Posted on 12/28/2019 11:42:34 PM PST by Jyotishi
Done that — I think you should study the Bible as well.
If you did, you’d be in orthodoxy, i.e. Catholic.
Let’s begin with the deconstruction of your assumption. Your beliefs 1,500 years of universal (katholikos, “Catholic”) Christian doctrine and history.
1. the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a *traditional* doctrine superimposed onto Sacred Scripture, which therefore defeats itself.
2. did the Sacred Scriptures float down from the clouds? God inspired their writing, He came to earth as one of us in the Person of Jesus Christ, didn’t write a book by His own hand but established a Church founded on the foundation of 12 apostles, and then this Church (led and protected by the Holy Spirit) collected the books and determined which ones were inspired by God. For 300 years before the full canon of Sacred Scripture was determined, though of course Christians were reading them, Christians were mostly worried about how to worship God (hint: it wasn’t a Baptist, low-church praise and worship service) and how to live their lives for Christ. In the early 2nd century, St. Justin Martyr outlines what Christian worship looked like to a pagan, and it looks (surprise, surprise) like a Catholic Mass. Meanwhile, for 1,500 years, Christians used the 73 books of Sacred Scripture (give or take), until the Protestant Reformers decided it would be convenient to go with the alternative Jerusalem Canon. Note: the Jerusalem Canon is not “bad” in and of itself, but part of the impetus for determining the Jerusalem Canon with its particular criteria for Sacred Scripture was because the Jewish authorities were tired of Christians (Jewish “heretics” and Gentile interlopers) using certain passages to speak about Christ. And, again, for vast centuries before Martin Luther, if you asked a Christian if the Book of Wisdom was a part of the Bible, they would say, “Of course!” On what scriptural basis do you claim to go against 1,500 years of Christian sensibility?
3. In Acts 19:11-12, the Christians “worship” — or so you would describe it - relics of St. Paul
4. In John 6, Christ tells people they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life in them (the one passage you may say is figurative, loose sense, contrary to the language in that passage itself and the earliest Christian writings onward which describe the Eucharist as being the Real Presence of Jesus Christ).
5. In John 20:21–23, Jesus breathes on the apostles and tells them they can forgive or bind sins.
6. In Genesis 27, Isaac objectively blesses Jacob and cannot therefore bless Esau in the same way (corresponding to the Catholic vision that things can be objectively given and aren’t just “symbols” or gesture-words).
7. 1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism saves us.
8. 1 John 5:16 distinguishes between sin which “leads to death” and sin which “does not lead to death”.
9. Our Lord in Matthew 5:25-26 uses a parabolic image to describe something that sounds like purgatory, and St. Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 speaks to the possibility of someone being saved, though his work isn’t saved, “only through fire”.
your various oversimplistic objections to the Catholic Faith fall down. “Don’t make graven images”, except that after God gave this solemn commandment, He gave the plans for a tabernacle tent which included *images* of angels on the tapestries (making it clear that images themselves weren’t the issue). “But but but, indulgences!” — except that this subject is completely misunderstood, and although there were corrupt bishops and priests more than happy to be heretics, low-lifes, and sharks, this doesn’t address the truth of what the Church teaches.
If one wants to live the Christian Faith as our ancestors in the Faith did, one ultimately comes into full communion with the Catholic Church (which, by the way, despite the anger expressed here, extends beyond the “Roman” Catholic Church, which even in a generous interpretation of that slur is only one of the numerous Rites in the Catholic Church). We Catholics love and pray for our non-Catholic brothers and sisters — we see them as “separated brethren” — and we hope one day that we can all come to fulfill our Lord’s desire in His prayer in John 17: that we all be as one, as He and the Father are one.
Firstly - it ain’t a denomination - your own groups is a sub-sub-sub-split of a split of a sub-denomination that split from orthodoxy.
Secondly, the thief on the cross - do you know if he wasn’t baptised earlier during Jesus year long ministry when many were baptised? He knew Jesus had done nothing wrong, that Jesus was Lord, and that Jesus was going to his kingdom after he died (something Jesus made clear only to his disciples—see Matthew 13:10-11). It is possible, then, that the thief on the cross was a fallen-away disciple (cf. Matt. 27:44) who repented on the cross. If so, it’s likely that he would have been baptized.
Thirdly, the thief clearly had baptism of desire. He was willing to do whatever it took to align himself with Jesus and be saved; For those who have died of natural causes (including illness) with the desire but not the opportunity to be baptized we trust in the just judgement and mercy of our Lord who is the only one who knows the true heart and intentions. We believe that our Lord is not limited to this, and is free to make exceptions as He knows it is just, but since baptism is something He explicitly commanded we also believe that we must make every effort within our reach to carry it out. (The same mindset is held for those who have never heard the Gospel)
Christians always understood baptism differently from what you believe,
We christians hold that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.
Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that “he and his wife were baptized,” but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.
And I can post what various non-Catholics post and say the same - it’s nonsensical.
Furthermore, what you posted is factually false. Catholics are not “in subjection to the Pope” - can you detail where you believe this to be the case?
If Frankie says we should be ecologically friendly, that don’t make it a rule for any Catholic. It’s advice but not a rule
Be original - nah, I’ll refer to the Bible and not be using 19th century created beliefs as in your posts.
“I think you should study the Bible as well.
“If you did, you’d be in orthodoxy, i.e. Catholic.”
No reading the bible leads to Christianity not Catholicism.
“Let’s begin with the deconstruction of your assumption. Your beliefs 1,500 years of universal (katholikos, “Catholic”) Christian doctrine and history.”
I don’t know what that means and what it has to do with me.
The rest of your block of text seems to be a bunch of Catholic indoctrination and makes my eyes glaze over.
More gibberish that does not address any of my posts.
“Firstly - it ain’t a denomination - your own groups is a sub-sub-sub-split of a split of a sub-denomination that split from orthodoxy.”
Wow!
It is a denomination.
Period.
sub sub sub sub NONSENSE!
Your assumptions of my beliefs is ludicrous.
“My own groups”?
False premise, what foolishness do you have next?
Sorry, I am not interested in your doctrine of indoctrination.
If you love being a Catholic, fine with me.
I prefer Christianity.
Today I talked to a lady and asked her if she was a Christian and she said No, I am a Catholic.
I shared some truths from the Bible and she seemed receptive to Christianity.
I will see her next week and see if she wants to be a Christian instead of a Catholic.
I love being Christian in the fullness of the relationship with Christ and that is only in orthodoxy - in the Catholic or Orthodox or Oriental or Assyrian Churches — I’ll grant that the Lutherans and the Anglicans come (or came) very close with their belief in the True Presence
The Holy Spirit sure isn’t flowing within the College of Cardinals; hasn’t been in some time for that matter imo. Either a tragedy or “Divine Comedy” depending on your emotional attachment to the fallible institution/creatures running around the Vatican.
This proves you have had no discernment. Everyone else saw this at the beginning.
And no wisdom.
The commie is literally an anti-Christ.
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.