chat with a catholic

[IreneM]

ok so we will dissagree on pergatory and infant baptisim

I do beleive that the Blood of Jesus forgives all sin

cleansing us making us pure

I believe that children under the age of accountability go to heaven

so we dissagree

but that is what this disscussion is for so see where we do agree

In Christ

IreneM

[Katholish]

Thanx for youir good posting. In reply, I would remind you that the Holy bible states quite succinctly that "the soul that SINNETH shall surely die." Only ONE sin will do it because God is a throice-holy God and sin cannot enter God's heaven. All sin therefore - whether less or more so - must be forgiven the perpetrator cleansed by the power of Jesus' shed blood. Nothing other & nothing less will suffice. So the big query before us is NOT what TYPE of sin I have committed, but have I come to Jesus Christ ans asked for forgiveness through His shed blood for me on the cross?

"The wages of SIN is death, but the gift of God is eternal life THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD."

Yes, it is a good point that you bring up that nothing with any sin whatsoever can enter Heaven. However, at the same time, the Epistle of John explicitly states that there are some sins that are not "Mortal" or "unto death". Thus we hold that if someone is free from mortal sin in a state of grace, he is saved, even if he has venial sins. However, it is because nothing impure can enter Heaven that the doctrine of Purgatory explains how both positions do not contradict.

[Constant]

You know I was brought up Greek Orthodox and Catholic. I attended church and studied what I could. I never understood really anything about it. Recently I started going to a Catholic church. It is beautiful, as most are, but, I still don't understand the teachings. This thread you have posted helps me with alot of questions.

[Katholish]

Shane,

With all due respect

Your explanation of 1 John 5:16 - 21is floored. This seriously contradicts Jesus's own teaching in the Sermon on the mount. It is plainly stated that there are no distinctions between sin.

Jam 2:10  For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

Sin is Sin and it leads to death unless we put our trust in Christs sacrifice on the cross completely. As for the explanation in 1 John 5:16-21 your understanding contradicts clear teachings in the bible. I think Matthew Henry explains it best in his commentary which I quote below.

I have been pretty good in providing citations and even quotations for all of the biblical verses that I refer to. I ask the same from you. Where in the Sermon on the Mount do you claim this is?

As might be obvious, I do not accept Matthew Henry, an 18th Century Protestant minister, as an authoritative source in this matter of dispute between Catholics and Protestants. As Protestants denied the idea of mortal sin from the beginning of the Protestant revolt, he had cause to mold his commentary around his positions. Furthermore, Henry only lived to see up to Acts of his commentary completed, the rest was compiled, though based on his notes, by other non-conformists.

Thus, I will procede in answer the quote as if you had personally argued these things.

1Jo_5:16. Here we may observe, 1. We ought to pray for others as well as for ourselves; for our brethren of mankind, that they may be enlightened, converted, and saved; for our brethren in the Christian profession, that they may be sincere, that their sins may be pardoned, and that they may be delivered from evils and the chastisements of God, and preserved in Christ Jesus.

I am perfectly fine with that.

2. There is a great distinction in the heinousness and guilt of sin: There is a sin unto death (1Jo_5:16), and there is a sin not unto death, 1Jo_5:17.

(1.) There is a sin unto death. All sin, as to the merit and legal sentence of it, is unto death. The wages of sin is death; and cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them, Gal_3:10. But there is a sin unto death in opposition to such sin as is here said not to be unto death.

There is therefore, (2.) A sin not unto death. This surely must include all such sin as by divine or human constitution may consist with life; in the human constitution with temporal or corporal life, in the divine constitution with corporal or with spiritual evangelical life. [1.] There are sins which, by human righteous constitution, are not unto death; as divers pieces of injustice, which may be compensated without the death of the delinquent. In opposition to this there are sins which, by righteous constitution, are to death, or to a legal forfeiture of life; such as we call capital crimes. [2.] Then there are sins which, by divine constitution, are unto death; and that either death corporal or spiritual and evangelical.

It is unclear to me what is meant by this section. On the one hand, there seems to be a recognition that some sins are like capital crimes, and those are mortal, yet those that are not capital crime sins are not mortal.

If that is the understanding, I find it likewise acceptable.

However, there seems that there might also be a notion that sins not unto death are some how necessary in the human nature, and that god is somehow involved in them too. Perhaps he is equating this with physical evils, but I am unsure. Either way, if this is what he was thinking, there seem to be problems with it insofar as it describes something that is not sin at all, and hence it would be incorrect to call it so.

First, Such as are, or may be, to death corporal. Such may the sins be either of gross hypocrites, as Ananias and Sapphira, or, for aught we know, of sincere Christian brethren, as when the apostle says of the offending members of the church of Corinth, For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep, 1Co_11:30. There may be sin unto corporal death among those who may not be condemned with the world. Such sin, I said, is, or may be, to corporal death. The divine penal constitution in the gospel does not positively and peremptorily threaten death to the more visible sins of the members of Christ, but only some gospel-chastisement; for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth, Heb_12:6. There is room left for divine wisdom or goodness, or even gospel severity, to determine how far the chastisement or the scourge shall proceed. And we cannot say but that sometimes it may (in terrorem - for warning to others) proceed even to death.

The topic of sins resulting in physical death really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, so I will leave it alone. John is clearly referring to mortal sins in a spiritual sense because refers to the people that commit them as still living, so physical death cannot be what is therein implied.

Then, Secondly, There are sins which, by divine constitution, are unto death spiritual and evangelical, that is, are inconsistent with spiritual and evangelical life, with spiritual life in the soul and with an evangelical right to life above. Such are total impenitence and unbelief for the present. Final impenitence and unbelief are infallibly to death eternal, as also a blaspheming of the Spirit of God in the testimony that he has given to Christ and his gospel, and a total apostasy from the light and convictive evidence of the truth of the Christian religion. These are sins involving the guilt of everlasting death. Then comes,

Well, I didn't expect Mr. Henry to take up a position against "once saved always saved" but I am pleasently surprised to find it here. I actually don't really have an objection to this section, though I would include more sins than he lists here. He lists mortal sins against Faith and against Hope, but does not mention the mortal sins against Charity which I would include.

I am surprised because most Protestants object to the idea of mortal sin altogether.

IV. The application of the direction for prayer according to the different sorts of sin thus distinguished. The prayer is supposed to be for life: He shall ask, and he (God) shall give them life. Life is to be asked of God. He is the God of life; he gives it when and to whom he pleases, and takes it away either by his constitution or providence, or both, as he thinks meet. In the case of a brother's sin, which is not (in the manner already mentioned) unto death, we may in faith and hope pray for him; and particularly for the life of soul and body. But, in case of the sin unto death in the forementioned ways, we have no allowance to pray. Perhaps the apostle's expression, I do not say, He shall pray for it, may intend no more than,

[Katholish]

I am currently reading a book by John Armstrong titled "Catholic Mystery". What I have gotten from it so far is that where we deviated from Christ's example is when we started trying to quantify our Christianity in order to measure our assurance of salvation. People wanted an answer from their local priest to the question "How can I be sure that I'm saved?", so whether well-intentioned or not (some certainly not), priests, bishops and theologians attempted to quantify salvation.

I am not familiar with the book or author, but the idea that priests tried to quantify salvation in some sense to give the people assurance of salvation doesn't seem to move in line with what the Church teaches. It is the Protestants sects that offer "assurance", the Catholic Church has always said that we cannot say without special private revelation that we are among the elect, and hence no absolute assurance exists, nor has the Church ever taught that it does. I don't mean this to sound like an accusation, but my your argument, it would be the sect that offers assurance that would be the one that invented it to comfort the masses.

[Katholish]

Ok  how about prayers

we pray to God  catholics pray to others mostly dead people

We are told by Paul that we can go boldly befor the throne of God

Heb 4:16

16  Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

we are commanded in the old testament not to talk to the dead  I would assume that means praying to them as well..

even king saul was punished for visting a witch and calling up a dead person

As far as the dead are concerned, those in the Old Testament would not have interceded because the Gates of Heaven were not opened until the Death of Christ, so the comparison is necessarily going to be off. However, since those that have died in Christ are still living in Him and are part of the Mystical body as we are who are Baptized and part of the Church, then there doesn't seem to be any reason that those who are in Heaven cannot hear us, for they have eternal life. As members of the Mystical Body, they are concerned for its wealfare and that of its members just as much as anyother human is, why could they, who are closer to Christ then are we, not petition him on our behalf? There is no reason against their being able to intercede and it seems fitting and right that they are able to.

I think that it seems somewhat clear from the Scripture that you referred to concerning Saul, that the prohibition against "consulting" the dead is for purposes of divination, that is trying to gain knowledge about the present life, or more specifically, fore-knowledge, astrology, fortune-telling and the like. In praying for the dead, or asking the intercession of the saints, we are not seeking a two-way interaction, we are not seeking knowledge that is not meant for us to have.

However, this does not prohibit the Tradition passed on from the Apostles of praying for the dead, or asking the dead to pray for us, for in both instances, the actions are Christ centered, and not seeking to seek knowledge or favors by going around His power as with those who act as spirit mediums and divinizers who draw on demonic powers.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 23 (circa 350AD)

9. Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and

intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the

Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls, for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth. 

In fact, Cyril of Jersusalem in the 4th Century is hardly alone amongst the leaders of the early Church in supporting this practice.

Here is a link to a good listing of referrences in the Early Church of the invocation and veneration of saints. You will find it covered by Tertulian (211AD), St. Cyprian of Carthage(250AD), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (350AD), St. John Cyrsostom (374AD), St. Basil (375AD), St. Gregory Nyssa (380AD), St. Augustine (400AD), St. Jerome (404AD), St. Cyril of Alexandria (444AD), and many others. And the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea even addressed the veneration of the images of saints. http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/saints.htm

I know that citing the beliefs of the Early Church is not as strong a support for you, but I provide this quote from St. Jerome of the late 4th and early 5th Centuries not so much because of his authority, but because of his summary of one of the strongest arguments in favor of the intercession of the saints.

St. Jerome, Against Vigilantius, Chapter 6:

Will you put the Apostles into chains? So that to the day of judgment they re to be kept in confinement, and are not with their Lord, although it is written concerning them, [3]"They follow the Lamb, whithersoever he goeth." If the Lamb is present everywhere, the same must be believed respecting those who are with the Lamb. And while the devil and the demons wander through the whole world, and with only too great speed present themselves everywhere; are martyrs, after the shedding of their blood, to be kept out of sight shut up in a[1] coffin, from whence they cannot escape? You say, in your pamphlet, that so long as we are alive we can pray for one another; but once we die, the prayer of no person for another can be heard, and all the more because the martyrs, though they[2] cry for the avenging of their blood, have never been able to obtain their request. If Apostles and martyrs while still in the body can pray for others, when they ought still to be anxious for themselves, how much more must they do so when once they have won their crowns, overcome, and triumphed? A single man, Moses, oft[3] wins pardon from God for six hundred thousand armed men; and[4] Stephen, the follower of his Lord and the first Christian martyr, entreats pardon for his persecutors; and when once they have entered on their life with Christ, shall they have less power than before? The Apostle Paul[6] says that two hundred and seventy-six souls were given to him in the ship; and when, after his dissolution, he has begun to be with Christ, must he shut his mouth, and be unable to say a word for those who throughout the whole world have believed in his Gospel?

[IreneM]

Kath when you enter church how many statues do you see.

Do these seem like idoles to you or how do you see them

When you pray before one of them are you not bowing down to them praying to them??

How can Joseph or Mary or any other catholic saint reach God any better then you can??

more questions sorry to lump them together but they all seem in the same catigory

Have a good week

In Christ

IreenM

[Katholish]

Some years ago, I heard a big name Protestant minister (won't mention who) say that Catholic doctrine teaches that Mary and the Holy Spirit had "relations" with one another.  I'm not sure where this idea came from, but #1 I would find it hard to digest that the RCC teaches this given they believe Mary was a virgin and remained that way-can you expound upon what or where this idea originated? 

*this is just a copy of the response I gave you in PM*

Mary DID NOT have physical relations with the Holy Spirit. You are certainly right in saying that this would contradict the perpetual virginity, and it would even contradict the virgin birth which is so explicitly stated in the Scripture.

We say that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, but that is because of the Holy Spirit's role in the Incarnation and that Mary preserved herself for God alone (but that in no way implies that God had physical relations with any person, which I can most vigorously deny.)

[Arthur Durnan]

Ah, but we forget, no? "The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son cleanses us from ALL sin," so says the Apostle. Romans 14:12 is quite explicit re the coming Bema Judgment Seat for CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS which will take place (in the biblical order of future events) just prior to the Marriage Supper of The Lamb. Tears are not said to be wiped away in Holy Scripture until AFTER the Bema Judgment Seat for believers!

The trouble with bringing a "purgatory" into the picture is quite simply this: There is NO SUCH 'ANIMAL' ANYWHERE IN HOLY WRIT, either Roman Challoner Rheims Version, Douay Version or whatever version. The closest one will ever get to a biblical "purgatory" is the word "PURGED," ie, "When He had by Himself PURGED our sins..." (Hebrews 1:3 & Isaiah 6:7). Hebrews 10:12,18 are especially powerful truths right here too. And if the Lord Jesus Christ has indeed PURGED our sins as the Holy Scriptures relate, what need exists for any "purgatory"? There are not THREE destinations in Scripture after death: (1) Heaven, (2) Hell, (3) a "Purgatory," but ONLY TWO, a Heaven or a Hell. Listen to what the Scriptures of Truth underscore in Ephesians 5:14.....TWO PLACES, NOT THREE! How much more crystal-clear should one desire it? In view of schoolroom-obvious Holy Writ on the afterlife, a "purgatory" - for those "not good enuf for Heaven, and not bad enuf for Hell" - comes across as a very wonky idea. It's like trying to change a fan-belt on a speeding Ferrari. An impossibility.

THANK YOU, LORD JESUS, FOR YOUR BLOOD'S ONCE-FOR-ALL CLEANSING POWER!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[Guest wilburnh]

Kath, where is one instance of prayer to saints mentioned in the Bible? Is it not possible to surmise that the early 'bishops' idolized or simply had misplaced good intentions and as a result, catholics pray to people who can do them no good? After all, the possibility is there since it is never mentioned in the Bible otherwise. Also, Jesus says for us to model our prayers after the example that He gave. I don't see this happening with the Catholic version.

Someone earlier asked about the catholic thoughts on the scripture saying we can enter before God boldly. I think a better way to put it, is if a Catholic does not pray to a saint or does not go to a priest, is this looked down upon, and if so then how much.