Hey so I’ve been debating mortal and venial sin with someone on another forum, and it’s sort of become a debate about the legitimacy of the Church…I know why she is wrong I just kind of need somebody who knows more than I do to come back me up.
here’s the link: Link Removed per CAF Board Swarm policy
it’s under "Are all sins equal?"
I’m the one that sounds Catholic, I’m debating the one that sounds Protestant.
Thanks in advance
Thank you for the verses though, I will go look them up and see if it helps.
I am asking for help with something someone is saying on the second page of that post, about the Catholic Canon which she is saying added books to the bible, and some stuff from the early church fathers.
LOL, I guess it had to have been your post I read.
I didnt even see a second page until you mentioned it.
From that page:
Churches that came to exist when Christ died and was resurrected were much different than churches that we have today, specifically in Catholicism.
That is a bogus claim. Jesus specifically mentioned establishing one Church (Mat 16:18; 18:18; 1 Tim 3:15), if that one Church did not survive and flopped then Jesus was a failure. The Church Jesus established had the power to define dogma, and it defined one of the most important teachings at the time teaching that circumcision was not required. Acts 15 and 16:4 show the first Church council coming together. There was no specific passage answering this question so the Church had to step in and lay down a definition.
As I’ve already stated, Catholic doctrine teaches things that are against scripture, the Catholic bible even has additional books that are not canonized.
Which doctrines are “against scripture”? There is a big difference between a doctrine that is ‘agaist’ and a doctrine that is implicitly taught. A doctrine that is against scripture means scripture condemns that teaching, like justification by “faith alone” (James 2:24).
Considering the Bible does not say what books belong means the Church had to define the canon.
You actually did a pretty good job defending the Catholic position there.
The bible does not teach that once you are saved in Christ that you can go to hell if you don’t repent of some of your sins before you die. I’m talking about after people have converted, not before.
Check out Mat 18:23-35; Heb 10:26-29; Rom 11:22; 1 Tim 5:8; etc. Those are all people who have converted to Christianity.
They did add onto the seven deadly sins, that’s what that that article was about. They even include contraceptives as a mortal sin now.
That is false and a rumor started by the media. No sins ‘become’ mortal when the Church feels like it, they are always mortal. Contraception has always been condemned as mortal sin (cf Gen 38:9-10).
Praying to saints. Priests not being allowed to marry. Actually here is a complete list:
There are problems in that list, if need be we can go over each one. But one thing to learn is to not get bogged down answering 100 questions if the person is not really interested in an answer.
Monasticism occurred in the Dark Ages, not before. The sacramental Eucharist also wasn’t practiced by the early church fathers (if by early you mean the original apostles/disciples). The concept is not biblical. Christ doesn’t need to be ‘re-sacrificed’ nor does His sacrifice need to be 're-offered.'
Monasticism was around in the early church, it was popularized by Church Fathers in Egypt. St Benedict popularized Monasticism in the West and he lived in the late 400s.
The Eucharist was considered to be the Body and Blood of Christ by the Early Church, even if they didnt have the techincal terms like “transubstantiation” to describe it.
Actually, the canon was first recognized (not created, but recognized) by Athanasius of Alexandria in AD 367. later, in 393 was it recognized by the church council. “When at last a Church Council- The Synod of Hippo in AD 393- listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity.” (Bruce, BP, 113).
Actually this person just cut the branch they were sitting on because they synods of Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s actually included the Deuterocanonical Books which Protestants reject. Also St Athanasius did not accept Esther and did accept Baruch. Further, the fact remains it takes an authority outside the Bible to define which Books are Scripture, you cant just say Book X sounds nice so it’s Scripture.
For more information I strongly suggest you check out the catholic.com online apologetics library, just do a word search.
Your post has been edited due to the inclusion of a request for other forum readers/members to visit someone else’s website for the purposes of Apologetics debate.
In an effort to illuminate and explain the Catholic faith, CA makes every effort to provide our participants with a pleasant and informative place on the internet where Catholics and non-Catholics may gather.
It is our hope that respectful dialogue and discussion will lead to better faith understandings. And so in charity, we ask that our forums not be used for encouraging mass visits to other websites. In the past these kinds of efforts, although perhaps well intentioned, leave participants at other websites with negative impressions.
Your cooperation in helping promote these aims of faith exposition, hope for fruitful discussion and charity in implementation are sincerely appreciated.
No biggie there Lil Sister! CAF just doesn’t like the return engagements that we get as a result any more than the other forums appreciate a flood of Catholics showing up hot to defend the faith. Don’t be embarrassed though. Your heart is in the right place.
To Catholic Dude and Church Militant- Thank you for your help, I used it a lot when I replied. Thanks so much!
No problem! We’re sort of veterans of answering these kinds of things. You will be too after a while. These challenges are actually pretty good for helping us learn our faith. They had a lot to do with my own return to the faith, as My Testimony shows.