Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $55,972
63%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 63%!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Can Christians Lose Their Salvation?

    05/22/2015 8:51:55 AM PDT · 304 of 308
    daniel1212 to Greetings_Puny_Humans
    Again, however, you wrest the phrase "fallen from grace" from a statement that declares that those who are "justified by the law" are the ones who do so. Who can be justified by the law? And if you are justified by the law, do you even need grace?

    Again, it is not I who am wresting anything, but you ignore the context to make Paul warning believers against something they cannot become, and as applying to someone else but them.

    Yet it is because no one can be justified by the law that they are warned against submitting to the Judaizers, for to do so is to fall from grace, supposing that they merit of law-keeping will justify them before God as holy enough for Heaven.

    To make Gal. 5:1-4 to mean what you assert, it would basically read,

    Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free [though I am not writing to those who were made free], and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage [not that you can be, since Calvinism excludes that]. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing [of course, since I am not writing to believers who were set free then this is not a warning for you]. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you [not you who were set free and stand in grace, though that is whom I addressed], whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace [not that you can fall from grace, as if you were in grace, as you cannot, despite my warning against doing so]. (Galatians 5:1-4)

    The redeemed are whose who "through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith," (Galatians 5:5) who But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end," (Hebrews 3:6) repenting when convicted they are not, and "are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul," (Hebrews 10:39) and thus believers are plainly clear warned against doing so.

    However, as Calvinism excludes that as a possibility - and there are texts which also support this - then you must exclude such texts from saying what they plainly say, as they contract it. Therefore the real issue is the conclusions of Calvinism in this regard.

    But your verses do not really prove what you claim, and leaves you open to attack when we point to such verses that plainly declare that God is the master of salvation from beginning to end.

    That God is the master of salvation from beginning to end is true, both in enablement and motivation, as God convicts, draws, opens hearts, grants repentance and faith, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8,9) so that in conversion man does what he otherwise could not and would not do. And then he works in believers to do His good pleasure. (Phil. 2:13)

    But which does not exclude man from being a "steward of the manifold grace of God," (1Pt. 4:10) and receiving the grace of God in vain, as while God elects whom He will, and enables and moves man to believe - which is a response - yet it is manifest that not only does God will all to repent and be saved, (Acts 17:30; 1Tim. 2:4; 2Pt. 3:9) but souls resist the grace of God, though some are given more than others.

    Lost souls have enough grace given them that they can resist sin, and know who the true God is and worship Him to some degree, and do by nature the things contained in the Law, and yet become foolish and darkened idolators. (Gn. 4:7; Rm. 1:20,21; 2:14; cf. Acts 10:35) And which are damned for what they themselves did and are culpable for. (Rv.

    And believers can grieve the Spirit, and can deny the faith, (1Tim. 5:8) and which does not mean man is the master of salvation from beginning to end, as both lost and saved owe everything to God, and only can do what God enables and allows. And while believers can only believe and walk in faith by grace, and can take no credit, in choosing to deny the faith then they cannot impugn the Almighty. Man cannot boast of believing in Christ, nor can he charge God with iniquity if man chooses to depart from the living God, and God allows it.

    Thus the charge that allowing believers to do so - which they are warned against - makes them the master of their salvation, is invalid. If God enables and motivates them to choose to believe, then God is gets the credit, while if He allows them to depart from the faith, then God is still in control. That God could enable and move all souls to believe is true, but that He does not is what is manifest. Likewise that God could move all believers souls to remain in the faith is true, but that He does so renders the warnings against departing from the living God and drawing back unto perdition, making Christ of no effect and falling from grace, to be merely hypothetical.

    We do not read the scriptures which command and warn against something and ignore the verses that say that God gives what He commands!

    Actually, but holding that "gives" means the called cannot choose to not come to the wedding feast, or abide in Christ, then you must read the scriptures which command and warn against believers denying the faith and departing from grace and the living God and compel them to mean other than what they say, or relegate such to be merely hypothetical.

    I must honesty conclude i see such warnings as being given to believers, and am not comfortable relegating such to be merely hypothetical.

  • Roman Catholicism: The One True Church?

    05/22/2015 6:55:31 AM PDT · 429 of 450
    daniel1212 to MamaB
    I learn so much. It is a shame that the Catholics do not.

    Eyes have they, but they see not what refute their object of devotion.

  • VATICAN BIG GOES HARD AGAINST U.S. TEA PARTY CLIMATE SKEPTICS

    05/22/2015 6:54:35 AM PDT · 199 of 221
    daniel1212 to BlatherNaut; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

    It is a misconception (deliberately cultivated by Modernists) that certain infallible teachings were formally set aside by the VII Council.

    This itself is far from an infallible teaching, while the issue is the prerogative of Rome to interpret herself, and which here is not setting aside infallible teachings , but interpreting them so as to clarify what they always meant. Regardless of evidence to the contrary.

    And Ratzinger was not sanctioning dissent, for as he goes on to say (you forgot to source the document),

    In a similar way they would claim that the Vatican has conceded a right to dissent to Lefebvre which has been obstinately denied to the promoters of a progressive tendency. In reality, the only point which is affirmed in the agreement, following Lumen Gentium 25, is the plain fact that not all documents of the council have the same authority. For the rest, it was explicitly laid down in the text that was signed that public polemics must be avoided, and that an attitude is required of positive respect for official decisions and declarations. - https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3032

    And in a more weighty papal statement, Pope Paul VI stated during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, Dec. 7, 1965:

    But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man's conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force.. - http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6TOLAST.HTM

    Still later he stated that the Council “avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility,” and added that it conferred on its teachings “the value of the supreme ordinary magisterium” (Speech of Jan 12, 1966), and that “It had as much authority and far greater importance than the Council of Nicaea.” Elsewhere he has called iit “the greatest of Councils” and “Even greater than the Council of Trent.” :

    Perhaps the most clear cut statement is to be found in a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre demanding his submission to the post-Conciliar Church

    “You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its ‘definitions’ as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic.” - http://www.the-pope.com/magchuco.html

    And as SSPVs themselves assert,

    no one but no one can "resist" and/or refuse to obey" a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter," versus presuming to become judges and teachers, who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past.

    They this supply this from Pius X:

    To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path.

    And to fail in this most holy duty it is not necessary to perform an action in open opposition whether to the Bishops or to the Head of the Church; it is enough for this opposition to be operating indirectly, all the more dangerous because it is the more hidden. Thus, a soul fails in this sacred duty when, at the same time that a jealous zeal for the power and the prerogatives of the Sovereign Pontiff is displayed, the Bishops united to him are not given their due respect, or sufficient account is not taken of their authority, or their actions and intentions are interpreted in a captious manner, without waiting for the judgment of the Apostolic See.

    Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.....

    Since the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this.

    When these principles are forgotten there is noticed among Catholics a diminution of respect, of veneration, and of confidence in the one given them for a guide; then there is a loosening of that bond of love and submission which ought to bind all the faithful to their pastors, the faithful and the pastors to the Supreme Pastor, the bond in which is principally to be found security and common salvation....

    No, it cannot be permitted that laymen who profess to be Catholic should go so far as openly to arrogate to themselves in the columns of a newspaper, the right to denounce, and to find fault, with the greatest license and according to their own good pleasure, with every sort of person, not excepting bishops, and think that with the single exception of matters of faith they are allowed to entertain any opinion which may please them and exercise the right to judge everyone after their own fashion....

    The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces...

    If by chance there should be in the ranks of the episcopate a bishop not sufficiently mindful of his dignity and apparently unfaithful to one of his sacred obligations, in spite of this he would lose nothing of his power, and, so long as he remained in communion with the Roman Pontiff, it would certainly not be permitted to anyone to relax in any detail the respect and obedience which are due his authority.

    On the other hand, to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. At the same time, when the faithful have grave cause for complaint, they are allowed to put the whole matter before the Roman Pontiff, provided always that, safeguarding prudence and the moderation counseled by concern for the common good, they do not give vent to outcries and recriminations which contribute rather to the rise of divisions and ill-feeling, or certainly increase them.

    These fundamental principles, which cannot be gainsaid without bringing in their wake confusion and ruin in the government of the Church, We have many, many times been careful to recall and to inculcate...

    Not only must those be held to fail in their duty who openly and brazenly repudiate the authority of their leaders, but those, too, who give evidence of a hostile and contrary disposition by their clever tergiversations and their oblique and devious dealings. The true and sincere virtue of obedience is not satisfied with words; it consists above all in submission of mind and heart...

    And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

    Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope! ” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)- http://christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x

    It is clear that this submission is not limited in scope, and the above is consistent with what the same pope said in VEHEMENTER NOS,

    "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906),

    Therefore unless you are willing to concede that while RCs censure Prots for interpreting their supreme infallible authority, likewise RCs interpret their supreme infallible authority. Both see divisions, while those who reverence Scripture the most as more unified in conservative beliefs than the overall fruit of Rome.

    Your other alternative is to do what the SSPV require in censuring the "resist while recognize" the pope, which is to hold that the modern popes are not valid popes at all, which therefore validate their dissent. Not doing so means that as like Prots are censured for doing, you interpret what authentic teachers and teaching consists of, and its meaning, by personal examination of evidence.

    Yet Roman teaching states that one must place faith in her (as the instrument and steward of Divine revelation) to even know what Scripture is and truly means, the logic which invalidates the NT church.

  • VATICAN BIG GOES HARD AGAINST U.S. TEA PARTY CLIMATE SKEPTICS

    05/21/2015 6:45:20 PM PDT · 186 of 221
    daniel1212 to Elsie

    Too fitting

  • Can Christians Lose Their Salvation?

    05/21/2015 7:35:20 AM PDT · 293 of 308
    daniel1212 to Greetings_Puny_Humans
    But this verse here is not strong at all for proving that we may "fall from grace." The verse literally says that the people who fall from grace are the ones who are "justified by works."

    Which is just what those were in the liberty of Christ, in grace, are clearly warned against doing. Thus they fell from grace by which Christ had made these believers free.

    It is not teaching that Christians can "fall from grace."

    Thus it only warns believers, as believers, against doing so, and effectually becoming unbelievers.

    I think it is clear that believers are warned against making Christ of no effect, or profiting them nothing, and falling from grace by submitting to a gospel of salvation by the merit of moral worthiness as law-keepers, versus faith which is counted for righteousness, and is manifested by working to fulfill the righteousness of the Law.

    Indeed, but we should not stretch this into believing that Paul believed his labour to be the deciding factor of salvation....In other words, salvation depends on God's grace alone,

    There is no contradiction, and what is being said by Paul is that he feared that his labor as an instrument of grace would be in vain if they gave into the pressure to deny the faith they manifestly had believed.

    We have been thru this before, and one can attempt to compel all such texts (such as warns believers as believers against having an evil heart of unbelief, and departing from the living God, making Christ of no effect, becoming of no profit, falling from grace, drawing back into bondage and perdition, versus holding fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end, (Heb. 3:6,12,14; 10:38; Gal. 5:1-4) which warn of change of one state into another, forfeiting what faith appropriated), to conform to Calvinistic doctrine, and mean what i see them as most plainly teaching.

    And if the Calvinistic doctrine of perseverance of the saints (the P in TULIP) is true, and which is the best case for OSAS and is far better than the antinomianic OSAS too many profess today, then these texts could not mean what i see them as most plainly conveying.

    However, despite the temptation, I would rather allow that there is a seeming contradiction or that the Calvinistic conclusions are in error than to compel all such texts to mean contrary to what i honestly see them saying. As said, i see no other alternative unless one dares to hold that such warnings and exhortations are theoretical, as a means of motivating believers to stand firm in the faith. Until one tells them they cannot make Christ of no effect...

  • VATICAN BIG GOES HARD AGAINST U.S. TEA PARTY CLIMATE SKEPTICS

    05/21/2015 6:54:37 AM PDT · 175 of 221
    daniel1212 to redleghunter
    [Condemned articles of J. Hus]: 20. If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it. Council of Constance, Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm
  • Roman Catholicism: The One True Church?

    05/21/2015 6:36:11 AM PDT · 386 of 450
    daniel1212 to Steelfish; DeprogramLiberalism; Elsie; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; ...
    What we have here is the typical shallow Protestant response

    The following will not be, by God's grace.

    Rain down a few scriptural quotes from here and there and ignore the broad breadth and depth of the history of the early Church Fathers and their coherent doctrine

    Meaning you seem to ignore the different non-unanimous view of so-called "fathers," versus the often stated unanimous consent of the fathers and those which are contrary to Rome, while effectively elevating them "above that which is written" as needed, contrary to Scripture.

    The non-inspired writings of these so-called church fathers, the relative little we have available from them, with most of which on the web being due to Anglican churchmen, stands in contrast to the inspired writings of Scripture in quality (thus the former remains in basic obscurity), and often in teaching. And no less than Jerome engaged in manifest wresting of Scripture to support his erroneous views on marriage (as unclean, and that it is bad to touch a women) versus virginity, which others ECFs also guilty of.

    Meanwhile, your premise that the opinion of the lettered is to be primarily determinative of where the wisdom lays in contrary to how the church began.

    Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:45-49)

    Perhaps you should engage yourself in serious scholarship reading. The early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church,

    Yes, let us read Kelly, whose Early Christian Doctrines is on my lap, and in the quote you enlist he is describing the view of Irenaeus, and adds that Irenaeus held that “what the apostles at first proclaimed by word of mouth, they afterward by God's will conveyed to us in Scriptures,” and that "provided the Bible was taken as a whole, its teaching was self-evident," and which was the "foundation and pillar of our faith." (pp. 38,39)

    However, it is rather obvious that by yoking tradition as equal with Scripture and determinative of its meaning - which likely was a result of their difficulty in combating aberrations who employed Scripture, as the devil did, but whom the Lord defeated by Scripture, not tradition - Scripture ceased to become the supreme standard, but the church did. And rendered Scripture to be its servant to support doctrines she channels out of her amorphous "oral tradition."

    The veracity of which does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, by which the church began, but upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

    Thus Rome can even decree as binding the belief in a specific event not recorded or promised in Scripture, and contrary to its order, and even though it lacks early testimony of tradition, and the sanction of church historians and theologians, but which Rome "remembers" and guarantees to be true over 1800 years after it allegedly occurred, under the self-proclaimed premise that she cannot err. Which is cultic, not Christian.

    But as the teaching of Scripture is so self-evident, then it is manifest that a whole list of accumulated Caths teachings are not of Scripture .

    You wistfully ignore the writings of St. Irenaeus AD 189

    "You wistfully" is personal mind reading, but let us see what is unknown or ignored by RCs (as "coherent doctrine") in the writings of St. Irenaeus, among others from Kelley, and which is related to the Assumption. For Kelly finds that Ireneaus, Tertullian, and Origen all felt Mary had sinned:

    In contrast to the later belief in her moral and spiritual perfection. None of these theologians had the least scruple about attributing faults to her. Irenaeus and Tertullian recalled occasions on which, as they read the gospel stories, she had earned her son's rebuke, and Origen and insisted that, like all human beings, she needed redemption from her sins; in particular he interpreted Simon's prophecy in Luke 2:35 that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her son crucified. Page 493 (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian doctrines)

    Also,

    You also have the findings on Cyprian:

    "Cyprian made plain, that each bishop is entitled to hold his own views and to administer his own diocese accordingly...[In Cyprian's view] There is no suggestion that he [Peter] possessed any superiority to, much less jurisdiction over, the other apostles. - (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], pp. 205-206)

    And consistent with Roman deformation of the NT church, even by the 4th century you have the election of Pope Damasus 1, who is officially a Roman Catholic Church "saint," engaging in unholy means to secure his throne from his rival Ursinus (such unity):

    ....the rival faction of Felix's adherence elected Damasus, who did not hesitate to consolidate his claim by hiring a gang of thugs, storming the Julian Basilica in carrying out a three-day massacre of the Ursinians...the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus reports that they left 137 dead on the field. -Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. p. 32

    you have no clue of the earlier writing of St. Ignatius of Antioch in AD 110, himself a contemporary of the Evangelist John who wrote in 21: 25 that there were many things Christ did that cannot fill all the books in the world.

    There are indeed as revealed by Scripture, but your use of this fact in order to extrapolate support for whatever Rome decrees is simply an exercise in sophistry. Mormons also invoke Jn. 21:25, but the fact that there is more information than what is written neither means God made such available and necessary to be known now, much less validate the claims of Rome regarding such, based upon her self-proclaimed ensured infallibility and veracity.

    And what RCs ignore is that rather than inferring that a whole body of oral tradition is to be channeled by Rome into doctrine, what John states is,

    And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)

    There is also much that was not written in OT times, but which does not validate the Talmud with its superstitions, nor the fables of Rome passed off as doctrine.-.

    The oral preaching Paul enjoined churches to obey, which a SS preacher can also do, would be that of Scriptural Truths, as that was what he claimed the gospel was of. Nor is there any evidence that what Rome teaches were things Paul referred to, and that these were not subsequently penned. And Paul was also an wholly inspired writer of Scripture, which Rome cannot claim for her doctrines.

    And that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, is abundantly evidenced

    And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

    Your eclectic views of scriptures are utterly risible because it would mean that for eleven centuries the constellation of theologians, saints, and martyrs all got it wrong.

    It is Caths whose use of scriptures is eclectic, and often that of ECFs, while rejection of the errors of ancients as well as Rome, which are not necessarily the same, does not equate to the constellation of theologians, saints, and martyrs getting it all wrong. These were pious men as are many Jews, yet one can be off in many ways and yet still be a child of God, as The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. (Psalms 34:18)

    But Rome's progressive accretions of traditions and errors is manifest in the light of Scripture, as said, from infant regeneration and justification thru sprinkling or water, to ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, to the Lord's Supper being that of offering the "real" but not bloody body of flesh and blood of Christ as a sin offering, and literally consuming this as in order to obtain spiritual life, to a separate class sacerdotal believers distinctively titled "priests" since they uniquely engage in the former practice, to praying to created beings in Heaven, to becoming good enough to enter Heaven thru purgatorial torments, etc.

    This is why the works of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict to say nothing of the scores of Protestant theologians who converted to Catholicism flies well over your heads.

    The use of which serves to illustrate the deformation of Rome as well as ignorance of RCs or their interpretation of them and of church teaching. Consider the variant views on EENS with some invoking historical papal and conciliar teachings which stand in contrast with modern ones. Some disallow even baptized Prots from being separated brethren, let alone non-Christians from being part of the body of Christ. Which Dulles interprets Augustine and Aquinas as supporting.

    “According to Vatican II, the communion of the church of Christ extends far beyond the visible borders of the Roman Catholic Church. The Council's teaching on this point was not a new departure, but an assertion of a very traditional position, held by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. All who have the gifts of faith, hope, and charity, even though they be not Catholics or even Christians, are in some sense members of Christ's body, and therefore of the church.” (p. 59) — Cardinal Avery Dulles, A Church to Believe; In http://www.crowhill.net/journeyman/Vol1No3/dulles.html

    So when Luke’s angel Gabriel describes Mary as “full of grace,” Luke is explicitly using language that applies to the Holy of Holies of the Temple, and saying that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

    Actually, that language applies to all believers. The word for “full” is not even in Lk. 1:28, as kecharitomene (one form of the verb "charitoo") in Lk. 1:28, is never used for "full" elsewhere, but Lk. 1:28 simply says she was graced, favored, enriched with grace, as in Eph.1:6. In contrast, the only one (though in some manuscripts Stephen in Acts 6:8) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth," using "plērēs," which denotes "full" 17 other places in the NT. If Mary was uniquely perfectly full of grace as bearing Christ then it would say she was, as Christ was, (plērēs charis) and RCs would not have to engage in such egregious extrapolations in seeking to left this invention.

    Your own official RC Bible for America does not say “full of grace,” and Lk, 1:28 was wrongly rendered "full of grace" in the DRB, rather than "highly favored" or similar, as in Rome's current official New American Bible, “Hail, favored one!" (http://usccb.org/bible/luke/1) Yet the DRB correctly translates Eph. 1:6 as "in which he hath graced us."

    For as CARM finds,In Greek: καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ. κεχαριτωμένη, is the pf. pass. ptcp. of χαριτόω (charitoō). It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. Repeated: It is a passive participle derived from charitoō. It does not mean "full of grace" or ‘completely filled with grace’ which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek. More technical data from source here

    Mary is said to be “full” of grace, or uniquely so, nor from what i find does kecharitomene being a perfect passive participle translate into meaning a "a perfection of grace," or distinctively a past action, as per RC argumentation, in distinction to echaritosen (another form of the verb "charitoo") used in Eph. 1:6, as there also it refers to a present state based upon a past action, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted [echaritosen] in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:6)

    See more on this issue here as White gets into detail with the Greek. (And notes that the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.)

    Even Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin said of Luke 1:28 on the word kecharitomene:

    "This is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn't immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense" like Mary's grandmother). He went on to say, "This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together." Meaning the text does not teach the IM, nor is that necessary, but tradition becomes binding doctrine under the ultimate presumed authority of Rome.

    Moreover, while Mary is highly blessed among women, and is to be honored according to what is written, this does not translate in the type of supererogation of praise seen in Catholicism, in which humble Mary is made into an almost almighty demigoddess!

    Catholic Mariology uses Biblical typology over and over again,

    So does the book of Mormon, as the devil knows the Bible, and is the author of Marian doctrine such as makes her an almost almighty demigoddess and dispenser of all graces, who is a more immediate sure recourse for help than Christ.

    The very existence of the Marian dogmas tells us something about God’s generosity,

    Rather, God allows heretical teachers in order to test the people, like as He allows Israel's enemies to exist, and the very existence of the Marian dogmas examples such, by which many are deceived, succumbing to the psychological appeal of a heavenly mother, like as the pagan Queen of Heaven, (Jer. 44).

    In contrast, while out of over 200 prayers in Scripture to Heaven not one is to any created being , except by pagans, while the Holy Spirit sets forth Christ as the only heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, (1Tim. 2:5) and the uniquely qualified immediate recourse to pray, by whose blood believers have direct access into the Holy of Holies in Heaven to commune with God, not Mary or saintly secretaries! To the glory of God and the damnation of Catholicism.

    She gets perpetual virginity. She gets to be glorified before anyone else. She gets protected from original sin. She gets appointed Mother of the Church and Queen of Heaven. Why? Just because He loves her, and that is reason enough.

    Why? Because mostly lost souls persist in thinking of mortals above that which is written, and essentially deifying them, including ascribing the ability to hear and respond to incessant mental prayers to Heaven, which only God is shown able to do.

    Why? Just because He loves her, and that is reason enough.

    No no no! That since God has motive and can do something never warrants teaching than that He did! Under that hermeneutic one can sanction multitudes of other unScriptural teachings, like as Catholicism has, as well as cults!

    And as they also basically operate out of the Roman model of sola ecclesia, in which the leaders are the supreme authority which possess ensured veracity, then the real issue is the RC basis for assurance of Truth. That of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, or the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, under which the church began. Which is not taught in Scripture and relies upon the

  • VATICAN BIG GOES HARD AGAINST U.S. TEA PARTY CLIMATE SKEPTICS

    05/21/2015 5:10:47 AM PDT · 165 of 221
    daniel1212 to Mark17
    By all means, carry on

    By means of God's grace, to His glory.

  • VATICAN BIG GOES HARD AGAINST U.S. TEA PARTY CLIMATE SKEPTICS

    05/21/2015 5:10:09 AM PDT · 164 of 221
    daniel1212 to terycarl; CynicalBear
    Catholics have been making serious decisions for 2,015 years and most of them have been 100% correct!!!

    That RC opinion is as meaningless "as in my very long life, I have NEVER seen a Catholic teaching proven false......never."

    For RCs manifest they only will see what they want

    Instead, by God's grace a list of posts can be provided in which RCs could not defend RC teaching. Pick one or many , though RC cultic devotion renders them to be like the car thief who could not find a police station.

  • VATICAN BIG GOES HARD AGAINST U.S. TEA PARTY CLIMATE SKEPTICS

    05/21/2015 5:01:22 AM PDT · 159 of 221
    daniel1212 to BlatherNaut; piusv; Mark17; Elsie; metmom; knarf; MamaB
    The historical record, the Vincentian Canon and the law of non-contradiction. No pope can contradict a previous pope in matters of faith and morals.

    Of course, not, as Rome is the one which decides what a contradiction is. Do you not think V2 and modern popes have contradicted previous councils and popes? But if each person is allowed to be the judge of what authentic teaching is by examination of evidences and warrant thereof, versus giving at least submission of mind and will to current teaching as required (or is that interpretive also?), then does that no make you a Protestant in principle as some of your brethren charge?

    "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906),

    “All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” (Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org /Tradition/faith2-10.htm]

    ..in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council lhttp://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html

    St. Ignatius once said that should the Pope command him to undertake a voyage by sea in a ship without a mast, without oars or sails, he would blindly obey the precept. And when he was told that it would be imprudent to expose his life to danger, he answered that.

    prudence is necessary in Superiors; but in subjects the perfection of prudence is to obey without prudence. This doctrine is conformable to Holy Scripture: Behold, says the Lord, as clay is in the potter s hands.' Religious must leave themselves in the hands of the Superior to be moulded as she wills. St. Alphonsus De Liguori, True Spouse of Christ, p. 68 http://wallmell.webs.com/LiguoriTrueSpouseChristVol1.pdf

    Some examples of contrasting teaching.

    Contra # 1

    On "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" (outside the Church there is no salvation) 

    ►Present:
    RCC: 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?[335] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:…Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.[336]
    [This is somewhat open to interpretation by Roman Catholics,  some of whom understand this as teaching that all must die as Catholics in repentance from typical Protestant "errors" (according to Rome) to be saved, while many  know of the claims of Rome  to be the one true church, but do not know these as being warranted.  And yet in my judgment few Catholics evidently live and  die truly trusting the Lord Jesus to save them by His blood (and thus follow Him), rather than effectively trusting in the power of Rome and or their own merits, both of which Catholicism effectually fosters. May the former ever be my faith, by the mercy of God.]

    LUMEN GENTIUM: "..there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities…"

    "They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood." — LUMEN GENTIUM: 16.

    • Dominus Iesus: "those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.” “All who have been justified by Faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ: they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” — http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

     John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995 [Speaking of non-Catholic “Churches”]: 83. "I have mentioned the will of the Father and the spiritual space in which each community hears the call to overcome the obstacles to unity. All Christian Communities know that, thanks to the power given by the Spirit, obeying that will and overcoming those obstacles are not beyond their reach. All of them in fact have martyrs for the Christian faith.137 Despite the tragedy of our divisions, these brothers and sisters have preserved an attachment to Christ and to the Father so radical and absolute as to lead even to the shedding of blood..."
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html


    ►Past:
    Pius XII, Humani Generis (27,28): 
    "Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation...These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons." http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

    Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium." Satis Cognitum (# 9): June 29, 1896: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html

    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

    • Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church) http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm

    Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:
    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

    Fifth Lateran Council: Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore...renew and give our approval to that constitution... Fifth Lateran CouncilSession 11, 19 December 1516, http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm

    Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox” schismatics] and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?...Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned...” Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873) The Promotion of True Religious Unity), 11, Encyclical promulgated on January 6, 1928, #11; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

    •  Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council),  Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style),  [considered infallible by some]

      Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV: "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours." Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215) [considered infallible by some]

    Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1 

    The COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE under Pope John XXIII condemned the proposition of Wycliff that “It is not necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman church is supreme among the other churches.” [inasmuch as it would deny the primacy of the supreme pontiff over the other individual churches.] Session 8—4 May 1415; http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CONSTANC.HTM 

    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

    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

    St. Frances Xavier Cabrini: "Many Protestants have almost the same practices as we, only they do not submit to the Holy Father and attach themselves to the true Ark of Salvation. They do not want to become Catholics and unite themselves under the banner of truth wherein alone there is true salvation. Of what avail is it, children, if Protestants lead naturally pure, honest lives, yet lack the Holy Ghost? They may well say: 'We do no harm; we lead good lives'; but, if they do not enter the true fold of Christ, all their protestations are in vain." St. Frances Xavier Cabrini, "Travels", Chicago: 1944, pp. 84, 71.

    St. Ambrose, "Expl. of Luke: "The Lord severed the Jewish people from His kingdom, and heretics and schismatics are also severed from the kingdom of God and from the Church. Our Lord makes it perfectly clear that every assembly of heretics and schismatics belongs not to God, but to the unclean spirit." St. Ambrose, "Expl. of Luke", ch.7, 91-95; PL 15; SS, vol. II, p. 85, (quoted in The Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 4: "The Book of Christians", Chapter 2: "Those Who Reject Christ's Church are Anti-Christian"). http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6480/catholics/apostolic4chp2.html

    Contra 2.

    ►Present:
     Lumen Gentium 16: The Moslems together with us adore the one merciful God.” (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)

      "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God,...they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God." (Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate 3, October 28, 1965)

    CCC: 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.[337]

    ►Past:
     • Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire.— Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council),  Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style),  [considered infallible by some]

     • Pope Pelagius I: I confess that the Lord will give over by a very just judgment to the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire the wicked who either did not know by way of the Lord or, knowing it, left it when seized by various transgressions, in order that they may burn without end. (Attributed to Pope Pelagius I in, “Humani Generis,” April 1, 557 A.D.)

    Pope  Gregory "the Great:" The Holy Catholic Church teaches that God cannot be adored except within her fold; she affirms that all those who are separated from her will not be saved. (Pope St. Gregory the Great, “Moralia,” XIV:5)

    Pope Pius X: Acts which spring from natural goodness have only the appearance of virtue; they cannot last of themselves nor can they merit salvation. (Pope St. Pius X, “Editae Saepe,” May 26, 1910)

    Pope Gregory XIV: He who is separated from the Body of the Catholic Church, however praiseworthy his conduct may seem otherwise, will never enjoy eternal life. (Pope Gregory XIV, “Summo Jugiter,” May 27, 1832)

    Pope Pius IX: Neither the true Faith nor eternal salvation is to be found outside the Holy Catholic Church. It is a SIN to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. (Ven. Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, March 17, 1856; cf. also OUR GLORIOUS POPES, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Cambridge, MA: 1955, p.168)

    Pope Pius IX: Error Condemned: Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846. (Pope Pius IX, “Syllabus of Modern Errors;http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm)

    Contra 3

    ►Present:
     Nostra Aetate: Indeed, the Church deplores all hatreds, persecutions, displays of anti-semitism levelled at any time or from any source against the Jews (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, “Nostra Aetate,” Oct. 28, 1965)

    ►Past:
    Pope Innocent III: The crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection. (Pope Innocent III, “Epistle to the Hierarchy of France,” July 15, 1205)

    Thomas Aquinas: It would be licit, according to custom, to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime. (St. Thomas Aquinas, “De Regimine Judaeorum”)

    Contra 4

    ►Present:
    Nostra Aetate: Therefore, the Church reproves as foreign to the mind of Christ any discrimination against people or any harrassment on the basis of race, color, condition in life, or religion. (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, “Nostra Aetate,” Oct. 28, 1965)

    Dignitatis Humanae: Religious communities have the right not to be prevented from publicly teaching and bearing witness to their beliefs by the spoken or written word. (Declaration on Religious Freedom, “Dignitatis Humanae,” December 12, 1965)

    ►Past:
    Pope Gregory XVI: It is insanity to believe that liberty of conscience and liberty of worship are the inalienable rights of every citizen. From this stinking fountain of Indifferentism flows the erroneous and absurd opinion, or rather derangement, that liberty of conscience must be asserted and vindicated for everyone. This most pestilential error opens the door to the complete and immoderate liberty of opinions which works such widespread harm both in Church and State. (Pope Gregory XVI, “Mirari Vos,” August 15,1832)

    Pope Pius IX, Error Condemned: Every man is free to embrace and to profess that religion which, led by the light of reason, he shall consider to   true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851. (Ven. Pope Pius IX, “Syllabus of Modern Errors,”December 8, 1864; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm)

    Contra 5

    ►Present:
     Dignitatis Humanae: If special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of the State, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected

     ►Past:
     • Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors):
    [It is error to believe that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.” (Section X, Errors Having Reference to Modern Liberalism, #78. http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM)

    Pope Pius IX, Error condemned: In this age of ours, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion be the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever. In certain regions of Catholic name, it has been praiseworthily sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own. (Pope Pius IX, “Syllabus of Modern Errors,”December 8, 1864)

    Contra 6

    ►Present:
     Dignitatis Humanae: It is fully in accordance with the nature of Faith that in religious matters every form of coercion by men should be excluded

    CCC  2298: In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy [Islam can say the same, but in both cases the religious use of sword of man  is  sanctioned]. She forbade clerics to shed blood [by having the state do it]. In recent times [like the New Testament] it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors [Rome being one of the latter].  

    In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture ‘cannot be contravened under any circumstances’”. — Pope Benedict XVI, in a speech of 6 September 2007; Torture and corporal punishment as a problem in Catholic Theology, September 2005;

    ..the disciple of Christ rejects every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify, and by which the dignity of man is as much debased in the torturer as in his victim. . . — Pope John Paul II, Address to the International Red Cross (Geneva, June 15, 1982).

    ►Past:
     Pope Leo X: That it is against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics at the stake is condemned as false. (Pope Leo X, “Exsurge Domino,” 1520)

    Pope Innocent IV, Ad extirpanda: The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody,{8} provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs,as actual robbers and murderers of souls and thieves of the sacraments of God and Christian faith, to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know, and specify their motives, {9} and those whom they have seduced, and those who have lodged them and defended them,as thieves and robbers of material goods are made to accuse their accomplices and confess the crimes they have committed. 

    Those convicted of heresy by the aforesaid Diocesan Bishop,surrogate or inquisitors, shall be taken in shackles to the head of state or ruler or his special representative, instantly,or at least within five days, and the latter shall apply the regulations promulgated against such persons [burn them alive]...(http://userwww.sfsu.edu/%7Edraker/history/Ad_Extirpanda.html; http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/01p/1252-05-15,_SS_Innocentius_IV,_Bulla_%27Ad_Extirpanda%27,_EN.pdf)

    • Pope Innocent, in his instruction for the guidance of the Inquisition in Tuscany and Lombardy, ordered the civil magistrates to extort from all heretics by torture a confession of their own guilt and a betrayal of all their accomplices (1252).
    This was an ominous precedent, which did more harm to the reputation of the papacy than the extermination of any number of heretics could possibly do it good. (Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590-1073.The Torture http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.vi.viii.html)

    Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council, 1215:
    We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known, for while they have different faces they are nevertheless bound to each other by their tails, since in all of them vanity is a common element. Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. 

    As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues. But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all 1-intil they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics.

    Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

    But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.

    The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)

    Pope Innocent IV: Those who have been detected, even by slight proof, to have deviated from the doctrine of the Catholic religion ought to fall under the classification of heretic and under the sentences operating against heretics. (Pope Innocent IV, “Registers of Innocent IV,” Berger, Paris:1881)

    Contra 7

    ►Present:
     Rome, Italy, Feb 19, 2010 / 02:03 pm (CNA).- The president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Walter Kasper, announced this week that Pope Benedict XVI will visit the Evangelical Lutheran Church located in Rome on March 14 for an ecumenical celebration.

    •  Pope John Paul II took part in a  normal Advent service at the Evangelical Lutheran Christ Church on Dec. 11, in which he bowed toward his head and joined with Pastor Meyer in reciting the Apostles' Creed and the Lord's Prayer. In reference to Luther  five centuries after his birth, the pope said,  ''we see as if in a distance the dawning of the advent of a reconstruction of our unity and community.'' (NY Times, December 12, 1983; http://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/12/world/pope-citing-hope-for-unity-takes-part-in-lutheran-rite.html)

    ►Past:
    • “the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica)


    •  How does a Catholic sin against faith? A Catholic sins against Faith by Apostasy, heresy, indifferentism and by taking part in non-Catholic worship....when he intends to identify himself with a religion he knows is defective." (Baltimore Catechism Q. #205; http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/bli.htm)

    •  ...”in the case of simple people and those who are weak in the faith, whose perversion is to be feared as a probable result, they should be forbidden to communicate with unbelievers, and especially to be on very familiar terms with them, or to communicate with them without necessity.”  (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 9. “Whether it is lawful to communicate with unbelievers?” http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm)

    •  “...this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.” (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 10,11; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos.html)

    •  1917 Code of Canon Law: "It is not permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics." (1917 Code of Canon Law states: that:Canon 1258)

    Contra 9

    Present:
     Canon 229 §1. Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with the doctrine, announce it, defend it when necessary, and be enabled to assume their role in exercising the apostolate.

    Past:
     We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-51631.html

    Quinisext Ecumenical Council, Canon 64: That a layman must not publicly make a speech or teach, thus investing himself with the dignity of a teacher, but, instead, must submit to the ordinance handed down by the Lord, and to open his ear wide to them who have received the grace of teaching ability, and to be taught by them the divine facts thoroughly.

    See Roman Catholicism's attitude and regulation of Bible reading here.
  • VATICAN BIG GOES HARD AGAINST U.S. TEA PARTY CLIMATE SKEPTICS

    05/20/2015 8:07:49 PM PDT · 149 of 221
    daniel1212 to piusv; metmom
    You mean you don't know when someone is telling you to do something against God's commands? Or telling you that something that was once condemned by the Church is now not condemned?

    We should, by examining the evidence, however since this can see differences of opinions, and implicitly sanction Prots, modern RCs even charge SSPX types with being like Prots, as RCs are not to seek to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth

    And thus to basically avoid the problem of you having to judge what right and wrong is, and what RC teaching really is, you are told,

    "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906),

    St. Ignatius once said that should the Pope command him to undertake a voyage by sea in a ship without a mast, without oars or sails, he would blindly obey the precept. And when he was told that it would be imprudent to expose his life to danger, he answered that.

    "Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom." ( St. Catherine of Siena: A Biography By Anne B. Baldwin, p. 125,

    prudence is necessary in Superiors; but in subjects the perfection of prudence is to obey without prudence. This doctrine is conformable to Holy Scripture: Behold, says the Lord, as clay is in the potter s hands.' Religious must leave themselves in the hands of the Superior to be moulded as she wills. St. Alphonsus De Liguori, True Spouse of Christ, p. 68 http://wallmell.webs.com/LiguoriTrueSpouseChristVol1.pdf

    Advice to the religious:

    Obey blindly; that is, without asking reasons. Be careful, then, never to examine the directions of your confessor....that in obeying your confessor, you obey God; force yourself, then, to obey him in spite of all your fears. And be persuaded that if you are not obedient to him, it will be impossible for you to go on well; but if you obey, you are always secure. But, you say, if I am damned in consequence of obeying my confessor, who will rescue me from hell? What you say is impossible." " St. Alphonsus De Liguori, The complete works of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori: the ascetical works: Volumes 10-11 (True Spouse of Christ) Google book search

  • VATICAN BIG GOES HARD AGAINST U.S. TEA PARTY CLIMATE SKEPTICS

    05/20/2015 7:39:04 PM PDT · 148 of 221
    daniel1212 to stisidore
    Only my power, as Mother of God, is preventing the outbreak of the storm.

    More blasphemy. The elect are not even crowned until the Lord returns, and nowhere is Mary said to be given such power in the wholly inspired word of God, which, Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as

    an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

    whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

    who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

    and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"

    and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

    for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

    "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

    so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

    and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

    for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

    Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

    and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"

    including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

    whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

    and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

    and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.

    One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, even with adulation, attributes, glory and titles never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers addressed to them, and beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them. Which would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine by playing word games they avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

    Instead they should do what Mary and every believer in every prayer to Heaven did (and I should do more of), which was to pray directly to the Lord, not secretaries. But they must truly become born again for that.

    Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

    Instead Caths basically say,

    As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)

  • VATICAN BIG GOES HARD AGAINST U.S. TEA PARTY CLIMATE SKEPTICS

    05/20/2015 7:30:40 PM PDT · 146 of 221
    daniel1212 to Tao Yin; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    Further research shows the commerce clause of subjugation to the Roman pontiff. "We declare that in no way do we wish to usurp the jurisdiction of the King...And yet, neither the King nor anyone else of the faithful can deny that he is subject to us where a question of sin is involved."

    Since only an ecumenical council can censure or depose a pope, and an ecumenical council's conclusions must be sanctioned by him, it pretty much excludes censure or deposing a pope.

    Quite the system, anb RCs attack Prot as elevating individuals.

  • VATICAN BIG GOES HARD AGAINST U.S. TEA PARTY CLIMATE SKEPTICS

    05/20/2015 7:24:32 PM PDT · 145 of 221
    daniel1212 to ebb tide; Gamecock; Elsie
    Why are you asking Protestants a question about Catholicism?

    Because its rhetorical, besides being valid. RCs have often show they cannot or will not objectively deal with the aberrations of Rome, while you seem to be part of a group or movement which judges what RC teaching is based upon your interpretation of historical documents, contra following your pastors and V2 in all it says.

  • ISIS seizes large weapons arsenal abandoned by Iraqi Army in Ramadi says US Department of Defense

    05/20/2015 6:45:20 PM PDT · 73 of 81
    daniel1212 to BBell
    I can’t for the life of me figure out why we do not immediately send in air strikes to destroy all the equipment left behind. It’s warfare 101.

    1. Because liberals have a basic animus against the God of Scripture, which requires obedience for rewards, while showing mercy to the disobedient, not making it a right. And since Islam is in rebellion against God, and whom they see as unfairly making rules and punishing disobedience, then they see Islam as victims and allies in their war against God./

    2. Because liberals have a basic animus against the reality that man is basically sinful, and thus such things as child spanking to wars sometimes are necessary. Instead, what would be called sinful behavior is made to be excusable due to conditions beyond their control, and are not to be punished, as it is likely the fault of George Bush, or someone who believed in evil vs good.

    Therefore when such an entity as ISIS manifest depravity, the liberal is paralyzed: if they are treated as the danger they are then they are admitting man is evil, and such must be punished. As political pressures demand they due something, temporary or small scale actions are taken while they hope it will all go away as a bad dream. For seeing as their political messiah has arrived, the constant bloody historical reminders of the depravity of man which the liberal minds finds so uncomfortable in his delusional fantasies has become a thing of the past. All men are of good will, or are simply confused misunderstood adolescents who will become peace-loving abortion and homosexual rights supporters . under the enlightened counsel of liberal elites, and as America the bully lays down her weapons and gives money to them.

    3. The admin seeks to indirectly fund Islam by funding groups which join ISIS or by letting others whom America funded loose their battles with ISIS and leave American equipment and $upplies behind.

  • Roman Catholicism: The One True Church?

    05/19/2015 6:53:24 PM PDT · 211 of 450
    daniel1212 to metmom
    1 Corinthians 12:12 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. Spoken to the church at CORINTH, not ROME.

    You must have missed the reminder to submit to the Holy infallible Father in Rome, or at least specifically to pray for him, or at least mention him (esp. among the 27 acquaintances in Romans 16), as Paul did in his epistles, and as befits a cardinal doctrine, since Paul was careful to always to declare "all counsel of God." (Acts 20:27)

    You say you still not see the church looking to Peter as Rome teaches it did? Then read the Lord's critique and counsel to the 7 church in Asia, with its commendations and condemnations. For surely submission to Peter would be of primary commendation for the health churches, and commendation for those who were not, and part of the solution for such

    Not there either you say? Then look how Peter describes himself in his epistles. Surely you can see that being "a servant," "an apostle," "an elder" is describing the exalted office in Rome to which all the churches looked to as their infallible head.

    Such is not seen in any church epistles or letters you say? Then look how the entire church considered Peter's testimony and exhortation as being the definitive sentence on what should be done in Acts 15, rather than being the street-level leader among the 12 leaders, and first to use the keys to the kingdom, the gospel, (Col. 1:13) with no unique powers, and whose word did not settle the matter, but which the conclusive counsel of James did, confirmatory of Peter and Paul and Barnabas, after the latter added their complimentary testimony.

    You do not see Peter as the singular supreme leader there? Then look how Paul describes Cephas (Peter) in Gal. 2. Surely being list second after James as one of 3 present who "seemed [appeared] to be somewhat" and that whatsoever they were as persons did not matter to Paul, and publicly reproving Peter for his duplicity is how Rome presents its pope.

    You say you see the contrary, and not Peter as first of a line of exalted infallible heads in Rome is not there? Then look how the Holy Spirit is faithful to tell us of the successor to the apostle James who was martyred, (Acts 12:1,2) as He did for Judas (in order to maintain the foundational number. (Acts 1:15ff; cf. Rv. 21:14)

    You still only Peter as the initial street-level leader among the 11 leaders, with no unique powers perpetuation? Then look how often Peter is mentioned as compared with everyone else, even if much of that is duplicate accounts. And how much God used him. You say that by that kind of criteria you could provide 51 proofs of a Pauline papacy ?

    Well, if you cannot see how Rome can extrapolate support for what it declares as Truth out of what Scripture does not teach, then it illustrates why you need to submit your mind to Rome first, as if she was God, and then you can believe anything she want you to. Regardless of any cost to credibility.

  • Roman Catholicism: The One True Church?

    05/19/2015 6:19:30 PM PDT · 210 of 450
    daniel1212 to LurkingSince'98
    it is taken directly from the protestant site www.ccel.org maybe your divinely inspired reading is better than theirs

    It appears that my non-inspired reading is better than yours, since the statement that " Clement, who was ordained by Peter himself" is not what that site says, but only that this was "According to Tertullian."

    Meanwhile, why is it, except as it is convenient for a strawman polemic, do RCs assume that since someone or thing is Protestant, then we necessarily should to give such credence, while on the other hand, RCs, as convenient, broadly define Protestant, and assert that they have no unity?

    Schaff is an esteemed historian, not mainly because he is Protestant, but modern research has revealed things that even the best historians did not know. Thus even Catholic researchers and others provide testimony against the propaganda of the early church looking to Peter as the first of a line of supreme popes in Rome. while Peterinspired reading is better than, who was ordained by Peter himself If you actually read my response, you should have seen that aside from the Schaff does not make

  • Roman Catholicism: The One True Church?

    05/19/2015 1:17:06 PM PDT · 179 of 450
    daniel1212 to Steelfish; 5thGenTexan
    . But first a short summary of his journey,

    To damnation. There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (Proverbs 14:12)

    “By the time I finished my Ph.D., I had completely revised my understanding of the Catholic Church. I saw that her sacramental doctrine, her view of salvation, her veneration of Mary and the saints, and her claims to authority were all grounded in Scripture, in the oldest traditions, and in the plain teaching of Christ and the apostles.

    Meaning he found what he wanted, despite her view of salvation by merit, so that must be spend an indeterminate time in postmortem purifying torments until they become good enough (and atone for sins) to enter Heaven;

    , her veneration of Mary and the saints

    While Prots do venerate Biblical saints, such as Paul, and men and women of faith, Cath veneration includes bowing down to statues of such and praying to them in Heaven, which is never ever commanded or seen in Scripture, except by pagans making supplication and offerings to the only "Queen of Heaven" in Scripture. (Jer. 44)

    One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, even with adulation, attributes, glory and titles never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers addressed to them, and beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them. Which would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine by playing word games they avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

    Instead they should do what Mary and every believer in every prayer to Heaven did (and I should do more of), which was to pray directly to the Lord, not secretaries. But they must truly become born again for that.

    Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

    Instead Caths basically say,

    As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)

    her claims to authority were all grounded in Scripture, in the oldest traditions, and in the plain teaching of Christ and the apostles.

    Meaning as defined by Rome, with tradition being made equal as needed. Mormons claim and do likewise, and as with them, the RC claim to be Scriptural is based upon the premise that Scripture (etc.) only consists of and means what she says in any conflict. However, the manifest reality is that there is a whole list of RC inventions it has accumulated in its progressive deformation, from infant regeneration and justification thru sprinkling or water, to ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, to the Lord's Supper being that of offering the "real" but not bloody body of flesh and blood of Christ as a sin offering, and literally consuming this as in order to obtain spiritual life, to a separate class sacerdotal believers distinctively titled "priests" since they uniquely engage in the former practice, to praying to created beings in Heaven, to becoming good enough to enter Heaven thru purgatorial torments, etc.

    “Scripture teaches that the Church is the Body of Christ (Ephesians 4:12). Evangelicals tend to dismiss this as mere metaphor, but the ancient Christians thought of it as literally, albeit mystically, true. ...“For He was made man that we might be made God” (De incarnatione, 54.3)...I saw that salvation itself is nothing other than union with Christ and a continual growth into His nature.

    Somehow Anders missed the classic teaching that the church is indeed the body of Christ, thus by persecuting the church Paul was persecuting Christ, (Acts 9) while he adds what is missing from Scripture, that Christians become God by union with Christ and a continual growth into His nature.

    That Christians are to progressively become partakers of the Divine nature in becoming more Christ-like in character and virtue, and will one day be conformed to Christ in glorified body, with rewards, is evangelical teaching such as classic commentaries (Matthew Henry, Adam Clark, etc.) exhort. But which Anders seems to have missed, likely under liberal profs.

    Like other evang. converts to Rome i have read, this one also seems to have been an evangelical in name only, not regeneration.

    “This realization also made sense of the Church’s sacramental doctrine.

    Meaning error begats error. Once he lent his mind to Rome for indoctrination, he progressively become like a brainwashed cultist.

    Jesus meant it when he said: “My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:55 NAB).

    Therefore, keeping with the literalistic interpretation of Jn. 6:53ff, it is an unequivocal necessity that one believing in the Cath "real presence" and consume it in order to obtain spiritual life. Which is nowhere taught in the rest of Scripture, nor is literally eating anything ever a means of obtaining spiritual life.

    The ancient Christian doctrine of the Church also made sense of the veneration of saints and martyrs...By invoking their intercession,

    Thus despite over 200 prayers to Heaven in Scripture, all of which are directly addressed to God, and not a single supplication being made to any created beings except by pagans; And in which communication btwn created beings requiring both to be in the same realm, and only God being shown to have the ability to hear the multitudinous prayers directed to Heaven, and Christ is specifically stated to be the only heavenly intercessor btwn man and God, and uniquely qualified to be so, (1Tim. 2:5; Heb. 3,4) this willingly brainwashed fool believes Cath teaching which is foreign to Scripture.

    And attempted support for which is based upon specious extrapolation, wrongly presuming a correspondence btwn earthy relations and those btwn the Heavenly and earthly realm that Scripture nowhere examples of teaches.

    It is the Protestants who limit the reach of Christ’s saving work by denying its implications for the doctrine of the Church.”

    Mormonic theology claims the same, with men becoming Gods, and a heavenly mother, and effectively infallible head, and extraScriptural revelation being above Scripture.

    As I continued my investigation of Augustine, I learned that this “Protestant hero” thoroughly embraced the veneration of saints.

    Luther was also too Catholic, and which is a another reason why we are "not to think of men above that which is written." (1Cor. 4:6) Somehow this sppsd evangelical missed that and thus became a deceived devotee.

    “Once I understood the Catholic position on salvation, the Church, and the saints, the Marian dogmas also seemed to fall into place.

    More testimony to progressive error begetting error.

    If it is appropriate to venerate the saints and martyrs of the Church, how much more is it appropriate to give honor and veneration to her who made possible our redemption?”

    But the Holy Spirit fails to do so after the Catholic manner, for while recording Mary as being a holy worshipful virgin vessel for the body God had provided, and whose Spirit-filled beatitudes are inspiring, the Holy Spirit fails to exalted Mary as the almost almighty demigoddess of Catholicism , while giving far more press to the labors of Paul in birthing Christians and churches, while the Lord made all who do the will of His Father to be His mother and brethren, "missing" a prime opportunity to exalt Mary as per Caths.

    No wonder the papacy and forgeries of Rome which supported it were so useful.

  • Microsoft: Free Windows 10 for THIEVES and PIRATES? They can GET STUFFED

    05/19/2015 10:49:54 AM PDT · 50 of 58
    daniel1212 to Texas Fossil; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    My son was in the hospital from Nov 26-Jan 2. He had respiratory failure and was on a ventilator for 3 weeks. Then he was in physical rehab for 10 days, before he demanded we bring him home.

    He is almost 40, had pneumonia, plural effusion, mild heart attack, bacterial infection in his blood and terrible edema in hands, legs & feet. But we still have him.

    Man alive; it sounds like he needs a reboot! Not as easy for us, but God can heal, and will make all things new for His own. Make this work towards that end, but the grace of God in Christ, who loved us and gave Himself for us. Glory to God.

    I will ping others for some encouragement and prayer.

  • Roman Catholicism: The One True Church?

    05/19/2015 10:44:48 AM PDT · 121 of 450
    daniel1212 to Steelfish
    Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the Canon.

    This is truly a quote which reveals the RC premise for assurance of Truth. However, as your premise is false so is your conclusion. We do not and need not believe either the NT or the OT as being of God, nor of Moses or Christ being of God, based upon the premise that the authority which affirmed such was infallible, and thus warrants implicit trust, as per RCs.

    Instead, both men and writings of God where correctly discerned and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring Divine qualities and attestation) without an infallible magisterium.

    And rather than placing implicit trust in those which sat in the authoritative seat of Moses, dissent from which was a capital crime in the OT, (Dt. 17:8-13) the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

    And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

    Well if you don't believe in Petrine authority then you must question the accuracy of the canonical books assembled in the Synod of Rome in AD 382 under Petrine authority that proclaimed the Written Word of God.

    That argument has been dispensed with already .

    The rest of your block text post seems to invoke historical claims, as if supporting Rome, and rather than going thru it all, see what even RC scholars, and others, have found.

  • Roman Catholicism: The One True Church?

    05/19/2015 10:13:20 AM PDT · 118 of 450
    daniel1212 to Steelfish; rebel25
    St. Augustine put it this way: ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’

    So if this is to have any real polemical value, it presupposes that we cannot be sure which writings are of God (or their meaning) without an infallible authority to tell us so, and that being the historical steward of Scripture means Rome is that infallible authority.

    Is that the argument?

    Matthew 16:19 “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be bound in the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest loose on the earth shall be loosed in the heavens.”

    And what is the basis for your assurance that this refers to Peter being that Rock, versus Christ?

  • Roman Catholicism: The One True Church?

    05/19/2015 10:06:01 AM PDT · 116 of 450
    daniel1212 to LurkingSince'98; MeshugeMikey
    Clement, who was ordained by Peter himself

    A bold but disputed declaration.

    St. Jerome tells us that in his time "most of the Latins" held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (Illustrious Men 15). St. Jerome himself in several other places follows this opinion, but here he correctly states that Clement was the fourth pope. The early evidence shows great variety. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

    Few details are known about Clement's life... Clement's only genuine extant writing is his letter to the church at Corinth. (1 Clement)

    The Liber Pontificalis [an "unofficial instrument of pontifical propaganda," of biographies of popes from Saint Peter until the 15th century] , which documents the reigns of popes, states that Clement had known Saint Peter. It also states that he wrote two letters (though the second letter, 2 Clement, is no longer ascribed to him) and that he died in Greece in the third year of Emperor Trajan's reign, or 101 AD. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I

    And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit,182 to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons.

    Which is a Biblical practice, but what is not and missing here, is that of ordaining a separate sacerdotal class of believers distinctively titled "priests" (hierus) which the Holy Spirit never titles NT clergy, and which only pertains to Jewish and pagan priests, while all believers make up the only sacerdotal priesthood in the NT church.

    Distinctively titling NT presbuteros/episkopos priests was a later development, due to imposed functional equivalence supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as a primary function.

    See here before engaging in the usual etymological fallacy and vain defense of the the Cath practice.

    Chapter XLIV.—The ordinances of the apostles, that there might be no contention respecting the priestly office.

    The title does not correspond to the letter, as nowhere do i see any ordained priests as in Catholicism. Instead, presbyters have replaced the separate class of priests, while all believers are the only priests and all are called to sacrifice.

    Moreover, what is missing here, and as shown elsewhere, and which even Cath scholarship provides testimony against, is that of a monarchical episcopate, with all the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning in Rome.

    Which is simply a RC fantasy, absent from Scripture despite RC extrapolative eisegesis.

  • Roman Catholicism: The One True Church?

    05/19/2015 7:53:53 AM PDT · 102 of 450
    daniel1212 to Kenny Bunk
    Protestants recognize neither the authority of the Pope, nor each other in liquor stores. In either case, the authority of the Pope does not extend to liquor stores.

    And just what "proof" is there for that? After all, they can believe wine is "really" blood to be offered as a sacrifice for sins and drunk to obtain spiritual life. Institutional inebriation.

  • Roman Catholicism: The One True Church?

    05/19/2015 7:43:54 AM PDT · 101 of 450
    daniel1212 to Steelfish; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    This is unadulterated rubbish. It was the Catholic Church, based on Petrine authority, that affirmed the canonical texts in AD 382. This was the case for eleven centuries. Petrine authority did not vanish live a dove taking flight with the advent of the Reformation. Actually, it is your recycled polemical assertion that is fit for burning, as it presumes that,

    1. Rome affirming the canonical texts in AD 382 (which depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. In addition the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa.” More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm) meant the canon was indisputably settled - which it definitely was not until after the death of Luther- or that being the steward of Scripture as the historical magisterium means such must be the infallible authority on what it consists of and means. Which is manifestly false. Argue to the contrary if you want.

    That what a pope is alleged to have done or did somehow means that such is the successor of Peter, while the fact is that the NT never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

    For example in Matthew 18: 20 “For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

    Which utterly fails to teach the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility (EPMI) which is what must be proved, as the preceding judgment actually had to do with settling personal disputes, though in principle it can extend to corporate issues, and which flows from the OT magisterium which had such authority that dissent was a capital offense. (Dt. 17:8-13)

    The fact is that EPMI was never essential for the discernment and preservation of Truth, and in fact the NT church began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. In principal the church of imperial Rome is built upon the Scribes and Pharisees, which like Rome, excluded the validity of any itinerant preachers, while the church began upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, both of which much opposed the magisterium which sat in authority of Israel, the stewards of Scripture, and recipient of the promises, etc. (Mt. 23:2; Rm. 3:2; 9:4,5)

    The term “in my name: has royal meaning. It is understood as meaning “in all what I teach.”

    Scripturally (look it up) it means to do or say something as representing the Lord, whether falsely (including Rome and other false teachers) or true, and was valid even though one was not part of the company of the apostles.

    But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. (Mark 9:39)

    For while the judicial judgment of Mt. 18:15-18 applies to the church as a formal judiciary, the spiritual power of binding and loosing is provided for all righteous believers. Thus while interceding for sick members principally applies to the presbuteros (not hiereus=priests), the general exhortation is to "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," (James 5:16) which applies to all righteous believers of faith. Thus the example of Elijah, who was not part of the OT magisterium, and bound the heavens for 3.5 years, and loosed them afterwards .

    Christ taught ONE truth and established ONE Church for ALL times, and it has ONE Credo.

    Indeed, basically speaking, and evangelicals have historically been foremost contenders for basic Scriptural Truths we both assent to, and against those who deny them, which typically effectively operate according to the Roman model for the veracity of Truth claims.

    But to which core truths the credo of Rome adds extraScriptural and unScriptural teachings to, while her unity is actually quite limited and largely on paper,

    We don’t need 30,000 variations of Protestantism instructing different interpretations.

    Indeed, and besides the specious number , it is amazing how RCs on one hand will argue against Protestantism as a monolithic institution when arguing against what they say they believe, while on the other hand have such a broad definition of Protestant that is so wide you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Unification 747 thru it.

    And as such it is basically meaningless, as it includes those who deny even the most fundamental aspect of the Reformation, that of holding to the supreme authority of Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God, and such believers testify to far greater unity in Biblical,conservative core beliefs than the overall fruit of Rome.

    And indeed, besides basically separating herself from the NT due to her fundamental basis for the veracity of Truth claims, and subsequent teachings , Catholicism exists in schisms and sects, with different brands of Catholicism, even btwn popes and councils. (And infallible teachings are a minority part of RC doctrine, and see interpretation.) Thus if RCs were formally divided according such then you would have thousands of Catholic churches, However, while various sects of Catholicism are implicitly sanctioned, yet as one cannot formally separate in fellowship from Rome without being in schism, then RCs must remain as brethren with even proabortion.sodomite/Muslim RCs and prelates.

    Thus RCs are guilty of not obeying the Scriptural command to separate from such, and from false doctrine, unlike evangelicals can and have done in obedience to God:

    Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?. And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (2 Corinthians 6:14-16)

    Division because of Truths which evangelicals overall concur on, is better than unity in error, which RCs overall concur on.

    This is captured very well by Dr. A. David Anders, who was born, raised and educated, as an Evangelical Protestant and studied Wheaton College.

    This is captured very well by Norman Geisler (Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University): So, while we are losing a few intellectual egg-heads out the top of evangelicalism to Rome, we are gaining tens of thousands of converts out the bottom from Catholicism. The trade-off highly favors evangelicalism. - http://ephesians4-15.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-roman-catholics-are-leaving-church.html

    Scripturally, it was the common people who heard Jesus gladly, while the learned overall rejected Him. Elitist Rome which attracted this deceived fool, manifests an attitude toward those who dissent from her like that of the proud elitist Pharisees:

    Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:47-49)

    Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him. (Proverbs 26:12)

    Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged.

    Welcome to Catholicism, which not only changes on the papal and conciliar level, and thus the SSPX and SSPV type groups who substantively charge this, but abounds in divisions beneath the veneer of unity. And in error.

  • Microsoft: Free Windows 10 for THIEVES and PIRATES? They can GET STUFFED

    05/18/2015 8:22:41 PM PDT · 41 of 58
    daniel1212 to mlo
    I just saw a Twitter post quoting Microsoft confirming it.

    Thanks for the news.

  • The True Church and the Bible

    05/18/2015 8:18:32 PM PDT · 200 of 224
    daniel1212 to Religion Moderator
    Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.

    Yes, it certainly was about a certain poster, that of his manner of persistent posting of polemical propaganda. Followed, it seems, by hitting the abuse button when reproved once again rather than engaging the issue. There ought to be a law...

  • Microsoft: Free Windows 10 for THIEVES and PIRATES? They can GET STUFFED

    05/18/2015 6:32:31 PM PDT · 37 of 58
    daniel1212 to mlo
    You can install the Windows 10 preview for free and then when the final release comes out it will update to that for free.

    I recall that was not the case, but i am running WTP now, while W.8.1 is on another drive. But which was installed on another PC.

  • Microsoft: Free Windows 10 for THIEVES and PIRATES? They can GET STUFFED

    05/18/2015 6:19:03 PM PDT · 36 of 58
    daniel1212 to amigatec

    The so-called Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) used a real time operating system, which enabled astronauts to enter simple commands by typing in pairs of nouns and verbs, to control the spacecraft. It was more basic than the electronics in modern toasters that have computer controlled stop/start/defrost buttons. It had approximately 64Kbyte of memory and operated at 0.043MHz.-www.computerweekly.com/feature/Apollo-11-The-computers-that-put-man-on-the-moon

  • Microsoft: Free Windows 10 for THIEVES and PIRATES? They can GET STUFFED

    05/18/2015 6:15:32 PM PDT · 35 of 58
    daniel1212 to Alas Babylon!
    Why would conservatives on a conservative site expect a private business to give them anything for free? It’s an operating system, made by a company that needs to make a profit or die. Naturally they’d sell it. The fact that a genuine user of an older operating system can get the latest for free is a very good deal! Those who have pirated copies shouldn’t get a good deal, should they?

    Correct.

  • Microsoft: Free Windows 10 for THIEVES and PIRATES? They can GET STUFFED

    05/18/2015 6:15:01 PM PDT · 33 of 58
    daniel1212 to Texas Fossil

    Post 4 is correct, and failing that, you could likely buy reinstall software from Dell for that PC.

    Of course, we should make such from the image partition which is usually provided rather than the DVD installation media. By which you can usually reinstall the OD. Did you try that option (F10 during POST)? .

  • Main Stream Media Failure: Pope Did NOT Call Mamoud Abbas an 'Angel of Peace'

    05/18/2015 5:50:45 AM PDT · 51 of 51
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o; Wiz-Nerd
    Yes, I think that for both reasons --- geographic and moral/theological --- Israel does not have a "right" for borders that extend from the Euphrates to the Nile.

    But this is not a matter of "rights," but it is a matter of obedience to God. Israel never realized all the land given to it, yet it was and is under obligation to keep that which it has obtained, regardless of its geographic/moral/theological deviations.

    To fail to do so simply adds to their transgressions.

    Even in the time of Christ and afterwards and despite their geographic/moral/theological deviations,the physical descendents of Abraham, Israel after the flesh, the natural branches, were regarded by God as a distinct body of people, and accountable to keep the commands of God. Rabbis excuse their lack of a sacrificial system by invoking the lack of the temple etc, but they are still bound to obey that command, as they are to keep the land God has quite obviously restored to them.

    Moreover, as a distinct body of people the natural branches will all (what is left of them) turn to the Lord at the end, after the fulness of the Gentiles have been saved, and until then the Lord will not return. I hope you concur with that much.

    A pastor may not have all the sheep God willed for him to feed, but he is obligated to keep and care for the ones he has have in the faith, as much as they are able.

    If there were a Davidic King there might (might) by some justification for territorial revanchism. But I don't think that will happen until Jesus comes again.

    Though Rome wrongly rejects the millennial reign of Christ, it is quite apparent that this is what is predicted, including the extensive detailed description of the future temple, (Ezek. 37ff) which is not the same as the blueprint under David.

  • Main Stream Media Failure: Pope Did NOT Call Mamoud Abbas an 'Angel of Peace'

    05/18/2015 5:27:35 AM PDT · 49 of 51
    daniel1212 to Wiz-Nerd
    Yes, this is why Yeshua was so upset with the Pharisees, Sadducee and Sanhedrin. They had made man’s laws above God’s laws.

    And like Rome, the Scribes and Pharisees disallowed anyone having authority apart from them, and yet the church began in dissent from them.

  • Can Christians Lose Their Salvation?

    05/17/2015 7:01:41 PM PDT · 65 of 308
    daniel1212 to wmfights; Reformed
    Thank you for posting this Scriptural view. Infant baptism and any other related rituals are worthless and in my opinion do a disservice to the unsaved. They perpetuate an idea that you can perform certain rituals and be saved without a conversion of your heart. It's unfortunate but this is one of the few areas where Evangelical Christians differ with the Reformed.

    But not all Reformed do so i think.

  • Main Stream Media Failure: Pope Did NOT Call Mamoud Abbas an 'Angel of Peace'

    05/17/2015 7:00:01 PM PDT · 46 of 51
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o
    Gay marriage, gay adoption via surrogate mothers (Nepali women, for instance, exploited as paid reproductive concubines), legal abortion and atheism. Israel's Jews are no more under halachic law than are San Francisco's... I don't think there is a theological reason to think God's promises are to be enforced for anti-Jesus anti-Torah apostates.

    So first it is geography and polity, and now it is morality that justifies breaking the command not to sell or divide the land from applying to Israel today, but which is based on a fundamental fallacy. For the commands apply regardless, and breaking them adds to that of others, such as abortion.

    Since Israel also did not have a valid Levitical priesthood when the modern state was founded, nor does it have this now, then you can eliminate the regathering and founding of the state of Israel as being a work of God and fulfillment of prophecy.

    However, God did not choose Israel because of their merit, nor does God love natural Israel and promise a future repentance to the remaining descendants because of their obedience, but because they are beloved for the Father's sake.

    See ISRAEL: CHOSEN OR FORGOTTEN?

  • Main Stream Media Failure: Pope Did NOT Call Mamoud Abbas an 'Angel of Peace'

    05/17/2015 6:15:37 PM PDT · 45 of 51
    daniel1212 to Wiz-Nerd
    What? The pope does not read nor follow God’s commands?

    He may read them, but for Rome

    "Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law..all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church." (Providentissimus Deus;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)

    The specious Roman reasoning behind such is that since (according to her) God is the author of both Scripture and the doctrines of Rome, then there can be contradictions.

    For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

    Let us know if any want to get off the merry-go-round.

  • Main Stream Media Failure: Pope Did NOT Call Mamoud Abbas an 'Angel of Peace'

    05/17/2015 2:49:48 PM PDT · 38 of 51
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o
    The boundaries of the State of Israel today do not match boundaries alluded to or prescribed in the Bible. So your objection is already nullified in that "Territorial Israel," "Eretz Israel" as defined in the Bible has not existed for millennia. Not only that, but Israel is supposed to be a Messianic monarchy, not a social democracy/secular state. So it is dubious as to whether the State of Israel is the true Israel of the Prophets.

    Wrong: the objection is not nullified because even though Israel today does not occupy all the land allotted to it - and which is what it can deceptively be said that Israel today does match the boundaries described in the Bible - it still occupies land which God gave it, and forbid to be divided.

    Boundaries of the Promised Land can be seen here and descriptions of the differences can be seen here

    Secondly, even though the form of government is different, the fact is that the Hebrews do possess land God promised to them, with a government that fulfills conditions of rightful ownership. And which they obtained after the Jewish people uniquely maintained a distinct enough identity so that Hitler and Stalin could oppress and kill multitudes of them (Rome also had a part), and they could populate Palestine, despite losing their land and being scattered into the 4 "corners" of the earth.

    In addition to which was the Divine providence in defeating the Arabs which sought to destroy them beginning on the first day after Israel declared itself a state.

    Of course, but sanctioning such things as homosexual parades and rights then Israel is making God her enemy, and inviting judgment, which will occur before they turn to the Lord, after the full number of the Gentiles has been saved, and which must occur before the Lord's return.

  • The True Church and the Bible

    05/17/2015 1:43:59 PM PDT · 100 of 224
    daniel1212 to boycott
    Boom!!!

    They keep hitting the polemical self-destruct button! Thank God for His word and grace to help.

  • The Canon of the Bible

    05/17/2015 10:41:33 AM PDT · 107 of 110
    daniel1212 to The_Republic_Of_Maine
    No, not at all, I was just surprised to find myself listed in such a distinguished group.

    We are blessed to know you are one of the "Frozen Chosen!" Let us know if you want more pings.

  • “The Greatest of All Protestant Heresies”?

    05/17/2015 10:29:05 AM PDT · 888 of 909
    daniel1212 to tjd1454; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; BlueDragon; Mark17
    You have a short memory or are ignorant of history and elitist RC claims. And what Scripture says the response should be. Rome has made herself an enemy of God. And see for yourself which type of "Christianity" is more on the side of liberals.

    I have bachelor and graduate degrees from preeminent Evangelical Protestant colleges, and a Ph.D. in religion and theology from a Jesuit University. From which institutions of higher learning, pray tell, did you receive your degrees in theology?

    The same one disciples as Peter and John did, while your pedigree simply renders you more accountable for censuring those who attack Roman Catholicism for its multitudes of errors. I suppose the Reformation itself was unnecessary also. Do you want to defend Rome and her deformation of the NT church (not that evangelicalism does not fall short) or dismiss such as superfluous?

  • Can Christians Lose Their Salvation?

    05/17/2015 10:15:02 AM PDT · 21 of 308
    daniel1212 to SeekAndFind
    The sub issue is honest objective exegesis. The strongest case for OSAS - the classic Calvinistic view of "perseverance of the saints," versus believing Christ for forgiveness but live like the devil - rests upon the premise that being chosen of God ensures consummation.

    Most texts used for OSAS pertain to believers being believers, such as Jnb. 10:27, which is not in dispute, nor should it be allowed that one who denies the faith (1Tim. 5:8) by impenitent willful sin can lay claim to having saving faith. But whether God will chasten all such to repentance "that we should not be condemned with the world," (1 Corinthians 11:32) is the issue.

    The strongest text favoring that God will do so as necessary (not that this is always the purpose of chastisement) in my opinion is,

    "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." (John 6:39)

    Which is usually coupled with,

    Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Romans 8:30)

    And which will be true, as God will glorify chosen souls, but the issue is whether all who were called will cooperate with the Father's will, or be like those who were called to the wedding feast which was prepared, but went their ways (Mt. 22:1-10) as Demas did, having loved this present world. (2Tim. 4:10)

    Romans 9-11 in particular, seems to deny that such could, while other texts clearly warn believers as believers against effectively becoming unbelievers, and forfeiting what faith appropriated. Which is a faith (which God granted, having drawn the soul, opened his heart, and granted repentance) that is counted for righteousness on Christ's account, not the merit of our works, (Rm. 3:10-4:7) yet which faith effects characteristic obedience (and repentance when convicted of not doing so, as David exampled) toward the only worthy Object of saving faith (which faith God rewards, as Heb. 10:35 states, in recognition of what it effected by God's grace). By which fruit one is justified as being a believer, and in the light of which Paul knew the Thessalonians were elect, (1Ths. 1:4), while the absence of such fruit, or the contrary evidence, testifies to not, or not longer, being a believer.

    And as it is a living obedient faith in the Lord Jesus that constitutes saving faith, then "when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world." (1 Corinthians 11:32) If simply believing the promise of forgiveness by faith in Christ constituted saving faith, abstract from believing in a Lord who died and rose to save us from sin and to live for Him, then damnation would not result if God did not chastise us to repentance,

    The strongest texts supporting that believers, as "stewards of the manifold grace of God" (1Pt. 4:10) "kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation" (1Pt. 1:5) can choose to deny the faith and forfeit what is obtained, begins with Galatians 5:1-4, which addresses believers who had the Holy Spirit, (Gal. 4:6) and were set free and walked in the holy liberty of the Spirit, (Gal. 5:1; cf. 2Co. 3:17) and sternly warns them that "Christ shall profit you nothing" if they submit to the Judaizers, which preached salvation by law keeping (versus faith which works to fulfil the righteousness of the law: Rm. 8:4), thus going back into bondage, and making Christ of "none effect,." being "fallen from grace" which they were in. Thus forfeiting what faith obtained, which was by God's grace.

    Likewise a close examination of Hebrews makes it clear it is written to believers, exhorting them to "hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end," as only those who do so belong to the house of Christ, "lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. (Hebrews 3:9, 12,14), and drawing "back into perdition" in impenitent sinning, in contrast to those who do not draw back, but "believe to the saving of the soul." (Hebrews 10:25-39).

    There is nothing hypothetical about either, and which danger is corespondent to the anxiety of Paul, that the Thessalonians, which had "became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost," having "turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God," (1 Thessalonians 1:6,9) had received the grace of God in vain by succumbing to temptation. Thus he says "I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter have tempted you, and our labour be in vain." (1 Thessalonians 3:5)

    To argue such texts were written to a mixed multitude is simply untenable in context, and the only thing i think a OSAS proponent can do in response is to propose that such warning are hypothetical, leaving such warnings as being means of motivating repentance, by God's grace and credit, as He works in those He possesses. But i believe that it cannot be honestly denied that the above warnings are written to believers as believers, and warns them against departing from the living God, falling from grace, and making Christ to profit you nothing," to "become of no effect unto you," drawing "back into perdition."

  • Can Christians Lose Their Salvation?

    05/17/2015 9:54:00 AM PDT · 20 of 308
    daniel1212 to Mercat; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    I tell our son that he is sealed with the mark of the Holy Spirit through Baptism and Confirmation. This sort of drives him crazy

    And it is "crazy," as the Holy Spirit distinctly states that repentance and wholehearted faith are required for baptism, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) and nowhere manifestly records an infant being baptized, which circumcision (Col. 2:11) only has limited correspondence to (in being a figure), while Peter testified how God purified the hearts of souls by faith, before baptism. (Acts 10:43:47; 15:7-9)

    Moreover, spiritual dead clergy cannot convey the Holy Spirit, while there simply is no separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests," the distinctive word for which the Holy Spirit never uses for NT pastors. See here to save my typing again.

  • The True Church and the Bible

    05/17/2015 5:47:26 AM PDT · 45 of 224
    daniel1212 to Mark17
    You done did it now

    One RC fantasy after another exposed by God's grace, from eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking his blood being required in order to obtain spiritual life, to the premise that an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential for God to provide and preserve Truth, to "One billion Catholics perfectly, indomitably united in belief, in organization, and in worship."

  • Should the Vatican Sell its Treasures…

    05/17/2015 5:35:51 AM PDT · 61 of 72
    daniel1212 to caww
    Just removing the jewels and gold from the thousands of corpses they have stashed could probably feed an entire 3rd world nation for ages! That would be a great place to start...

    Perhaps not for long, but better than Pope Francis Calls For 'Legitimate Redistribution' of Wealth ...

  • The True Church and the Bible

    05/16/2015 8:42:34 PM PDT · 15 of 224
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    So are you a glutton for punishment or what? Having just added to your continuous record of posting refuted polemics, and with your last parroting of prevaricating propaganda resulting in your nuking of the NT church, you ignore that and proceed to post more refuted Roman specious sophistry.

    "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

    Which, as with other "verify, verily" statements, is an absolute imperative, meaning that eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking his blood, is unequivocally required in order to obtain spiritual life.

    Which means, if consistent with literalistic interpretation, that one must take part in the Lord's supper to obtain spiritual life, and those who knowingly reject the so-called Cath "Real Presence" (though apparently this originally was an Anglican term), cannot be born again. But which contradicts modern RC teaching.

    In the most unequivocal language the Apostles affirmed that the bread and wine duly consecrated on the altar did in fact become the actual Substance of the Savior. Declared the Apostle Paul: "The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" (1 Cor. 10:16)

    WRONG. Only the metaphorical view is consistent with the rest of Scripture, and as examination of the next chapter will reveal, this refers to believers showing fellowship with Christ in His death through their communal sharing in that meal done in remembrance of Christ's death, not by eating His flesh. For in context the apostle teaches that this fellowship is analogous to the fellowship pagans have with their gods in their commemorative feasts, participation by believers in which the apostle is condemning:

    But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20,21)

    And how would they have fellowship with devils? Not by consuming the transubstantiated flesh of devils, but by taking part in a feast done in dedication to demons. For they which eat of the sacrifices are partakers of the altar, showing union with the object of this feast and each other, but not because the food has been transubstantiated into that of the entity it is offered to.

    The overall context here is the church as the body of Christ, and that what one has liberty to eat or do is restricted by how it will affect others. Thus “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31-32)

    And which is the context in the next chapter, in which Paul reproves Corinthian church for coming together to eat the Lord's supper, as he charges them with not actually doing so because they were eating what is supposed to be a communal meal, the “feast of charity,” (Jude 1:12) independently of each other, so that “in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken,” and thus what they were doing was to “shame them that have not.” (1Co. 11:20-22)

    Therefore Paul proceeds to reiterates the words of Christ at the institution of the Lord's supper, ending with “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [kataggellō=preach/declare] the Lord's death till he come.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

    For while they were supposed to be showing/declaring the Lord's unselfish sacrificial death for the body by unselfishly sharing food with other members of the body of Christ, whom Christ purchased it with His own sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) instead they were both eating independently and selfishly. And thus were effectively treating other members as lepers, and as if the body was not a body, and as if others were not part of the body for whom Christ died. This lack of effectual recognition is what is being referred to as “not discerning the Lord's body,” that of the body in which the members are to treat each as blood-bought beloved brethren, as Christ did. Because they were presuming to show the Lord's death for the body while acting contrary to it, therefore they were eating this bread and drinking the cup of the Lord unworthily, hypocritically, and were chastised for it, some unto death. (1Co. 11:27-32)

    Because this was the case and cause of condemnation — that of not recognizing the nature of the corporate body of Christ in independently selfishly eating — versus not recognizing the elements eaten as being the body of Christ — then the apostle's solution was, “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.” (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)

    "And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed." (Acts 14:22). "

    More deception and disrespect of the Holy Spirit and the word of God, as ordained to them "priests" is not what the Holy Spirit said, as in fact the distinctive word for priests is never used by the Spirit for NT priests. Nor are they shown as having a uniquely sacrificial function, which imposed functional equivalence is how Cath pastors came to be distinctively titled "priests." See here to save me time explaining this, again.

    Catholic Church is the church most united in Christ. The spectacle of one billion Catholics, three-fifths of all professed Christians, perfectly, indomitably united in belief, in organization, and in worship

    What? Is the author on drugs? One billion Catholics perfectly, indomitably united in belief, in organization, and in worship??? The reality is that Rome counts as members in life and in death even proabortion, prosodomote promuslim, prooccupy-movement pols, as well as the multitudes which supply them.

    And Caths widely disagrre with their church, and are far less unified in basic conservative values and beliefs than those who most strongly affirm the authority of Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God.

    Like His glorified body in Heaven, Christ's Mystical Body on earth never was and never will be a disjoined body

    But which is not what one billion Catholics belong to, while this body also includes many Prots.

    Moreover, it is evident that Christ's true church is an INFALLIBLE teacher, never liable to teach false doctrine

    More evidence of drugs. It is not evident, but instead, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

    . Teaching then to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." (Matt.28:18-20). "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you." (John 20:21). Here again is a clear, unmistakable reference to the teaching mission of His Church; for here He is telling the Apostles that they had fallen heir to His own teaching mission. His Church was to be no less of a teacher than He was.

    Which manner of charge is not new, but flows from the OT, and for which an ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility was never required. Instead, souls discerned both men and writings as being of God in the light of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power

    Here is another evidence that Catholic Church is an INFALLIBLE teacher, never liable to teach false doctrine: "These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you. But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. ... when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning." (John 14:25-26; 15:26-27).

    Which also is not new or novel, for an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium was never essential for God to provide or preserve Truth, but by arguing that ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is essential, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium, then the RC effectively nukes the NT church (habit forming).

    .

    For contrary to the Roman model, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

    And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

    In contrast, Truth claims being established upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and the allowance of dissent from those who claim (Rome) or who do sit in power, validates the Reformation in principal. And indeed, it is abundantly evidenced that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

    And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

  • The Woman Must Flee Into The Wilderness...Revelation 12 pt 9

    05/16/2015 7:37:39 PM PDT · 6 of 7
    daniel1212 to pastorbillrandles
    osea had warned that God would take Israel, his unfaithful wife, back out into the wilderness, that he might rekindle their love. They would once again call each other husband and wife, and be betrothed anew as a result of the trip to the wilderness… Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her…. And it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali. For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name… And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the Lord.(Hosea 2:14-19)

    And see here versus the women clothed with the sun being Mary. Thank God for His grace by which we see Truth.

  • To Be Deep in History

    05/16/2015 6:48:14 PM PDT · 127 of 148
    daniel1212 to BlueDragon
    BINGO The quote as it was used in shortened form was not "out of context", at all. Not one tiny bit. The meaning does not change, but in fact becomes even worse when more in full.

    Indeed, as if souls can correctly discern what is of God and realize assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) without an infallible magisterium, then it means such is not essential for that, and validates the possibility of dissent from the magisterium.

    And Rome cannot have that, even if that is how the NT church began.

  • The Good Thief, The Catholic Answer

    05/16/2015 6:43:21 PM PDT · 19 of 39
    daniel1212 to Salvation; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    Yes, by Baptism: a Baptism of Blood or a Baptism of Desire.

    Not only, but according to RC theology, the man (who also railed on Christ at first) must have achieved in a few hours or less the moral perfection of character which it seems may take centuries for others to attain, in order to become good enough (and atone for sins) to enter Heaven. Salvation thru grace by merit.

  • The Good Thief, The Catholic Answer

    05/16/2015 6:38:47 PM PDT · 18 of 39
    daniel1212 to Salvation
    Correct. That happened with one of our RCIA members about three years ago, but our priest was able to baptize her, hear her Confession, give her the Last Rites and her First Holy Communion and Confirmation. Five Sacraments in one day!

    None of which rituals could ever save her, versus repentant faith whereby God purifies the heart by faith, even the washing of regeneration before baptism as Peter testified, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) which is then confessed by baptism in identification with their Lord, and following Him.

  • The Canon of the Bible

    05/16/2015 6:31:42 PM PDT · 105 of 110
    daniel1212 to RnMomof7
    Funny that there are no priests, no mass, no pope , no indulgences, no immaculate conception. no assumption, no prayer to saints...etc...etc...ets.. in a book they wrote/compiled ... strange huh?

    Joseph Smith saw what he wanted, or wrote what he claimed to do, and likewise RCs see what they want.

  • The Canon of the Bible

    05/16/2015 6:30:36 PM PDT · 104 of 110
    daniel1212 to The_Republic_Of_Maine
    I’m not quite sure why you included me with that esteemed group.

    Simply because you had engaged in the debate. Hope you did not mind.