Posted on 04/20/2015 1:46:59 PM PDT by NYer
Are you referring to this?
The RCC has through history taught and then retracted several interpretations of scripture. [snip] When Christ says "you are Peter and on this rock I build my church," for example, I see something totally different than RCC adherents.
Your response is a comparison of church teaching and your own interpretation. Where did the church change its interpretation of scripture?
Indulgences require a tortured interpretation, in my opinion. Mortification of the flesh through flagellation. Crusades against intra-RCC reformers in the 13th-16th centuries. Kings waiting on baptism until the end of life so as not to be burdened by sins committed after baptism. Purgatory was valid, and now is not.
Again, you stated that the RCC has through history taught and then retracted several interpretations of scripture. Which scripture was taught and then retracted in this example?
Purgatory was valid, and now is not.
Again, which scripture was taught and then retracted in this example? More importantly, when did the Latin Church retract its teachings on Purgatory?
As RnMomof7 points out, the RCC has wisely not asserted infallibility on more scriptural interpretations.
Which raises the question: How many passages of Scripture have been defined by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church?
This is not worth responding to.
When you post a statement: The RCC has through history taught and then retracted several interpretations of scripture. You should be prepared to support your assertion.
Surely you don’t think we are going to fall for that bowing excuse do you? When a person bows to a dignitary or out of courtesy it surely doesn’t include hands in a prayer position or raised in praise. It surely doesn’t include prayers as it does when Catholics bow to Mary. It would be rather naive to think people don’t see the difference.
You got caught Mrs. Don-o. Might as well admit it and move on.
That was the crime for which Jesus was crucified.....
I am born again from above with the water and the spirit if that is what you mean.
Since I am new here may I ask for clarification on the rules? Is it permissable to call all Catholics liars if it is done so with evasive language?
I understood your post to say that any claim that the girl was petitioning Mary instead of worshiping her was disingenuous. If I was wrong I apologize.
God is worshipped in Adoration.
That is an anticipatable response when no proof exists.
As a long time lurker I came to the realization that many do not care about the truth. They suffer from confirmation bias. In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.
It follows along the lines of Pilate's error. Pilate asked Jesus; "What is truth" (Quid est veritas?). Jesus did not answer because he asked the wrong question. Pilate should have asked; "Who is truth?".
Because God is truth those who do not pursue the truth regardless of where it leads them are rejecting who that truth.
The point of my post was that God loves everyone, even sinners and calls upon us to do the same. He does not only love those who are His as was suggested in the earlier post.
if you want a comment here goes.
Matthew 22 - Jesus was talking to the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection. His comment about God being the God of the living had to do with the fact that there will be a resurrection. Once again, Catholics trying to twist scripture to support their erroneous beliefs is sad.
Besides, Eslie's comment was that "Dead people have NO share in HIS glory!!" You have not shown where people who have passed from this life have been given any glory until the resurrection. Or are you claiming the those who have passed from this life have already been given their rewards?
Not consummated. That Joe was a saint.
I do not know where you have gotten your ideas of what the Catholic Church is, but what you present is very different from what I have experienced. Our faith community gatherings are centered on the teachings of Jesus and His commandments. The homilies at our Masses are always centered on the readings for each particular Mass, and challenge us to live the life that Jesus calls us to live. Our meetings always begin with a prayer to God, and we ask the Holy Spirit to guide us in our deliberations. I am part of a prayer group that is devoted to praising and glorifying God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I truly believe that the teachings of the Catholic Church have fully prepared me for my eternal salvation, and I have not seen anything from you or others in this forum that have convinced me otherwise. In fact, some of the harsh statements against my Church has done nothing but strengthened my faith.
Whatever.
1. Peter and Paul. There was already a church in Rome at the time that both Peter and Paul arrived. The RCC for political reasons relating to a desire to obtain supremacy over Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and later Constantinople, first claimed they started the church at Rome. Then they dropped Paul. The development of this tradition was historically late and coincided with Rome’s claim to the primacy of the papacy over the other churches. Development over time.
2. I am not going to do your homework for you. I gave you a list of church practices that were taught by the RCC as having scriptural basis and that required adherence by the RCC faithful. Much like the tradition of praying TO the saints that you have tried to defend, the traditions and instances I listed have gone through multiple iterations. The example of the anti-Hussite crusades to enforce RCC doctrine on the Hussites, culminating in five defeats of RCC forces, and ultimately the RCC capitulating to permitting the Hussites to retain their distinctly non-RCC doctrines is illustrative and happens to be the one I’m reading about now. The political power of the papacy. etcetera etcetera. All of these are practices and traditions and acts that the RCC condoned, justified, and/or explained through scripture.
Your entire argument depends (and loses) on the proposition that the RCC has never once undertaken any act, promoted any practice, or maintained any tradition that was contrary to scripture. This is wholly indefensible, prideful, and wrong. Historically wrong. Doctrinally wrong. Every church has done that, just as every believer. To insist otherwise is ridiculous.
On purgatory, i’ll admit that I reversed it. The RCC didn’t realize that Purgatory was a necessary dogma of the RCC until the 15th century. So a failure to believe in purgatory was not a sin before the late 1400s, but was afterwards.
Finally, on your last normative claim, please kindly go do your own work. This is an internet forum, I have other demands on my time, and clearly we will disagree.
I am sure you will feel the need to respond. Please forgive me if I do not feel the same desire to continue this fruitless conversation. I refuse to engage in Catholic-bashing, but I will not back down from the obvious truth that the RCC has changed its teachings and indeed been mistaken about what scripture requires over its approximately 1600 years of existence.
The Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium ## 61-62), said:
... in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls. As a result she is our Mother in the order of grace.
This motherhood of Mary in the economy of grace lasts without interruption, from the consent which she gave in faith at the annunciation, and which she unhesitatingly bore with under the cross, even to the perpetual consummation of all the elect. For after being assumed into heaven, she has not put aside this saving function, but by her manifold intercession, she continues to win the gifts of eternal salvation for us. By her motherly love, she takes care of the brothers of her Son who are still in pilgrimage and in dangers and difficulties, until they be led through to the happy fatherland. For this reason, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adiutrix, and Mediatrix. This however it to be so understood that it takes nothing away, or adds nothing to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature can ever be put on the same level with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer...."
We notice that Vatican II did not add the words "of all graces." However, as many papal texts point out, Mary's role in dispensation flows logically from her role in acquiring all graces. Further, the Council itself added a note on the above passage, in which it refers us to the texts of Leo XIII, Adiutricem populi, St. Pius X, Ad diem illum, Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, and Pius XII, Radiomessage to Fatima.
Leo XIII, in the text referred to, spoke of her, as we saw above, as having "practically limitless power." St. Pius X said she was the "dispensatrix of all the gifts, and is the "neck" connecting the Head of the Mystical Body to the Members. But all power flows through the neck. Pius XII said "Her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her dominion." These and many other texts speak in varied ways of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces, so often that the teaching has become infallible. https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm
And there's more if that's not enough.
Again, this is why Christianity rejects roman catholic "tradition" on this topic and many others.
Why do you presume that the spirit world and heaven are constrained by the properties of the material world such as time and space?
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.