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 ...
Mary will be greatly distressed when she rises from the dead at the Resurrection and discovers that men had built a world-wide religion incorporating a pagan goddess that utilizes Mary’s name and drank her Son’s literal blood and ate His literal body.
Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
Ephesians 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Now who was it again you say is closer and has more access?
No, the thing does not remain. When the Israelites began to treat it as you suggest it was commanded to be destroyed.
Which in no way contradicts what I said.
"The Ark did NOT represent God."
Who said that it did?
“Oh really? So you would say that a vow isn’t binding?”
Why would anyone say that a vow isn’t binding because a wedding contract is not a wedding vow? There’s no connection between those two ideas.
“Semantics will get you no where.”
It isn’t semantics.
“I wear no ring.”
Now. We’ve been over this before. Remember?
“I didn’t say they did or should. I simply showed that those things you claimed were purely pagan have a base in scripture.”
And you were wrong. The Talmud is not scripture.
“Deny all you want but it simply makes you look petty.”
I was right. That isn’t petty no matter how you try to portray that way.
Not where should be NO WHERE
“Research the fifth marion dogma.”
This coming from the man who can’t spell Marian correctly.
Catholic teaching is that Jesus had a divine nature and a human nature. Did Jesus get His divine nature from Mary?
So Catholics don't really mean what they say?
Um....you did by using it as an example of a graven image to be bowed down to.
Forgive my obsession with the text, but that is what we are considering here. And, the denial is not at all "extraordinary" if one sticks to the text. Jeremiah, was set apart and appointed. That is not "filled with the Spirit." Isaiah was called and named. That is not "filled with the Spirit." Elizabeth was "filled with the Spirit", not John her fetus. Perhaps words are elastic to Rome, but words mean something to biblicists.
And, I am a bit surprised that you quote the "golden chain" passage from Romans 8 regarding predestination and then claim Isaiah sinned based on "free will". Ordinary reading would recognize those are incompatible concepts. In the same way, your claim that Adam and Eve were created sinless and "chose" to sin (ostensibly based upon the concept of "free will") is simply not supported in the text. Please describe the passage that says they were created sinless. Then, tell us where it explains that they had "free will".
Finally, Mary...there is no possible way to view the remarks to Mary and the brothers as complimentary or honoring. Jesus is depreciating them, my FRiend, not praising them. He is saying, "Look, I am busy here with people who are actually listening to me...they are MORE my mother than my own mother who may wish to talk to me, but as I said, I am busy." If you find His words complimentary, you have a very different hermeneutic than mine. And, there is absolutely no textual evidence that she was sinless, born sinless, immaculately conceived (holy mackerel on that one!!!), or to be recognized above any other human. Paul never even mentions her and no early believers (1st century) elevated her. As John the Baptist said, "He must increase, I must decrease."
I never said or implied that the Ark represented or was supposed to represent God.
Thanks for chiming in. Please feel free to share further thoughts.
I think the term that should be applied to Catholics is doublespeak.
LOL
Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm
So the question becomes: were all of the fathers in unanimous consent?
Unless catholics redefine unanimous it means all agree upon....all are one mind.
So were the fathers all in agreement on this? The answer is no as exhibited by the work Elsie did.
I will add this to the disussion also. This is from The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles. https://books.google.com/books
p471.
the ancient Fathers gave no fewer than five interpretation of the the word "rock".
The first declared that the church was built on Peter, an interpretation endorsed by 17 Fathers.
2) the second understood the words as referring to all Apostles, Peter being simply the Primate. This was held by 8 Fathers.
3)The third view asserted that the words applied to the faith which Peter professed, a view held by no less than 44 Fathers.
4) the words were to be understood of Jesus Christ, the Church built upon Him. This was the view of 16 Fathers.
5) the fifth understood the term "rock" to apply to the faithful themselves, who, by believing in Christ, were made living stones in the temple of His body. Very few held this opinion.
It is also impossible to overlook the fact that in the Roman Missal itself the Collect for the Vigil of St. Peter and St. Paul's Day reads thus: "Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty God, that Thou wouldest not suffer us, whom Thou established on the Rock of the Apostlic Confession, to be shaken by any disturbances."
Based on this it sure looks like ol' Pius, at best, erred, in his statement regarding, nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.
This is where the quote from Archbishop Kenrick comes into play regarding following the majority.
The man-made teachings of the catholic church are built, and continue to be built, upon a bunch of lies and distortions.
What say you vladimir998?
I did. The Fifth Marian Dogma does not place the Blessed Mother on the same level as God, the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.
Do I detect a bit of "Cynical" Bear coming through? Just kidding, though, because you are right.
It will when implemented....Mary will become a co-redeemer...a dispenser of all graces.
When I first decided to return to the RCC, I went church-hopping for a while. I eventually landed in a church one Sunday where the pastor was railing against the ACA. At every Mass, we were led in prayer for our First Amendment rights. I knew I'd found the right place then. :-)
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.