Posted on 05/18/2015 6:05:47 PM PDT by Old Yeller
For years, growing up as a Roman Catholic, we were taught that we were members of the one true church. It was impressed upon us regularly by the parish priest during Mass while giving his homily; by the nuns all throughout my Catholic parochial school years of second through seventh grade.
It was impressed upon us during our preparation to receive for the first time the sacraments of Penance, Communion and Confirmation. And while attending CCD classes all the way through high school. (CCD is the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, an association established at Rome in 1562 for the purpose of giving religious education, normally designed for children.)
It was an established fact that we understood and we never questioned the validity of it. And to be honest, it was a matter of pride, that we were privileged enough to be members of the correct church, while all others had belonged to something else that didn’t quite measure up to the status of the Roman Catholic Church.
After all, how could it be possible that Roman Catholicism is not the one true church?
Look at what Rome has to offer: It has the priests, the nuns; the bishops; the cardinals; and of course, the Pope. They have the Sacraments; the statues; the holy water; the incense; the Stations of the Cross; the Eucharist - in which Chris supposedly physically manifests Himself into the wafer after the consecration by the priest during the Mass; the Marian apparitions—which appear mainly to Roman Catholics.
And they have the Vatican, where the Vicar of Christ (who they believe is Christ’s representative on earth), governs the faithful and makes infallible proclamations and doctrine. How can this not be the one true church? No other organization on the face of the earth comes close to offering to its flock what Rome provides for its faithful.
But, of course, to be true, one must adhere to what has been established as truth and not teach or practice what is contrary to the truth. We read in Scripture a few passages that declare what is truth and what is not. Jesus proclaimed in John 14:6:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.”
I agree. Thanks. They hate Protestants.
Lovely Lady dressed in blue ---- Teach me how to pray! God was just your little boy, Tell me what to say! Did you lift Him up, sometimes, Gently on your knee? Did you sing to Him the way Mother does to me? Did you hold His hand at night? Did you ever try Telling stories of the world? O! And did He cry? Do you really think He cares If I tell Him things- Little things that happen? And Do the Angels' wings make a noise? And can He hear Me if I speak low? Does He understand me now? Tell me ---- for you know? Lovely Lady dressed in blue ---- Teach me how to pray! God was just your little boy, And you know the way.
He ain't Catholic...
Since Christianity has been Catholic from Day One...
And since the letters and epistles in the NT were written to Catholic churches...
And we see all KINDS off error being taught that these letters address...
And the last book of the bible REALLY has some scathing rebuke for 7 Catholic churches...
...just WHEN did the Catholic church FINALLY get it right??
There are approximately 1.2 billion Catholics world wide;
If merely 1% of them 'ask' Mary for help just once each day;
that means that 12 million separate prayers are headed Mary's direction every day.
Given that there are 86,400 seconds per day... (24 hours times 60 minutes times 60 seconds)
...that means that Mary has to handle approximately 139 'requests' per second!
Purty good fer someone NOT 'divine'!
Here's another truth.
===
What is the definition of salvation? The Church defines it as to be right with God (righteousness). (By the Church I mean every denomination, sect and cult.) But is that what the Bible says? No. The Bible defines salvation as to again be right with God. See for yourself.
Jn.3.16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
Why would Jesus say, "For God so loved the world" - past tense? Why would He not have said, "For God so loves the world" - present tense? Would it not make more sense, if God does indeed love the world?
The Greek grammar is that of an aorist verb. This means it is speaking of a specific event. But what event? The cross? Nope. This is Jesus speaking prior to the cross. It must be something from the past. Maybe if we examine the object of the verb, "world".
In this verse "world" means:
"of all humanity, but especially of believers, as the object of God's love" - A Greek- English Lexicon of the New testament and Other Christian Literature, Third Edition
So when exactly could God have "loved the world", as in "all humanity", before Christ as an event? According to the Church all of humanity never existed at one time before God gave his Son. But are they correct?
Ep.1.9-10 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together [again] under one head, even Christ.
The Church consistently translates this passage without the "again". But the Greek has a prefix of "ana" attached to the term kefalaiow to make it anakefalaiomai which makes it mean "to bring all things in heaven and on earth together again under one head, even Christ."
This is confirmed as the appropriate translation in the following:
The Greek word anakefalaiomai = "to sum up (again), to repeat summarily" - KJV NT Greek Lexicon.
"The compounded preposition ajna signifies again, pointing back to a previous condition where no separation existed." - Vincent's Word Studies
"the word here used signifies to restore, renew, and reduce to a former state ... the word is also used to recapitulate, or sum up the heads of a discourse; and according to this sense, it may intend the meeting together, and summing up of all things in Christ, that had been before" - John Gill Exposition [my emphasis]
Also as "sum up, recapitulate" - A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition. [my emphasis]
"The meaning appears to me to be, that out of Christ all things were disordered, and that through him they have been restored to order." "The proper condition of creatures is to keep close to God. Such a gathering together (anakefalaiwsasqai) as might bring us back to regular order, the apostle tells us, has been made in Christ." - Commentary on Galatians and Ephesians - John Calvin [my emphasis]
"The purpose of God, which he has been pleased to reveal, and which was hidden for ages, is his intention to reunite all things as one harmonious whole under Jesus Christ." - A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians - Charles Hodge [my emphasis]
"Might recapitulate, re-unite, and place in order again under Christ, their common Head." - John Wesley, Notes On the Bible [my emphasis]
The Apostolic Interlinear agrees with this, translating it as "recapitulating all things in Christ". [my emphasis]
"That he might gather together in one anakefalaiwsasqai, from ana, again" - Adam Clarke Commentary [my emphasis]
"The great work whereby God designed to glorify himself ultimately in this world was that of the new creation, or of the recovery and restoration of all things by Jesus Christ, Heb. i. 1–3; Eph. i. 10." - Pneumatologia - John Owen [my emphasis]
The J.B. Rotherham Emphasized Bible puts it: "to reunite for himself (under one head) the all things in the Christ" [my emphasis]
The Weymouth New Testament says, "restoring the whole creation to find its one Head in Christ". [my emphasis]
The Douay Rheims states, "to re-establish all things in Christ". [my emphasis]
The implications of this little prefix "ana" are immense, as I am sure you have noticed. It can only be concluded that "all things in heaven and earth" were at some time in the past "under one head". But when? We seem to be stuck with the same conundrum as Jn.3.16's "God so loved the world".
===
Perhaps a few more examples of the prefix ana are in order.
Mt.11.28 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I [ana - again] will give you rest."
Literally this says "I will refresh you" as in a person that was at rest in the past, and then came out of that rest and is currently not at rest, but will again be returned to that rest.
anapauo:
- "refresh, revive" - A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition.
- "refresh" - Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament
So, when were we at rest the first time?
---
Ro.12.2a Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the [ana - again] renewing of your mind.
Ti.3.5b He saved us through the washing of rebirth and [ana - again] renewal by the Holy Spirit
To renew something is to take something that was previously new, but had become not new, and make it new again.
anakainosis:
- "renewal: of a person's spiritual rebirth" - A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition.
- "renewing, renewal" - Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament - "renewal" - Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains
Another mystery: When were we first new? When were we spiritually born the first time?
---
2Co.4.16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being [ana - again] renewed day by day.
Co.3.10 and have put on the new self, which is being [ana - again] renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.
Again, to renew something is to take something that was previously new, but had become not new, and make it new again.
anakainoo:
- "renew ... and figuratively of the spiritual rebirth of the Christian" - A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition.
The above is just a taste of the evidence in the Bible that illustrates that everyone that has ever lived since Adam, and everyone that ever will be conceived between now and the end of the judgment age (this age), existed in a prior age when we were all loved (past tense) by God, when "all things in heaven and on earth" were first "under one head, even Christ", when we were at rest the first time, when we were fresh the first time, and when we were new the first time.
===
If anyone wants to know more about [ana - again], let me know and I will post more. Otherwise, if this Scripture analysis bores all of you, I won't bother.
Now you can see why I do not identify as either a Roman Catholic or a Protestant or with any sect or cult of Christianity. I simply ask questions and then believe what the Bible answers.
Papists ask me “Why do you pray and how can you have hope”
“You don’t bow down to Rome and you disregard our Pope”.
But they have manmade rules and some unBiblical positions
I’m just thankful they don’t burn me in some kinda inquisition.
So I ask them what Catholics think that we should do to be saved
cuz’ in Gods eyes we’re in a sinful state and really really depraved?
They say it’s easy because once you’re Catholic - there’s no friction
You pay your tithes, go to Mass and believe in our Apostolic Traditions!
That Bible you read, you’ll no longer have to search!
No sir! Not when you attend The One True Church!
Those things not in the Bible are just like my predictions
If it ain’t in black & white, it’s covered by Apostolic Traditions!
apologies to Hank William Jr.
Agree God is the first cause of all things
Luke11:1 "And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said to him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.12 And he said unto them, When you pray, say, Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, as in heaven, so on earth........"
Sounds like Mary might have taught Jesus the Our Father! [Nah, I don't think so]
LOL!
Mark and Elsie, y’all started something.
However, since I’m no poet, I’ll just enjoy reading yours.
My catholic parents didn't like him either. When I asked them why, they didn't seem to know the reason, but I don't know if it is widespread in the RCC. A66, MM, any ideas?
My catholic parents didn’t like him either. When I asked them why, they didn’t seem to know the reason
Is it like when Liberals don’t like Sarah Palin but can’t give a coherent explanation why?
It could very well be, and Elsie may have hit the nail on the head. Many may not like him, simply because he isn't Catholic. Each one probably has a different thought. Me, on the other hand, I led a sheltered life as a catholic. I never knew who he was, so I do not know what I would have thought of him.
Ireland becomes first country to legalise gay marriage by popular vote
The result means that a republic once dominated by the Catholic church ignored the instructions of its cardinals and bishops.
Northern Ireland is now the only region in western Europe where marriage equality is not a reality. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/23/gay-marriage-ireland-yes-vote
Dear: DepromammerLiberalism;Elsie;Rides_A_Red_Horse; iscool;WVKayaker; CommerceComet; daniel1212; amoreperfectunion;ex-snook;ritaok
This is not a forum to school you on the absolute truths of Catholicism. I have purposely avoided citing the writings of renowned Catholic theologians like Augustine, Aquinas, Newman Benedict (after whom colleges and universities have been named and their writings form part of the standard theological curriculum even in Evangelical colleges.).
I have tried to present in summary form those Protestant theologians who after years of study and scholarship, some trying to prove that Catholicism is wrong, actually ended up converting to Catholicism. In fact the preeminent Lutheran theologian of his times, Rev. Richard Neuhaus not only converted to Catholicism, he became a Catholic priest.
But all this is of not avail. DeprogrammerLiberalism attempts his hand at playing internet theologian with disparate scriptural quotes as do many of the others whose singular tact appears to be to let loose waterfalls of scriptural quotes. From this premise they argue that Catholic doctrine is wrong, or worse that “their” interpretations of scripture is the correct one.
What these Bible Christian don’t appear to understand is that is exactly what proves my point. This is why we Catholics have Petrine authority and a Catholic Catechism, and a Catholic Mass, and a Catholic veneration to the Mother of God that is for all, in all nations, and for all times.
Despite written historical references by the early Church fathers, and the Synod of Rome in AD 382, a full eleven centuries before the heresy of Protestantism and its thousands of variants washed ashore, and whose beliefs have been vindicated by some of the greatest theological minds known to making, we still have amoreperfectunion naively telling us that he is still “waiting for a list of authoritative traditions.” The answer is easy.
We have several traditions such as the Catholic sacraments. These traditions complement scripture as do ritual and practice. We have Petrine authority. We have the Catholic Mass. These are cogently explained in the Catholic Catechism, but if you don’t care to spend serious time reading this, there is not much we can do here.
Deprogrammerliberalism captures the sheer shallowness of Bible Christianity by supply a menu of scriptural quotes, and providing us with “his” definitive interpretation of these passages.
Here’s an example of sheer nonsense. He tells us:
“Why would Jesus say, “For God so loved the world” - past tense? Why would He not have said, “For God so loves the world” - present tense? Would it not make more sense, if God does indeed love the world?”
It does not occur to Deprogrammerliberalism that when we discuss God doing an action from outside time, we are often stuck with either using past tense or present tense when really God’s actions are not past, present or future, they are all of them and none of them.
But this is what happens when Bible Christians don’t have an Augustine or Aquinas or Newman, or the early Church fathers. They rush to third-rate bloggers for a quick cut and paste argument.
metmon; smvoice, elsie;and wvkayaker essentially keep telling us that they are unable to make the intellectual leap between the personal lives of saints, sinners, random utterances of individuals, and official belief.
We are speaking here of the latter. Formal beliefs. Billy Graham may be a nice and honorable man, but his heresy is no different from Joel Osteen or David Koresh in their failure to admit to Catholic belief based on scripture, the sacred oral tradition (John 21:25); and ritual and practice and most of all revelation in the Church’s choosing of God’s authentic written word against the gnostic writings.
elsie apparently expects the Nicene Creed to contain all the elements of belief. So she writes:
“Nothing in there about Mary except and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, Nothing in there about Canonizing ‘Saints’”
You may now understand the rut of Protestantism.
The dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as set forth in the profession of faith of Trent (cf. Denz. 1867) has as its correlative the power to canonize. . . . St. Thomas Aquinas says, “Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err” (Quodl. 9:8:16).
But now at least we know where wvkayaker “cult theory” is coming from. He writes:
“It is a group of people indoctrinated into the “traditions” that have been told to ignore what they see in Scripture.”
“Group of people!” “indoctrinated!” This is beyond breathtaking. Thus all the great Catholic thinkers, and Protestant scholars are just a “group of people’ who have been “indoctrinated”?
May be you should go down this illustrious list of Catholic converts that include Judge Robert Bork, Judge Thomas, Robert Novak (Jewish). But here’s an A-Z List of CONVERTS to Catholicism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Catholicism
I repeat this is not a place to offer Bible Christians a comprehensive schooling in Catholic theology. So here’s a work below (under $15 on Amazon) written by a former evangelist who converted to Catholicism.
It is written by Dave Armstrong (a former Protestant campus missionary) and is aptly titled: “A Biblical Defense of Catholicism.”
You may try reading and absorbing this before you again keep posting blogger’s versions of scripture.
http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Defense-Catholicism-Dave-Armstrong/dp/1928832954
http://shop.sophiainstitute.com/Assets/ProductImages/prodpdf/954.pdf
Thank you; Modern Day Berean!
WWHD?
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.