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.”
Some of THE most intellectual and intelligent people in the entire history of humanity have been Atheists. I would think those enamored by such human prowess have their priorities in the wrong place. They seem to have forgotten this important lesson from God's word:
So much for boasting about Peter or Mary.
John wrote a letter to her (see 2John) and it made it into the Bible! But Catholics don’t like it ‘cause it has a mild bit of advice for the Lady.
Indeed, or agnostics, and today they would claim their intellectual side is second to none.
From the same place he got ALL of the revealed teachings of Jesus - Jesus himself. Here is the verse in context - note...Paul even says Jesus said it - not what was handed down to him by "tradition":
Interesting thing for the "theological Einstein of the 20th century" to state! At least he was being honest.
Yeah!!!
Right, he didn’t get it out of a book and he wasn’t there to hear Jesus. People told him what Jesus said. That’s tradition.
Saul (later Paul) was well aware of Jesus and His teachings from either first hand witnesses or he heard Jesus speaking to crowds but did nothing. If that's tradition then so was last nights news. He followed the party line (like Catholics do) and did not become a follower of Jesus but remained a devout Pharisee (until his conversion).
Great post. Worth a repost.
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
You have to be kidding. The apologetics were poor the first time they were presented (as numerous people have pointed out in detail) and didn't improve with frequent reposting. A poor argument stays a poor argument no matter how many times it is repeated.
Stating something is a poor argument, doesn’t make it a poor argument.
I would agree. Perhaps, you should review the previous posts in this thread. At least half a dozen people have refuted Steelfish's arguments in detail on this thread and have addressed the same specious arguments on other threads.
Well then, maybe you can help Steelfish out. You see, I have been trying to get some official RC church doctrines about the epistle of James out of Steelfish for a couple of weeks, but he obviously doesn't know where to look. Perhaps you do. I'll just imitate you and do a repost:
James insists that Christians must keep the OC Law, but Peter and Paul disagree. Please tell me the official RC church position on this conundrum. You don't even have to use Scripture - any old official theological blather will do.
James insists that keeping the OC Law provides freedom, while Peter and Paul again disagree, instead teaching that keeping the OC Law is akin to slavery. I would appreciate knowing the official RC church explanation for this discrepancy. Again, Scripture is completely optional.
Was Abraham credited with righteousness by God when he believed God in Ge.15 as claimed by Moses and Paul, or was it not until the Ge.22 Isaac incident, as James insists? Again, any old theological explanation will do, as long as it is the official RC church position.
Are rich people automatically condemned in the RC church as James insists, or is it just a little more difficult for them to be saved, as Christ taught? Please provide the official RC explanation on James' contradiction of Christ, and the position of the RC church as to which one is correct.
James insists that God is not tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone with evil. Does the RC church official position support this contention of James and reject the discourse on the temptation of Christ in the desert as a lie, or does the RC church official position reject this contention of James?
Please provide the official RC church positions on these conundrums. Again, Scripture is completely optional. Use Scott Hahn or Augustine or any of your favorite theologians - as long as they espouse the official positions of the RC church.
What are we poor non-Catholics to do in the face of such intellectual might? [There might be just a tad of sarcasm in that last question - come to think of it, there might be a little bit in this statement, too.]
>>>
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.
<<<
Augustine called God the eternal-now-god. His explanation is that God can see everything in all of the past and all of the future as if it were all present tense. So why did Christ say, “For God so loved the world” - past tense? Was he not as informed as Augustine?
.
>> “James insists that Christians must keep the OC Law, but Peter and Paul disagree.” <<
That is a categorically false statement.
You may be confused about some passages, but all of the apostles preached Torah.
Paul, in Romans 2, is in perfect agreement with James epistle. John’s epistles also preach a strong pro Torah message.
Peter doesn’t specifically engage the question, but every mention of Peter demonstrates his adherence to Torah.
All of the Acts is a storyline of the apostles perfect keeping of Torah. The NT is full of mentions of Paul cutting trips and visits short to be able to get to Jerusalem to keep a feast.
What do you use for a Bible?
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.