How do you communicate with an entity that has no physical form, unlike someone standing right in front of you?
Jesus and all the the teachers He sent out said to pray to God. Why not just do that? 
Posted on 11/09/2007 1:55:47 PM PST by NYer
Well said...maybe “attack” was a little harsh, huh?
I do like “assailed” better!
So? Is that what you got out of my response? LOL While I believe there can be only one correct interpretation of Scripture, I don't think anyone or any organization has been led to having all of it.
The Baptists say the same thing. So do the Methodists, Presbyterians, etc etc.
Reading the comments, it appears that somehow they are getting or you are creating the impression that you’re on the road to conversion to roman catholicism.
I doubt they are reading you correctly, but it’s also possible that the writing isn’t altogether clear.
“Reading the comments, it appears that somehow they are getting or you are creating the impression that you’re on the road to conversion to roman catholicism.
I doubt they are reading you correctly, but it’s also possible that the writing isn’t altogether clear.”
I am not sure who “they” are, but I think NYer made an attempt at humor that failed. He put the appropriate “-)” at the end but as with so many communications via the the written word, it is difficult to convey what is completely accurate. I was not misled.
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, 11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
It's very clear in this passage that God is referring to conjuring up the dead - such as in a seance. There's a big difference between seeking information from the dead and asking the saints in heaven to pray for us. In fact, God has not forbidden this, because he at times has given it—for example, when he had Moses and Elijah appear with Christ to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3).
The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. Thus in Psalms 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).
Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, we read: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).
And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
There cannot be more than one interpretation of the Bible. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 20,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "Truth" (i.e., the correct interpretation of the Bible)?
If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.
There is but One Holy Spirit and still many people may view the same message/event and interpret what they see/hear differently.
There ... you have just confirmed it. In fact, private interpretation of the Bible is not condoned in the Bible Itself (2 Peter 1:20). Individual interpretation of Scripture was not practiced by the early Christians or the Jews (Acts 8:29-35).
This past week I have been lead to shake your dust from my feet.
So, if you want to pray to dead people or if you want to pray to Rosie O'Donnell, I DON'T CARE!!! Just don't tell me about it!
In Christ...ALONE!
Apologies for not including you in my post #48.
I believe xzins directed the comment to AlexMurphy. As I noted on an earlier post, he was pinged to this thread because of the high volume of Catholic threads he posts to the forum. Such ‘interest’ in Catholic news conveys the impression he follows it for a reason. Right Alex ;-)?
Of course I "follow it for a reason". The trouble is, no matter how many times I've told Catholics what that reason is, they want to read my mind. Less than a year ago I was MOACB for "the high volume of Catholic threads he posts to the forum", remember? I've changed nothing in my behavior, and now I'm your next likely convert?
How do you communicate with an entity that has no physical form, unlike someone standing right in front of you?
Jesus and all the the teachers He sent out said to pray to God. Why not just do that?
Well there's the problem right there. He didn't believe that the bible, the entire bible, was inspired by God. That knocks out a huge leg of faith. The first Christians came to Christ because of what Christ and his disciples taught from the old testament:
Luk 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
Luk 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. Luk 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears.
And here's another interesting scripture:
Act 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Act 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honorable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
There's an important principle here: Christians don't blindly accept tradition and believe it UNLESS it can be backed up with scripture...the totality of scripture including the God inspired old testament.
There is only one Truth. Only God has a lock on it. The dark glass of sin obscures much of it from fallen man. I would be arrogant to claim I am perfect and infallible (probably even blasphemous), yet your church makes these claims despite its history of errors. Every hundred years or so it must have a new issuance of papal bulls, council edicts or Vatican conferences to try to restate or "clarify" obvious wrongs. I could point out some of these but what's the use? Your church does fancy footwork with words to "explain" it away rather than face what is plainly evident.
Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).
Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").
It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.
Now that you have a clearer understanding of papal infallibility, please cite as many examples as you choose of errors in teachings on a matter of faith or morals.
I'm not up on text messaging. What does this acronym represent?
Ask your fellow Catholics.
He was referring to those who use 2 Timothy 3:14-17, to justify Sola Scriptura. Go back and reread the article; perhaps you skimmed through it too quickly.
I’m guessing MotherOfAllCryBabies. Alex may correct me if I’m fallible and err.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.