| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/23/2011 7:05:41 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Old scandal article |
Posted on 02/08/2011 7:12:21 AM PST by Gamecock
Saul got himself into trouble for doing just that and it ended up costing him his life .
1Samuel 28:
Eli’s immoral son’s who were priests comes to mind as well.
Some people just never learn.
Now you have gone off the reservation and done exactly what you accuse other of. You have added to Scripture by extrapolating and adding definitions not found in Scripture. In the absence of a Magisterium exactly what did you draw on for that?
I've seen the 'explanation' from the RCC that says bascially, "Praying to the saints is the same thing as asking another Christian to pray for you..." et. al. and they pray for us...etc. etc. etc.
#1 - Now if you read Luke 16:19-31, the account of the rich man and Lazarus the poor man. Both die, the rich man goes to hell and the poor man, Lazarus, to Abraham's bosom, or Heaven. The rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers who are still living to be able to warn them about Hell. Abraham replies, "They have Moses and the prophets....." [1st century Scripture]. Lazarus repeats his quest and then asks his family members receive a visit from the dead again as they will 'believe' then and Abraham replies, "'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, [1st century Scripture] they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"
So clearly here the emphasis is placed on Scripture once again. They have the Scriptures, that is what they should be listening to, is basically what Abraham tells Lazarus. The rich man is not told to pray to Lazarus, nor is Lazarus in this passage ever accepting prayers or petitions from the rich man, or the rich man's still living family members. In contrast, the rich man isn't told to pray to Lazarus for His family still living, he is told his family is to basically read the Scriptures...
#2 - So now here's my question:
IF (for the sake of argument) IF its an okay thing to pray to the dead and have the dead pray for you and its just 'the same thing as asking a [living] brother in Christ to pray for you.......Okay so, IF...
IF a brother in Christ were to come to you, NL, and ask you to pray for him what would you do? Yeah, sure you probably say, "How can I help?" But suppose it gets more indepth? SUPPOSE, that brother bends down and kneels before you, then he IMPLORES you to pray for him.....then he asks you to be his advocate before God....then he thanks you for all the GRACES you have given him....then (still kneeling) he thanks you for saving him and delivering him from Hell......then he implores you to keep his salvation in your care and see him safely to Heaven???? Is that just a prayer between Christian brothers or is that worship? How do you react? Do you tell him to get up and worship God, as the angel did to John in Rev. 22:9 when John fell down and kneeled before the angel? Did the angel accept it? No. Why should a saint? Living or dead? In every instance in Scripture when a man fell down before someone or some thing it was always called WORSHIP (cf I Cor. 14:25; Rev. 7:11; Rev. 11:16; Rev. 19:4, 10).
My contention based on Scripture is that the above scenario would be considered worship. And that worship should be directed to God, and God alone, not you (no offense dude, but you're not that Holy). Why? Because God is the only one who has the authority to bestow 'graces' or salvation. He's it.
And I use that analogy of some brother kneeling down before you because that is the EXACT types of prayers being given to Mary and to the saints! People are kneeling before their statues, they are asking them to grant their salvation and guide them into Heaven. Its worship. Every Scriptural definition of worship, and every dictionary definition of worship would call it worship. And when worship, which belongs to God, gets directed to fallen humanity.......then its blasphemy. See the difference?
Which didn't even exist until after 300 AD.
It has been well documented that the Canon was around a number of other places, well protected and well used.
However, the Vatican Cult of Tyrannical !!!!CONTROL!!!! magicsterical hogwash did manage to corner a lot of the Euporean etc. world after 300 AD.
And, as we can see from this timeline, the UNMITIGATED HOGWASH so chronically spewed by the Vatican Cult as being totally and homogeneously in place since Noah [wellll since Pentecost anyway] . . . has been cobbled together piecemeal over the many centuries well after 400 AD.
http://biblestudycharts.com/images/Pdf/CWG-Roman-Catholic-Church.pdf
However, just as we've seen with the stats of the authentic self-proclaimed RC behaviors posted. . . they don't seem very eager to deal honestly and candidly with the fact of the piecemeal dogma hogwash cobbled together over the centuries after 400 AD, either.
What a stinking pile of farcical pretentions! And they seem to think that God winks at such horrific idolatrous, blasphemous heretical outrageousness.
The criteria of whether the writings of a particular man are considered heresy or not depend on whether those particular writings support some pet doctrine.
I’ve seen the *Yeah, we know that some of his writings are heretical, but in this case......* argument.
How [outrageously, farcically, dishonestly, UnChristianly, UnBiblically . . . ] disingenuous.
Quix, you have often opined that you are able to accept it if someone tells you like it is.
So I’m doing that now.
Loud and repetitive and recycled posts like this one are getting very tiresome.
They have begun to lose meaning because they are loud, repetitive and recycled.
Am I mistaken to think that you can do better than this?
Yeah, I was beginning to think so, too.
Tired, I think.
And too many priorities & irons in the fire . . . drug my creativity, efficiency and effectiveness down.
Also, without as much time as I’d have preferred . . . simply easier. Poor excuse, I know.
Much appreciate your candor.
On the other hand, with different fingers . . .
or the other side of the coin . . .
That’s all Proddys get from RC’s . . . and have, for more than 10 years . . .
constantly recycled nonsense with horrific foundation.
And rarely any authentic dialogue.
Time spent in prayer to someone besides God is time robbed from prayer to God.
Not only robs God, but it is also idolatry. Lift anyone or anything above God Almighty and you've created an idol.
Great post metmom.
Hoss
Nailed it, Gramma!!
:D
Hoss
And you read that where? You know that how?
Are you doubting that St. Paul was celibate, or that he administered the Sacraments? Perhaps it is the word Catholic that distresses you.
Romans 15: 15-But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God,
16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
Contrary to the best efforts of the Reformation's propaganda instruments St. Paul was not a Protestant.
You may want to make him a "priest" but there was no priesthood in the NT CHURCH
Jesus was the final Priest fulfilling the type we find in the OT
Was He celibate , most likely ..but remember there were generation of Roman priests that did marry.. and popes that had mistresses and wives ...Celibacy only became holy when the priests in Spain started to leave church property to their wives and children ...it was all about $$$$$$$$$
It never ceases to amaze me what Catholics will make up and pass off as history in order to SOMEHOW justify their unscriptural doctrines and practices.
Another one for your list gamecock.
“St. Paul was a celibate Catholic priest. “
BWAHAHA!!!
That is patently false, but since the hundreds of previous rebuttals in this forum have not opened your eyes no amount of additional information from me will have any effect. That St Paul refers to his “priestly ministry” in Romans 15:15-16, that he administered the sacraments, called himself a “steward of the mysteries”, and was celibate falls into the walks like a duck category. I would suggest you read "The Catholic Perspective on Paul: Paul and the Origins of Catholic Christianity" by Taylor Marshall. Marshall is a former Episcopalian priest and offers an interesting Protestant perspective.
Celibacy only became holy when the priests in Spain started to leave church property to their wives and children...
Again patently false. Although the first documented referenced came from the Synod of Elvira which was held in 305 AD in Hispania Baetica which is in modern day Spain, there were numerous other contemporaneous citations, not the least of which was by St. Ambrose who referred to the Old testament practice of priests refraining from sex in the days leading up to sacrifice and how the [then] modern priests were obliged to do the same. $$$$$$$ had nothing to do with it except in the propaganda of the reformation.
Fixed it for you.
So much for the RCC never changing. Whatever is financially expedient.
:)
At one point Rome told the married priests to abandon their wives and children and become celibate.. how "holy" is that ?
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.