Posted on 01/19/2012 7:18:48 AM PST by blam
There is unity in Roman Catholicism and I will point fingers as I like.
“wikipedia”?...pulleeeze!?
Calling yourself “Catholic” and then dissenting from Rome is a human failing, not a failing of the Catholic faith.
We have established and written Dogma and a Catechism which explains our faith.
You mean "cod and not God."
While there is truth in this, and offsets the idea that all the Founders and ppl were evangelical Christians, yet it is misleading and biased it is inferring that the founders and people same were a bunch of secularists who had little interest in the Christian faith. That America was distinctly Christian is abundantly evidenced, and was reflected in in government and education.
And which was the reason for the 1st Amendment, to assure freedom to be so after their particular faith, versus required submission to an official State religion, which is much the case now as a result of increased secularization, with its indoctrination of ethos which largely increasingly functions as religion.
There can never be the manner of antiseptic separation of religion from State the way strict separatists seem to demand as regards Christian faith, but as in the past, the government will reflect what people who elect them really believe in terms of commitment, though this is becoming more difficult.
May you have a God night
Hey metmom! I hope you are well!
We’re already screwed. Look at the erosion of this country over the past 10 years, the last 5...
It’s Biblical. Things aren’t going to get better.
The liberals have already won. Personally, I think the scale has tipped the other way now. There are now more voters that actually think they are due some sort of Michelle Obama pie, than there are actual sane people in this country.
The good news?
You already know the Good News!
Well I don't what bible you are talking about but the word witch or sorceress in Ex 22:18 is an accurate translation. The word in question is the Hebrew "Kasap" and in context in the OT always means someone who practices supernatural powers. See: Deuteronomy 18:10 and 2 Chronicles 33:6. I would also note that less people were killed in the entire Salem incident than are murdered in Chicago on any given weekend. And Salem was an isolated affair, so Biblical communities have a much better track record than post-Christian contemporary America.
Maybe the writer or the poster believes that the Founders -- whether the Puritans, or the Anglicans, or the Baptists and Methodists or the deists -- did believe in the one true religion. You may not agree but that doesn't necessarily mean that the view represented in the article is utilitarian or ethnocentric.
And truth be told, the Pilgrims themselves were more motivated by a distaste for life in Holland than fear of persecution.
The evangelical vision of the colonists as a uniform squadron of zealous true believers is as ahistorical as the secularist view of the Founding Fathers as a crew of faithless radicals. Brewster and Jefferson were outliers, not representatives.
Which predominate Protestant Bibles versus which officially approved RC English Bible would do you compare them to?
a) Douay Confraternity, 1961 vs. KJV 1989
Does being the steward of Divine revelation mean that you are the assuredly infallible interpreters of it?
- Matt 16:18-19, “And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Iwill give your the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Does your implied protection against different interpretations include approve all the notes in your Bibles?
Yes, the notes are explanations which site other Biblical passages as the authority for that explanation.
Is true that within the parameters of Catholic teaching the RC have great liberty to interpret the Bible? No.
How do you know that Roman Catholic sources are not teaching contrary to official doctrine?
I validate them! The doctrine is written in such documents as the Catechism and “Fundamentals and Catholic Dogma”. Also, Papal Encyclicals. And, yes, I cross check.
It is also the purpose and function of the Imprimatur & Nihil Obstat, to assert that others, more qualified than I have reviewed the material, to protect against error.
What is the basis for your assurance that Rome has spoken infallibly? Matt 16:18-19
Can RCs have any disagreement on teachings that are not infallibly defined?
Evolution for instance. As long as we believe that it all started with God’s Creation.
Do these constitute the majority or the minority of what RCs believe and practice?
How can differences constitute a majority?
Are the Scriptures the supreme assuredly infallible authority for Catholics?
Yes.
What is the basis for the claim to be the One True Church in Catholicism, Roman or Orthodox?
Matt 16:18-19
Lk 22:32
Jn 21:17
Mk 16:7
Lk 24:34
Acts 1:13-26, 2:14, 2:41, 3:6-7, 5:1-11, 8:21, 10:44-46, 15:7, 15:19
Gal 2:11-14
Are there divisions within Catholicism on doctrinal issues?
No. Where there has been disagreement, it has been resolved.
Do divisions mean the basis for achieving spiritual unity is invalid?
If they existed in the teachings from Rome, your example of the circular firning squad would ensure someone being hit. But your question is absured on its face.
What jurisdiction does the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome effectively exercise?
Infallibility applies only to ex-cathedra pronouncements on matters of faith and morals.
Do you think Sola Scriptura means only the Scriptures can be used in understanding what doctrinal truth is in the light of Scripture?
I thinkg Sola Scriptura is a crutch used to pretend that Tradition plays no role in faith and truth. It pretends that there was no Truth until a Canon was established some 400 years after Christ and that it somehow became more true after Luther edited it.
Do most Protestant denominations who hold to Scripture as being the wholly inspired literal Word of God as supreme (“evangelicals”) manifest a common consent to core teachings, while allowing varying degrees of dissent on other issues?
They only hold it is literal until they can’t explain clear Biblical text which supports the Catholic position they oppose.
“..common consent to core teachings while allowing varying degrees of dissent on other issues”. This usually means, as long as you preach John 3:16 and bash Catholics, we don’t much care what you believe.
Do the above typically have their own magisterium over their own flock?
“..common consent to core teachings..” You undermine your own position
Does evidence on evangelicals overall testify to a greater conservatism and unity in certain core doctrinal and moral truths and commitment than among Roman Catholics overall?
No! Who has been more steadfast in the Pro-life movement than the Roman Catholic Church. Do not pretend with me that squishy liberal politicians reflect the Church.
You are attempting to play off the failings of individuals against the teaching of Rome.
Do you really want to play the “Who has more sinners?” game, when addressing the Faith and Teachings which are well established?
How many of the above answers are a matter requiring interpretation, and what makes you correct over other Catholics who disagree with your answers here?
None.
Matt 16:18-19
Lk 22:32
Jn 21:17
Mk 16:7
Lk 24:34
Acts 1:13-26, 2:14, 2:41, 3:6-7, 5:1-11, 8:21, 10:44-46, 15:7, 15:19
Gal 2:11-14
The doctrine is written in such documents as the Catechism and “Fundamentals and Catholic Dogma”. Also, Papal Encyclicals. And, yes, I cross check.
It is also the purpose and function of the Imprimatur & Nihil Obstat, to assert that others, more qualified than I have reviewed the material, to protect against error.
Did you make a fallible or infallible interpretation when you first trusted the RC church to be perpetually, assuredly infallible (when speaking according to defined criteria)?
I don’t claim infallibility for myself, rather the sources cited above.
Do both Protestants and Catholics hold to a perpetual, assuredly infallible supreme authority on earth, but cannot claim assured infallibility in understanding them?
No, or there would be only one Protestant religion, which makes the subsequent set of negative variables an illogical question.
In Scripture, did formal decent of office assure perpetual authority? What was the real basis for authority for Christ and the apostles?
Christ is the Second Person of the Triune God and IS the Authority.
- Matt 16:18-19, “And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Iwill give your the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Do you suppose Christ’s authority presented in 16:18-19, was meant to end with the life of Peter or the other Apostles? How meaningless would that be?
In Scripture by what primary means did assurance of Truth and that men of God were such instrumentally come by?
Other than my citations in response to #18 and #21 above, I assume you refer to “By their fruits you shall know them”.
You were one of the lucky 15%.
When I see odds with 95% homeschoolers remaining faithful and only 15% of government schooled kids remaining faithful and both are from highly active evangelical homes....well....it definitely needs investigating.
As for conservatives abandoning the government schools, I doubt it. Nearly 85% of the nation's children are “schooled” in our nation's godless socialist K-12 system. Where's the abandonment? If conservatives were leaving the government schools far less than 85% of the nation's kids would be attending.
Are the nation's socialist schools any less godlessly secular humanist because all those conservative kids are attending? No. It just gets worse year by year.
Are the nation's socialist k-12 schools any less socialist because conservative kids attend or so-called conservatives and Christians work there? No. Socialism is socialism and the only alternative would be to make them private, but then they would be private and not socialist.
Simply by attending children risk learning that government and the voting mobs give them tuition-free schooling. Well? Why not use government and the voting mob to get lots of “free” socialist goodies. It only took one to three generations of socialist schooling to give the nation Franklin D. Roosevelt for four terms.
Finally, children who attend godlessly secular schools will learn to think and reason godlessly. They must just to cooperate in the classroom, read the text, and do assignments. How could it be otherwise?
Opening the very first socialist-entitlement school systems ( mid-1800s to early 1900s) was a catastrophe. Curriculum and teacher training has always been under progressive control. While at first they offered up a lukewarm and generic Protestantism, the push has always been toward complete godless secularism. By the way, you know what Christ does with the lukewarm. He spits them out of His mouth.
Government socialist-entitlement schooling has **always** been an abomination.
Personally, I consider government schooling sooooooo evil and such a threat to our nation's freedom that I will NOT have a government teacher for a friend. They are too evil, too stupid, too much of a Useful Idiot, or are more committed to their paycheck than to their so-called “conservative” or “Christian” principles. Government teachers are hurting children every day that they cooperate with this evil system. I am done with them!
If conservatives and Christians **really** loved children they would do two things:
1) Work to see that every child in this nation has access to a non-Prussian style, **private***, conservative education that upholds Judeo/Christian values, and our nation's founding principles.
2) Work to see that every godless socialist-entitlement school in this nation is shut down and padlocked, and sold to the highest bidder. Many of them would make great nursing homes and rehab centers.
Vouchers, tax credits, and charters may help build the infrastructure needed, but the end goal must be complete separation of school and state on every level from pre-k to graduate school.
Douay Confraternity, 1961 vs. KJV 1989
1 Cor 10:16 - Eucharistic participation in the Body and Blood of Christ.
Catholics and a couple Protestant religions believe in the true presence in the Eucharist.
Most Protestant religions do not.
Hear, hear! I could mega-ditto every post of yours regarding our godless indoctrination camps.
Every government K-12 school in this nation is a temple of godless secular humanist indoctrination. If the child is to cooperate in the classroom he **must** think and reason godlessly. How could it be otherwise.
And...Some, here on Free Republic find it irritating that I use the words “all” and “every”. Well? ...If any one knows of a government owned and run K-12 school that is not godlessly secular ( by law) in its worldview, please send a link. (By the way,.... No one ever has.)
And...Every citizen pays for the government establishment of the religion of godless secular humanism. We pay through property taxes, rents, sales taxes, and indirectly through the higher prices on all goods by the taxes passed on to the consumer through business taxes.
All children whose parents can not ransom them ( jizya) from the government school are under the threat of armed police and court action to attend their godless secular humanist temple of indoctrination.
Recently, I made a decision. I will NOT have a government teacher for a friend. In my opinion, government schools are **that** evil, hurt children **that** much, and are **that** much of a threat to our nation continuing in freedom. Personally,...I am done with government teachers.
There but for the grace of God.........
But, you have your mind made up, public schools are evil, and produce nothing but godless morons. Don’t allow me to get in the way of your reality.
That is the reality of the public education system and it isn't getting any better. In some locales, the graduation rate is about half the student body and of those graduating, all it means is that they stuck it out, not that they were educated.
Considering the level of literacy I see in the product of the public education system, it's failing miserably and has been for decades.
Anyone who gets out reasonably intact needs to drop to their knees and thank God for protecting them through it all.
Witch burnings happened long before Salem and there was never any Scriptural justification for it. There is no where in Scripture that says burning at the stake is the way to deal with witches, not to mention that that was the OT Law, not the NT message of grace.
People didn't burn witches and others at the stake because of the Bible or religion, but because they were ignorant of it.
Government schooling is evil! So?....What does that make those people who **willingly** seek a job in it, uphold it, and establish it every day?
By the way,....Should a Christian and conservative **willingly** train for and seek a job in an abortion center? Should they collect the money, answer the phones, sterilize the instruments, order the supplies, and hand the instruments to the abortionist? Should they do this and they say, “Well..I sneak in a little Christianity to the workers and the clients once in a awhile! And...Once or twice in my career, I did talk a woman out of an abortion!”
Well...Godless government schooling **forces** children to think and reason godlessly. These kids must just to be compliant in the classroom. How could it not be? Personally, I call that evil.
Personally, for myself, I will **NOT** have a government teacher for a friend any more than I would have someone who worked in an abortion center for a friend. One place aborts little bodies, the other attempts to abort souls.
Well, if you have problems with what wikipedia stated, perhaps you could actually address them instead of just expressing derision over the source.
Do those rites and sects not exist within Catholicism?
Were they made up just to make Catholicism look bad?
What about the link to the FR post? You didn’t address that and that certainly is not wiki.
Are you familiar with ALL the sects and rites within Catholicism?
HEY!!! yourself.
Long time no see.
I’m doing fine. The diet of oats and chicken has done wonders for my cholesterol. I should live forever in this state of health. Like I’d want to on this diet.
I’ve talked to a lot of people and not one of them has a good feeling about how this year is going to fall out. The feeling is that a lot of end times scenarios are going to fall together and it’s going to go from bad to worse in fairly short order.
The good news is The Good News. Maybe all the bad news will make more people receptive to the Good News.
The fields are white for the harvest.
This is a strawman, a debating tactic used frequently by liberal/Marxists and government school defenders. Metmom said absolutely ***NOTHING ***of the kind! How can anyone defend a strawman of your creation?
But, you have your mind made up, public schools are evil,
What school did you attend that taught you to how to read metmom's heart and mind? Hm?
But...I will make eminently clear for you regarding **my** personal opinion of the government schools. It is evil to force children into indoctrination centers where just to cooperate with the godless classroom and godless curriculum they must think and reason godlessly. How could it be otherwise? It is evil for government to force citizens to pay for this abominable establishment of godless secular humanism.
Personally I consider it **evil** to force children ( all those whose parents can not pay the jizya to rescue them) into socialist schools where they risk learning to be comfortable with socialism! It is evil to force citizens to pay for the socialist conditioning of children.
Personally, I consider it sooooooo evil for the children, and such a threat to our nation's continuing freedom, that recently I have made a decision. I will NOT have a government teacher for a friend. I won't have people who work in abortion centers as friends either. In one case they abort little bodies. In the other case, they attempt to abort child's souls. Personally, I am DONE with government teachers. I feel that strongly about it.
So there! There will be no need for you to read my mind and heart or create strawman. I hope it is **clear** to you. That is my personal opinion about our nation's evil system of godless socialist schools.
Matt 16:18-19, “And I say to you, you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church,
http://biblos.com/matthew/16-18.htm
Petros - 4074 Petros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Petros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /petra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Petros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (petra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Petros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (petra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
************************************************************************************
petra - 4073 petra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Petros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (petra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
********************************************************************************
A weakness of English is that both words are translated as *rock* but in the Greek the distinction between the types is clearly seen.
Peter is not the bedrock that the church is built on. That tile belongs to Jesus as stated here in other passages....
************************************************************************************
Romans 9:33
as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
http://biblos.com/romans/9-33.htm
1 Peter 2:8
and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
http://biblos.com/1_peter/2-8.htm
Peter himself clearly identifies Jesus as the *petra* in his own epistle.
This big rock little rock nonsense is rather pitiful and dated.
I was busy with post #87, you might want to look...
Matt 16:18-19 rejects your assertion and highlights your lack of understanding.
“And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Iwill give your the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
So, what do you suppose is meant when Christ says “And I say to you, you are Peter....etc.”? How many people was Christ speaking to at that moment?
Infallibility applies only to ex-cathedra pronouncements on matters of faith and morals.
As for “infallible successors”...
Do you suppose Christ’s authority presented in 16:18-19, was meant to end with the life of Peter or the other Apostles? How meaningless would that be?
As for your weak opinion regarding the meaning of Timothy and your alleged “silence” regarding Peter’s authority, try these on for size:
Mt 16:18-19
Lk 22:32
Jn 21:17
Mk 16:7
Lk 24:34
Acts 1:13-26, 2:14, 2:41, 3:6-7, 5:1-11, 8:21, 10:44-46, 15:7, 15:19
Gal 2:11-14
Peter’s name ALWAYS heads the list of Apostles and occurs 195 times, more than all of the rest put together.
...off to teach Catholic Apologetics class tonight....
The OT law very clearly prohibits the eating of blood because the life is in the blood.
Jesus could NOT have drank of the cup of the new covenant if it had indeed turned into His blood because He then would have not been sinless, the perfect sacrifice.
Nor could He have remained guiltless if He had changed the wine into blood and demanded that the disciples drink it.
Peter himself in Acts said that he had never eaten anything unclean. That would include the Passover meal where Jesus instituted communion. If he had thought that cup contained blood, he would have not drank it as an observant Jew celebrating the passover.
Nor is God going to command anyone to break a Law He Himself established.
The cup is wine and the bread is wheat a symbolic representation of His body and blood.
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.