Posted on 07/26/2015 7:30:39 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Because the church began as a sect, in dissent from the historical magisterium, which the later church of Rome stands in critical contrast to. See 177 above.
Mormans are not Christian to start with.
Then why do RCs include them in their list of Prot denoms? And why cannot they define was history, tradition and and Scripture consist of and mean? Or do you support the evangelical means of ascertaining the veracity of Truth claims by examination of the evidence, versus trusting an infallible magisterium to do so?
You look look desparate with the outlandish comparisions. The Morman Bible is based on the KJV of the Bible.
That argumentation is what is desperate! The devil quoted the Bible also, as does the Qur'an, and thus according to your reasoning the source must be blamed.
Of course, arguing (as you have inferred in the past) that Rome gave us the Bible and thus we need to submit to her is equally fallacious. Keep it up.
There is one holy catholic apostolic church. The church of Rome has existed since the first Century. There is an unbroken chain of succession by the laying on of hands from that time until now. The apostles chose the succession and it was repeated in every century.
You could try arguing that you belong to one of the other original churches rather than an offshoot sect that devolved from, but may not even acknowledge its origin in, the Sixteenth Century. Any movement forming so late has to account for a lack of apostolic authority, a lack of divine origin, and restarts the clock fifteen centuries later, and then restarts the clock every century, and sometimes decade, unto this day.
On the other hand we see one holy catholic apostolic church that has a visible historical witness in every century since the Messiah, with scriptural evidence of both its formation, as well as its apostolic succession. I could not find any save the Orthodox that have that. Baptist Bride congregations claim it but other Baptists avoid those historical succession claims.
Do you have a recognized historical name for the historical manifestation you claim ? Lutheran, Calvinist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.? Catholic works well.
NKP_Vet: There are no opposing views when ALL the Church fathers, the greatest theologians who ever lived, WERE ALL CATHOLIC! Why is that so hard for people to understand.
Me: But would the "Church fathers, the greatest theologians who ever lived", especially the Early Church Father, recognize what the Catholic Church is today?
Naw, I think it was more of a spiritual gobsmackation.
The bright light described was the illumination of the Glory of God like Moses got a glimpse of when he got the 10 commandments.
So bright it blinded Paul/Saul.
I have some theater lights which are so bright you don’t want to have your eyes open towards them, I can only imagine the intensity of the brightness of the Glory of God.
But then he may have had a physical concussion too I would have to concede.
Yes
Given the assumptions of a great cloud of witnesses, including the ECFs who were worthy, and the communion of the saints, there has been one holy catholic apostolic church from its inception until now. They are our witnesses.
Whether it's true I don't know, but “they” told me in seminary that one reason the conversation got started was to thread a path between the revulsion at the idea of eating flesh and drinking blood and the declarative sense of the “Words of Institution.”
IMHO, a lot of the development of Catholic dogma is just like this. Initially the ideas are vague and evocative. The Fathers often strike me as poetic rather than “technical.” Then something comes up, and there's a controversy.
Somebody says that Mary is the theotokos. Somebody else says,” You can't say that!” Things get ugly, so they call a council, and little by little the teaching is refined and detailed.
So then the question of the reliability of councils arise. And here we are on Free Republic.
Complex as the history of the doctrine is, I think you among those here who could understand it.
The subject has been gone over in extreme detail, many centuries ago now, and by many individuals...
Verily he would not deny that the same body which Christ offered for sacrifice is delivered in the Supper : but he did set out the manner of eating : namely that being received into heavenly glory, by the secret power of the Spirit, it breatheth life into us.I grant indeed that there is oftentimes found in him this manner of speaking, that the body of Christ is eaten of the unbelievers : but he expoundeth himself, adding, in sacrament. And in another place be describeth spiritual eating, in which our bitings consume not grace. (Hom. in Joann. 27.)
And least mine adversaries should say, that I fight with by a heap of places, I would know of them how they can unwind themselves from one saying of his, where he saith that sacraments do work in the elect only that which they figure.
Truly they dare not deny but that the bread in the Supper figureth the body of Christ. Whereupon followeth that the reprobate are debarred from the partaking of it. That Cyril also thought no otherwise, these words do declare: "As if a man upon molten wax do pour another wax, he wholly tempered the one wax with another : so it is necessary if any man receives the flesh and blood of the Lord that he be joined with him that Christ may be found in him, and he in Christ." By these words, I think it is evident, that they are bereaved of the true and real eating, that do but sacramentally eat the body of Christ, which cannot be severed from his power : and that therefore faileth not the faith of the promises of God, which ceaseth not to rain from heaven, although the stones and rocks conceive not the liquor of the rain.
The Waterboys - This Is The Sea
Here we have Kuan Yin the Goddess of Mercy in the Buddist faith
..Female idols have been since ancient times as seen here with the Persian Goddess Anahita
...and here with the Ancient Sumerian Goddess....
And again here with the Roman Goddess Isis
Manny Paquiao would be one of the more well known, but other professional singers, actors and actresses would be Kuh Ledesma, Regine Valasquez, Anne Curtis, Mark Gil, Cesar Romero, Krystal Reyes, Sharon Cuneta, Chief Justice Maria Sereno, Jopay Zamora (sex bomb girls) Sarah Geronimo, Miss World contestant Megan Young. Do I qualify too?
Also, there is a difference between the Catholic church and the catholic (universal) church. The universal church is the church invisible, made of all of the elect from the past, present, and should the Lord tarry, future. The Catholic church is a visible manifestation of the church, mixed with both believers and unbelievers, and subject to the frailties of man.
I think we will continue to disagree, but I respect your willingness to answer my questions. Thank you.
Grace and Peace,
K51
Hinduism too.
Grace and Peace,
K51
Yes...and there are many others from New Ager’s to Eastern Mystics ....all manufacture some form of a female goddess or deity which they are polarized around... which just might be this commonality in a female deity today might be what will assist in the Unity of the Faiths currently in motion along the way....
Um, Isis is Egyptian. For Roman, you have a choice of Juno, Venus, Diana, Hecate (originally Greek), Minerva and maybe others; that's all I can remember from high school Latin. I would hazard a guess that that statue is Minerva, but I don't really know.
....though Isis was an Egyptian Goddess Rome was full of knock offs of the same and others throughout history prior because there were many new gods from distant civilizations which the Romans learned about and didn’t tend to think that only their gods were the right ones rather that those gods and goddesses watched over other parts of the world and whom they had simply not yet heard about. And so as they learned about these new gods, new temples were built to these new arrivals in the Roman pantheon....ISIS was one of the many.
Kinda like Mary appearing to three Portuguese children?
“No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have sacraments, one can sing allulia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.”
Worthy of WHAT?
Catholics today IGNORE them!!
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II): Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
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.