Posted on 01/23/2014 9:29:40 PM PST by NKP_Vet
1. Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the history of Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy.
2. Alternate: I am a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, that Catholicism is true, and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church divinely-established by our Lord Jesus, against which the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail (Mt 16:18), thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to submit.
3. 2nd Alternate: I left Protestantism because it was seriously deficient in its interpretation of the Bible (e.g., "faith alone" and many other "Catholic" doctrines - see evidences below), inconsistently selective in its espousal of various Catholic Traditions (e.g., the Canon of the Bible), inadequate in its ecclesiology, lacking a sensible view of Christian history (e.g., "Scripture alone"), compromised morally (e.g., contraception, divorce), and unbiblically schismatic, anarchical, and relativistic. I don't therefore believe that Protestantism is all bad (not by a long shot), but these are some of the major deficiencies I eventually saw as fatal to the "theory" of Protestantism, over against Catholicism. All Catholics must regard baptized, Nicene, Chalcedonian Protestants as Christians.
4. Catholicism isn't formally divided and sectarian (Jn 17:20-23; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10-13).
5. Catholic unity makes Christianity and Jesus more believable to the world (Jn 17:23).
6. Catholicism, because of its unified, complete, fully supernatural Christian vision, mitigates against secularization and humanism.
7. Catholicism avoids an unbiblical individualism which undermines Christian community (e.g., 1 Cor 12:25-26).
8. Catholicism avoids theological relativism, by means of dogmatic certainty and the centrality of the papacy.
(Excerpt) Read more at ourcatholicfaith.org ...
Do you actually believe that the word ekklesia translates to the definition of “church” that the Catholics use? The Greek word ekklesia never once was used for organizations like the RCC.
It’s rather stunning to watch the denials isn’t it?
Yes that’s for sure.
The same problem happens with Mormons, if a poster knows more about their belief system then they do they really hate you.
Most of those reasons apply to Eastern Orthodox, the original church, not the Roman spin-off!
Well Genesis 3:15 is the first prophecy given in the Word, so in reality it does not seem all that bizarre some might make a doctrine over the prophecy.
Maybe when I have more computer time I will take the time to 'search' out your find. I simply do not have the time to look to see what doctrines people use to establish a church. And the peoples I encounter are the run of the mill modern liberal Catholics and Baptists, WWJD bracelet wearing, asking 'are you saved'?. These call themselves born again and are all packed up for the first flight out of here before the bad stuff starts happening Christians. And sprinkled in these I encounter daily are a few of other protesting denominations that have their own organized by man script. None of them would even know about Genesis 3:15 and that Parable of the Sower, Christ Himself taught.
Then there are the disinterested people in anything to do with God and His Word that warns as it instructs as to what to be expecting as this flesh age winds down. Their attitude regarding the Creator is they do not see anything good about letting your own son be crucified. And they believe people have rights to be perverts and the algore doctrine of global warming has as much credibility as anything to be found in a Book as old as time itself. Why even God elected His holy prophets to foretell what would be the mindset of the majority at the end of days.
After all it is Written IITimothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction
for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Our good works are the only things any of us take with us when we return to meet our Maker.
Amen. In this verse the Lord tells us exactly who he is, and that he existed long before Mary:
"...and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced..." (Zec 12:8-13)
The modern catholic versions I have read (NAB, NRSVCE,) change the highlighted word to "him" or "the one" to assist in their continuing efforts to marginalize the divinity of Christ. The 1899 Douay Rheims, on the other hand, applies the original translation of :"
". . .and they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced." (DRA)
John also explained that Jesus is God the Father:
"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." (John 1:10)
The new-fangled Catholic versions also detract from the simplicity that is found in that original.
That said, I do believe Mary was a great and humble woman, who was blessed by God above all other women.
Philip
LOL! I really didn't know. I guess I never thought about anyone corrupting the scriptures that much :)
That said, I looked up the DRA translation of the Hebrews 12 passage, and, sure enough, the part about the church is missing:
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant . . ." (Heb 12:22-24, DRA)
"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, theheavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant . . . " (Heb 12:22-24, KJV)
Unbelievable! I guess if the Word of God doesn't fit, change it to make it fit! That sounds like something Scofield would do: not a "real" church.
Anyway, thanks for the heads-up.
Philip
Yes, I agree---the scriptural Mary---Luke 1:28
“Most of those reasons apply to Eastern Orthodox, the original church, not the Roman spin-off”
You have that backwards.
“Vlad, are you saying the 10 verses I quoted were not references to the Church?”
I’m saying the verses you posted had nothing to do with what I said. What you denied (about what I said) was in no way supported by what you posted.
“If so, that is the most wierd of all the wierd things you have said. What “bible” are you reading?”
First, maybe you should learn how to spell the word “weird” if you’re going to use it twice in a single sentence. Second, no matter what Bible you use, the verses you posted in no way, shape or form support your denial of the truth. I think that’s why you didn’t even try to make an actual argument with them. You posted verses, yes. You made no argument with them. And they in now way negate the truth.
This was the some total of your argument:
“This is his Bride, the Church:...This is the location:...
This is the temple:”
And that’s it. The verses you posted with those 14 words in no way amounted to any argument against what I said. So, what public school did you attend?
“And that’s your justification for using the word “church” in place of ekklesia in scripture?”
I made no justification for I need none. Every English translator of any note or recognized ability used the word “church” because it is universally recognized by English speakers. If you have a problem with the English language - which wouldn’t surprise me - that’s entirely your problem.
“Did I not say that the RCC has corrupted the meaning of scripture?”
Would it matter if you did? I have no reason to believe your opinion amounts to much.
“Thank you for proving my point.”
If your point was that anti-Catholics are embarrassingly dumb, it’s certainly been proven.
What's this about worshiping Mary? Surely bowing down to am image of someone in Heaven and beseeching them to intercede would not consistent worship in Scripture!
What's this about attributing to Mary attributes of God?"
It should be kept in mind that my objection is not to Mary being honored as the holy chosen vessel to bring forth Christ, or even to allowing Gn. 3:15 to refer to Mary, but to the excess ascriptions, appellations, exaltation, and adoration (and the manner of exegesis behind it), ascribed to the Catholic Mary, whether officially or by Catholics (with implicit sanction of authority), and which uniqueness and exaltation parallels that of Christ:
For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,
as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;
as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;
as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);
as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);
as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);
as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;
as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”
as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”
as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;
as Christ is highly exalted above all under the Father, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and as having a certain equality with the Heavenly Father;
as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;
as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;
as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”
as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;
and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!
Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.
In addition, although (technically) Mary is not to be worshiped in the same sense that God is worshiped, yet the distinctions between devotion to Mary and the worship of God are quite fine, and much due to the psychological appeal of a heavenly mother (especially among those for whom Scripture is not supreme), then the historical practice of Catholics has been to exalt Mary above that which is written. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "By the sixteenth century, as evidenced by the spiritual struggles of the Reformers, the image of Mary had largely eclipsed the centrality of Jesus Christ in the life of believers." (Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, revised and updated; NY: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987, pp.32,33)
The practice of praying to departed saints and Mary was one that developed, helped by pagan influences, for Scripture provides no example of any believer praying to anyone in Heaven by the Lord, and reveals that doing otherwise was a practice of pagans, including to the “Queen of Heaven.” (Jer. 44:17,18,19,25). The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that a further reinforcement of Marian devotion, “was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...,” (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary) Yet, as expected, it imagines this practice came from the apostles and NT church, but which never exampled or instructed it, and instead showed that the believer has immediate access to God in the Divine Christ, (Heb. 10:19), who is the all sufficient and immediate intercessor between God (the Father) and man. (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16) To the glory of God
Sample of some Catholic ascriptions to Mary
In a rare instance of a mild form of reproof of excessive Marian exaltation, no less a devotee of Mary than Cardinal Ratzinger at least recognized that the title “Co-redemptrix” “departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” (see comments on Co-redemptrix below), Yet as regards Scripture, this is also true of other aspects of Catholic exaltation of Mary, which depart too greatly from the sober and balanced descriptions given of Mary in Scripture, showing how she was a holy saint and a virgin, but not going beyond into the extremes of Catholic devotion, in which the Roman Catholic apologists add to their transgressions in their attempts to find support from Scripture by many unwarranted extrapolations, which the list below examples. See more at The Mary of Catholicism
“Apparently, Vlad doesn’t believe these are references to the Church, the Lamb’s Bride:”
I never said I don’t “believe these are references to the Church, the Lamb’s Bride”. It’s amazing how anti-Catholics always resort to lying. No verse you posted in any way had anything to do with what you were denying.
>>>First, maybe you should learn how to spell the word “weird” if you’re going to use it twice in a single sentence. <<<
Not the dreaded spelling police? Horrors!
“Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.” [John 6: 49-71]
“...and beseeching them to intercede would not consistent worship in Scripture!”
Illiterate cut-n-paste. Sad.
>>>Second, no matter what Bible you use, the verses you posted in no way, shape or form support your denial of the truth. I think that’s why you didn’t even try to make an actual argument with them. You posted verses, yes. You made no argument with them. And they in now way negate the truth.<<<
I see. So, Catholics really do believe that the real Church is on heavenly mount Sion and not in Vatican City? My apologies.
On second thought, if that is true, why did Catholics remove the word “church” from the Hebrews 12 reference.
Philip
Oh stick around! You will begin to understand just how much Catholics and Mormons corrupt scripture.
>> Unbelievable! I guess if the Word of God doesn't fit, change it to make it fit!<<
LOL Put on your full armor and make sure you are prayed up with the help of the Holy Spirit around here. The phrase “I believe in Jesus” doesn’t even mean the same thing to a Moron as it does in scripture. Their Jesus is a brother of Satan only Satan was bad and didn’t get a body and Jesus was good and got one.
>> Anyway, thanks for the heads-up.<<
That’s why we are here. Glad to see you here as well. You’ve been an asset.
I don’t know as there are any dumb anti-Catholics here. I do believe they can all speak. Surely that wasn’t another example of poor understanding of words was it?
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.