| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 09/27/2014 9:10:14 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Godwin’s Law |
Posted on 09/11/2014 11:19:06 AM PDT by Jan_Sobieski
The Catholics argue about the Apocrypha being scripture and why don’t the Protestants accept such AS such. That is another argument besides the unsettled controversies regarding mary. I don’t see how the one argument destroys the other...the argument is...there is nothing written down about the more exalted roles of Mary in the accepted compendiums of scripture from both the Catholic and/or the Protestant perspectives that at least had some type of legitimacy of origin...say by an apostle or by the authorship of Luke the physician.
Had any of the apocryphal scriptures had mentioned Mary, that might have made for a stronger claim for their legitimacy!
....”Introduction of new religion into existing cultural tradition will naturally result in blending of old and new”.....
That’s not what happened....
Vatican openly admits it embraces Babylon (Paganism)
“It is interesting to note how often our Church has availed herself of practices which were in common use among pagans...Thus it is true, in a certain sense, that some Catholic rites and ceremonies are a reproduction of those of pagan creeds”........... (The Externals of the Catholic Church, Her Government, Ceremonies, Festivals, Sacramentals and Devotions, by John F. Sullivan, p 156, published by P.J. Kennedy, NY, 1942)
“It has often been charged... that Catholicism is overlaid with many pagan incrustations. Catholicism is ready to accept that accusation - and even to make it her boast... the great god Pan is not really dead, he is baptized”.......... -The Story of Catholicism p 37
Cardinal Newman admits in his book that... “The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. ...........{374}” -An Essay on The Development of the Christian Doctrine John Henry “Cardinal Newman” p.359
The penetration of the religion of Babylon became so general and well known that Rome was called the “New Babylon.” -.........Faith of our fathers 1917 ed. Cardinal Gibbons, p. 106
“In order to attach to Christianity great attraction in the eyes of the nobility, the priests adopted the outer garments and adornments which were used in pagan cults.”’.......... -Life of Constantine, Eusabius, cited in Altai-Nimalaya, p. 94
“The Church did everything it could to stamp out such ‘pagan’ rites, but had to capitualet and allow the rites to continue with only the name of the local diety changed to some Christian saint’s name.”............. -Religious Tradition and Myth. Dr. Edwin Goodenough, Professor of Religion, Harvard University. p. 56, 57
In Stanley’s History, page 40:.......... “The popes filled the place of the vacant emperors at Rome, inheriting their power, their prestige, and their titles from PAGANISM.”
Once again proving that for a protestant, the order of the day is style over substance.
Let's clarify that the “it” is paganism symbols, rites/rituals, idols, shrines, practices and the like within the catholic church, so there's no misunderstanding of the “it “ you referenced.
It should be an issue for those within the church, those “contemplating” joining Catholicism, and those outside the church as well.... Because..... God makes it an issue throughout the scriptures.
You or anyone else saying these are not “issues” with the catholic faith does not make it non-issue because you say so. God has purposely addressed these “issues” in the scriptures and we are not to do as catholics do regarding these.
You claim that.. “Christ is central in Catholicism ....but your practices etc. and denials of 'speak louder' than your words....as does your dogma. As for Jesus becoming a wafer in your eucharistic rite..... The Scriptural warning in Mt.24 applies...
..... He doesn’t put His power or grace in inanimate objects..... Christ is localized in a body sitting at the right hand of God........ Are we really to take seriously that we actually eat the Lord, that he is transmuted into a by product just like food is in our body.......He does not become many little wafers or bodies, being called down from heaven by a priest to be ingested and come out the digestive track....... This is like the Hindu view of pantheism and is of a pagan influence that God dwells in inanimate objects.
The argument is more fundamental than that. If one is unwilling or unable to distinguish between worship, adoration and honor; words with distinct and different meanings then how can they be trusted to give a faithful interpretation of any text whether it be Sacred Scripture or the phone book.
The protestant conflates these terms to mean the same thing when they do not. Such a fundamental error in exegesis casts serious doubt on their understanding of the text. Its born of either two things: laziness or inherent bias from a conclusion-selective interpretation. I suspect it is the latter.
But to answers your comment more directly, the assumption (based on the inherent bias) is that Sacred Scripture is the only source of authority when it has been demonstrated it is not. Sacred Scripture (what was written) and Sacred Tradition (what was done), neither superseding the other, are the pillars of the Truth of Christianity, the Deposit of the Faith. By amputating the one (tradition) the Protestant does a disservice to the other (scripture).
So, as a Catholic, I would put the question to you: Why would I do that? Why would I play in your sandbox, a construct of your own mind where the perimeter is solely defined by how you interpret Sacred Scripture when you won't even give proper due to the definition of terms?
No, it ALL comes down to how God sees it and says about it according to His written word....not how man wants it to be otherwise according to his own traditions and/or all the ‘add ons’ Catholicism may want to attach in order to justify false practices and rituals.
...”for a protestant, the order of the day is style over substance”.....
For a Christian it’s about substance without forgetting style too has it’s place. Jesus taught using both...
In the interest of clarification let's clarify further. Are you saying that rites are inherently pagan? Would that include the rite of baptism and marriage? Or are some okay and others not based on personal preference? Furthermore, doesn't there have to be a finding of fact before one can label something an idol? Last time I checked an idol is a representation of a deity. So did you find that there are indeed deities within a Catholic Church that are being worshipped? Or perhaps that is an assumption on your part?
You or anyone else saying these are not “issues” with the catholic faith does not make it non-issue because you say so. God has purposely addressed these “issues” in the scriptures and we are not to do as catholics do regarding these.
So what is this? The majority of one argument? I say it's an issue so it is one and must be given serious consideration and addressed? Don't we see this mentality in the secular world, particularly with liberals and their phony issues, "don't mock me. This is SERIOUS!" To the second part it all hinges on how you interpret scripture, doesn't it?
You claim that.. “Christ is central in Catholicism ....but your practices etc. and denials of 'speak louder' than your words....as does your dogma. As for Jesus becoming a wafer in your eucharistic rite.....
I'll get to your scripture quotation in a second (I'm assuming you meant MT 24:23-24), but I can't help but notice you really don't have much to say on the actual doctrines and teachings of the Church. I have to ask, is that because you can't address them on those merits because if did you wouldn't have much to say on the issue so you use the paganism "issue" as a back door to taint the Eucharist?
As for your scriptural warning, putting aside your errant interpretation, let us assume for the moment (from your point of view) That the Eucharist is actually Jesus, made present. What would be your response and would it be idolatry? Would it be false?
Are you claiming to be an authority on how God sees things? That your interpretation of scripture jives with God's vision? Which "add-ons" are you referring to? The teachings of the Church or these externalities that you seem hung up on? And if you are in possession of the pure faith, unencumbered by "add-ons" then that should be sufficient, should it not? Then what are you doing here spinning tales of paganistic rituals and secret goddess worship?
Don't miss the forest for the trees.
Just as long as it doesn't have a pagan origin, right? It taints everything it touches. I'll remember that the next time I see protestants taking advantage of successful secular advertising slogans and incorporating them into their Christian message. I suppose one could argue that secular doesn't necessarily mean pagan, but in this day and age who would argue that? Or perhaps the act of incorporation isn't as heinous as its being portrayed here.
I can see that I made it personal in my post when I said that he/she would be held accountable. This would have been clearer anyway:
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self- control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
We can judge “style” by the fruit it produces. Christ himself had no “style” since he was not “comely that men should desire him”.
It is not about style vs. substance....it is about form vs. function! Christ was not some beautiful earthly being yet he took our sins upon himself...proving he was perfect in function!
1 Corinthians 7:1-5
1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Kinda upsets the applecart that Catholicism has created by it's non-biblical picture it paint's of Mary: the mother of Jesus.
Paul seems to have known a little about PASSION...
1 Corinthians 7:8-9
But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Nonsense. Mary does not have that kind of power. The HOLY SPIRIT does! That is HIS job.
This is just another perfect example of Catholic deifying Mary.
Give 'em a break!
It was posted late Sunday.
Today starts a new week.
Baloney.
That's just fairy tales and fables.
Show us where Jesus ever taught that.
Where is the chapter and verse for that from Scripture?
The dictionary meanings of those words overlap each other. Simple observation of facial expressions and body language when churches have the signs of the cross made at them or when statues are bowed down to reveals to an observer what most ordinary Catholics are doing! They are paying homage, showing special respect, showing adoration, showing reverence and piety...they are worshipping! Do you think Christ died on the cross just so men could then form images of himself or of Mary so that men should again be in bondage to images of stone and wood? I conflate nothing...you are in denial!
There is no doubt in my mind that you believe that this is what the Catholic Church teaches.
Please cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church to support your belief.
By the same logic, Protestants worship beds when they kneel before them.
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.