Magus55

The Bible tells us we can ask other living people to pray for us, its the RCC's claim that you can pray to dead people not on this Earth, and expect them to hear you that is the problem. For example Mary being prayed to - millions of people pray to her, and the RCC's expect a human to be able to hear all those prayers - thats a divine power - but the RCC has exalted Mary to goddess status, so im not surprised.

Magus55

What does that have to do with praying to dead saints? Saints aren't divine, and can't hear tons of prayers - Jesus is God, therefore has the divine attribute of omniscience and can hear everyone at once. And most Christians probably pray to both Jesus, and God in Jesus' name - don't think it makes much difference since they are equal.

Calzaer

The way Magus and Esther talk, you'd think the Catholics just made all that stuff up out of thin air, as opposed to having been directly founded by Peter, apostle of Jesus.

You two sure do alot of appealing to sola scriptura here... which is odd, considering how many outside interpretations and scholars you bring in when it comes to other places.

Remember: Biblical Canon was chosen at Nicea by how well the book in question conformed to oral church tradition. Oral tradition was of foremost importance right up until Calvin, with the written tradition being secondary. Now, protestants believe the written tradition is primary... but they still use the books compiled by people who used oral tradition as a measuring stick, and at the same time, throw out the oral tradition that did a wonderful job of filling in the gaps.

Which would be just fine, if sola scriptura was in any way tenable. Unfortunately, as Magus shows every time he posts something in BC&H, The Bible DOES NOT contain everything necessary to understand God. If it did, Magus would never need to quote a source from outside the Bible, historical or otherwise, to reconcile a supposed inerrancy.

The Catholics have been guided by millenia of tradition, and the Catholic church was formed by direct inheretence from Jesus Christ. The Protestants... well, they've been winging it for a couple hundred years, and look at what it's brought them: A hundred different denominations, all bickering with each other, many claiming that all the others are going to Hell, and often over completely trivial scriptural differences (which could be reconciled by the oral tradition they've abandoned). And people wonder why the Early Christian Church believed that it was a bad idea to try and read/interperet the Bible without training?

However, since you've decided to take the Protestant Heresy to heart, let's look at the Bible. 1 Corinthians 14:33 - "God is not the author of confusion" Which, if truly inerrant, means that God could not have created the Protestant sects. A hundred-odd different sets of belief, all based on the same kernal, threatening each other with Hellfire, is definitely a confusion in the language of Paul.

Esther:
Neither do Catholics.

But heavily supported by the oral tradition the Canonnical Bible is based on in the first place. Oral tradition is at least as important as the Bible, or else you wouldn't need to twist yourself into such knots trying to explain away supposed Biblical contridictions. The Bible was never MEANT to be the sole source of divine revelation. If you think it should be, perhaps it might be a good idea to re-examine the canon and have it include a few more... elaborative books. Luther actually threw out a couple of OT elaborative books... which is pretty odd. God certainly didn't give him the authority to do that; he took it upon himself.

See above.

Both of which Catholics believe in...

Since when are we supposed to be taking parables literally?

This is a perfect example of the Protestant Heresy in action. You believe you're competant to interperet God's Word, without the rigorous training of a seminary. Hubrus USED to be a sin, before the protestants showed up... in any case, because of your mistaken belief that you can interperet the Bible just as well as a man who has studied all his life, you expect us to believe that Jesus's parables are all actual literal accounts. Or maybe just that ONE parable is a literal account... how do you know? It doesn't say that in the Bible!

We've been through this before. Only Paul said you don't need works; everyone else said deeds were necessary. Particularly James (you know, the guy who actually KNEW Jesus PERSONALLY).

Further, you've gone to great lengths to show us that deeds really ARE required, only in the form of some "proof of purity" rather than a requirement to recieve grace. I'm sure you'd agree that if I converted to Protestant Christianity, I'd need to stop practicing witchcraft in order to be saved. In other words, I'd have to DO SOMETHING, IN ADDITION to beleving in Christ.

And just look at all the wonderous unity that's caused. Look at the greatness of the squabbling, bickering, Pascal's-Wager-Destroying Protestant Church. Tell me, are the Pentacostals going to hell, or the Baptists? They can't seem to agree.

Out of curiosity, has God ever worked a miracle through a protestant? Other than laughable Benny Hinn "slap you upside the head and you're healed for 20 minutes now send me money"-type fruads?

Q: How do you get a protestant to perform a miracle?
A: Fill the collection plate.

Amos

Thanks Nightshade but there really is no argument because what protestants believe is just wrong and for me to argue with them would require me to accept their premisses first. So what I am saying is that they are wrong in everything they believe and once their premisses are refuted there is no argument left.

Wayne P

I know that this thread is veering wildly off topic, but I can't resist:

Magus wrote in another thread on Messianic Jews:

But here he is telling everyone about what the Catholic religion believes and how it is wrong. When people point out these things in his religion he tells them they don't know what they are talking about because they are not of that religion.

Since when, especially in this day of internet literacy, does anyone have to be a member of a religion to know what it is about? There many informational sites about Messianic Jews, just as there are about any denomination. Christian sites especially give you more information than you would sometimes like to have.

(IMO This abundance of information will be the downfall of most religions in the future.)

Amos

For some, yes, and others will just split and we get more of them. This, however, will not be the case with Catholicism which is and remains a mystery religion and far beyond the criticism of modern man. Remember here that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (her).

Amos

Hello Ester, I don't have time to respond to this at this time but I would like you to know that your are wrong on all five points. "Infallible" means that it cannot fail and, although your ambition is to be admired, I think that your vision is somewhat obscured by the flames of what we call purgatory.

Calzaer

What, Magus/Esther don't care to respond?

If you can't face refutation of your claims, don't make them!

mark9950

[MODERATOR]
Please make sure that your posts contribute to the discussion and don't taunt others.
[/MODERATOR]

Wayne P

Hi Amos,

You know sometimes I think you might be correct that the Catholic Church will go on forever. (Ever read Canticle for Leibowitz?). One small question for you, although this may be off topic here, are you a Traditionalist or a Vatican II'er?