Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?

[kepha31]

I never said that anyone is "without sin".

Are you saying that I must wait for my baptism before I am cleansed of my sins?

No.

If so, what if I died after I was saved yet before I was baptized.

Baptism is normative. It's another discussion.

Further still, what of the sins I commit after my baptism in the years before I die?

You have to repent and receive God's forgiveness. But there are always consequences and it is our responsibility to make up for it. If a person steals a car and gets caught, Jesus doesn't let them keep the car. He has to give it back. Restitution is related to penance, but that is a poor comparison. Some sins are impossible to make restitution, (penance) but God love us so much, He accepts our prayers. Sins are not automatically "covered". You pay the consequences in this life or the next, or worse, someone else pays, or society pays.

Again, baptism does not cleanse me of my sin. Christ did that on the cross and I was washed clean by His blood, when I accepted His gift of salvation.

Baptism is dying with Christ and rising with Him. It's a whole topic on it's own.

Baptism is a public profession of Faith in Christ. It is a symbol of our dying as an old creature and rebirth as a child of God.

We don't see it as symbolic, but salvific. Protestants are divided into 5 camps regarding baptism, I'll stick with what Jesus and the the Apostles taught, which is the same as the unanimous teaching of the Early Church Fathers that has passed thorough the centuries. Reducing baptism to a symbol is a man made tradition that even Luther didn't teach.

Actually, that's exactly how it works. I can not do one thing, during this life, or after, that would bring me one step closer to the righteousness necessary for my salvation.

It is entirely correct to say that Christ accomplished all of our salvation for us on the cross. But that does not settle the question of how this redemption is applied to us. Scripture reveals that it is applied to us over the course of time through, among other things, the process of sanctification through which the Christian is made holy. Sanctification involves suffering (Rom. 5:3–5), and purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter heaven. Purgatory is the final phase of Christ’s applying to us the purifying redemption that he accomplished for us by his death on the cross.
read more here

I am not saved by my works here on earth.

You can stop parroting that anytime now.

I am not saved by hardship or pain or punishment
I am only saved by Christs death on the cross and resurrection. Which He did for me to save me from my sins.

see above.

Sure it is. You die but you have some unforgiven sins or unrighteousness that needs to be punished. So, you spend some time in torment until God thinks you have learned your lesson or suffered enough....Totally unbiblical and totally insults what Christ did on the cross.

Another straw man fallacy. That has nothing to do with purgatory. What's the point in asking questions when you refuse to budge from your preconceived notions?

I'll ignore the whole argument of Paradise, heaven etc.... Where did Christ say that the thief on the cross would be with Him "that day"... Totally useless argument.

I give up!!!You win !!! Paradise is not heaven!

proof for the Scriptural nature of Purgatory can be found by comparing Luke 16:19-31 with Luke 23:43. In Luke 16, Jesus speaks of the poor man Lazarus being taken up to the "Bosom of Abraham." However, despite what is commonly presumed, this cannot be Heaven, since souls did not enter Heaven at this time (not even according to Jewish theology), but awaited Jesus' death, Resurrection, and Ascension for this. Until the Lord opens the gates of Heaven ("I go to prepare a place for you"), it was not possible for humanity to enter into the Presence of God. Rather, the God-man needed to do this first in order to make a place for humanity before the Throne of the Father. Rather, this "Bosom of Abraham" in Luke 16 is what Jewish oral tradition refers to as "the Paradise of the Fathers" --the Garden of Eden, which was withdrawn from the earth.

Now, ... To show that this is the case, one only need to look at Luke 23:43, where Jesus tells the Good Thief, " **This day** you will be with me **in Paradise.** " Notice, here, that Jesus does not say, " ...in Heaven." ...And this is because, as we all know, Jesus did NOT go to Heaven THAT DAY. Rather, Jesus spent 3 days in the tomb! ...Not rising until Sunday morning. ...And we know from Scripture (e.g. 1 Peter 3:19 & 4:6) that Jesus' soul spent **that day** AMONG THE DEAD in Sheol. ...And, as John 20:17 hammers home for us, EVEN ON SUNDAY MORNING, Jesus had STILL "not yet ascended to the Father." So, the "Paradise" Jesus is talking about in Luke 23 is **absolutely** not Heaven itself. Rather, He is talking about the Paradise of the Fathers, and he is promising the Good Thief (a justly-condemned Jewish criminal) that, far from being condemned to Gehenna, he will be with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the righteous patriarchs (models of Judaism) in the Paradise of the Fathers. And this would have been enough for this Jew to die in peace --saved from hell, yet not fully-sanctified so as to immediately enter Heaven.

 

[kepha31]

But what if your church's dogma stands in opposition to the clear word of scripture, in context in the passage and in agreement with the entire witness of scripture?

Then church dogma must be infallible before declaring who is in opposition to the clear word of scripture.

 

[bbbbbbb]

first of all, the Catholic needs to learn good basic skills of Bible interpretation. I would recommend a book such as Making Senses Out of Scripture: Reading the Bible As the First Christians Did, by Mark Shea.

Once that is understood, so elementary errors in exegesis and hermeneutics are not committed, a reader so informed is able to learn on his own, pretty much, from Scripture. But the Catholic always has a boundary, beyond which he cannot go: Catholic dogma. The Catholic exegete should always seek to conform his opinion with that of the Church. So it isn’t so much that the Church is saying:

A) “You can’t interpret Scripture on your own”

(as Protestant critics often caricature our approach). Rather, it is saying:

B) “don’t become so independent that you interpret in a way that is contrary to Church dogma.”

Some Protestant critics think this stricture implies that Catholic exegetes aren’t “free.” But that is silly, since all Protestant traditions have doctrines, too, which are non-negotiable. A professor at a [traditional] Calvinist seminary, for example, couldn’t interpret Scripture in an Arminian, non-Calvinist fashion, or he would be out of a job. Every conscious Christian interpreter comes to the text with prior biases or beliefs, and believes that Scripture teaches those things. Why should Catholics be singled out? It’s a double-standard argument.

I stand by my reply, although I did not intend to single out your denomination only. However, as the previous poster told the Catholic respondent to believe the Holy Spirit to guide him in his interpretation of scripture, I do not believe that such an approach, if it leads to contrary understandings of scripture with Catholic doctrine, is acceptable in the Catholic Church, as you have agreed with me.

The simple reality remains that a sincere Catholic cannot, for any reason, believe anything that is contrary to Catholic doctrine. If he does then he may be close to committing a mortal sin.

 

[Germatria1128]

...the fact that many were baptized and never became Christians only goes to support the fact that baptizing does not save you.

How do you know they were not saved through their faith demonstrated in baptism? I find it appalling when Christians state whom God chooses to save and whom He does not. For example, Christ on the cross turned to the Good Thief and told him that this day he would be with Him in Paradise. However HE DID NOT TURN TO THE OTHER THIEF and condemn him did HE?! Apparently there are MANY Christians that would! It's out of line to push the Father out of the Judge's chair.

 

[JacksBratt]

You have to repent and receive God's forgiveness. But there are always consequences and it is our responsibility to make up for it. If a person steals a car and gets caught, Jesus doesn't let them keep the car. He has to give it back. Restitution is related to penance, but that is a poor comparison. Some sins are impossible to make restitution, (penance) but God love us so much, He accepts our prayers. Sins are not automatically "covered". You pay the consequences in this life or the next, or worse, someone else pays, or society pays.

So, how does this work..?
Let's say that I, as a Christian who just got finished praying for my sins to be forgiven. Now, on my way to work I get angry at another driver and flip him the bird. Then I walk into my office and lie to a client in order to get a sale. On the way home I need some change so I take it from a blind guy as he begs on the street.

Then, I have a heart attack and die.........A bit of an overload but anyhow.........what happens when I face Christ according to what you believe?

It is entirely correct to say that Christ accomplished all of our salvation for us on the cross. But that does not settle the question of how this redemption is applied to us. Scripture reveals that it is applied to us over the course of time through, among other things, the process of sanctification through which the Christian is made holy. Sanctification involves suffering (Rom. 5:3–5), and purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter heaven. Purgatory is the final phase of Christ’s applying to us the purifying redemption that he accomplished for us by his death on the cross.

So, can you give me some scriptures on this redemption is applied over time?
Also, any scripture on the concept of purgatory?

Another straw man fallacy. That has nothing to do with purgatory. What's the point in asking questions when you refuse to budge from your preconceived notions?

So, what is the concept of Purgatory if it is not time spent suffering or being punished before I am allowed to enter heaven?

I give up!!!You win !!! Paradise is not heaven!

Like I said... not arguing... I used paradise to indicate the place we enter into after judgement. Heaven, paradise, Abraham's bosom.... all indicate a place of extreme righteous love and peace... That's not what I'm arguing here... start at thread for those that want to.

proof for the Scriptural nature of Purgatory can be found by comparing Luke 16:19-31 with Luke 23:43. In Luke 16, Jesus speaks of the poor man Lazarus being taken up to the "Bosom of Abraham." However, despite what is commonly presumed, this cannot be Heaven,

Yes, I know that story. However, there is no suffering where the beggar, Lazarus went. We do know that the rich man was in torment and that he could not ever cross the great space that separated them.
This is not proof of purgatory.

 

[Tangible]

Then church dogma must be infallible before declaring who is in opposition to the clear word of scripture.

Then dogma trumps the word of God.

 

[bbbbbbb]

How do you know they were not saved through their faith demonstrated in baptism? I find it appalling when Christians state whom God chooses to save and whom He does not. For example, Christ on the cross turned to the Good Thief and told him that this day he would be with Him in Paradise. However HE DID NOT TURN TO THE OTHER THIEF and condemn him did HE?! Apparently there are MANY Christians that would! It's out of line to push the Father out of the Judge's chair.

Matthew 7:15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits."

There have been innumerable false prophets who were properly baptized as babies.

 

[PeaceB]

So, what is the concept of Purgatory if it is not time spent suffering or being punished before I am allowed to enter heaven?

Why should anyone both answering you, when you will not listen to the answer?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Why should anyone both answering you, when you will not listen to the answer?

Why don't you join the discussion on my thread about Purgatory?

 

[pgardner2358]

A good friend of mine (who is Pentacostal) has some very confused ideas about what Catholics believe. I mentioned to him that there are people who call themselves "Christian Wiccans" and believe that Mary is a goddess, and he said that it sounds like they've got some Catholic ideology behind them. I'm like, uh, Catholics don't think that Mary is a goddess. He said, "They think she's the Queen Of Heaven and the mother of God. So yeah, they kinda do." He thinks that, while Catholics don't actually refer to her as a goddess, she's given the same status minus the name. I tried to explain that Catholics DO NOT believe that Mary is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being and that there's a big difference between honoring Mary more than they should and actually worshipping her, and my friend just said, "You don't know much about pantheons, do you?" I asked my dad (who is Eastern Orthodox but knows a lot about other denominations' beliefs) if he could explain what Catholics ACTUALLY believe so I could tell my friend, and he said that my friend has heard misinformation spread by Chick Publishing. He's busy right now and won't be able to explain what Catholics believe until this evening, and I realized it would probably be better to ask Catholics anyway. So, Catholics. What do you ACTUALLY believe about Mary?

 

[pgardner2358]

Read "The Two Babylons". The Catholic 'church' is Babylon the mother of harlots in Revelation. So mixed with pagan garbage that it is no longer a christian religion.

 

[MrMoe]

I didn't say it wasn't a place.

I never said you did. I just said, if you believe heaven is a place, then you have to concede that purgatory is also a place, because like I said, the soul has to exist somewhere.

I said it was a state of being. There is nothing in scripture that calls it a place.

Scripture doesn't rule it out either.

Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected. Purification must be complete, and indeed this is precisely what is meant by the Church's teaching on purgatory. The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence. St. Pope John Paul II​

God doesn't expect us to understand everything, but He does expect us to believe certain things.

He also expects us to use reason. "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD" Isaiah 1:18

Reason requires using logic. If you believe earth is a place and heaven is a place and the uncleansed soul
does not inhabit either, then it is logical to conclude that the soul inhabits some other place.

Mark 6 has nothing to do with bread,

Mark 6:39 Then Jesus directed them to have all the people sit down in groups on the green grass. 40 So they sat down in groups of hundreds and fifties. 41 Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to distribute to the people. He also divided the two fish among them all. 42 They all ate and were satisfied, 43 and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces of bread and fish. 44 The number of the men who had eaten was five thousand.

and Mark 8 is about the Feeding of the Multitude, I believe it is a foreshadow of Jesus' power to multiply His Body and Blood throughout time.

Mark 8 is connected to Mark 6.

Mark 8:17 Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?”


I also notice you didn't answer my questions.

It requires supernatural faith to accept the Real and Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, not logic.

As I said above, God wants us to use reason, which requires logic.

It could be. Jesus scolded Peter for his lack of understanding, not his teaching, for Peter wasn't teaching anything. Peter knew the political climate in Jerusalem and was afraid for Jesus' life. That's why he didn't want Him to go. Then Jesus said what?
24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.
This is what Peter didn't understand until Jesus explained it. Many Christians don't understand it either when they don't accept the various crosses that befall them.

I think it is a clear example of Peter being carnal minded.
When Peter said “Never, Lord!” and “This shall never happen to you!” he was unintentionally speaking against God's will. He was not thinking Spiritually, he was thinking in "the natural man".

Manna was placed inside the Ark of the Old Covenant, which foreshadowed the Bread of Life in Mary's womb, the Ark of the New Covenant. She knew Who was inside her so in that sense she had "spiritual awareness".

This still doesn't answer the question I'm trying to get at, so I'll ask it another way.

Would Mary's sinlessness prevent Mary from speaking and thinking in the "the natural man" which cannot understand spiritual things?

 

[Tangible]

There have been innumerable false prophets who were properly baptized as babies.

To be fair, there have also been innumerable false prophets who were not baptized as babies.

As Luther wrote about judging the effectiveness of God's work in Holy Baptism by the faith or behavior of the baptized, "Gold is not the less gold, though a harlot wear it in sin and shame."

 

[Tangible]

God wants us to use reason, which requires logic.

There are two ways to use reason as relating to the scriptures. The ministerial use is reason subject to the word. We use our reason to comprehend or apprehend what God is saying to us in scripture, recognizing that we may not be capable of fully understanding the things of God. "His ways are not our ways." "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it."

The magisterial use, however, subjects God's word to man's reason. If it doesn't make sense to us we judge it not to be true. God is not bound by human reason. Human understanding is only a small subset of God's understanding. An infinite God easily acts in ways we humans cannot comprehend.

 

[kepha31]

So, how does this work..?
Let's say that I, as a Christian who just got finished praying for my sins to be forgiven. Now, on my way to work I get angry at another driver and flip him the bird. Then I walk into my office and lie to a client in order to get a sale. On the way home I need some change so I take it from a blind guy as he begs on the street.

Then, I have a heart attack and die.........A bit of an overload but anyhow.........what happens when I face Christ according to what you believe?

It's not for me to judge. Off-hand I would say the first 2 sins are venial, the third could be mortal.
"If anyone sees his brother commit sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death" (1 John 5:16-17) Sin that does not lead to death is a slippery slope and must be avoided.
Why Mortal and Venial Sins | Catholic Answers

So, can you give me some scriptures on this redemption is applied over time?

That is not what I said. I said It is entirely correct to say that Christ accomplished all of our salvation for us on the cross. But that does not settle the question of how this redemption is applied to us. Scripture reveals that it is applied to us over the course of time through, among other things, the process of sanctification through which the Christian is made holy. Sanctification involves suffering (Rom. 5:3–5), and purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter heaven. Purgatory is the final phase of Christ’s applying to us the purifying redemption that he accomplished for us by his death on the cross.
Here is an explanation of redemption:
Redemption | Catholic Answers

Also, any scripture on the concept of purgatory?

This has been done repeatedly.
Is Purgatory in the Bible? | Catholic Answers

Yes, I know that story. However, there is no suffering where the beggar, Lazarus went. We do know that the rich man was in torment and that he could not ever cross the great space that separated them.
This is not proof of purgatory.

It's not proof the rich man is in hell. He has compassion on his brothers. There is no compassion in hell where no one can pray to Abraham or anybody else. And yes, the rich man did in fact pray to Abraham, which is anathema to Protestants.
Dialogue on the Rich Man Praying to Abraham (Luke 16)
Dialogue: Rich Man's Prayer to Abraham (Lk 16) & Invocation of Saints

 

[kepha31]

Then dogma trumps the word of God.

Then YOUR dogma must be infallible to determine who is in opposition to the clear word of scripture. (which isn't always clear to begin with). WHO is in opposition to the clear word of scripture would be dogmatic declarations. In order to do this, you must be infallible and/or be infallible on the "clear words of scripture". You have the cart before the horse.

 

[Albion]

Says you... LOL
'Isn't evangelizing about leading people to Christ?'
It's not even necessary for Catholics to believe in the egregious status of the Virgin Mary, though you must all be a few bricks short of a load, if you don't see her status as the Mother of God as necessarily being awesome.

That's a familiar dodge, paul. "Being awesome" is not in question--and you know this, I'm sure.

 

[kepha31]

Read "The Two Babylons". The Catholic 'church' is Babylon the mother of harlots in Revelation. So mixed with pagan garbage that it is no longer a christian religion.

Opponents of the Church often attempt to discredit Catholicism by attempting to show similarities between it and the beliefs or practices of ancient paganism. This fallacy is frequently committed by Fundamentalists against Catholics, by Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and others against both Protestants and Catholics, and by atheists and skeptics against both Christians and Jews.

The nineteenth century witnessed a flowering of this "pagan influence fallacy." Publications such as The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (the classic English text charging the Catholic Church with paganism) paved the way for generations of antagonism towards the Church. During this time, entire new sects were created (Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses)—all considering traditional Catholicism and Protestantism as polluted by paganism. This era also saw atheistic "freethinkers" such as Robert Ingersoll writing books attacking Christianity and Judaism as pagan.

The pagan influence fallacy has not gone away in the twentieth century, but newer archaeology and more mature scholarship have diminished its influence. Yet there are still many committing it. In Protestant circles, numerous works have continued to popularize the claims of Alexander Hislop, most notably the comic books of Jack Chick and the book Babylon Mystery Religion by the young Ralph Woodrow (later Woodrow realized its flaws and wrote The Babylon Connection? repudiating it and refuting Hislop). Other Christian and quasi-Christian sects have continued to charge mainstream Christianity with paganism, and many atheists have continued to repeat—unquestioned—the charges of paganism leveled by their forebears. ...
...Whenever one encounters a proposed example of pagan influence, one should demand that its existence be properly documented, not just asserted. The danger of accepting an inaccurate claim is too great. The amount of misinformation in this area is great enough that it is advisable never to accept a reported parallel as true unless it can be demonstrated from primary source documents or through reliable, scholarly secondary sources. After receiving documentation supporting the claim of a pagan parallel, one should ask a number of questions:

1. Is there a parallel? Frequently, there is not. The claim of a parallel may be erroneous, especially when the documentation provided is based on an old or undisclosed source.

For example: "The Egyptians had a trinity. They worshiped Osiris, Isis, and Horus, thousands of years before the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were known" (Robert Ingersoll, Why I Am an Agnostic). This is not true. The Egyptians had an Ennead—a pantheon of nine major gods and goddesses. Osiris, Isis, and Horus were simply three divinities in the pantheon who were closely related by marriage and blood (not surprising, since the Ennead itself was an extended family) and who figured in the same myth cycle. They did not represent the three persons of a single divine being (the Christian understanding of the Trinity). The claim of an Egyptian trinity is simply wrong. There is no parallel.

2. Is the parallel dependent or independent? Even if there is a pagan parallel, that does not mean that there is a causal relationship involved. Two groups may develop similar beliefs, practices, and artifacts totally independently of each other. The idea that similar forms are always the result of diffusion from a common source has long been rejected by archaeology and anthropology, and for very good reason: Humans are similar to each other and live in similar (i.e., terrestrial) environments, leading them to have similar cultural artifacts and views.

For example, Fundamentalists have made much of the fact that Catholic art includes Madonna and Child images and that non-Christian art, all over the world, also frequently includes mother and child images. There is nothing sinister in this. The fact is that, in every culture, there are mothers who hold their children! Sometimes this gets represented in art, including religious art, and it especially is used when a work of art is being done to show the motherhood of an individual. Mother-with child-images do not need to be explained by a theory of diffusion from a common, pagan religious source (such as Hislop’s suggestion that such images stem from representations of Semiramis holding Tammuz). One need look no further than the fact that mothers holding children is a universal feature of human experience and a convenient way for artists to represent motherhood.

3. Is the parallel antecedent or consequent? Even if there is a pagan parallel that is causally related to a non-pagan counterpart, this does not establish which gave rise to the other. It may be that the pagan parallel is a late borrowing from a non-pagan source. Frequently, the pagan sources we have are so late that they have been shaped in reaction to Jewish and Christian ideas. Sometimes it is possible to tell that pagans have been borrowing from non-pagans. Other times, it cannot be discerned who is borrowing from whom (or, indeed, if anyone is borrowing from anyone).

For example: The ideas expressed in the Norse Elder Edda about the end and regeneration of the world were probably influenced by the teachings of Christians with whom the Norse had been in contact for centuries (H. A. Guerber, The Norsemen, 339f).

4. Is the parallel treated positively, neutrally, or negatively? Even if there is a pagan parallel to a non-pagan counterpart, that does not mean that the item or concept was enthusiastically or uncritically accepted by non-pagans. One must ask how they regarded it. Did they regard it as something positive, neutral, or negative?

For example: Circumcision and the symbol of the cross might be termed "neutral" Jewish and Christian counterparts to pagan parallels. It is quite likely that the early Hebrews first encountered the idea of circumcision among neighboring non-Jewish peoples, but that does not mean they regarded it as a
religiously good thing for non-Jews to do. Circumcision was regarded as a religiously good thing only for Jews because for them it symbolized a special covenant with the one true God (Gen. 17). The Hebrew scriptures are silent in a religious appraisal of non-Jewish circumcision; they seemed indifferent to the fact that some pagans circumcised.

Similarly, the early Christians who adopted the cross as a symbol did not do so because it was a pagan religious symbol (the pagan cultures which use it as a symbol, notably in East Asia and the Americas, had no influence on the early Christians). The cross was used as a Christian symbol because Christ died on a cross—his execution being regarded as a bad thing in itself, in fact, an infinite injustice—but one from which he brought life for the world. Christians did not adopt it because it was a pagan symbol they liked and wanted to copy.

Ultimately, all attempts to prove Catholicism "pagan" fail. Catholic doctrines are neither borrowed from the mystery religions nor introduced from pagans after the conversion of Constantine. To make a charge of paganism stick, one must be able to show more than a similarity between something in the Church and something in the non-Christian world. One must be able to demonstrate a legitimate connection between the two, showing clearly that one is a result of the other, and that there is something wrong with the non-Christian item.

In the final analysis, nobody has been able to prove these things regarding a doctrine of the Catholic faith, or even its officially authorized practices. The charge of paganism just doesn’t work. read more here

Promote anymore anti-Catholic hatred and you will be ignored.

 

[JacksBratt]

It's not for me to judge. Off-hand I would say the first 2 sins are venial, the third could be mortal.
"If anyone sees his brother commit sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death" (1 John 5:16-17) Sin that does not lead to death is a slippery slope and must be avoided.
Why Mortal and Venial Sins | Catholic Answers

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-mortal-and-venial-sins
From what I understand, a sin is a sin is a sin. In God's eyes there are no "venial" or "mortal" sin. If you sin, you need salvation, period. In God's eyes, you are then a sinner. There are different levels of hurt you can cause people, even death. But in God's eyes one sin is enough. One prayer of repentance and asking for salvation, is also enough.

The only sin that is unpardonable is the sin of the blasphemy of the Holy spirit.

That is not what I said. I said It is entirely correct to say that Christ accomplished all of our salvation for us on the cross. But that does not settle the question of how this redemption is applied to us. Scripture reveals that it is applied to us over the course of time through, among other things, the process of sanctification through which the Christian is made holy. Sanctification involves suffering (Rom. 5:3–5), and purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter heaven. Purgatory is the final phase of Christ’s applying to us the purifying redemption that he accomplished for us by his death on the cross.
Here is an explanation of redemption:
Redemption | Catholic Answers

https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/redemption

I disagree. There is nothing "applied over time". A christian of 30 years is just as saved as one of 1 day.

It's not proof the rich man is in hell. He has compassion on his brothers. There is no compassion in hell where no one can pray to Abraham or anybody else. And yes, the rich man did in fact pray to Abraham, which is anathema to Protestants.
Dialogue on the Rich Man Praying to Abraham (Luke 16)
Dialogue: Rich Man's Prayer to Abraham (Lk 16) & Invocation of Saints

The man was in torment that is associated with hell. Even asking for just the touch of a finger dipped in water.... pretty obvious.

People in hell will not be devoid of compassion or any of the emotions. How would you be able to be punished for your sins if you had no feeling? They will feel remorse, terror, pain, embarrassment and still care about the people they love and will not want them to end up there.

 

[bbbbbbb]

To be fair, there have also been innumerable false prophets who were not baptized as babies.

As Luther wrote about judging the effectiveness of God's work in Holy Baptism by the faith or behavior of the baptized, "Gold is not the less gold, though a harlot wear it in sin and shame."

What is comes down to is this - we are warned multiple times in scripture to reject false prophets whatever their claims and origins. I have known plenty of false theologians who, having been baptized as babies and received into the church, cannot be expelled from the church for the simple reason that their baptism has made them members of the church and what God has joined, let no man put asunder.

Infant baptism is only meaningful to those who ascribe meaning to it.