Not unlike the rabbit hole of arguing with a protestant and their own personal interpretation of scripture. I saw that movie:
Posted on 09/27/2014 11:05:41 AM PDT by Gamecock
What you see is what you see...
Yes, that would be more than a healthy start at having reasonable debate and discussion.
It does seem the outrage heightens early on for some, who don't have an understanding or much familiarity with scripture, rather resort to the catechism and other “traditions” they are familiar with...which they often find difficult to support with scripture.
...Others use various tactics to twist the scriptures or layer other works with it, as is the nature of catholicism overall. So it can be a frustrating endeavor for many when it comes to defending their stance....which eventually plays itself out with the out-rage we see.
I think when you "believe" what you've been told needs to be believed in order to "belong".....over that which you "Know" to be truth, because you have discovered with the Lord and His word that it is true,......the approach to a debate or discussion is bound to become combative rather than that of seeking what IS the truth about a topic. For one side is defending a church the other is defending the truth.
I'm afraid not. Because protestants do not recognize the authortity of Sacred Tradition and rip it out of the Deposit of the Faith there really can't be any reasoned discussion on the matter. Sola Scriptura is a novelty of the reform movement and to suggest that any matter of debate within Christianity hinges solely upon Sacred Scripture is a fool's errand. But we'll go at it nonetheless.
Which is another reason why I do not debate protestants purely on scriptural grounds. Why should I play in their sandbox? Which is essentially a construct of their own mind whose parameters can be altered at any moment. That is the end result of having absolutely no authority.
So they can quote chapter and verse to me, or request chapter and verse but it doesn't mean anything if one is not willing to accept the authority of the Word beyond the text.
P.S.: There is no separation between The Church and The Truth. They are the same thing. More false bifurcation.
Really???
Because I've heard plenty of non-Catholics talk about that.
The difference is, that by saying *blessed* we don't presume it to mean a whole passel of things that are not supported by the context.
It was a great honor to be the one chosen to carry the Messiah. I've heard it was the dream of every Jewish girl to fulfill that role.
So yes, it was a blessing. But it does not make her into a sinless, immaculately conceived, never died, perpetual virgin.
He did. He sent the HOLY SPIRIT. HE did not send the church. He builds the church.
That's correct. He is building His body, ONE church, who encompasses all the church age. It is not a denomination, it is a body of believers. There are believers and unbelievers in every denomination. The only difference is in the ratio. Some churches are going to have more believers than unbelievers.
Certain priests may be sinners; popes may be wicked, but the trust is in the Holy Spirit to guide us through the Church (which Jesus said he was going to build).
The Holy Spirit guides individual believers through His word as He enlightens them to the truth found in it.
A person's opinion of who is a Christian and who is not, based on behavior is not an authoritatively binding decision.
It's simply a person's opinion.
What it seems that Catholics fail to realize is the distinction between claiming to be born again and living in unrepentant sin, having evidenced NO change in their lives that indicates a new birth despite having claimed to make a decision for Christ, and struggling with sin in their lives, which we all do.
Well, the RM certainly has called us to have a thick skin and he has the power to boot people off the thread, so the advice is good.
Besides, I do believe Jesus addressed the thin skin issue as well
Matthew 5:38-39 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
So try again to tell us how Jesus said we didn't need a thick skin.....
Yup!
You don't work to earn your salvation, you don't work to keep your salvation.
It's interesting that in your list of sins you include skipping church and equate it to murder and adultery, in sins that you apparently think would send you to hell.
Well, this is a fine time to use the line that Catholics LOVE to use concerning their pederast priests.
The church is full of sinners.
They're just human like the rest of us.
Boys will be boys.
Nobody is perfect.
Or does all that only apply to priests who molest children?
If Catholic priests get a pass on sin like the reprehensible sin they commit and are still permitted to function as priests in Catholicism after committing abominable sin like that, they why should the laity be treated any different?
IOW, only Catholics priests can forgive sin?
SO when Scripture tells us this.....
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Are you telling us that John is lying about how we're forgiven? And where is there a mention of going to a priest or penance in that verse?
Or anywhere in Scripture for that matter?
BTW, you can come back at any time, and I believe, down the road, that might happen. Just sit down with a priest and get your questions and misunderstandings answered and/or clarified.
There is no misunderstanding.
God forgives our sins Himself. He promised that He would do it.
When He does, they are forgiven, remembered no more, separated from us as far as the east is from the west, thrown into the sea of forgetfulness.
We are secure in Him because that is also what HE promised.
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 10:25-30 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.”
1 Corinthians 1:4-8 I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus,that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge—even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you—so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Corinthians 1:21-22 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
2 Corinthians 5:4-8 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.
Ephesians 1:13-14 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Colossians 3:3 For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
1 Peter 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3156607/posts?page=313#313
2 Corinthians 1:21-22 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
For which the Greek, from the Byzantine, is:
2Corinthians 1:21-22 ο δε βεβαιων ημας συν υμιν εις χριστον και χρισας ημας θεος ο και σφραγισαμενος ημας και δους τον αρραβωνα του πνευματος εν ταις καρδιαις ημων
The first word in bold above is “bebaion,” the idea of confirmation, frequently used in commercial settings to confirm a bargain. Which of course makes sense of the remaining terms used here, which are also elements of a secured contract.
The second word in bold above is “sphragisamenos,” being sealed is to be marked by the signature, signet ring, or other unique proof of identity, that we belong to God, and this sealing is done by God, who is the one taking action in this verse. We do not and cannot seal ourselves. We do not, by our own powers, have access to God’s “signet ring.”
The third bolded word above is “arrabona,” and indicates what we might loosely refer to as earnest money, but in Hebrew culture conveys more the idea of a pledge of covenant, a security given as a guarantee that the deal will go through, though we only receive part payment at the beginning. See ערב for the related Hebrew stem indicating “pledge.”
<<<<......”Because protestants do not recognize the authortity of ‘Sacred Tradition’.... chapter and verse (Scripture)to me, doesn’t mean anything if one is not willing to accept the authority of the Word ‘beyond the text’.......>>>>>>
The Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus about that very thing saying..... “Why don’t your disciples live according to ‘the tradition of the elders’?
Jesus replied, ( note: Jesus using scripture)...... “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: ......”These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me....They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules”......
He then continues.....”You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to ‘human traditions’....How nobly you act!... setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!..... (Imposing “your” traditions ‘as equal’ in authority to the laws of God).......Thus.... ‘you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down’. (Mark 7)
No it's not.
You have an opinion.
As a result, the individual has been declared excommunicate and removed from the society of Christians. Separated from Jesus by consensus. And so by what authority do protestant claim to declare someone a non-Christian?
Expressing an opinion about whether you think someone is a Christian or not is not authoritatively binding.
God is the One who knows who are His, human opinion notwithstanding.
Catholics need to learn to think outside their little Catholic box.
In the end it's not about whether authority exists. Even protestants recognize a modicum of terrestial magisterial authority is necessary since they practice it (although they won't call it that). The issue is where it exists. Peter or Luther. Jesus gave the command to Peter, not to Luther. The Petrine Office is Supreme.
Why drag Luther into it? This is a perfect example of the little Catholic box thinking that Catholics are so stuck in.
It is clearly beyond their comprehension that non-Catholics do NOT see Luther like Catholics see Peter and that non-Catholics do NOT follow men, like Catholics follow the pope and their priests.
I don't know any Christians who really give a rip about Luther's theology. It has no bearing or influence on their theology. People don't believe what they believe because Luther believed it or taught it.
They don't believe that it;s necessary to be subject to Luther as the Catholic religion has claimed that it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman pontiff.
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium." Satis Cognitum (# 9): June 29, 1896:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html
Pius 9, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore: “Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff..”
-http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm
Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus: “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff." Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (On The Care Of The Churches), Encyclical promulgated on April 8, 1862, # 3.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9AMANT2.HTM
Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): “There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church)
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox” schismatics] and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?...Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned...” Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873) The Promotion of True Religious Unity), 11, Encyclical promulgated on January 6, 1928, #11;
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html
Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."
Fifth Lateran Council: Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore...renew and give our approval to that constitution... Fifth Lateran CouncilSession 11, 19 December 1516,
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm
The COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE under Pope John XXIII condemned the proposition of Wycliff that “It is not necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman church is supreme among the other churches.” [inasmuch as it would deny the primacy of the supreme pontiff over the other individual churches.] — Session 8—4 May 1415;
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CONSTANC.HTM
St. Thomas Aquinas: It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if we imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals [Greeks] says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.” — St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
So...the next time someone on the RF makes the claim that Catholics are not Christians based on behavior they find disagreeable are you willing to correct them publicly and inform them that is simply their opinion and is not a matter of established fact?
What it seems that Catholics fail to realize is the distinction between claiming to be born again and living in unrepentant sin, having evidenced NO change in their lives that indicates a new birth despite having claimed to make a decision for Christ, and struggling with sin in their lives, which we all do.
As evidenced according to the third party observer. It's funny. When I tell people at the office I'm Catholic I inevitably hear, "I didn't know that. You don't seem like a spiritual person." That's the response I get from protestants and atheists alike. So I'm forced to respond, "That's because I'm a religious person, not a spiritual person." That phrasing used in the context of the common parlance of general everyday discussion lest some protestant feel compelled to jump all over that statement. People seem to have this notion of Christians as portrayed by Ned Flanders of The Simpsons. But I digress.
So where was I? Oh yes, works. Am I to understand that the protestant position is to examine externals for evidence of being born again and thereby negating the sola fide position? And so because I exhibited no external sign at the office that I am a Christian I am therefore not a Christian? After all aren't good works supposed to be a natural outflow of being born again and failing to exhibit such works constitutes the status of an indvidual's place within the Body of Christ and their salvation?
We all struggle with sin, that's true. But A Christian is still a Christian regardless if they are unrepentant in their sin. It just makes them a bad Christian. Unfortunately, with much of protestantism based on personal interpretation and opinion, the ability to follow scripture and rebuke our fellow man only goes so far defined by the "as evidenced" standard. And so, the Christian in a position to help their fellow man fails to act charitably because they have been biased by their ability to see the "as evidenced" evidence and their own personal opinion on when a Christian is no longer a Christian.
....”not willing to accept the authority of the Word beyond the ‘text”.....
That would depend on who or what authority you’re claiming is an authority ‘beyond the scriptures’... for...
There are many now, and in times past, groups of men and otherwise who have written their opinions about God’s word and what they think it means...we may respect what they say but that is not the same thing as what God has instructed us ‘to use’ as the final authority, ....for there’s no ultimate authority then that which He’s written. ....and surely should it oppose or conflict with God’s word then what He says about a matter will always trump mans traditions every time.
I realize that your catchisum tells you...Quote: “Both Scripture and Tradition ‘must’ be accepted and honored with ‘equal’ sentiments of devotion and reverence’....
.... However,.... if you use scripture in order to validate your traditions, which is often done on the threads, then the fact you would do so naturally shows that scripture is the ‘superior’ source, which makes tradition no longer equal but lesser of the two.
Thus you have a catch 22.....how do you justify traditions apart from His word? for by using it will only prove scripture trumps traditions.
...”When I tell people at the office I’m Catholic I inevitably hear, “I didn’t know that. You don’t seem like a spiritual person.”.......
Reminded me of when two catholics I worked with....bragging they were catholic, at which my response was, Oh I’m sorry, can I help?”
So I suppose the differnce is if or not the persons responding even understand what it means to not be catholic.
Nobody on the threads has a thicker skin then the RM.....or he’d never be able to handle what crosses these threads!
I remember a time I was ‘so livid’ people just didn’t get how bad a situation really was and were treating the topic like it wasn’t near as bad as people were attempting to portray it.
I flipped a really bad photo right out there and got smacked down so fast and hard by the RM my computer darn near fell off the table! Even my check got pink!
Yes they do.
You can try to make sport all you want but the Catholic position isn’t much different then the Mormon position. Most beliefs made from other than scripture. The position of “well it could have happened” is not something to base ones eternity on.
Not unlike the rabbit hole of arguing with a protestant and their own personal interpretation of scripture. I saw that movie:
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
1 John 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit -- just as it has taught you, remain in him.
1 Corinthians 2:9-14 However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" -- but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Now, why don't you show us from scripture why that doesn't mean what it says.
Do Catholics literally “eat the scroll” also?
We do so because Catholicism is counter to scripture. We are told to stand on the word of God. Not "it could have happened" from the Catholic Church.
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.