Justified by RCC's laws ...

Was Jesus physically sitting on his heavenly throne when he appeared to the apostle Paul?
Jesus in His Human Nature, He is not physically omnipresent

To summarize, Jesus’ human nature is not omnipresent. But, his divine nature is. However, it is the one person of Christ who shares both natures (communicatio idiomatum), and it is the one person who is omnipresent.
 
The Sacraments assist belief.

Eph 4 10 He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.) 11 He himself granted that some are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. 14 We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.
ccc1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. "Sacramental grace" is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God.

IOW, the so-called sacraments are works necessary for salvation.

Romans 11:6 “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”
 
No need for a verse to refute a negative inference; ie, the onus is on you to prove 'two sinless mediators and advocate'
The logic is wrong here. The assertion that something disqualifies a person is a positive claim with the burden on the claimant. A negative claim (or inference) would be one that states the absence of something, such as "There are no prayers to Mary in the bible". That is a negative inference where the burden is on the one who tries to refute it to produce an example that disproves the claim.
 
The logic is wrong here. The assertion that something disqualifies a person is a positive claim with the burden on the claimant. A negative claim (or inference) would be one that states the absence of something, such as "There are no prayers to Mary in the bible". That is a negative inference where the burden is on the one who tries to refute it to produce an example that disproves the claim.
Rephrase:
The onus is on CC to prove scripture states 'two sinless mediators and advocate'; the onus is not on me to disprove scripture states 'two sinless mediators and advocate'.
 
Peter was the first Pope of the church that Jesus started and is now called the Catholic Church.
Rubbish and your institution fails to meet the requirements for HIS church. Catholic is not a word in scripture, so catholic church is not HIS church. Your leaders do not meet the scriptural requirements for leaders. So making a claim without being able to pass scriptural tests is meaningless. The only scriptural test your institution passes is the bad tree test. That is why I call it what it is.

RCs blaspheme Jesus ever time they say their bad tree was started by Him.
 
ccc1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. "Sacramental grace" is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God.

IOW, the so-called sacraments are works necessary for salvation.

Romans 11:6 “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”
excellent pick up.
 
Nor do your personal interpretations of the RCC's false interpretations of scripture or its catechism or the ECFS.
So if your personal interpretation of is not the final/sole then why should we listen to it? Listening to your own personal interpretation of scripture is not following Jesus.
 
Rephrase:
The onus is on CC to prove scripture states 'two sinless mediators and advocate'; the onus is not on me to disprove scripture states 'two sinless mediators and advocate'.
The nCCs here have yet to prove that scripture alone is the final/sole authority for the Christian faith.
 
Back
Top