Posted on 05/20/2015 2:41:37 PM PDT by NYer
Oops! I’ll try that without the Franklin quote so my formatting doesn’t get messed up.
“And you are correct in saying I believe many of the RCC “teachings” are false and should be opposed when and where in error.”
But that isn’t what I said. The fact that you just invented something I didn’t say and are now ascribing it to me is indicative of the real problem. Notice I don’t make things up about what Protestants or Protestant anti-Catholics have said. Why do so many anti-Catholics literally make up things that no Catholic has said? Why do they seem to think that is morally acceptable?
“Many RCs are kept enslaved inside this particular man-made religion, and other similar “Protestant” religions because of the continuing efforts of workers such as you and others on these threads.”
Isn’t the person who - for whatever reason - has to make up things no one actually said the person who must really be enslaved?
“I hope that many more people will choose to come out of the RCC darkness and into the Light of the Truth: Lord Jesus Christ...”
And yet you make up something that no one said and ascribe it to another. I would say the hypocrisy is breath taking if it were not so commonly exhibited by anti-Catholics.
Amen, mm. This is the point of Eph. 3:10. That we, who know the grace of God are studied by angels. They are indeed learning through us, the Church the Body of Christ. :)
So, if there is a Church who claims to be teaching the angels, and that Church does not teach the salvation by grace through faith in the FINISHED WORK OF CHRIST, obviously that Church cannot possibly be teaching the angels. Grace is the whole point of EVERYTHING. Without grace, the rest is just works. And this is what God is showing the angels through the Church the Body of Christ, His matchless grace. "That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his GRACE in his kindness TOWARD US through Jesus Christ." Eph. 2:7.
I would say you manifest the gift of confusion in almost all of your postings.
I don’t know if you did either.
What an imagination Watterson has!
Play checkers instead.
Let the birds have the WHITE squares.
Tippi Hedren may disagree.
I've not seen ANY!
this morning?
But if we Prots say...
Collective mind reading is allowed, e.g. Catholicsbelieve ...
...we'll get massive amounts of gnashing and wailing.
It is one thing to quote a CURRENT TEACHING OR ISSUE and discuss it with a Catholic. It is another thing to quote documents from hundreds of years ago which have since been amended, incorrectly interpret them, and discuss erroneous notions about what Catholics believe, without a Catholic in the particular post. We begin with one topic and inevitably PAST Councils, Indulgences, The Spanish Inquisition and the Wiki list of "Bad Popes" comes up.
There are current encyclicals, Vatican II documents, the CCC, the Catholic News Agency and EWTN's website to refer to, where there exist actual current verbatim statements of our beliefs. It beats speculation, misinterpretation, confusion, and flat out erroneous assumptions about what Catholics believe, in some sidebar.
The only one that was funnier (And quite a bit more bizarre) was Larson.
Nope. I’m using catholic sources to illustrate catholic teaching. Not sure how you understand that as mind reading.
Nope. No mind reading. John 6 is the catholic go to on this topic. In either case you still need to keep things in context.
We’ve been told numerous times that catholicism has not and does not change. Are you suggesting it has?
The times change, we have different issues to deal with. Dogma is immutable.
Are you sure? Sin is still sin. Evil has not really changed other than it is more available than previously. But we are still dealing with the same issues today the early church dealt with in their day.
Wait... what????
From the church that never changes?
Do you really mean that what was truth at one time is not truth any more? That truth changes depending on situations and circumstances?
So, is there salvation outside the Catholic church or not?
When I was growing up, pre-V2, the answer was a resounding *NO!*.
But now it's changed?
So which one is correct? The previous or current?
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.