Posted on 12/10/2014 6:32:20 AM PST by marshmallow
"Christian unity" is one of those terms that stir up a whole spectrum of—sometimes emotional—opinions.
On the one hand, we know that Jesus prayed to the Father concerning future believers "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you" (John 17:21a, NIV).
On the other hand, charismatics know it is almost pointless to discuss the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12, 14) with Baptists or most anyone else from a mainline denomination. And Protestants of just about any stripe get riled up when they hear Catholics talking about papal infallibility or their adoration of the Virgin Mary.
It's on this latter point that Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, and successful author, has waded into a hornet's nest of controversy by telling a Catholic News Service interviewer that Protestants and Catholics "have far more in common than what divides us" and that Catholics do not "worship Mary like she's another god."
Regarding Warren's view that Catholics do not worship Mary, Matt Slick, writing on the website of the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, goes into great detail with material from Roman Catholic sources that say Mary is "the all holy one," is to be prayed to, worshipped, that she "brings us the gifts of eternal life" and she "made atonement for the sins of man."
If that's not putting her in the place of Christ as a god-like figure to be worshipped, then what is it?
"We believe in Trinity, the Bible, the resurrection, and that salvation is through Jesus Christ. These are the big issues," Warren says. "But the most important thing is if you love Jesus, we're on the same team."
To Warren's point about being on the same team, Slick.....
(Excerpt) Read more at charismanews.com ...
she probably is, but where did I ever post that???
“You are SO right again.”
That’s the case, yes.
“And there are ‘some’ knights who say, “Ni!””
Which means they would post more rationally than Protestant anti-Catholics do here.
“So the ‘church’ cannot decide WHICH ‘interpretation’ is RIGHT? Again I say...HMMMmmm…”
No, the Church decided what should never be excluded and what is primary. That’s what counts most to avoid error.
“It DOES? Got a link you’d like to provide us deluded folk?”
Nope. Read a book. Start with the theological reports written by the committees of Catholics and Lutherans and Anglicans in the 70s and 80s. Reading: it’s fundamental.
“You are infinitely correct.”
Compared to the Protestant anti-Catholics here, yes.
“Those Prots are infinitely wrong.”
Protestant anti-Catholics.
“Once again; your rightness is shown.”
Compared to your error it is easily seen.
“We are all wrong.”
Protestant Anti-Catholics are.
“You are right always.”
No, but I am more often right than Protestant anti-Catholics.
“I am wrong; still.”
Of course.
“You are right; again.”
Plain to see.
“He is wrong.”
No, he was clearly right – as demonstrated here often enough.
“You are right.”
Yes, I am.
Ever read the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
CCC 552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.
Now, noted these two parts:
1) “Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter,...”
Built in the person of Peter - that’s the interpretation that Protestant anti-Catholics attack even though it is obvious from the Greek and reputable Protestant scholars admit it.
2) “Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church.”
The faith Peter confessed. That’s the interpretation Protestant anti-Catholics champion to the exclusion of all others.
You find this in other works as well. What the Church doesn’t do is exclude the first interpretation.
What? You have never recited the Prayer to Our Lady of Hope?
Say two hail Mary’s and five 2nd Peter 2:1-3’s
HT metmom
Catholics who believe that stuff as as gullible as all those folks who send their money into shyster televangelists.
Crying statues.
What a hoot.
It doesn't say to help us through the intervention of her son.
It's simply asking her for her help. Which she is not capable of doing.
It's not a nice prayer. It's an abomination. We are to pray to the Father alone.
Prayer to anyone else is idolatry.
And the kind of worship and adulation toward Mary that prayer demonstrates is sickening.
Well, if you said that Barbara Bush was the mother of the president, she could be mother of Clinton or Obama. There's no way to know WHICH president.
Making something more vague NEVER made things clearer.
Thanks for making my point.
You only reinforced my point for me.
Saying *mother of my Lord* does NOT mean *mother of God*.
Making something more vague does not make it clearer.
Saying *mother of God* only leads to more opportunity for error.
In either case, you cannot improve on perfection.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
THAT'S RICH!!!!
What an example of perfection......Top 10 Most Wicked Popes
http://listverse.com/2007/08/17/top-10-most-wicked-popes/
1. Liberius, reigned 352-66 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
2. Honorius I, reigned 625-638 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
3. Stephen VI, reigned 896-89 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
4. John XII, reigned 955-964 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
5. Benedict IX, reigned 1032-1048 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
6. Boniface VIII, reigned 1294-1303 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
7. Urban VI, reigned 1378-1389 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
8. Alexander VI, reigned 1492-1503 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
9. Leo X, reigned 1513-1521 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
10. Clement VII, reigned 1523-1524 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
Top 10 Worst Popes in History
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php
1. Pope Alexander VI (1431 – 1503)
2. Pope John XII (c. 937 – 964)
3. Pope Benedict IX (c. 1012 – 1065/85)
4. Pope Sergius III (? – 911)
5. Pope Stephen VI (? – 897)
6. Pope Julius III (1487 – 1555)
7. Pope Urban II (ca. 1035 – 1099)
8. Pope Clement VI (1291 – 1352)
9. Pope Leo X (1475 – 1521)
10. Pope Boniface VIII (c. 1235 – 1303)
And tell me, has anyone settled the issue yet of whether there is salvation outside the Catholic church?
So you disagree with Jesus when HE said that His word is truth?
Yes, non-Catholics can know what the truth is. Jesus told us and we accept it.
We don't go around changing it like the Catholic church did in changing *mother of Jesus* to *mother of GOD* because we think that the Holy Spirit did an inadequate job of inspiring it. Anyone who does is considered a heretic and not to be followed.
The church basically wrote (you know what I mean) the scriptures, they edited them, copied them and gave them to you to love and follow....
Who needs God when you have the Catholic church.
Edited them? Edited the Word of God?
Hath God really said...?
Obviously *No* to Catholics so the church says, here, let us tell you what it really meant.
Clearly this reveals a very dangerous mindset and precedent.
IF someone believes that Scripture were written by man, then there is no problem with *editing* it. Then it isn't inerrant, infallible, or even TRUTH.
they did not give them to you to reinterpret, redefine, judge, or otherwise use your own opinions to determine what they meant....
And yet when the Catholic church *edits* Scripture, that's EXACTLY what they are doing. So it reserves the right to that only to themselves. And then they condemn others for allegedly doing the same thing.
What staggering hypocrisy.
Outside the Bible, which the HOLY SPIRIT gave us, there is no truth and certainly not from Catholicism, which changes, reinterprets, redefines, which means that it wasn't truth before.
Truth never changes. The Catholic church does.
The prayer you were liking so much said that.
And here, just now, you agreed.
Forgot to add.....
And if someone believes that Scripture were written by the Holy Spirit, then there IS problem with *editing* it. You know better than to mess with it.
A believer would never do that.
A simplification of reams of Catholic writings.
Now that you know the source; do you AGREE with it?
There is the problem.
By saying the first, the other two are minimized.
The first is absolutely true; but it is NOT all of the Truth.
Jesus is 1/3 of the GODHEAD is absolutely true.
You CAN say it and you DO say it, but it does NOT reflect Absolute Truth.
Yes, trinity.
It came from somewhere, and I do not think Protestants were around to blame it on.
Oh?
Just WHO adopted him?
Well; you got that right.
....I'd rather ask her and get a negative answer that to convince myself that she couldn't be of any benefit to me at all....think about it...
Of COURSE you would!
To 'think' that you've been praying TO a dead person all these years WOULD be a bit upsetting!
I doubt your words here.
Where are your comments on reply #352?
Surely THOSE 'saints and brilliant people' disagree with what you've been taught.
Are you up to explaining the differences?
Can I then assume you'll not be using 'but the Greek says' arguments in the future?
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.