Posted on 02/26/2014 9:49:13 AM PST by Dr. Thorne
Following are my notes on a sermon that I preached shortly after I was converted from the Catholic Church back in 1962. It was the first sermon that I preached. Introduction:
In this lesson I want to state some of the reasons I left the Catholic Church. I do not wish to state any of the personal experiences I had as result of leaving. I will mention, though, that I came from a large, devout Catholic family of twelve children. I attended Trinity High School in Louisville, Kentucky. At the time of my intense Scriptural study, I had two brothers who were enrolled in Catholic seminaries studying to be priests. I also want to state I did not leave the Catholic Church because of some evil that I had done or that was done to me. I left the Catholic Church because I came to believe that it was contrary to the Bible. This I will endeavor to show in this study.
(Excerpt) Read more at bible.ca ...
Many in fact do pray to Mary,In fact the Pope called her a Co-Redeemer with Christ.Equal to Jesus in every way.
ping for later.
What`s the difference...respectfully .
It is suggested clearly that you are addressing Mary to ask her to contact Jesus on your behalf, its the same thing
Could you point me to the Scriptures that instruct us to do so?
Thankfully, for the sake of the other Catholcs, this man left the Church, in the 60’s.
Thankfully, for his sake, it is also likely he may return to the Church.
After all, protestant pastors are often the first to realize their church looks nothing like the Early Church.
A pastor’s sermons so often must include what Jesus is,
“ ‘really’ saying “.
John 6, can become exhausting to overcome, when faced with its staggering clarity. It’s after all entirely loaded with that stinkin’ “Romanism”, and then it’s backed up by those Early Fathers, so steeped in that exacting early oral tradition. I mean, yikes.
Then the Old Testament must need be handled with caution, for its foreshadowing of Jewish practices to be fulfilled in the New Testament, of which Jesus Christ Himself continued in. Jewish Tradition has to be a bummer given the exacting commands of God for the practices of those strange, People of God.
Individual interpretation can eventually just become to darn hard to unite around, so enjoy your man there, who left the Church, while you have him. He may not be able to remain so truncated. Or, sadly, maybe he will.
Thanks for providing a tiny bit of balance on these threads.
ditto
Curious...
What part of John 6:44 or 6:65 has any “Romanism” in it?
Can you narrow your point down a bit?
Can of corn sermon, no problem at all. The problem with the 'stinkin’ “Romanism”,' is the typical Roman habit of creating teaching out of nothing. 'This is' turned into transubstantiation. In the upper room where Christ instituted the sacrament both the bread and the cup. Rome has changed that.
Your best guess— go with that.
You apparently won't be getting any 'cooperation' there.
Transubstantiation.
I’ll give you that. Is that not the most cumbersome use of syllables ever?
Once upon a time our differences were merely doctrinal, since the 1930 Lambeth Conference the difference also became ethical. Perhaps this multi-ethical situation was inevitable, considering the source. However it has lead us to a point where the ethos of the pro-sodomy crowd is trumping the ethos of the authentically Christian crowd. History seems to be God's winnowing fan.
On the contrary, Rome has sustained the original, unless of course you believe that the Holy Spirit was NOT present in Christ’s Holy Church until Martin Luther and John Calvin came along.
Must be a class for theologians, Syllabic Cumbersome Constructions 101.
Okay...nothing. No wonder God brought about the Reformation: Rome could not read the Book they claimed to have delivered to the world (choke).
To illustrate what I mean by this, I will explain the difference in the two sides. Those with the right attitude toward the truth are always willing to test what they teach with others. They invite those of opposite views to work together for truth and unity. They appreciate when those who differ with them point out where they think they are wrong. They have everything thoroughly tested, studying arguments both for and against, looking at both sides of the question.
Those with the wrong attitude toward the truth are not willing to test what they teach in fair and open discussion, privately or publicly. They do not invite others to point out where they think they are wrong, and do not appreciate when others try to do so. They won't allow their members to hear both sides of an issue, and especially they don't want them to examine opposing arguments.
I'm easily the most anti-Catholic poster on this forum, but this argument is simply ridiculous.
Protestants engage in this type of dialogue because by its very nature Protestantism is trying to reconstruct a long-lost "true religion," and anybody's guess is as good as anyone else's. Since Catholicism holds that no truth has been lost and no reconstruction is necessary, you can't expect it to have this same attitude. Furthermore to Catholics the concept of "church" is very different from the Protestant one. The Catholic Church, rather than any Biblical interpretation, is the unerring source of all truth. Asking a Catholic to question the teachings of the Catholic Church is like asking a Fundamentalist Protestant to question total Biblical inerrancy. And I'm a huge critic of Catholics' lousy attitude toward Biblical inerrancy!
Furthermore, this is a very strange attitude for a theological conservative of any kind to hold. Does the author really think Fundamentalist Protestants spend their time questioning their most cherished and sincerely held beliefs, or that such an attitude is a natural one for a religious conservative of any kind? Shoot, I've never found any chrstian, Catholic or Protestant, who is willing to even consider the possibility that the True Religion was complete at the giving of the Torah and that a later "fulfillment" a la chrstianity it unnecessary and uncalled-for.
Catholic FReepers, mark today down as a red-letter day.
Really, does the Catholic church have the and the cup for the laity?
Interesting; this is one of the very, very few I’ve ever read where the one who left the Catholic church was not essentially an unchurched ethnic Catholic who spouted absurd nonsense the Church never taught.
In this case, although the Catholic positions are expressed poorly, at least they represent reasonably what a Catholic might actually believe. Sure, an apologist could rip to shreds the Protestant objections, but at least it’s a legitimate debate instead of nonsensical claims of worshipping statues, etc.
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.