Posted on 07/10/2007 6:55:28 PM PDT by indcons
I’ve read the Bible, but what I’m referring to is the historical record that follows the period covered by the good book.
And by Catholic Church you mean the denomination of the Roman Catholic Church, not simple "universal" right? So if I check a concordance I will find Jesus saying something about establishing a "visible church" in Rome right? I will find something about a pope using that term, or holy see using that term, or apostalic succession using that term right? I will find something about new doctrines that are to come from Rome that are not mentioned in the bible at all right?
See, I can make pointless and self important posts...
Oh good, we can stop with a point we agree on.
Using Gods word as a sole rule of faith is a lot safer than using a never biblically mentioned denomination's un and anti biblical whims as a suplement.
The Catholic Church regardless of where the See wound up, could have been Antioch , Ephesus or some other city, would still be the one Church established by Christ.
Yes I suppose that would be true, if He had actually established a Denominational headquarters. But you know as well as I that He didn't.
He didn't abandon us to the winds of change.
No, He left us His word and it never changes, but RCC doctrine seems to be amended all the time.
Others, however have made the case that Christians and Jews worship different Gods, a position I don't support.
He gave us a discernible, visible Church first for a reason.
Are you saying that God has predestined the non-elect to hell? Is that one of the missions of His Creation? To create people that He wishes to send to hell?
He gave us a discernible, visible Church first for a reason.
That makes perfect sense, to a natural mind. By Faith I know that such natural things don't apply. The Church remains as it is described in the bible, "The Body of Christ". It is not Rome and it is not a wafer. I believe you are stuck in the Catholic definition and are not keenly aware of the way the word Church is used in the bible.
Why isn't this headline published. :-)
I looked up "visible church" in the concordance. Why do you suppose it isn't there? How much "organization" does the bible set forth? Don't even get me started on the whole priesthood thing which RC's embrace and which is not in the bible at all regarding the Church. Maybe we need to discuss where Marian doctrines came from. That usually highlights our differences, that is RCC and non RCC.
I reject the notion of Bible alone and the weight of personal interpretation, you reject the authority of the Church and the weight of Sacred Tradition. You'll say "read your Bible"(I do, RSV CE, love it!), I'll say "read church history"(you probably do) and yet the more I read Scripture, the more I see the Church, and the need for the Church, you don't.
I pray, every day, that I'm neither deceived or a deceiver of others unto their death. All I can do is love and trust in the Lord. I don't doubt that you and all believers hold to that very basic aspect of Christianity. At some point, it's prudent to take what you can and pray for the rest.
The belief is perfectly biblical.
Acts 17:10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.
Even after listening the an apostle speak they were commended for not taking his word for what he said. What he said over a period of a few days I believe, but they went to a subset of the bible, the OT, to verify that what he said was true. It's beautiful how the NT is so well contained in the OT. Now lets try applying that same commendable test to Marian doctrine. If you did, you'd leave the RCC for it's obvious heresy.
True devotion to Our Lady is commanded by Christ Him self. What is the 4th commandment and what did He tell John and us at the Cross? "Mother behold your son, son behold your mother" has far more meaning than a simple recording of a sentimental adoption. How many words in Scripture are wasted or pointless? Would God wast time with idle chatter as He hung on the cross? Doubt it.
Uh, so you're thinking that Paul gave them a bunch of info about Mary but the Holy Spirit completely forgot to tell us in the bible? So what the verse should say is that the bereans searched out the messianic prophecies to see if they were true and accepted all the other things which you will hear from the pope later. That's basically what you are saying happened. Regarding other things that Jesus did, you are saying that it should say that there are a lot of other really important things needed for correction, instruction, reproof and doctrine that Jesus did but you can only get them from the pope.
True devotion to Our Lady is commanded by Christ Him self. What is the 4th commandment and what did He tell John and us at the Cross? "Mother behold your son, son behold your mother" has far more meaning than a simple recording of a sentimental adoption. How many words in Scripture are wasted or pointless? Would God wast time with idle chatter as He hung on the cross? Doubt it.
When Jesus says that any Christian woman is His Mother, he pretty much puts to rest any notion that she is to be elevated to some special position.
Careful; this whole passage is a sacred cow to the sola crowd. If they admit that the entire New Testament wasn’t available at the time of this passage, then they’ve got to admit that the teachings of the Church were entirely oral for centuries, and therefore their argument against the Magisterium dissolves into a puddle of goo.
Whereas I see that the whole Matiolatry thing is a red herring, designed to highlight a difference between the Proddies and the Church and not really based on very much other than that.
The Blessed Mother said: "let it be with me according to thy word.". Our Lord said: "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!" Her motherhood is not the reason for her honor, it's her obedience to Christ that gives her a place of honor. If our Lord believed her to be blessed and worth to be His mother, and ours, as seen in the exchange at the foot of the cross, how can we fail to honor her?
Let me rephrase my main point: “Allah” is not a “false god” in the same sense as, say, Jupiter. Jupiter is simply a fictitious person. He simply does not exist.
“Allah,” on the other hand, is the name given to God by Muslims.
Do they believe a host of false, monstrous things about “Allah” and how to serve him? Absolutely.
My main point was simply that “Allah” is a very impoverished, irrational, distorted notion of God—but Muslims do believe in the one actual God, not some figure of pure fiction, like Jupiter.
That does mean that Mohammed ever had any revelations from the one, true God! In fact, it seems to many who have studied Mohammed far more deeply than I ever have, that some of the “religious” experiences he had are attributable to mental illness and/or demonic activity.
Well then, lets talk about the word honor. Since when does the word honor mean to ascribe the ability to:
Hear prayers, provide special intercession as the Mother of the Son of God, that she is the Mother of God, that she is the mother of the church, that she is the Queen of Heaven, that she was immaculately conceived, that she was ever virgin, the dispenser of all grace, that she gave birth while keeping a hymen intact, or that she is our co-redeemer, that she appears to people with messages, that she makes statues bleed, that she performs miracles from heaven,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.