Posted on 01/02/2017 4:25:11 AM PST by BlessedBeGod
That is NOT why the devil fell.
It wasn't independent thought. It was trying to elevate himself above God.
Angels and men are not mindless automons only doing what they are programmed to do.
If you are seeking to justify mindless submission to the RCC by that kind of reasoning, you have just failed.
You have only built a stronger case against it.
For what reason would anyone ever want to turn over the fate of their eternal souls to an organization as corrupt and immoral as the RCC.
Pretty weird reasoning from the crowd that trumpets free will so much.
Your premise is wrong.
You are starting with the presumption that He already is present in our midst in the form of the host.
So your question is irrelevant because you can't prove your initial premise.
Catholics are really big on the *God can do anything* meme, but they are wrong there as well. God cannot do *anything*.
Another false premise Catholicism builds their hopes on and their shaking doctrine. Just more sinking sand.
Sort of like you in rejecting Catholicism as it stands today.
YOUR college of cardinals elected YOUR pope to office.
According to your own churches teachings you MUST submit to their authority or you are in schism and have ex-communicated yourself.
St. Thomas Aquinas: It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if we imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals [Greeks] says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.” — St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam: (Promulgated November 18, 1302) “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
Pius 9, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore: “Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff..”
-http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm
Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus: “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff." Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (On The Care Of The Churches), Encyclical promulgated on April 8, 1862, # 3.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9AMANT2.HTM
You are in a world of hurt according to the statements made your your own church officials.
Is the college of Cardinals guided by the Holy Spirit in their selection of the pope?
For all the times this question has been asked, I cannot ever remember getting a real answer to it.
I recall one Catholic at least finally addressed it but never really answered it.
So R&B and ebbtide, what are YOUR answers?
Yes?
or
No?
JOHN 20:31
Wordcheck spelled GUESSING wrong.
“...that believing you may have life in his name.”
-————————+—————————
“may” not “will”
Whoever believes is NOT condemned. *may* doesn't mean as in *maybe will get it some day* but is used in the sense of *will*.
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
HAS eternal life. HAS passed from death into life. Already has, is in possession of eternal life. Saved now, past tense, is a done deal.
It's just a matter of finishing up our life on this planet and then we are with God forever because we HAVE eternal life already in our possession because we (past tense) passed from death into life, here and now while on this planet, when we believed in Him..
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father , that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
It's the FATHER'S WILL that those who believe have eternal life. Do you honestly think that something God wills to happen won't?
John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
Do YOU believe these words of Jesus? That we are now in possession of the eternal life through believing in Him, as He promised we would be?
Or is He lying to us? That we can't know now and we don't have it until we get to heaven?
God did not make salvation hard. Man does.
And the Catholic church does it in the same way the Pharisees in Jesus day did, through rigid, legalistic law keeping, which saved NO ONE.
The Law was not instituted to save anyone. It never was meant to be a means of salvation for people. Not the Jews in the OT times and certainly not believers under the new covenant.
We have historic precedent with another Patriarch of
Constantinople, Nestorius, who was chosen to be the patriarch by
Emperor Theodosius II in succession to Sisinnius. In 429, Nestorius
preached heresy against Our Lord and Our Lady. Three years before
Nestorius was condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431, Pope St.
Celestine I condemned Nestorius and his doctrine in 429.
St. Robert Bellarmine writes about it:
“Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in
Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: ‘It is evident that he [who has
been excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in
communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e.
deprived of office, by judgment of Nestorius], anyone who has been
excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or
clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him,
after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already
shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not
excommunicate anyone by his sentence.’
4And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I
says: ‘The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the
bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or
excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter
began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or
excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with
such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.’
St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same.
Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that
schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything
they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.
There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these
Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by
decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their
jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault
clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those
Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite
any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in
relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature
of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the
excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by
sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being
excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all
jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own
sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have
been cut off from the body of the Church without
excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.”
There again, we see the phrase “body of the Church.” A patriarch
manifestly professing heresy demands that you personally believe in the
teaching of the Church that such a person is not member of the Body of
the Church. A crime might be established later by the Church which in
turn would constitute penalties, but the loss of office for public heresy is
not a penalty. It happens immediately as St. Robert Bellarmine
explains!
Big deal. Opinion pieces don't count.
NO wonder y'all think we follow men. It's all y'all know how to do yourselves.
The only person believers follow is JESUS.
Heck; even Martin Luther didn’t criticize Rome’s current pope like so MANY of our FR ‘catholics’ do!
Could you explain how it is relevant?
Hey Francis!
You've just been dissed from the past!
By what or whose authority do you sit in judgment on the Catholic church and condemn the pope as a heretic?
Who gave you permission to think for yourself?
By rejecting the leadership of the Catholic church as they themselves have established it, you have put yourself in schism with it.
Not following the pope is not an option for you, no matter what excuses or rationalizations you use.
You are condemned by Catholicism.
But then again, I’ve seen you sit in judgment and reject the words of Jesus by arguing that it’s OK to call priests *Father* completely contrary to the direct and clear command of Jesus. I see a pattern here.
The church of one.
I presume that you boycott the current mass then since it’s V2 and in English and all, correct?
What do you do then? Have church in your own dining room?
Call no man father
Look; we SHOW you where the rabbit warren is located; it's up to YOU to navigate it!
--Catholic_Wannabe_Apologist(Hail Mary!)
It was brought about to enable the current Catholic to know what is authentic Christianity as compared to numerous assertions and versions of what may contain the true faith.
Wait.... what????
If took the Catholic church 1900 YEARS to establish what is needful for the current Catholic to know what authentic Christianity is?
You mean that Scripture (which y'all claim the Catholic church wrote and gave the world) isn't good enough?
That the church failed in transcribing it so they needed to correct it over and over again?
And we should trust you now for just what reason? If you didn't get it right the first 1900 years, why would you expect anyone to think that you got it right now?
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.