I’m confused on what church is right

[Zachm531]

That's what Catholics embarrassed by this Medieval theory are now supposed to say, that's right.

Yesterday, it was how to explain away Limbo when their church decided to junk that teaching.

In both cases, it was mainly done because no one believed these things any longer, even though they'd been taught as true for hundreds of years. Also, the Catholic Church was mindful that, in the Western nations at least, such old-fashioned doctrines were contributing to the steady drain of members to other Christian churches. That's also why, but only in our lifetimes, did the Roman Catholic Church at last adopt a number of practices that were Protestant reforms (and duly condemned by the RCC as a result) back during the Reformation.

What you wrote here about Purgatory doesn't even come close to what the Roman Catholic Church (the only denomination in Christendom to teach it) explained about the purpose, the workings, the duration, and everything else that made Purgatory what it was supposed to be.

Naturally enough, shoving all of that under the rug is difficult, though, since millions of present day Catholics and former Catholics are well aware of what the Church taught until very recently when it was decided to kill it off. Therefore, the idea is to say it still exists while radically altering almost everything about it.

Evidence to support this claim? Dogmatic statements?

 

[Albion]

NM

 

[Albion]

Dont worry, calvinists say the same about tulip lol.

That people who don't agree with TULIP should be treated courteously, but that they're liars when it comes to their presumed animosity towards the Christian Reformed Church? I have to say that I haven't encountered that very often. But "nice try," as the saying goes.

 

[Albion]

Outside of traditions that were developed later on, the only intercessors I know are Jesus and the Holy Spirit. And the only person Jesus told us to pray to is the Father.

Let me redo the emphasis on that:

Mary constantly prays and makes requests on our behalf...To those who know their Bible Mary is a crucial part of salvation history. She was there when Jesus was conceived, she was there at the birth of Jesus, upon her request Jesus performed His first public miracle, she was there at the foot of the cross when Jesus made her our spiritual mother, she was there when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles, and she is with Jesus in Heaven.

I like it!

 

[Ceallaigh]

do you have any OT bible verses that show how they treated the Ark of the OT?

Take a lookie at this. This is a protestant website.

20 Bible verses about Ark Of The Covenant

I don't get what you're trying to illustrate with this. Everything about the ark being holy was according to the very specific and detailed decrees made by YHWH. Moses, the priests and the Israelites didn't come up with any of that on their own. They came up with constructing the golden calf idol on their own, but not the ark. Now there might have been times when the Israelites went outside of what God decreed regarding the ark, but if that occurred, it's not something God would have looked favorably upon.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It should come as no surprise that she receives more intercessory requests than any other saint.

That. You're only supposed to pray to God, so that's why people think you worship Mary and saint statues.

I understand the distinction, but the appearance of worship remains.

Those obeying the scriptural exhortation to abstain from the appearance of evil, will steer clear.

A good example of this is from the scripture is the bronze serpent that the Hebrews in the wilderness would look at to be cured of poison. This bronze serpent was later melted down because it was worshiped as some pagan god.

This snake being raised up in the wilderness was spoken of by Christ as a figure of His crucifixion. So it was an important thing, but was distorted none-the-less.

I understand the concept of Mary needing to be venerated/respected. However, giving so much emphasis to Mary that Jesus is emphasized out of the conversation is kind of against the point. The original point of the doctrine of Mary as the Mother of God in the Flesh was to counter gnostic claims that Jesus was just a ghost, and did not come in the flesh. The measure just went too far.

 

[Blaise N]

I'm fairly certain as the person who made the OP, you have a higher responsibility to make yourself available for any forum member on everything that is relevant to the OP that you mention in this thread.

Ok,so what do you want to speak about?

 

[concretecamper]

Now there might have been times when the Israelites went outside of what God decreed regarding the ark, but if that occurred, it's not something God would have looked favorably upon.

so is the evidence that tells us the Isrealites went outside of what God decreeded? There is none. It is you assumption.

 

[Ceallaigh]

so is the evidence that tells us the Isrealites went outside of what God decreeded? There is none. It is you assumption.

No, I said if they had regarding the ark. As far as them going outside of what God decreed in general, that's what a good portion of the Old Testament is about. They were out of line so much, I can't recall if any of their many trespasses ever included the ark.

All the same I don't get what you're trying to illustrate with 20 Bible verses about the ark. Israel did what they were specifically told to do by God. No such types of instructions exist in the Bible from God the Father or Jesus regarding Mary in heaven.

 

[concretecamper]

They were out of line so much, I can't recall if any of their many trespasses ever included the ark.

I'll help you out on that one, there were none.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I'll help you out on that one, there were none.

All the same I don't get what you're trying to illustrate with 20 Bible verses about the ark. Israel did what they were specifically told to do by God regarding the ark. No such types of instructions exist in the Bible from God the Father or Jesus regarding Mary in heaven.

 

[Lukaris]

If a person has Protestant inclination then that is probably where to go and look for a church that still teaches fear of the Lord & keeping His commandments ( Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, Romans 13:8-10 etc.etc.). I wouldn’t even bother worrying about the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches and go through probably avoidable anguish.

 

[Norbert L]

Ok,so what do you want to speak about?

How about this:

Many people identify as Catholics but live hypocritical lives and believe that sacraments can cleanse them.

Can a Catholic who takes issue with many of its' own members, can such an individual remain in the Catholic church, take the sacraments and still be saved?

 

[Blaise N]

How about this:


Can a Catholic who takes issue with many of its' own members, can such an individual remain in the Catholic church, take the sacraments and still be saved?

I’m not Catholic,I’m asking you,Sacraments don’t save,faith in Christ saves.One cannot rely only on sacraments for salvation.

 

[Albion]

I’m not Catholic,I’m asking you,Sacraments don’t save,faith in Christ saves.One cannot rely only on sacraments for salvation.

I don't think Norbert put it quite that way. The Catholic Church doesn't teach that the sacraments save, in and by themselves; but if the question asks if a person who lives life as a hypocrite and doesn't understand his own church's teachings on such matters can remain a member in good standing and receive the sacraments, the answer is of course "yes."

 

[Norbert L]

I’m not Catholic,I’m asking you,Sacraments don’t save,faith in Christ saves.One cannot rely only on sacraments for salvation.

Where in the CCC does it state the opposite? One can only rely on the sacraments for salvation.

 

[IWalkAlone]

I don't think Norbert put it quite that way. The Catholic Church doesn't teach that the sacraments save, in and by themselves; but if the question asks if a person who lives life as a hypocrite and doesn't understand his own church's teachings on such matters can remain a member in good standing and receive the sacraments, the answer is of course "yes."

Catholics say without taking communion you have no life in you. That sounds like a salvation issue.

 

[Albion]

Where in the CCC does it state the opposite? One can only rely on the sacraments for salvation.

No, that's a mistake. The sacraments absolve from sin and grant grace among other things, but they do not confer a guarantee of salvation upon the recipient.

 

[Albion]

Catholics say without taking communion you have no life in you. That sounds like a salvation issue.

It's not, even if it sounds that way. Please also read my post 238.

 

[Valletta]

I’m not Catholic,I’m asking you,Sacraments don’t save,faith in Christ saves.One cannot rely only on sacraments for salvation.

1 Peter 3:20-21: God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The sacraments are a means of grace that Jesus gave us. We are saved through Baptism, as you can see the Bible says, and we continue to be saved.