Home Forums All Things Catholic Mortal versus Venial Sin Reply To: Mortal versus Venial Sin


Answering Mr. LARoberts:

[quote:38137k3x]Yup I’m back, I have a break in my schedule between the radiation and the Chemotherapy, so I’ll be reading and getting the replies to your questions that I promised you end of Lent in due course. Not to mention uniting the unplesant side effects of the treatment to those of Christ on the Cross for the intention that the fetters are unloosed and people find their way back to Christ and His Church. [/quote:38137k3x]
No need to mention it ,but since you did, I might as well remind you that you need to get saved as well just as I have done.
I suppose you’ll tell me that Paul was referring to the “Roman Law” in Romans 3:27+28?
[quote:38137k3x] you also select and narrowly misrepresent from Catholic documents.[/quote:38137k3x]
Do you have any examples that you’d like to share that I’ve done or is it that they’re just different then what you’d like them to say?
[quote:38137k3x] It would seem that the sources you get them from are Anti-Catholics rather than the sources themselves.[/quote:38137k3x]
I’d prefer to view it as pro-Jesus instead of Anti-Catholic.
[quote:38137k3x] Regarding the Catechism, I’ve at least once mentioned that the Catechism is a condensation of the Truths taught by the Church, not an exhaustive treaties.[/quote:38137k3x]
Truths? Such as its view of Muslims in item 841 or the ‘Mother of God’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs -971 – I’m not sure you know what truth means.
[quote:38137k3x] A similar anology would be that your yet to be named denomination probably has a Children’s Sunday or Sabbath School. The children do not learn (I would assume) the Greek Texts and the historical content of the bible times, as someone of more advanced age and study should.[/quote:38137k3x]
Some day I may tell you, but you’ll use that info to nitpit that denomination and we’d never get back to the falsehood of Catholicism – been there done that – and it goes nowhere.
[quote:38137k3x] So too the Catechism is a basic overview of the Faith that will hopefully spur a Catholic on to a deeper study and understanding of the Faith, of which the Bible, (which Catholics are encouraged to read, and exposed to every time they assist at Mass) is a part of. Anyone who reads through Catholic theological works, Dogmatic decrees or Council Documents will see that Scripture is used to support the documents, [/quote:38137k3x]
You see, that’s what I mean. You use the Bible secondarily instead as it is meant to be – the authoritive book as God’s Book- where one tries to do as it says
[quote:38137k3x]rather than trying to hammer scripture into conformity to what we want it to say, we look to what the early Church said and see if we are in confomity with what the Apostles and their successors taught. [/quote:38137k3x]Here is another example – who of your church is infallible? The Bible I know is and I’ve yet to meet any human that was!
[quote:38137k3x]It would seem that based on your statements in the past that historical facts would just muddy up the waters and disprove the inventions of 16th Century Protestants.[/quote:38137k3x]
Again, I know Scriptures are truth, but not necessarily humans, so I just follow Paul’s advice of Galatians 1:7-9 – [color=red:38137k3x]which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. [/color:38137k3x]
[quote:38137k3x] I’ve asked you before, and ask again by what authority do we have the canon of Scripture,[/quote:38137k3x]
That is debateable, not sure just what you mean. I think you would like to say Matthew 16:18 but that is “taken out of context.”
[quote:38137k3x] and what denomination you are a member of, (you don’t have to give the specific local parish) as well as what sources you use to attack the Church because it will help in understanding what bias you are coming from. I ask you this because (once again) your attacks are not novel, but simply (in most cases) word for word attacks from other writers who have been shown misleading and false. A careful read of your web pages will show you where you contradict yourself, I’m not going to blurt it out, you find the contradictions and I’ll continue to read it…. [/quote:38137k3x]
I am a Bible believer, so if you wouldn’t mind, be a little more specific about where I’ve mislead or been false!
[quote:38137k3x]Deflecting questions and discounting them rather than answer them seems to be your MO mr. Ron. [/quote:38137k3x]
You mean just as some of my questions are avoided and not answered?
[quote:38137k3x]You lump Catholics with the Pharasaical party, but it seems that you like them like to attack Christ’s teaching by a narrow interpretation of the Law. [/quote:38137k3x]
Such as? Prove this please – as I use His teachings and often times am told not to quote Scriptures, so how do you figure?
[quote:38137k3x]It would seem you would rather attack, and close your eyes to discussion. Most of all the points that you cannot answer. I see little use of discussing, let alone debating topics if you can’t respond to questions, jump to conclusions, and attempt with a limited knowledge base to define Catholic teachings by looking at them from a limited and poorly researched perspective. [/quote:38137k3x]
I’m ready – which topic should we start with?
[quote:38137k3x]New question to ignore by you Mr. Ron. How about the proscription against divorce. Christ says that it was a concession allowed by Moses who was bending to the will of the people, and that it would not be tolerated, but Protestants disobey Christ in allowing it. [/quote:38137k3x]
There are two instances in which we can be legally and Biblically correct to get divorced and remarry. 1 – in case of spouses adultery and 2 if a unbeliever decides to divorce a believer! (And BTW, I don’t see any Biblical annulments)
[quote:38137k3x]Since I am not the administrator of this board, I’ll just make observations. You Ronald come into a Catholic Board and start slinging your anti-catholic rhetoric, you tell us that you know the Bible, and nobody else here does, you tell us that the historical documents, and history of the Church are lies and brainwashing. You tell us not to tell you about how the Bible Canon was formulated, that it is not important, yet you give nothing to support any of these accusations,[/quote:38137k3x]
What would you call my quoting Scriptures?
[quote:38137k3x] no alternate history (from credible sources) nor do you reply to those questions that you deem unimportant perhaps because you cannot find an answer to them.[/quote:38137k3x]
Perhaps we should rely on God’s Word as we should do? Or do you know of another source that is as reliable?
[quote:38137k3x] It is important to understand where the canon of the Bible came from. [/quote:38137k3x]
I think God, who do you think?
[quote:38137k3x]If you can find another answer aside from the historical truth, I’d like to hear that.[/quote:38137k3x]
See Galatians 1 again, how do I know how truthful your history is when much of your “religion” isn’t
[quote:38137k3x] So far no answer from you on this and other topics, just attacks based on the writings of others, and not fully fact checked in the full context of the subject by yourself.[/quote:38137k3x]
In your opinion maybe, but that is not as a factual point!