Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
Could you possibly be suggesting His mother wasn't there?
Let's compare your choice of Scripture with the corresponding Gospel accounts:
" And many women who followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him, were there looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons. " (Matthew 27:55-56)
" There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses, and Salome, who also followed Him and ministered to Him when He was in Galilee, and many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem. " (Mark 15:40-41)
Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him." (Mark 16:11)
" It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them, who told these things to the apostles." (Luke 24:10)
"Another Mary"?
2 TIMOTHY 3:
16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Please explain how "...the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." through Scripture if it is not sufficient?
You are adding things I didn’t say - reminds me of that church you have faith in. Deception breeds deception.
...You never disputed this point. I can understand that you do not accept the doctrine of infallibility, but it makes no sense for you to mindlessly repeat the falsehood that Catholics themselves did not believe this doctrine prior to 1870.
Fact: No Church Fathers EVER taught the doctrine of papal infallibilty. You can say it was implicit until you're blue in the face, but the fact that the Sixth Great Council, "universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or in errancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church." And that decision was ratified by two succeeding Ecumenical Councils, as well as subsequent Popes. You can claim the principle was operational since Christ, but your assertion is not backed up by any patristic evidence and it is flatly contradicted by the written historical evidence in the case of Honorius.
And btw I didn't say that no one believed in papal infallibility until 1870, so I did not repeat any falsehood as you falsely accuse me of doing. I merely stated the historical fact that the notion wasn't even introduced until hundreds of years after Honorius.
...Other than by Scripture, the Church does not define doctrine explicitly unless it is necessary to counter an heresy. Explicitly defined teachings are always based upon implicit teachings that have existed for many years or since the beginning of the Church. Petrine infallibility has been operational since it was established by Christ and exercised by Peter's early successors."
Apply the bolded part to the heresy promulaged by Honorius, in his official capacity as Pope, and the anathemas pronounced by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and watch your head spin. You can call me a reprobate if you want, but I don't like being called a liberal.
Cordially,
Why hinge all your argument upon noninfallible language of a secondary source.
You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're joking.
Cordially,
You are saying there is an ex cathedra definition of heresy Honorius' letter? Where exactly?
LOL. The hubris of Rome grows daily. It really is breath-taking.
Every time Christ referenced tradition, it was to denounce it. Every time Christ referenced Scripture, it was to elevate it to its rightful position of authority.
I doubt even the RCC catechism goes as far in defaming the Scriptures as some RC apologists on FR have done repeatedly.
To their peril.
" Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word." -- John 8:43
Thak you, excellent question. We don't always know
You got that right.
RCs can rationalize all they want, but the bottom line is that so many of their beliefs and practices contradict the word of God, as they have done for centuries.
Argument over. Rome loses.
Pope John XXII (1316-1334) went so far as to call it (papal infallibility) “…a work of the devil…the Father of Lies.” and in 1324 actually issued a papal bull condemning it as heresy.
Was this Pope considered a church father?
Let me know if you get an answer. It'd be interesting to hear how Catholics can reconcile the pronouncements of one pope ve another.
Which is *infallible* I wonder...
It’d be interesting to hear how Catholics can reconcile the pronouncements of one pope ve another.
“one pope over another” that is.
Wrong. This Encyclopedia article gives extensive proof of from Church Fathers and Scripture for Church and Papal infallibility:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
And btw I didn't say that no one believed in papal infallibility until 1870, so I did not repeat any falsehood as you falsely accuse me of doing. I merely stated the historical fact that the notion wasn't even introduced until hundreds of years after Honorius.
"No one?" I said you said Catholics as in the Catholic Church did not believe in infallibility prior to it explicit definition in 1870. Specifically, you said: "I first dispute its whole premise of ex post facto application of [ex cathedra] criterion that did not exist at the time." Ex cathedra criterion has been applied since the beginning of the Church. The popes have always had the last word when speaking ex cathedra and that word was law. Peter acted ex cathedra when he authorized results of the First Church Council in Jerusalem. Peter did not act ex cathedra when he Judaized by not taking meals with Gentiles at Antioch. That is why Peter accepted Paul's correction. The principle of ex cathedra was applied consistently in Scriptures, at the Sixth Council, and at Vatican I council where it was explicitly defined.
the Church does not define doctrine explicitly unless it is necessary to counter an heresy. Explicitly defined teachings are always based upon implicit teachings that have existed for many years or since the beginning of the Church. Petrine infallibility has been operational since it was established by Christ and exercised by Peter's early successors."
Apply the bolded part to the heresy promulaged by Honorius, in his official capacity as Pope, and the anathemas pronounced by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and watch your head spin.
Honorius passively approved heresy that originated from somebody else, like Peter Judaized at the instigation of others. In neither case did these popes define the heresy as doctrine. In both cases these errant popes were corrected by others in the Church.
Sounds like the democrats' revisionism as they re-interpret the Constitution. Whatever they say, goes.
mcpf: Take back your lie that the Church teaches Mary did not need the Savior to protect her from sin.
pnsn didn't say that she needed a savior to PROTECT her from sin.
Jesus doesn't *protect* us from sin, or anyone for that matter.
Jesus died to save us from the penalty of sin. For a church that teaches free will, I find that odd that they would look at it in that light.
Mary had free will to choose to sin or not, just like every other human being on this planet. Obviously SHE saw her need for a Savior. People who don't sin don't need one.
What Scripture in the Bible that the Catholic church takes responsibility for states that Mary was without sin? That she never sinned?
The only requirement for her in connection to Jesus was that she be a virgin through to His birth.
Everything else is irrelevant.
She didn't need to be always a virgin. She didn't need to be sinless.
I'll bet that her feet even touched the ground, unlike what I was told while in the Catholic church, that people so revered her that she never had to do anything and never had to walk anywhere, so her feet never touched the ground.
There has only been one sinless individual and that was Christ Himself...otherwise if Mary was truly sinless, as the catholic teachings attest to...then there would be no need for Jesus. She then would have gone to the cross and carried the sin of the world on her shoulders. But of course that did not happen for Mary was not sinless...the fact she died as all do testifies to this..”When sin is finished it brings forth death.” Mary died .. and she wasn’t crucified for anyones sin.
Mary testified that her spirit had rejoiced in her Savior before Christ was even born. Nobody else fits in that category.
What Scripture in the Bible that the Catholic church takes responsibility for states that Mary was without sin? That she never sinned?
This tradition was passed down from the Apostles who personally knew Mary. All Christians held this tradition until a few centuries ago. When did Protestants come to reject this universal Christian belief? It must have been after the time of Martin Luther:
Luther's Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527 It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin"
What is it about the Vatican mentality . . .
that just doesn’t GET Scripture’s clear exhortations, much less some very strong hints in Scripture???
Parables indeed . . . so the willfully blind WON’T get it.
sigh.
Think it was bull of 1324 entitled QUIA QUORUNDAM
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bullarium/qquor-e.html
For those who have not read, or have forgotten the Scripture:
JOHN 1:
40 One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
41 He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which means Christ).
42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).
Jesus had already named him "Peter" thus could not have re-named unless, of course, you are thinking of:
JOHN 21:
15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
16 A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.
Could it be that Jesus took Peter's "rockiness" away?
Further note that no place, nowhere, no how, does the Catholic Church identify "infallible" declarations of the Popes. The definition and defining of "Infallible" Papal declarations is a moving target. Do you have any doubt that this is deliberate?
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.