasses and Sin.

Men Trespass AGAINST men. Men Can Forgive Trespasses.
Men SIN AGAINST God. Only God Forgives Sin.

Sorry bub....God Rates higher than men.
Men Against God, is a SIN.
Men Against men, is NOT a SIN!
Men NOT Believing IN God, is a SIN.
Men NOT Believing IN man, is NOT a SIN!

 

[Grailhunter]

Outward appearance is all that matters to the anti-Catholic. Never mind reason and logic.

"Anti" Catholics or Catholic haters are ignorant in the truest sense. These people do not even know their own history much less what is going on with the Catholics.....The problem is with people that are not Catholic or even religious. Someone that is considering looking into Christianity....Do they try a Baptist Church or a Church that is full of controversy, infant Baptisms, sex deprived priests molesting women and children and Catholics kneeling before people and statues.

Appearance and perceptions matter, especially for those that just learning about Christianity. It is time for the Catholic Church to clean up its act. So it can be the best it can be......I guess I am into slogans today....LOL

 

[Grailhunter]

The celibacy requirement, which only holds for one rite out of 23, is a discipline, not a doctrine. Exceptions are made. This has been explained 1000 times in this board but the anti-Catholic is too stubborn and prejudiced to receive any explanations. That's why the stupid objections to celibacy are repeated over and over again. Jesus and Paul were celibates but you don't object to that.

Show us a priest that decided to take a wife while he was a priest. I have a friend that is a priest and we meet and have dinner and drinks on occasion and this topic has come up. So your explaination does not hold water. And if I remember correctly Paul objected to James's requirement to be celebrate.

 

[Grailhunter]

Because you reject the doctrine of Original Sin. Luther and Calvin, the two pillars of Protestantism, baptized infants. You don't make sense.

Good memory.....I do reject the doctrine of Original Sin ( Augustine was crazy for sure) and Calvin was crazy and blasphemous. And I do not remember that about Martin but it is not impossible.

Here is the thing....what is Baptism? What are all the aspects of Baptism? Its spiritual effects, it physical effects, and it phycological effects? The Bible does not get into the details we just see what people did in the Bible and the urgency of it. I am a stickeler for all the effects of Baptism but I met one Protestant preacher that thought none of it was true.....Just a public display that one has chosen Christianity....pretty much the entry into Christianity. As far as he was concerned Baptisms could be conducted with water balloons.

At times the early Church poured water over the heads of people that were to sick to be immersed. Did that work? I do not know. But the Catholics went on to conduct forced Baptisms and infant Baptisms.....I do not think that works and neither is it represented in the Bible.

On the other hand I do agree with infant Baptisms as a dedication of the infant and then later they can choose to be Baptized.

 

[Taken]

And if I remember correctly Paul objected to James's requirement to be celebrate.

Would you reference the Scripture of James requirement to be celibate ?
TY

 

[Brakelite]

The history of Christian movements after the destruction of the Temple is a little sketchy. Pella seems to be their first settlement, not to say that there were not others. The ventures of various Apostles is another matter of traditional history. As a religion it expanded in all directions which concerned the Romans because the Christians believed in a king. With the Roman army already massed in the area Christians became the hunted.

There is more traditional history than actual history. There were regional Christian Leaders and the Christian leaders in Rome tried to establish their supremacy but they had no real power. Before the Edict of Milan, Regional leaders had more influence than the leaders in Rome and Regional leaders had the authority in their own respective areas, each picking their own favorite Christian texts to form their beliefs.

It was not as much a rejection of the leaders of Rome or considering them as enemies as much as not accepting their authority. Now the letters from some of these Christian leaders (150 to about 270 AD) still exist so if you can find some examples of them hating or considering themselves enemies of the universal church or the Church of Rome you can post them. I do not know of any. Now some of the interpretations of the Book of Revelation (especially modern Protestant interpretations) see it as pointing to the universal Church or the Catholic Church, but these terms do not appear in the Book of Revelation.

To the contrary when Emperor Constantine commanded them to Nicaea there is no indication that any of the regional Bishops refused. Now not all agreed with the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils but actual animosities towards the Roman Catholic Church does not occur until much later, much less terms like enemies. And the office of the Papacy as we understand it does not occur until after the Council at Nicaea. The belief that Christians as a whole rejected the Papacy in Rome is matter of Protestant tradition, not Christian history or academic history. Those few that did reject the Papacy in Rome go down as the heretics, which is a topic in itself.

Then in the Middle Ages when the Church went down the path of atrocities and corruption you see a loss of faith and confidence in the Catholic Church ergo the advent of Martin Luther who intended to reform the Catholic Church.

I agree with this. I think it s misunderstanding that you thought I was saying that others considered themselves enemies, they were as far as I know quite willing to welcome Rome and the Pope as a brother, but the time from Rome was to use force and secular power to bring about submission. This can be seen in the history of Britain, where Catholic princesses were married off to certain kings to were them informed to use military power to conquer the Celtic church, for example at Bangor in Wales.
And whether certain elders and bishops in places other than Rome had particular beliefsi am not so sure. The Assyrian church of the East had regular chicks and meetings and were in constant contact with one another, having a common scripture base.

 

[Brakelite]

The history of Christian movements after the destruction of the Temple is a little sketchy. Pella seems to be their first settlement, not to say that there were not others. The ventures of various Apostles is another matter of traditional history. As a religion it expanded in all directions which concerned the Romans because the Christians believed in a king. With the Roman army already massed in the area Christians became the hunted.

There is more traditional history than actual history. There were regional Christian Leaders and the Christian leaders in Rome tried to establish their supremacy but they had no real power. Before the Edict of Milan, Regional leaders had more influence than the leaders in Rome and Regional leaders had the authority in their own respective areas, each picking their own favorite Christian texts to form their beliefs.

It was not as much a rejection of the leaders of Rome or considering them as enemies as much as not accepting their authority. Now the letters from some of these Christian leaders (150 to about 270 AD) still exist so if you can find some examples of them hating or considering themselves enemies of the universal church or the Church of Rome you can post them. I do not know of any. Now some of the interpretations of the Book of Revelation (especially modern Protestant interpretations) see it as pointing to the universal Church or the Catholic Church, but these terms do not appear in the Book of Revelation.

To the contrary when Emperor Constantine commanded them to Nicaea there is no indication that any of the regional Bishops refused. Now not all agreed with the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils but actual animosities towards the Roman Catholic Church does not occur until much later, much less terms like enemies. And the office of the Papacy as we understand it does not occur until after the Council at Nicaea. The belief that Christians as a whole rejected the Papacy in Rome is matter of Protestant tradition, not Christian history or academic history. Those few that did reject the Papacy in Rome go down as the heretics, which is a topic in itself.

Then in the Middle Ages when the Church went down the path of atrocities and corruption you see a loss of faith and confidence in the Catholic Church ergo the advent of Martin Luther who intended to reform the Catholic Church.

I agree with this. I think it s misunderstanding that you thought I was saying that others considered themselves enemies, they were as far as I know quite willing to welcome Rome and the Pope as a brother, but the response from Rome was to use force and secular power to bring about submission. This can be seen in the history of Britain, where Catholic princesses were married off to certain kings who were then influenced to use military power to conquer the Celtic church, for example at Bangor in Wales.
And whether certain elders and bishops in places other than Rome had particular beliefsi am not so sure. The Assyrian church of the East had regular councils and meetings and were in constant contact with one another, having a common scripture base.

Straw man fallacy. There is no "communication with the dead". That has nothing to do with the intercession of the saints. Common sense tells me you are a tricky polemicist.

1. Since the Bible says that contacting in the dead is the abominable sin of necromancy (Deut. 18:10–12), the intercession of the saints seems blasphemous to me.

This objection to the intercession of saints is an honorable and sincere one. It expresses a disposition that all Christians must have—refusing to do anything that takes away from the adoration that belongs only to God. When this objection is raised, you should affirm that if praying to saints takes away from one’s devotion to God, then it is a practice that should end at once. Expressing this to an evangelical Christian will help alleviate his presumption that you may not be as interested in serving God with single-heartedness.
When the Bible mentions necromancy, it condemns the practice of conjuring up the dead, as Saul did through the witch of Endor in 1 Samuel 28.

• When Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah during the Transfiguration, this was not necromancy.
• When David asked the angels of heaven to bless the Lord, this also was not offensive to God (Ps.103:20–21).

Likewise, when a Catholic asks St. Peter to pray for him, he is not conjuring up a spirit from Hades in order to acquire secret knowledge. After all, those in heaven are “like the angels,” and are more alive than we are, since the Lord is “not God of the dead, but of the living” (Luke 20:36–38). So, if it does not offend God when a Catholic says “St. Peter, pray for me,” we should all rejoice that God has given us the gift of Peter’s prayers.

2. But if you pray to the saints you are worshiping them.

Whenever discussing a doctrine, it is always effective to define your terms. “Pray” is an Old English word that means simply “to ask.” In Protestant theology, the word has become synonymous with worship, but that is not the original use of the term.

Any time a Catholic utters a petition to a saint, it is taken for granted that it is a request for that saint to pray to God for them. For example, the “Hail Mary” contains the request, “pray for us sinners.” If you ask a person to pray for you, it proves that you do not think that he is God. What needs to be stressed here is that none of our prayers terminate in the saints, as if they had the power in and of themselves to answer prayers. THEY DON'T.
read more here

Straw man fallacy. I never accused anyone of worshipping saints or even angels, not even the Pope. My sole objection to talking to dead people is that they are dead. Period. They are, according to scripture, waiting on their graves or the sea it wherever they fell, for the resurrection, "
KJV John 6:39-40
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.