JBucky said:
Like I said before, they can pray for us, fine, but I see NO REASON to pray TO them. Clear now?
It is you who ought to provide a reason why we shouldn't be praying for them!
Nice dodge. My point was that you claimed THAT is the message we carry. I stated it is a PART of the message we carry. Wether it's true or false is up to you and the world to decide for themselves.
I'm affraid the truth is not up to anyone, much less me, to decide.
It either happened or not, and no matter how many believe it or not, that doesn't change it.
I'm sorry, but hearing from Mormons themselves (and even from Mormon so-called prophets), I know you believe that men can become gods, that marriage goes on eternally, that the Trinity is considered to be three gods, many prophets stated in the past that polygamy was necessary for "exaltation", it was believed until 78 that being black was the sign of having been not very worthy in the "spiritual battle" before the person was born, and many other things which are clearly false.
And what's worse, each Mormon will say different things as being official doctrine or not. It is as solid as jelly. What at one time was believed to be "necessary for salvation", at another is considered the "opinion of the prophet, which isn't binding on anyone".
And Jesus coming to America, and American natives being descendants of Jews (disproved by DNA analysis, by the way), are all parts of this complex web of ever-changing threads that are Mormon beliefs.
I have nothing personal against Mormons, in fact I get along very well with the only one I know in real life, but the religion of Mormonism is just clearly weak. I hope that you won't stick with it just to keep with tradition, with the family faith or something like that, instead of going after the solid, unchangeable truth.
I read your last weblink, I'm not wasting anymore of my precious time reading other such garbage.
By the way, why did you think the last link was, as you say, "garbage"?
So easy that you didn't bother to do so.
First, it is you who should be proving an apostasy ever took place.
But very well, seeing as you don't like to prove things, only claim them, I'll go ahead.
Biblical proof:
In the Gospel of St. Matthew, chapter XVI, Jesus says to st. Peter (up to then called Simon):
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Jesus says the gates of the netherworld, the gates of Hell, will not prevail against His church, which is built with St. Peter as its supreme authority (possesor of the keys to the kingdom of heaven).
If an apostasy happened, then the gates of Hell did prevail against it, making Jesus a liar. This is, of course, false.
And in St. Luke, chapter 15, Jesus says:
"Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there
is enough for its completion? Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish
the work the onlookers should laugh at him and say, 'This one began to build but did not have the resources
to finish'".
Jesus would be quite a hypocrit if He didn't follow His own advice, wouldn't He?
Plus, in many passages (Romans 12:1-5, 1 Cor. 12:12-27, Eph. 3:4-6 & 5:21-32, and Colossians 1:18) the Church is referred to as the body of Christ. In others (Ephesians 4:15-16 and John 15:1-8) we are shown that Christ is the head of the Church, and that the members share a spiritual bond with Him.
To say that the devil could defeat the body of Christ is blasphemous. It is to say the devil is more powerful than God.
In case you are still in doubt, here is more:
Matthew 28:20
And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
In John 14:16,26 we are further reminded of how the Holy Spirit will always be with the Church, leading her to truth (as is told in John 16:13).
In short, even in the Bible alone do we see that, if Jesus were to build His Church and let it go apostate, He would be either weak, or hypocrit. Scripture reading is enough to conclude that Jesus's Church did not become apostate; it never could, since the devil is not more powerful than Christ, and Christ Himself promised it would never happen.
And yet, as if that weren't enough...
Extra-biblical, historical proof:
St. Ireaneus, speaking of Polycarp, whom had been a friend of St. John
“Polycarp, a man who had been instructed by the apostles, and had familiar intercourse with many that had seen Christ, and had also been appointed bishop by the apostles in Asia, in the church at Smyrna, whom we also have seen in our youth, for he lived a long time, and to a very advanced age, when, after a glorious and most distinguished martyrdom, he departed this life. He always taught what he had learned from the apostles, what the church had handed down, and what is the only true doctrine.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies book 3, also Eusebius Book 4, chapter 14)
St. Clement, bishop of Rome, disciple of St. Peter, wrote around 80 AD, in The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians:
"Our apostles too were given to understand by Our Lord Jesus Christ
that the office of bishop would give rise to intrigues. For this reason,
equipped as they were with the perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the
men mentioned before and afterward and laid down a rule once for all to
this effect: When these men [bishops] die, other approved men shall succeed
to their sacred ministry."
He was a successor of St. Peter, Origen and St. Jerome stated that he had worked with St. Paul, and was ordained personally by Peter himself (through the very biblically estabilished imposition of hands).
There is much more historical evidence and writings of the early Christians. Just like Jesus Christ promised, a study of history reveals that His Church has, from its foundation with Pope St. Peter I to Pope John Paul II, enjoyed an unbroken chain of bishops, keeping her apostolic succession (and therefore not apostate) intact.
Joseph Smith invented this apostasy so he could have the basis to make a new church. It has absolutely
none historical basis, and anyone who has studied history seriously (even many non-Catholics) agree that the Catholic Church indeed has her apostolic succession traced all the way to St. Peter the Apostle.
If your referring to the "Charismatic" revival, that's certainly interesting. "Let's try to get fewer people to fall away to evangelical churches by acting like one!""That's a brilliant idea Padre, I know a guy named Padre Marcello who could lead just such a crusade!" PUH-LEEZ!
No, that's not what I mean at all.
What I mean is orthodox Catholicism experiencing a revival.
Whether or not they can is moot, the catholic sect DID.
Never did, doesn't do it, never will.
Stop spreading lies.
Do some serious research before stating what someone else's beliefs.
those good deeds believed to have been performed by saints, or capable of being performed by men, over and above what is required for their own salvation.These good deeds were assigned or given by papal authority to individuals to the benifit of others.
Just what are you even talking about?
St. Peter WAS the bishop of Rome.
Where in the Bible does it say that?
The authority of St. Peter only passed to the next bishop of Rome
Where in the Bible does it say that?
I hope you haven't fallen for the trap of believing that everything, including things that happen AFTER the books of the Bible were written, have to be written in the Bible for we to believe in them...
What about English? Ever heard of William Tyndale? see
www.williamtyndale.com (Edited as my last link didn't work)
William Tyndale was an anti-Catholic heretic, who said the Church was against God.
There existed Bible translations to Saxon, the language spoken by most people there in older times.
And the first translations into German were also sponsored by the Church.
And this wasn't even necessary, as most people couldn't read, and books were very expensive to make. People learned doctrine from their priests and from the sacred art of churches (paintings, windows, images, etc).
Nice try. Ever heard of the word "Metaphor"?
Maybe it could seem like metaphor, like so many other Biblical passages. But is the case here? Let's analyze.
John 6:51 said:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"
Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
Jesus was very clear. He did not mean metaphor. That's what many thought at first, but when He re-stated that, He had a point in showing He meant it.
Many were shocked and left. They didn't believe. Many, today, don't believe.
Only the Twelve stayed with Jesus. Likewise, only the faithful stay with Him today.
But the Bible doesn't stop there. In his letters, St. Paul confirms the miracle of transubstantiation (that is, the bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ, which give us eternal life):
In 1 Corinthians 10:16, he says:
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
And for those who partake of them without the proper respect, the great Apostle to the gentiles has these harsh words:
1 Corinthians 11:27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for
the body and blood of the Lord.
It is not symbolic, not metaphorical, as anyone who reads the Bible honestly and earnestly will find out. That is why the Church has always held it as true, from the times of St. Paul to the times of John Paul.
So you just think he's "infallible", huh?
I saw on catholicfaithandreason.org some thoroughly weak and long-winded writing trying to split hairs between the terms "infallible" and "impeccable". Again, nice try, but didn't win a convert out of me.
Hair-splitting needn't be done.
Even I, who, as you said, have a poor English, know the difference between impeccable and infallible instantly.
When speaking officially in matters of faith or morals, the Pope cannot err. That is all papal infallibility is about. And for almost 2000 years, no error has been declared indeed.
Thank you for clarifying that. It is fortunate for your sect that this is not your belief.
Yes, God has promised to keep us with the truth and He keeps His word!
Since neither of us is gaining anything from this back and forth, how about we part ways, agreeing to disagree on the subject?
Not at all. I think you stand to gain a lot here. Even if you don't convert, you'll still have learned more about Catholic doctrine, which you thoroughly ignore (though that didn't stop you from talking a lot about it, does it?).
You have the chance of finally knowing what before you only thought you knew, but were clueless about.
Outstreached hand to a worthy debate opponent
If you don't want to discuss any more, that's fine. Just stop posting; I hold nothing against you.
But I'm not willing to end this, and as long as I'm getting replies, I'll be writing my own.
although the hat is cool!(example of sarcasm, in case you didn't notice)
