Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 558,975
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 55:11--"MATT 10:27"

#418877 Jan 29, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
"You have no business quoting from the Bible to disprove the Catholic faith when it was the Catholic Church who gave you the Bible. This is the brash arrogance of Protestant Christians, who are ignorant of history and twist the Scriptures to their own destruction. I call it “spoiled brat Christianity.” You despise the very Mother who gave you the Scriptures. The Bible is indeed the Word of God, but you only know that because the Catholic Church told you so. "
"The Catholic Church wrote, translated, copied, and preserved God's written word throughout the ages. That is the only reason you even have a Bible. Quit trying to interpret the Scriptures without the Church, because it is the Bible in the Church, the Church before the Bible, the Bible and the Church (both or neither)."
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/
YOU USE THE INTERNET FOR YOUR REFERENCES...AND QUOTE YOUR (so called church..) History.

YOU MEASURE YOURSELF BY YOURSELF....YOUR SORDID HISTORY..

THAT CONTAINS...TORTURE... MURDER... RAPE... SODOMY...AND A WHOLE LIST OF UNGODLY HORRIFIC SINS...

2Co_10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

I DON'T USE LINKS....I give you SCRIPTURES TO VALIDATE WHAT I WRITE...

I DON'T USE REGURITATED (ALREADY DIGESTED LINKS) I GIVE THE WORD OF GOD
IN MY POST..BOOK CHAPER AND VERSES...

SOMETHING YOU CAN'T DO BECAUSE YOU ARE IGNORANT OF BIBLE
Dust Storm

Pennock, MN

#418878 Jan 29, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
" or super fair guys like jethro obviously a stand in for the remake of beverly hills but far more clueless."
Lol!
Yee Doggie!...That boy has sho done a whole heapa learning. ;)

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#418879 Jan 29, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
One issue that is very damaging to idea of a Pope is the fact that some of the popes were so depraved, even people who professed no religion at all were ashamed of them.
Looking into the history of the papacy, it is easy to see that not all popes were holy men. Accusations against them included but were not limited to blasphemy, simony (the buying and selling of the papal office), perjury, murder, adultery, intercourse with virgins and nuns, incest, sodomy, bestiality, robbery, idolatry, magic, infidelity, and gross and unnatural immorality.
Historians, even Roman Catholic historians will even attest to the fact there have been many sinful popes. Therefore, if popes are supposed to be the "representatives of Christ" here on earth and they are living an immoral lifestyle, should their commands still be obeyed if they are living in sin? No, it would be hypocritical for them to make rulings and decrees, and yet this is exactly what has been done by the popes
So called, "Apostolic Succession" has already been debunked - a Pope dying in about a month could not have rcvd all that was required in all the teachings, in such a short amount of time.
7th Day Catholic Rocks

Poplar Bluff, MO

#418880 Jan 29, 2013
Ciphering is his legacy.
marge

Ames, IA

#418881 Jan 29, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm surprised a Minister would doubt whether or not Jesus Christ could be present in a 'piece of grain'. Especially with all the Biblical evidence supporting it.
Do you believe Christ walked on water? Why?
Did He turn the water into wine at Cana? Why?
Christ held up the Bread and said, "this represents my....wait, He said 'this is a symbol of my body"
Nope. HE said "this IS MY BODY" .
Clay, please, He did not just say that, finish His sentence, don't partake of the lies.

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying,

"This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
LTM

Fort Frances, Canada

#418882 Jan 29, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
So it's only individuals in your opinion. Hank says the indwelling of the Holy Spirit guides him to the truth preached in his denomination. You say he's wrong. How does a person know which one if you is right? Can your website tell us?
Don't try to put words in my mouth Anthony you catholic's are very good at that.
I was lead to a church where the Holy Spirit was operating in the lives of men and women.
Especially the Pastor, who preaches the word of God under the anointing of the Holy Spirit.
The denomination has nothing to do with it. Anthony.
marge

Ames, IA

#418883 Jan 29, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
So it's only individuals in your opinion. Hank says the indwelling of the Holy Spirit guides him to the truth preached in his denomination. You say he's wrong. How does a person know which one if you is right? Can your website tell us?
Well we really really do trust God alone, does that help?
marge

Ames, IA

#418884 Jan 29, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, the irrefutable fact is you have the Catholic Church to thank for the bible you own (even your abridged version).
And BTW, St. Paul was writing this letter to the Catholic Church in Rome.
" For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;"
This would apply to heretics such as yourself.
He was writing to the christian church in rome, and us, agree?
LTM

Fort Frances, Canada

#418885 Jan 29, 2013
ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
You disappoint me, Preston. I thought you were more intelligent than the rest of them. Your last statement is particularly ignorant. See the Letter to the Romans.(At least I'm not directing you to a web site, lol!)
Because I do not want to waste any more of my time Regina If you or any of the rest on the catholic's want to know information on scripture check it out yourself.
You won't because the bunch of you are to lazy to do so.
You would rather take a priest or the popes word for it that what he is telling you is true.
Well keep believing the lies Regina, if you won't seek the truth for yourself .
There is nothing intelligent about following someone who has been proven to be a liar, or someone who directs you away from Christ to another human to follow and worship.
Who teaches you to bow to a piece of plaster, and kiss it and pray to it. How intelligent is that.
And if that isn't enough to be dumb enough to believe that a man can call the Lord and Savior down from Heaven and into a wafer.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#418886 Jan 29, 2013
871
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
"You have no business quoting from the Bible to disprove the Catholic faith when it was the Catholic Church who gave you the Bible. This is the brash arrogance of Protestant Christians, who are ignorant of history and twist the Scriptures to their own destruction. I call it “spoiled brat Christianity.” You despise the very Mother who gave you the Scriptures. The Bible is indeed the Word of God, but you only know that because the Catholic Church told you so. "
"The Catholic Church wrote, translated, copied, and preserved God's written word throughout the ages. That is the only reason you even have a Bible. Quit trying to interpret the Scriptures without the Church, because it is the Bible in the Church, the Church before the Bible, the Bible and the Church (both or neither)."
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/
Horse puckett!!!!

English language with the “Morning Star of the Reformation”, John Wycliffe.
John Wycliffe
John Wycliffe

The first hand-written English language Bible manuscripts were produced in the 1380's AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian. Wycliffe,(also spelled “Wycliff” & “Wyclif”), was well-known throughout Europe for his opposition to the teaching of the organized Church, which he believed to be contrary to the Bible.

With the help of his followers, called the Lollards, and his assistant Purvey, and many other faithful scribes, Wycliffe produced dozens of English language manuscript copies of the scriptures. They were translated out of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only source text available to Wycliffe. The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#418887 Jan 29, 2013
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
One (and only) Church
Catholic Church
"CATHOLIC denominations"
One True (Universal-Catholic) Church
One True Catholic Church
TRUE Catholic Church
same old, same old, same old copy\paste crap.....
LTM

Fort Frances, Canada

#418888 Jan 29, 2013
The Roman Catholic Church believes that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist become the actual body and blood of Jesus. They attempt to support their system of thought with passages such as John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. In A.D. 1551, the Counsel of Trent officially stated, "By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II). By sharing in the Eucharistic meal, the Church teaches that Catholics are fulfilling John 6:53: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
What does that really mean? Jesus goes on to say that "it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63-64). So, if "the flesh is of no avail," why would we have to eat Jesus' flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are "spirit." Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: "Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Romans 12:1).
In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High's covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus' real point.
In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the crowd that He is superior to the Torah (cf. John 6:49-51) and the entire Mosaic system of Law. The passage from Sirach states that those who eat of the Law will "hunger still" and "thirst for more"; this language is mirrored by Jesus when He says, "He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, He is telling them the core of all Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus Himself ("The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent," John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.
Second, there is a very clear analogy in John 6 to the days of Moses and the eating of manna. In the days of Moses, manna was God’s provision for food for the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness. In John 6, however, Jesus claimed to be the true manna, the bread of heaven. With this statement Jesus claimed to be God’s full provision for salvation. Manna was God’s provision of deliverance from starvation. Jesus is God’s provision of deliverance from damnation. Just as the manna had to be consumed to preserve the lives of the Israelites, so Jesus has to be consumed (fully received by faith) for salvation to be received.
cont
LTM

Fort Frances, Canada

#418889 Jan 29, 2013
cont

It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged His followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord's Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted. As suggested above, it is best to understand this passage in light of coming to Jesus, in faith, for salvation. When we receive Him as Savior, placing our full trust in Him, we are “consuming His flesh” and “drinking His blood.” His body was broken (at His death) and His blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26,“For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.”
Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a "re-sacrifice" of Christ or a "re-offering" of Christ's sacrifice, the concept is unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ's sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself." Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, "For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God..." Christ's once-for-all death on the cross was sufficient to atone for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ's sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christ's sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through faith.
LTM

Fort Frances, Canada

#418890 Jan 29, 2013
"Is prayer to saints / Mary biblical?"
Answer: The issue of Catholics praying to saints is one that is full of confusion. It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Catholics do not pray TO saints or Mary, but rather that Catholics can ask saints or Mary to pray FOR them. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that asking saints for their prayers is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for us. However, the practice of many Catholics diverges from official Roman Catholic teaching. Many Catholics do in fact pray directly to saints and/or Mary, asking them for help – instead of asking the saints and/or Mary to intercede with God for help. Whatever the case, whether a saint or Mary is being prayed to, or asked to pray, neither practice has any biblical basis.
The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in heaven for their prayers. Why, then, do many Catholics pray to Mary and/or the saints, or request their prayers? Catholics view Mary and the saints as "intercessors" before God. They believe that a saint, who is glorified in Heaven, has more "direct access" to God than we do. Therefore, if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we, believers here on earth, can "approach the throne of grace with confidence."
First Timothy 2:5 declares, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and the saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father: "Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Whom would God listen to more closely than His Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?
Catholics argue that praying to Mary and the saints is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for us. Let us examine that claim.(1) The Apostle Paul asks other Christians to pray for him in Ephesians 6:19. Many Scriptures describe believers praying for one another (2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:19; 2 Timothy 1:3). The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking for someone in heaven to pray for him. The Bible nowhere describes anyone in heaven praying for anyone on earth.(2) The Bible gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our prayers. Mary and the saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations. How could they possibly hear the prayers of millions of people? Whenever the Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in the context of sorcery, witchcraft, necromancy, and divination—activities the Bible strongly condemns (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13). In the one instance when a "saint" is spoken to, Samuel in 1 Samuel 28:7-19, Samuel is not exactly happy to be disturbed. It is clear that praying to Mary or the saints is completely different from asking someone here on earth to pray for us. One has a strong biblical basis; the other has no biblical basis whatsoever.
cont
LTM

Fort Frances, Canada

#418891 Jan 29, 2013
cont
God does not answer prayers based on who is praying. God answers prayers based on whether they are asked according to His will (1 John 5:14-15). There is absolutely no basis or need to pray to anyone other than God alone. There is no basis for asking those who are in heaven to pray for us. Only God can hear our prayers. Only God can answer our prayers. No one in heaven has any greater access to God's throne than we do through prayer (Hebrews 4:16).

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#418892 Jan 29, 2013
LTM wrote:
cont
It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged His followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord's Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted. As suggested above, it is best to understand this passage in light of coming to Jesus, in faith, for salvation. When we receive Him as Savior, placing our full trust in Him, we are “consuming His flesh” and “drinking His blood.” His body was broken (at His death) and His blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26,“For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.”
Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a "re-sacrifice" of Christ or a "re-offering" of Christ's sacrifice, the concept is unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ's sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself." Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, "For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God..." Christ's once-for-all death on the cross was sufficient to atone for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ's sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christ's sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through faith.
Well hesh mah moff!!!!!

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#418893 Jan 29, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
You conspiracy Christians never cease to amaze me.
So little faith.
So much ignorance. It takes about 3 seconds for your fantasy religion to sink against Catholicism.
You're built on sand.
OTC, it's the romanist denomination that is built on sand... SHIFTING SAND, and it's moving closer to the edge of the cliff every day. It denies our Lord Jesus by its idiotic worship of idols and prayers to dead people.
It mocks Jesus by its insistence that a mere priest can 'absolve' anyone from sin.
It flagrantly and arrogantly flies in God's face by daring to call its elected leaders 'His Holiness' and 'The Holy Father'.
It dares the Lord by insisting it can alter the Bible HE GAVE US, and vainly imagines it will not pay for using lifeless, useless statues to pray and kneel before, as well as attempting to name people as 'saints' in its cult.
The romanist cult dares to claim it is THE Church founded by Christ... when real Christians know that is a lie.
The Bible in 1 Corinthians 13 tells us:
1Co 13:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
1Co 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
1Co 13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

The romanist cult engages in charity to be seen; to be noticed and praised... it does indeed puff itself up, and boasts of what it thinks are 'accomplishments'. It aggrandizes, it lies, it boasts, it tries to usurp authority not its own.
It steals, it imitates, it infiltrates.
It uses mind control tactics, it threatens, it demands, it murders.
It resorts to torture of people to force them to 'believe' as it does.
It claims to 'love the Lord' while all the while it loves its elected pope, and serves Satan.
It has no real love.
It bases its salvation on its own doctrines, plus works, feigning adoration AND TRUST of Jesus, who freely offers salvation to ALL who honestly believe on His perfect name. Romanism insists it is 'works plus faith', and even then, romanists 'might' go to Heaven, as its priests often say.... but let us not forget the magical stopoff in its imaginary 'purgatory', or forget to buy useless indulgences and pay for special 'masses' to be chanted in order to buy a person out...
In essence, in all reality, and in all TRUTH, romanism is a cult... a godless, domineering, dominating, power-tripping, heinous CULT. And, its end is assured, as the Bible so clearly tells us in Revelation 17-18.
ReginaM

Jackson, NJ

#418895 Jan 29, 2013
Catholicism and Fundamentalism — The Eucharist

After establishing the biblical basis of the early Church’s belief in the real presence Keating goes on to answer all the main objections of fundamentalists to the Holy Eucharist.

Fundamentalist attacks on the Church always come around, as they must, to the Eucharist. Bart Brewer, Donald F. Maconaghie, Jimmy Swaggart — they all zero in on the Eucharist, and in doing so they demonstrate that fundamentalists, contrary to popular belief, are not always literalists. This is shown in their interpretation of the key scriptural passage, the sixth chapter of John's Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper.

This is the only record we have of any of Christ's followers forsaking him for doctrinal reasons. If they merely had misunderstood Him, if they foolishly had taken a metaphor in a literal sense, why did He not call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of Him, and His disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained had He told them He meant no more than a symbol.

But He did not correct these first protesters, these proto-Protestants. Twelve times He said He was the bread that came down from heaven; four times He said they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood”. John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper — and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do fundamentalists say?(A lot of blah, blah, blah as usual.)

Is that so? Let us see what the Early Church thought.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologe...

Note the word 'education' in the link. Now I know this will scare away most if not all the fundies here, but do try to be brave and read the article, that is if you can understand the big words.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#418896 Jan 29, 2013
890
LTM wrote:
"Is prayer to saints / Mary biblical?"
Answer: The issue of Catholics praying to saints is one that is full of confusion. It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Catholics do not pray TO saints or Mary, but rather that Catholics can ask saints or Mary to pray FOR them. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that asking saints for their prayers is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for us. However, the practice of many Catholics diverges from official Roman Catholic teaching. Many Catholics do in fact pray directly to saints and/or Mary, asking them for help – instead of asking the saints and/or Mary to intercede with God for help. Whatever the case, whether a saint or Mary is being prayed to, or asked to pray, neither practice has any biblical basis.
The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in heaven for their prayers. Why, then, do many Catholics pray to Mary and/or the saints, or request their prayers? Catholics view Mary and the saints as "intercessors" before God. They believe that a saint, who is glorified in Heaven, has more "direct access" to God than we do. Therefore, if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we, believers here on earth, can "approach the throne of grace with confidence."
First Timothy 2:5 declares, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and the saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father: "Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Whom would God listen to more closely than His Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?
Catholics argue that praying to Mary and the saints is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for us. Let us examine that claim.(1) The Apostle Paul asks other Christians to pray for him in Ephesians 6:19. Many Scriptures describe believers praying for one another (2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:19; 2 Timothy 1:3). The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking for someone in heaven to pray for him. The Bible nowhere describes anyone in heaven praying for anyone on earth.(2) The Bible gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our prayers. Mary and the saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations. How could they possibly hear the prayers of millions of people? Whenever the Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in the context of sorcery, witchcraft, necromancy, and divination—activities the Bible strongly condemns (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13). In the one instance when a "saint" is spoken to, Samuel in 1 Samuel 28:7-19, Samuel is not exactly happy to be disturbed. It is clear that praying to Mary or the saints is completely different from asking someone here on earth to pray for us. One has a strong biblical basis; the other has no biblical basis whatsoever.
cont
"The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God."

In whose name????
marge

Ames, IA

#418897 Jan 29, 2013
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying,

"This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pope Benedict XVI Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What Divides Catholics and Protestants? (Apr '08) 2 hr Jaimie 83,890
Pope plays key role in Cuba-US policy shift 4 hr PopeTrueFace 3
Vatican signals new tone on US nuns 11 hr Stephany McDowell 1
The Roman Catholic church: Chronicle of a papac... 12 hr Stephany McDowell 1
Dogs go to heaven, Pope Francis says 22 hr cooldude 5
United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) Wed Crazy 8,687
Pope to meet victims of Philippines' Haiyan storm Dec 14 ELIAS IBARRA 4
More from around the web