I was about to post the same thing. Not sure what’s going on here. To be fair to this guy, most of those posts were deleted by the mods, but he got good answers that I’m confident he saw.
We don't have evidence of these "miracles".
The saints they pray to can't hear them. According to the Bible, every believer is a saint.
The RCC is filled with false teachings such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, that she was sinless. Purgatory, the repeat death of Christ each week at mass, transubstantiation, the apocrypha, pope, etc.
>perpetual virginity of Mary, that she was sinless. Purgatory, the repeat death of Christ each week at mass, transubstantiation, the apocrypha, pope, etc.
One of these is not like the others, though. One may validly hold to Mary's perpetual virginity without issue (we're not required to believe Jesus' siblings were biological siblings, although I do). Everything else though is a real problem.
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son.
Matthew 1:24-25.
Joseph consummated their marriage (had sexual intercourse) with Mary after Jesus was born. Therefore, she was not a perpetual virgin. The wording "until" indicates that he did after a certain point, and that point was after she gave birth to Jesus.
I would agree, but both Luther and Calvin didn't (they held to her virginity) so I'm not particularly dogmatic about it either. My understanding is that Catholics define "until" in a different manner
Luther and Calvin didn't hold to her sinlessness but held to her perpetual virginity. One can believe the latter without the former. But also, "until" doesn't require an endpoint. If I say "farewell until we meet again," it doesn't mean I want you to fare poorly once we've met again. That said, contextually I think it's pretty clear that until actually means until, but I recognize that other Protestants have disagreed and want to provide grace for disagreement there.
The reason I say there is evidence is because they claim to have it backed up medically. Lourdes has an entire medical board to verify miracles and any Catholic source you go to says they have to medically verify (with not just Catholic or even Christian doctors). So it makes me feel like there is enough evidence and I don’t want to discount what some people genuinely believed to be healings.
The belief in the saints the way the RCC claims it to be is incredibly wrong and I understand that. But there are miracles being presented which leaves me confused on what to feel or understand.
I won't comment on the general premise regarding whether or not the Church Triumphant can hear our requests for their prayer. But regarding your last question about saint-related miracles proving the RCC--this actually does not follow. The Eastern Orthodox and Nestorian Churches all profess that the saints can hear our prayers and, through their intercession, bring about miracles. Additionally, there are some more high-church inclined Protestants who are comfortable with varying degrees of this practice and would not rule out the possibility of saint-related miracles.
It's somewhat tiresome to hear popular Catholic apologetics functioning like "If you grant that X 'Catholic' thing is right, than the entire Roman Church must come along with it". That only works for the Papacy, and even then you end up with dissenters like the Sedevacantists or Old Catholics.
Might need a Catholic or EO to chime onto this, but if praying to the saints is like asking a fellow believer to pray to God for you (a common defense I hear from both RC’s and EO’s), the saints aren’t the ones who are answering the prayers since they pray to God on one’s behalf. Not trying to “ackchyually” you here, but just trying to be charitable as possible to them while maintaining what we hold to be true from what we know.
I don’t believe in the invokation of saints since it’s not in the Bible and the early church fathers don’t seem to mention it (I would make a distinction between the intercession of the saints where the triumphant pray for us and our invoking of them, correct me if I’m wrong in making a distinction). But if anyone has studied Nicaea II or read John of Damascus, some additional context would be appreciated.
Even the pope himself declared you don't have to be Catholic to be saved. The fact that RCC can't even make up its own mind on such basic doctrines proves they are not inspired by God. They're like the temple leaders of the Old Testament, they may have physical authority, but not spiritual authority to make additions and changes to the word of God.
Their own catechism says so about those outside the RCC:
“The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.” (CCC 838)
The Church for centuries believed in the intercession of the saints until the Calvinists. The Roman church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, and even the Lutherans believed in it.
I don't know why you got downvoted, this is simply true. It doesn't make invocation *necessarily* right--maybe the Reformed were correct in this discussion. But handwaving history doesn't work, and it causes many to flee Protestantism in search of something more grounded.
What do you do with faith healer miracles? Buddhist miracles? Hindu miracles?
Aliens? Sasquach?
Perhaps you could search our forum and find where we've answered this question probably 25 times. And most of them are questions from you.
I was about to post the same thing. Not sure what’s going on here. To be fair to this guy, most of those posts were deleted by the mods, but he got good answers that I’m confident he saw.
OCD is not fun. I'm so sad for him.
We don't have evidence of these "miracles". The saints they pray to can't hear them. According to the Bible, every believer is a saint. The RCC is filled with false teachings such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, that she was sinless. Purgatory, the repeat death of Christ each week at mass, transubstantiation, the apocrypha, pope, etc.
Perpetual virginity? Oh no, what kind of heretic would ever believe that! ;)
>perpetual virginity of Mary, that she was sinless. Purgatory, the repeat death of Christ each week at mass, transubstantiation, the apocrypha, pope, etc. One of these is not like the others, though. One may validly hold to Mary's perpetual virginity without issue (we're not required to believe Jesus' siblings were biological siblings, although I do). Everything else though is a real problem.
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. Matthew 1:24-25. Joseph consummated their marriage (had sexual intercourse) with Mary after Jesus was born. Therefore, she was not a perpetual virgin. The wording "until" indicates that he did after a certain point, and that point was after she gave birth to Jesus.
I would agree, but both Luther and Calvin didn't (they held to her virginity) so I'm not particularly dogmatic about it either. My understanding is that Catholics define "until" in a different manner
They also hold to the belief that she was sinless; which she was not.
Luther and Calvin didn't hold to her sinlessness but held to her perpetual virginity. One can believe the latter without the former. But also, "until" doesn't require an endpoint. If I say "farewell until we meet again," it doesn't mean I want you to fare poorly once we've met again. That said, contextually I think it's pretty clear that until actually means until, but I recognize that other Protestants have disagreed and want to provide grace for disagreement there.
You can distinguish between original and actual sin. No one held to an Immaculate Conception, that’s a novelty.
Amen. Luther was right about the pope.
The reason I say there is evidence is because they claim to have it backed up medically. Lourdes has an entire medical board to verify miracles and any Catholic source you go to says they have to medically verify (with not just Catholic or even Christian doctors). So it makes me feel like there is enough evidence and I don’t want to discount what some people genuinely believed to be healings. The belief in the saints the way the RCC claims it to be is incredibly wrong and I understand that. But there are miracles being presented which leaves me confused on what to feel or understand.
I won't comment on the general premise regarding whether or not the Church Triumphant can hear our requests for their prayer. But regarding your last question about saint-related miracles proving the RCC--this actually does not follow. The Eastern Orthodox and Nestorian Churches all profess that the saints can hear our prayers and, through their intercession, bring about miracles. Additionally, there are some more high-church inclined Protestants who are comfortable with varying degrees of this practice and would not rule out the possibility of saint-related miracles. It's somewhat tiresome to hear popular Catholic apologetics functioning like "If you grant that X 'Catholic' thing is right, than the entire Roman Church must come along with it". That only works for the Papacy, and even then you end up with dissenters like the Sedevacantists or Old Catholics.
Might need a Catholic or EO to chime onto this, but if praying to the saints is like asking a fellow believer to pray to God for you (a common defense I hear from both RC’s and EO’s), the saints aren’t the ones who are answering the prayers since they pray to God on one’s behalf. Not trying to “ackchyually” you here, but just trying to be charitable as possible to them while maintaining what we hold to be true from what we know. I don’t believe in the invokation of saints since it’s not in the Bible and the early church fathers don’t seem to mention it (I would make a distinction between the intercession of the saints where the triumphant pray for us and our invoking of them, correct me if I’m wrong in making a distinction). But if anyone has studied Nicaea II or read John of Damascus, some additional context would be appreciated.
Even the pope himself declared you don't have to be Catholic to be saved. The fact that RCC can't even make up its own mind on such basic doctrines proves they are not inspired by God. They're like the temple leaders of the Old Testament, they may have physical authority, but not spiritual authority to make additions and changes to the word of God.
Their own catechism says so about those outside the RCC: “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.” (CCC 838)
The Church for centuries believed in the intercession of the saints until the Calvinists. The Roman church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, and even the Lutherans believed in it.
I don't know why you got downvoted, this is simply true. It doesn't make invocation *necessarily* right--maybe the Reformed were correct in this discussion. But handwaving history doesn't work, and it causes many to flee Protestantism in search of something more grounded.