HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Layoffs  NaturalBornCitizen  FastandFurious  OPSEC  Benghazi  Libya  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice  Donate

Dear FRiends, Your loyal support makes Free Republic possible and your continuing participation makes FR the number one grassroots pro-life conservative forum on the planet! If you have not yet made your donation, please click here and do so now. Thank you very much, Jim Robinson

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $29,713
Woo hoo!! And the first 33% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/25/2015 10:28:29 AM PDT · 189 of 191
    daniel1212 to piusv; RnMomof7
    Yes, I find it odd when a protestant asks for infallible Catholic teachings.

    That is in context to RC tactics of rejecting what they disagree with as being non-infallible. Or asserting something as being infallible simply because it is in an encyclical, including that such precludes dissent. Which ultimately leads to charges of inconsistency in RC teaching.

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/25/2015 9:56:51 AM PDT · 188 of 191
    daniel1212 to Grateful2God; RnMomof7
    Exactly why self-interpretation leads to chaos.

    So perhaps you would answer the questions of 164,

    1. Is perpetual infallibility essential for discerning, understanding and preserving faith? And for providing assurance of faith?

    2. Who was promised perpetual infallibility in interpreting Scripture?

    3. How do you know this for sure?

    4. How many texts of Scripture has your church infallibly interpreted?

    5. Are Protestants excluded from ever correctly interpreting a part of Scripture without error?

    When you can and will answer these then get back to us.

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/25/2015 9:53:55 AM PDT · 187 of 191
    daniel1212 to redleghunter
    I get this impression some of the canned ‘apologetics’ we see here is just to get attention. Throw something really provocative out there and fill their pings with responses. If there are lurkers here I think they see it too. They probably wonder why we respond.

    Cath canned and refuted ‘apologetics, which are repetitively posted as if they there are compelled to convince themselves contrary to evidence and reason. Pray for all.

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/25/2015 9:51:22 AM PDT · 186 of 191
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet
    Jimmy Swaggart, Joel Osteen, Billy Graham, or any other protestant had nothing to do with compiling the Bible. It was Catholics, then the Catholic Church determined what was sacred and the Holy Word of God.

    So once again you simply refuse to answer the simple questions asked you which must be answered if your "we gave you the Bible" assertion is to have an polemical weight.

    Therefore it must be concluded that all you have is an assertion without an argument. Come back when you can affirm or deny what was asked you.

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/25/2015 9:45:47 AM PDT · 185 of 191
    daniel1212 to piusv; eastsider; redleghunter; RnMomof7; ealgeone; CynicalBear
    That is not an infallible papal or magisterial proclamation.

    Actually you are wrong. It is also part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium which is also infallible.

    Actually you are wrong.

    ...t is only during the last three pontificates that the most important utterances of the Holy See have been given to the world in the shape of encyclicals,..

    In the early centuries the term encyclical was applied, not only to papal letters, but to certain letters emanating from bishops or archbishops and directed to their own flocks or to other bishops.

    As for the binding force of these documents [encyclicals] it is generally admitted that the mere fact that the pope should have given to any of his utterances the form of an encyclical does not necessarily constitute it an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority. The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case. — Catholic Encyclopedia>Encyclical; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm

    Like the CCC, only parts of it can be considered infallible, and even the (imagined) guarantee of infallibility only extends to a pronouncement itself, and not to the arguments or reasons for it.

    This does not mean that the teaching that Adam and Eve were two read persons would not be considered infallible teachig, in contrast to holding to the story of how they sinned, and the other historical events such as the Flood, but the point is that simply because something is taught in an encyclical and calls for assent does not make it infallible.

    And Donum Veritatis also allows that even if "not habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments," "some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies," and withholding assent is allowed for a theologian "who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching." In such "even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions," and is to "refrain from giving untimely public expression to them," and "avoid turning to the mass media..."

    But which is what V2 dissenters regularly do.

    Meanwhile, just what is and what is not an encyclical, and which parts express infallible teaching, and how they are to be understood (such as The Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX), are all subject to some interpretation.

    Of course, i can understand why RCs who long for all the means of the Inquisition want to hold all formal papal statements as infallible, such as condemn as false that,

    Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes...The Church has not the power of using force. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. 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. (Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX)

    And the Papal Bull Ad exstirpanda, May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, authorized the use of torture (coerce, "force all the heretics)" to elicit confessions (besides the burning of those convicted, and destruction their houses, and taking possessing their goods), and which was confirmed by Pope Alexander IV in 1259, and by Pope Clement IV in 1265.

    And the issue of what is infallible is one in which RCs disagree, as they lack an infallible list of all infallible decrees. Yet it is not likely to be as many as they perhaps could be,

    Bishop Vincent Gasser, spokesman for the deputation “de fide” (the committee of Conciliar Fathers charged with drafting the solemn definition), delivered a four-hour speech explaining and defending the draft which was submitted to the assembled Fathers for their vote. Gasser is quoted no less than four times in the official footnotes to “Lumen Gentium” 25, which treats of infallibility…

    In replying to some Fathers who urged that the procedures or form to be used by the pope in arriving at an infallible decision (i.e., his grave moral duty to pray for guidance, diligently consult the existing teaching of the Church, etc.) be included in the definition, Gasser replied: But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. "Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the apostolic See;" where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?

    In other words, Gasser was able to assert "in passing"--that is, as something which did not need arguing and would be taken for granted by his audience-- that there had already been "thousands and thousands" of infallible definitions issued by the Roman see! - http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/papalinfallibility.pdf (EO source)

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/25/2015 7:58:41 AM PDT · 178 of 191
    daniel1212 to RnMomof7
    It is easier just to go to mass on Sundays

    For a approx. 50 min ritual. When i was a kid my mom would say how strict the CC was, but we had Nazarene neighbors, the Davis family with 4 kids about our age, and spent hours at church, and IIRC they could not play afterwards. Later they moved to Vermont to a farm.

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/25/2015 7:52:45 AM PDT · 177 of 191
    daniel1212 to ealgeone
    If you follow catholic logic then the catholic has to bring into question the rest of the Biblical account....of everything....and I mean everything. Was Moses real? Was Abraham real? Isaac? David? Solomon? Adam? Eve? The list could go on and on. It renders Luke who wrote in Acts 7:36-41 as a liar. You might as well lump Paul in there as well. If this reflects what today's "top" catholic scholars can come up with, I'm beginning to understand the problems with catholicism.

    Indeed. And yet this unholy amalgam is what RCs insist we must be part of, based upon the error of sola ecclesia (the Roman church alone is the supreme authority on Truth).

    Division because of Truth is superior to unity in error.

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/25/2015 7:21:40 AM PDT · 170 of 191
    daniel1212 to St_Thomas_Aquinas; RnMomof7; Gamecock; Elsie
    But WE believe that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded AND that it can teach infallibly.

    Because Rome says she is, which is a false belief that is no substitute for that which refutes it.

    "...which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." --St. Paul

    So where is this text infallibly interpreted to mean Rome possesses perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility? Or even as requiring assent as meaning what you invoke it for?

    And if it is not, then how does 8 words in Greek, (church living God pillar and ground the truth), one of which only occurs here, with both pillar and ground denoting support, translate into the church being the supreme infallible authority on Truth?

    "Binding and loosing is an originally Jewish phrase which appears in the New Testament, as well as in the Targum. In usage to bind and to loose mean simply to forbid by an indisputable authority, and to permit by an indisputable authority." --Wikipedia

    “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a] that observe and do,

    Then how could souls be correct if they did not submit to the indisputable OT authority to whom this applied to under the OT?

    Jesus, to Peter: "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

    Why does this authority necessitate perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, whenever it speaks according to Rome's formula, which excludes the possibility of valid dissent from it?

    Where is this power spiritually restricted to said magisterium?

    The Catholic Church can trace Her origin to Apostolic times. Lutheranism can be traced back to Luther. His church has no divine teaching authority.

    To clarify then, your argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/25/2015 7:15:51 AM PDT · 169 of 191
    daniel1212 to piusv; RnMomof7
    No, the merry-go-round is arguing with protestant heretical beliefs.

    Meaning you want to argue that an infallible magisterium is essential for knowing "what God’s Word means" but do not want to follow where that logic means by dealing with the questions this demands.

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/25/2015 6:13:02 AM PDT · 167 of 191
    daniel1212 to piusv
    You mean if I want to go back on the merry-go-round? No, thanks.

    Well, examination of its premise and presuppositions is what the RC argument must face, and her merry-go-round is what it leads to. You are wise to jump off it.

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/25/2015 5:40:42 AM PDT · 164 of 191
    daniel1212 to St_Thomas_Aquinas; piusv; Greetings_Puny_Humans; Elsie
    Which Protestant interprets the Bible infallibly?

    Which begs the questions:

    1. Is perpetual infallibility essential for discerning, understanding and preserving faith? And for providing assurance of faith?

    2. Who was promised perpetual infallibility in interpreting Scripture?

    3. How do you know this for sure?

    4. How many texts of Scripture has your church infallibly interpreted?

    5. Are Protestants excluded from ever correctly interpreting a part of Scripture without error?

    When you can and will answer these then get back to us.

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/25/2015 5:12:21 AM PDT · 163 of 191
    daniel1212 to terycarl; Zionist Conspirator
    you keep stating that Catholics reject Genesis....none that I know of do....I’ve never heard of spokel ill of....I haave no idea where you get some of your misconceptions...

    In the light of what your own officially approved Bible commentary and bishops say, as shown in posts 123 (to you, but no reply) 125 , and 151 and 155 and 161 substantiate, has your opinion changed the Nihil Obstat and an imprimatur indicates that a book is without significant error, and what Catholics (led by bishops) teach about Genesis being literal?

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/25/2015 5:12:02 AM PDT · 162 of 191
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet; Greetings_Puny_Humans; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    Without the Catholic Church giving you the Bible and the Word of God you would still be praying to the sun god.

    In-credible: you (like so many other RCs) once again resort to post this polemical assertion, and thus once again comes the questions which you have continually refused to answer, which must be affirmed if your assertion is to have any weight. You simply need to affirm,

    That being the historical instruments and stewards of Holy Writ means such is the infallible interpreters and authorities on it.

    And thus willful dissent from them is rebellion against God, and invalidates any claim to authority?

    If not, then of what import does you assertion have?

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/25/2015 4:47:07 AM PDT · 161 of 191
    daniel1212 to eastsider; RnMomof7
    My interest is narrowly focused on whether the Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve are myths.

    But of what worth is that if they do not believe the the whole story? You can believe that A+E were two real people, and even that sin followed Adam's sin, but then you can deny that the story of how that happened was real, and that the Tower fo Babel, the Flood, and other historical miracles were real. So why not doubt the story of Adam and Eve?

    Even the USSCB and the NAB commentary do not call it myth, but they can and have relegated it to being a fable, even if it had some core reality. Like as the NAB commentary on events of Exodus, that the,

    story was a result of writers who took traditions and "constructed from them a dramatic and persuasive written narrative, " and even "the actual events no longer resembled the traditions and cannot be reconstructed from them." (The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible, p. 36)

    I can say with confidence that she does not, the NAB commentary and the CCC notwithstanding....I hope I have demonstrated to your satisfaction is the "official" teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the historical reality of Adam and Eve (see post 84 above).

    That restricted aspect hardly goes far enough, and is also makes the RC error of presuming what one teaches consists of what is merely said, versus what she does and effectually conveys, which for decades now has been that of uncensored liberal revisionism. It also presumes that all that is in an encyclical is infallible, and cannot be further defined even if it seems to contradict previous teaching, as EENS does, and that your interpretation of what a pope wrote settles the matter instead.

    Thus you have RCs contending for gencentrism as being church teaching based upon historical documents.

    Another pope said,

    "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.

    And your own bishops say- without any censor from Rome - the same thing as the NAB commentary given before :

    The plot of Gn 2–11 (creation, the flood, renewed creation) has been borrowed from creation-flood stories attested in Mesopotamian literature of the second and early first millennia.

    How should modern readers interpret the creation-flood story in Gn 2–11? The stories are neither history nor myth. “Myth” is an unsuitable term, for it has several different meanings and connotes untruth in popular English. “History” is equally misleading, for it suggests that the events actually took place. - http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/0

    Likewise Cardinal George Pell said,

    the existence of Adam and Eve was not a matter of science but rather a mythological account. “It’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world,” he said. “It’s a religious story told for religious purposes.” - http://consciouslifenews.com/catholic-cardinal-adam-eve-didnt-exist/

    Fr. Joe answers "Must Catholics believe as an article of faith that all human beings have descended from two real human beings, Adam and Eve?" by saying,

    In short,there is no necessary contradiction between scientific theories of evolution Catholic belief. Moreover, Catholics are not obligated to believe that the story of “first parents” named Adam and
    Eve as told in the book of Genesis is historical fact. They are, however, called to believe the religious truths which the Genesis story proclaims, namely:

    1. That God played the ultimate role in all creation.
    2. That God played the ultimate role in the creation of the human being.
    3. That God created the soul which gives the human person an inherent dignity and the capacity for a relationship of love with God. - http://bustedhalo.com/questionbox/must-catholics-believe-as-an-article-of-faith-that-all-human-beings-have-descended-from-two-real-human-beings-adam-and-eve>

    Then we have The New Jerome Bible Handbook, page 16:

    Mesopotamian culture, the model for most of the stories in Genesis 1-11, scribes explored beginnings through stories, not through abstract reasoning. . . The biblical writers have produced a version of a common Mesopotamian story of the origins of the populated world.

    Some readers even end up concentrating on defending a “literal interpretation” of chapters 1-3, in particular, against modern evolutionary theory, something that the ancient authors of Genesis, with their tolerance of different versions, would never have done.

    Yet if Rome does not concur with them, then it leaves you with a church which claims to be led into all Truth yet which effectually teaches contradictory major things for decades to multitudes, right in its own Bible commentary, and by the American Bishops. And which does not discipline its publicly known errant (and liberal) teachers - a lax church which RCs have the audacity to insist conservative evangelicals who left liberal Prot churches (which are usually those closest to Rome) need to join this unholy amalgam.

    In reality what Rome really believes is manifest by what she does and effectually conveys.

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/24/2015 2:39:03 PM PDT · 155 of 191
    daniel1212 to eastsider
    If either of you (or anyone else following this thread) should run across anything in a Catholic Bible commentary or in the CCC that affirmatively answers the question posed by the title of this thread (i.e., "Does the Catholic Church Teach that Adam and Eve Are Myths"), please ping me back to this thread. Thanks.

    Using OCR software, here is the first find of the online NAB. p. 10, eph. mine, referred to in my last post:

    In the Mesopotamian creation- flood stories, the gods created the human race as slaves whose task it was to manage the universe for them —giving them food. clothing. and honor in temple ceremonies. In an unforeseen develop- ment, however, the human race grew so numer- ous and noisy that the gods could not sleep. Deeply angered. the gods decided to destroy the race by a universal flood. One man and his fam- ily, however, secretly warned of the flood by his patron god. built a boat and survived. Soon re- gretting their irnpetuous decision, the gods cre- ated a revised version of humankind. The new race was created mortal so they would never again grow numerous and bother the gods. The authors of Genesis adapted the creation-flood story in accord with their views of God and hu- manity. For example. they attributed the fault to human sin rather than to divine miscalculation (6:5-7) and had God reaffirm without change the original creation (9: l-7). I

    [See here and here on who copied who, etc. in such things.]

    In the biblical version God is just, powerful, and not needy. I-low should modern readers interpret the ere- ation-flood story in Gn 2-I I. The stories are nei- ther history nor myth. “Myth” is an unsuitable term, for it has several different meanings and connotes untruth in popular English. “History” is equally misleading, for it suggests that the events actually took place. The best term is creation- flood story. Ancient Near Eastern thinkers did not have our methods of exploring serious questions. Instead. they used narratives for issues that we would call philosophical and theological. 'I1tey added and subtracted narrative details and varied the plot as they sought meaning in the ancient sto- ries. Their stories reveal a privileged time. when divine decisiom were made that determined the future of the human race. The origin of something was thought to explain its present meaning, e.g., how God acts with justice and generosity, why human beings are rebellious. the nature of sexual attraction and marriage. why there are many peo- ples and languages. Though the stories may ini- tially suilte us as primitive and naive, they are in fact told with skill. compression. and subtlety. they provide profound answers to perennial about God and human beings.

    Going to church meeting. Hope to get back with more later.

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/24/2015 2:15:13 PM PDT · 154 of 191
    daniel1212 to RnMomof7

    Glory to God for what is good.

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/24/2015 1:36:44 PM PDT · 151 of 191
    daniel1212 to piusv
    I, for one, wouldn’t doubt these changes to Bible commentary due to the Modernists infiltrating the Church. At the same time, I won’t assume your source is accurate either. I happen to have a NAB bible back home and when I can get to it I will check out the commentary for myself.

    The source was my own substantiated research, and it certainly is in the NAB Bibles cited, the footnotes (if not the Bible helps) of which you can see on the Vatican's own site, and, and that of USCCB, both of which I cited.

    And RC testimony was also provided, as in, "a Roman Catholic apologist using the 1992 version also lists some of the same errors described below, and is likewise critical of the liberal scholarship behind it (though he elsewhere denigrated Israel as illegally occupying Palestine), while a Roman Catholic cardinal is also crtical of the NAB on additional grounds. "

    Check you own, but you will need a NAB study Bible with the Bible helps.

    The Google Books online Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible, with the latest stamps being 2005, lacks the Bible helps section i referenced but still examples the liberal revisionism of relegating historical events as fables, yet which the NT treats as liberal,

    In the preface to Jonah we read,

    " The story may be termed a fable..it can also be termed a parable," and attributes late compilation to it."

    On pp. 34,35 it states,

    Which means that if the Lord was referring to a fable when He predicted His death and resurrection, then souls could say that was a fable as well:

    For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40)

    >In addition, the story of the Israelites' ancestors in Genesis is composed of numerous,. originally independent folk tales.

    And it proceeds ( p. 36 ) to assert that the events of the story of the Hebrews deliverance from Exodus are "historically impossible," and falsely claim the story was a result of writers who took traditions and "constructed from them a dramatic and persuasive written narrative, " and even "the actual events no longer resembled the traditions and cannot be reconstructed from them.

    Which mess somehow must be what Steven referred to in Acts 7:

    He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years. (Acts 7:36)

    Thus the sppsd one true church that is promoted as being led into all truth (missing the asterisks) to which we are to submit to, attributes to the Spirit of God that of teaching fables and folk tales as facts! And this is only a small sample!

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/24/2015 1:36:11 PM PDT · 150 of 191
    daniel1212 to piusv
    It appears that the (same) JPII Catechism also discusses the Sabbath and that God rested on the seventh day (re: commandment to keep the Sabbath). So did He really do that on the seventh day or was that just symbolic? It doesn't say.

    That is the result of the work of doctrine by a committee of competing factions for the one true church, in contrast to those which have divisions.

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/24/2015 4:38:52 AM PDT · 125 of 191
    daniel1212 to NYer
    CCC 283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.

    CCC 302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created "in a state of journeying" (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call "divine providence" the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:

    CCC 337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day.204 On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation,205 permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God."206

    Then you have the Youcat Catechism, which is claimed to be modeled from the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was released by the Vatican on April 4, 2011 and was translated in more than a dozen languages.

    The Bible is not meant to convey precise historical information or scientific findings to us. Moreover the authors were children of their time. They shared the cultural ideas of the world around them and often were also dominated by its errors. Nevertheless, everything that man must know about God and the way of his salvation is found with infallible certainty in Sacred Scripture.

    In paragraph 42 YouCat asks: “Can someone accept the theory of evolution and still believe in the Creator?” YouCat answers:

    Yes. Although it is a different kind of knowledge, faith is open to the findings and hypotheses of the sciences. A Christian can accept the theory of evolution as a helpful explanatory model, provided he does not fall into the heresy of evolutionism, which views man as the random product of biological processes.

    The most egregious parts of YouCat are those which address the issues of sexuality, specifically homosexuality. The bottom line is, YouCat does not treat homosexuality as even a serious condition, much less a sinful state of existence. But YouCat’s teaching is subtle. Note these words in Paragraph 65:

    There is no man on earth who is not descended from a union of a mother and father. Therefore it is a painful experience for many homosexually oriented people that they do not feel erotically attracted to the opposite sex and necessarily miss out on the physical fruitfulness of the union between man and woman according to human nature and the divine order of creation. Nevertheless, God often leads souls to himself along unusual paths: A lack, a loss, or a wound—if accepted and affirmed—can become a springboard for throwing oneself into the arms of God. -http://www.faithfulanswers.com/youcat-catechism-weak-on-homosexuality-contraception-euthanasia-evolution-and-scripture/

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/24/2015 4:14:43 AM PDT · 123 of 191
    daniel1212 to terycarl; RnMomof7
    The Catechism is not an INFALLIBLE proclamation

    Look for the Nihil Obstat and the imprimatur in the front of the book..as you well know, it indicates that the book is without significant error

    Well then, that settles the question (I would just post a lin. but RCs have testifies they will not follow such to "anti-Catholic" (pro-truth) sources):

    Remarks on the New American Bible

    The commentary in the the New American Bible (NAB, the American bishop's official* Bible for use in America, including the edition provided by the Vatican's own web site, (2002 Copyright: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM) impugns the integrity of the Word of God by its adherence to the discredited JEDP theory, and by relegating numerous historical accounts in the Bible to being fables or folk tales, among other denials, along with other problems which even some Catholics complain about.

    In addition, some NAB footnotes assert alleged contradictions in Scripture, and Catholics are divided on whether the Vatican Two statement in Dei Verbum (which was seen as a response to a behind-the-scenes debate at Vatican II about inerrancy), that the Bible “teaches without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation," supports the position that the Bible is only immune from error within a certain limited area, versus what Pope Leo XIII, in Providentissimus Deus and Pope Benedict XV Spiritus Paraclitus state. However, the real authority for Catholics is their self-proclaimed infallible magisterium, although there is disagreement as to how many infallible statements there are, and the full meaning of these as well as multiple other non-infallible teachings canm be subject to some interpretation.

    I myself first became aware of the basic liberal bent in the NAB when reading the notes in the NAB, St. Joseph’s medium size, Catholic publishing co., copyright 1970, which has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur stamps of sanction. The NAB has gone through revisions, but I have found the same O. T. footnotes in “The Catholic Study Bible,” Oxford University Press, 1990, which also has the proper stamps, and uses the 1970 O.T. text and the 1986 revised N.T. And a Roman Catholic apologist using the 1992 version also lists some of the same errors described below, and is likewise critical of the liberal scholarship behind it (though he elsewhere denigrated Israel as illegally occupying Palestine), while a Roman Catholic cardinal is also crtical of the NAB on additional grounds.

    And as noted below, even the 2011 NAB Revised Edition (NABRE) contains some of the errors of liberal scholarship. (http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/index.cfm)

    The study aids therein teaches that, "The Bible is God’s word and man’s word. One must understand man’s word first in order to understand the word of God." ("A Library of Books," p. 19) and warns,

    You may hear interpreters of the Bible who are literalists or fundamentalists. They explain the Bible according to the letter: Eve really ate from the apple and Jonah was miraculously kept alive in the belly of the whale. Then there are ultra-liberal scholars who qualify the whole Bible as another book of fairly tales. Catholic Bible scholars follow the sound middle of the road.” (15. “How do you know”)

    However, they are clearly driving on the left.

    It “explains”, under “Literary Genres” (p. 19) that Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel: the footnotes on which state, in part, an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”) are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson.

    It next states that the story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, while the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are "historical at their core," but overall the author simply used mere "traditions" to teach a religious lesson. After all, its understanding that “Inspiration is guidance” means that Scripture is “God’s word and man’s word.” What this means is that the NAB rejects such things as that the Bible's attribution of Divine sanction to wars of conquest, “cannot be qualified as revelation from God,” and states,

    Think of the ‘holy wars’ of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine. The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional." (4. "Inspiration and Revelation," p. 18)

    It also holds that such things as “cloud, angels (blasting trumpets), smoke, fire, earthquakes,lighting, thunder, war, calamities, lies and persecution are Biblical figures of speech.” (8. “The Bible on God.”)

    The Preface to Genesis in my St. Joseph's 1970 NAB edition attributes it to many authors, rather than Moses as indicated in Dt. 31:24, and the footnote to Gn. 1:5 refers to the days of creation as a “highly artificial literal structure.”

    Even in the the current online NABRE, the The footnote (http://www.usccb.org/bible/gn/1:26#01001026-1) to Gn. 1:26 states that “sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth,” thus negating this as literal, and God as referring to Himself in the plural (“Us” or “Our”) which He does 6 times in the OT. Likewise, the footnote to Ex. 10:19 (http://www.usccb.org/bible/ex/10:19#02010019-1) regarding the Red Sea informs readers regarding what the Israelites crossed over that it is literally the Reed Sea, which was probably a body of shallow water somewhat to the north of the present deep Red Sea.” Thus rendered, the miracle would have been Pharaoh’s army drowning in shallow waters!

    And after affirming all of the Bible is the word of of, in its preface to the Pentateuch, it asks, "How should a modern religiously minded person read the Pentateuch?," and in answering that it asserts (consistent with the aforementioned discredited liberal JEDP theory, which holds the Pentateuch was not written mainly by Moses, but was the work of later writers, editors and redactors as late as the sixth century BC), "The story had to be reinterpreted, and the Priestly editor is often credited with doing so. A preface (Gn 1) was added, emphasizing God’s intent that human beings continue in existence through their progeny and possess their own land. Good news, surely, to a devastated people wondering whether they would survive and repossess their ancestral land. The ending of the old story was changed to depict Israel at the threshold of the promised land (the plains of Moab) rather than in it." (http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?src=_intros/pentateuch-intro.htm)

    Its (NABRE) footnote (http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/6#01006001-1) in regards to Gn. 6 and the sons of heaven having relations with the daughters of men explains it as apparently alluding to an old legend.” and explains away the flood as a story that ultimately draws upon an ancient Mesopotamian tradition of a great flood.” Its teaching also imagines the story as being a composite account with discrepancies. The 1970 footnote on Gen. 6:1-4 states, This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology.” It goes on to explain the “sons of heaven” are the celestial beings of mythology.”

    In addition, even the ages of the patriarchs after the flood are deemed to be “artificial and devoid of historical value.” (Genesis 11:10-26)

    All of which impugns the overall literal nature the O.T. historical accounts, and as Scripture interprets Scripture, we see that the Holy Spirit refers to such stories as being literal historical events (Adam and Eve: Mt. 19:4; Abraham, Issac, Exodus and Moses: Acts 7; Rm. 4; Heb. 11; Jonah and the fish: Mt. 12:39-41; Balaam and the donkey: 2Pt. 2:15; Jude. 1:1; Rev. 2:14). Indeed “the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety” (2Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9), and if Jonah did not spend 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the whale then neither did the Lord, while Israel's history is always and inclusively treated as literal.

    Regarding the Gospels, the teaching of my 1970 NAB speculates that some of the miracle stories of Jesus in the New Testament (the fulfillment of of the Hebrew Bible) may be “adaptations” of similar ones in the Old Testament, and that the Lord may not have actually been involved in the debates the gospel writers record He was in, and thinks that most of which Jesus is recorded as saying was probably “theological elaboration” by the writers.

    Going beyond the Holy Spirit condensing or expanding the words of Christ, as seen by duplicate accounts, it states under "Reading the Gospels,

    The Church was so firmly convinced that the risen Lord who is Jesus of history lived in her, and taught through her, that she expressed her teaching in the form of Jesus’ sayings. The words are not Jesus but from the Church.” “Can we discover at least some words of Jesus that have escaped such elaboration? Bible scholars point to the very short sayings of Jesus, as for example those put together by Matthew in chapter 5, 1-12”

    It does allow that the slaughter of the innocents by King Herod, was “extremely probable,” and that people leaving Bethlehem to escape the massacre, is equally probable, but outside the historical background to this tradition, “the rest is interpretation.” This means is taught as justified due to the authors intent.

    It additionally conveys such things as that Matthew placed Jesus in Egypt to convince his readers that Jesus was the real Israel, and may have only represented Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, to show that Jesus wa the s like Moses who received the law on Mount Sinai. (St. Joseph edition, 1970; How to read your Bible, "The Gospels," 13e, f, g. and i)

    The “Conditioned thought patterns” (7) hermeneutic also paves the way for the specious argumentation of feminists who seek to negate the headship of the man as being due to condescension to culture, a very dangerous hermeneutic, and unwarranted when dealing with such texts as 1Cor. 11:3.

    In addition, the current edition will not use render “porneia” as “sexual immorality” or anything sexual in places such as 1Cor. 5:1; 6:13; 7:2; 10:8; 2Cor. 12:21; Eph. 5:3; Gal. 5:19; Col. 3:5; 1Thes. 4:3; but simply has “immorality,” even though in most cases it is in a sexual context.

    It is a slippery slope when historical statements are made out to be literary devices, and Muslims have taken advantage of the NAB's liberal hermeneutic to impugn the veracity of the Bible, http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/nab.htm.

    As stated, the NAB has gone through revisions, and one of the changes i have noted between the 1970 NAB and the online version of today, is that the former has “justice” (which perhaps the social gospel Catholics preferred) over “righteousness' in such places as Rom 4:5,6, and that David “celebrates” the man..., while the online NAB has “But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the unGodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God credits righteousness apart from works”.

    On the other hand there are Catholics who only sanction the Douay-Rheims Bible, yet one Roman Catholic apologist criticizes it as well. (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=45541857&CFTOKEN=30609021)

    *Catholic sources state: There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for use in the United States. This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See. These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn.” http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm

    The New American Bible (1970) was adopted by the US bishops for use in the Lectionary. However, the revised Lectionary in use in US churches today incorporates RNAB texts, and it required correction before it could be approved for use in the liturgy. (http://www.adoremus.org/0705ChoosingBible.html)

    The lectionary readings are based upon the 1970 Old Testament including Psalter and 1986 New Testament, but with revisions for liturgical use, mainly replacing pronouns with their antecedents and supplying brief introductory titles. Presently (as of 2013), the only English text of the Lectionary approved for use in the latin-rite Dioceses of the United States of America is the Lectionary based on the NAB with Revised New Testament (sometimes unofficially referred to as the RNAB). The NABRE is expected be incorporated, but which is expected to be a decade or more away. (Mary Elizabeth Sperry, Associate Director, Permissions and Bible Utilization, USCCB Publishing)

    The original version of the New American Bible (NAB) was published in 1970. The translation of the New Testament was revised and published in 1986. The translation of the Book of Psalms (the Psalter) was revised in 1991. A revision of the translation of the Old Testament, including the Psalter, was published in March 2011...[Mass] readings are typically read from a Lectionary, not a Bible, though the Lectionary is taken from the Bible. -http://www.usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/faq.cfm

    The U.S. bishops state that “any translation of the Sacred Scriptures that has received proper ecclesiastical approval ‒ namely, by the Apostolic See or a local ordinary prior to 1983, or by the Apostolic See or an episcopal conference following 1983 ‒ may be used by the Catholic faithful for private prayer and study.” After 1983 only the Apostolic See and the episcopal conferences have authority to approve Bible translations. The USCCB (American bishops) owns the copyright for the NAB and its revisions including the NABRE.

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/24/2015 4:14:36 AM PDT · 122 of 191
    daniel1212 to IrishBrigade; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    others want the Church to revert to Latin only liturgies for the record, I am one of those... They simply chose their own ideas of how to do this, rather than that of the holy men who honestly were trying to follow the lead of the Holy Spirit.

    Which leaves you open the charge i have seen from an RC, that you are as a Prot., since the basis for what you hold as being Truth is your interpretation of historical teaching.

    Of course, whether defenders of Rome who attach evans for interpreting Scripture (their supreme Source) admit it or not, even so-called infallible teaching as well as those on lower magisterial levels, are subject to varying degrees of interpretation, including on what level they belong (incldg V2).

    And which is much done by lower magisterial levels, with actions and fruit being what Biblically evidences what one really believes. (Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20)

    Which has been much that of liberalism and less unity overall in basic beliefs than evangelicals .

  • Prayers For, To,and Through the Dead

    04/23/2015 8:22:20 PM PDT · 333 of 505
    daniel1212 to ravenwolf

    As long as you do not get two classes of clergy, elders and bishops, and or a separate class of believers distinctively titled priests out of it!

  • Prayers For, To,and Through the Dead

    04/23/2015 6:50:30 PM PDT · 281 of 505
    daniel1212 to ravenwolf
    The bishops and deacons were still elders but the elders were not necessarily bishops and deacons.

    I think we must deal with the ordained title. One could be an presbuteros as in a clan and not be a presbuteros/pastor in the church, but if he was the latter then he was also called a episkopos, and episkopos were all presbuteros from what we seen in Scripture, which uses both for the same pastoral persons.

  • Prayers For, To,and Through the Dead

    04/23/2015 4:51:11 PM PDT · 274 of 505
    daniel1212 to ravenwolf
    I will have to disagree with the statement below. Never differentiated between bishops and elders,

    What i mean by"never differentiated between bishops and elders" was that of referring to two ordained pastoral offices, which i think you concur with me on. And that there was no class of clergy distinctively titled "hiereus"="priest."

    I believe the elders were basically the ones who were aged or had been long with the Christian knowledge.

    There is no disagreement there, as Titus was to ordain mature qualified men, presbuteros (senior/elder), but he was to ordain such as elders in the formal sense, who are also called episkopos (superintendent/overseer).

    Both Timothy and Titus were to pick elders and to appoint them to the position of Bishops and deacons.

    Rather, the text you cited, Titus 1:5-7, uses presbuteros (senior/elder) and episkopos (superintendent/overseer) interchangeably, instructing pastor Titus to appoint presbuteros and thus telling him what the qualifications of a episkopos were to be.

    Presbuteros likely is used to refer to the character of the person as a mature person, while episkopos refers to his function.

    Also see,

    And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. (Acts 20:17)

    Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

  • Prayers For, To,and Through the Dead

    04/23/2015 4:02:01 AM PDT · 205 of 505
    daniel1212 to Biggirl
    You are not bitter, just telling it from an historic perspective.

    Actually no, as the Lord Himself stated,

    Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Matthew 23:2-3)

    Meanwhile the "self alone" soliloquy has been often refuted, and RCs themselves decide who what to believe, but neither claim to be the supreme infallible authority on Truth, and both are subject to correction from leadership and others. Still, one must obey his conscience, right or wrong, as Ratzinger says.

    However, after past refutations into silence, only to see the same fallacious charge repeated later on another thread, then it becomes wise to heed the RM's counsel regarding such goading "spitwads."

    If the other guy is throwing spitwads at you on an “open” thread it probably means he has run out of ammunition. Take it as a backhanded compliment. You won, walk away.

  • Prayers For, To,and Through the Dead

    04/23/2015 3:49:05 AM PDT · 202 of 505
    daniel1212 to Biggirl
    ....But scripture is not to be used to bash other Christians which do include Catholics.

    As your premise is presumptuous so is your conclusion. There are RCs here who do not consider us Christian, while by their Rome-centric preaching of an elitist church which has historically often said the same, and of whom we realize no basic fellowship in Christ with, we must conclude most RCs have never realized a day of salvation, with its profound changes in heart and life.

    Which is a fruit of her doctrine. Rome in particular (as the church taking up the most space on the broad way to destruction) is most manifest as standing in critical and overall contrast to the NT church. Which church, as manifested in Scripture,

    1. Was not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be 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.

    2. Never promised or taught a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture assured that such had assured infallibility.

    3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.

    4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)

    5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).

    6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)

    7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

    8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.

    9. 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)

    10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)

    11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.

    12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.

    13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.

    14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.

    15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”

    16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).

  • Prayers For, To,and Through the Dead

    04/23/2015 3:07:57 AM PDT · 201 of 505
    daniel1212 to Wyrd bið ful aræd; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    If you’re being honest, you have to acknowledge that there are far, far more anti-Catholic threads posted by Protestants, than there are threads of the reverse.

    If you’re being honest, and are informed, you have to acknowledge that for years there has been are far more Catholic promoting and thus anti-Protestant threads posted by Catholics, than there were threads of the reverse.

    Where have you been even in just the past 3 years when RCs were posting threads like,

    There Is No Salvation Outside The Catholic Church (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus)

    Divinum Officium: Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian religion will be damned

    Why Catholicism Is Preferable to Protestantism

    The Protestant's Dilemma: A Review

    Protecting God’s Word From “Bible Christians”

    Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    Protestants: It's time to come back

    From Fundamentalist Baptist to Catholic

    EWTN - The Journey Home - November 10, 2014 - Dale Ahlquist, convert from being a Baptist

    The Trouble With Calvin – Pt. 1

    Why would anyone become Catholic?

    In Defense of the Immaculate Conception: Part 2

    The Nature of the Mass and the need for Sacrifice

    The Hail Mary of a Protestant

    500 Years of Chaos: Protestantism’s Anniversary

    And which is just a few, plus multitudes of pro RC polemics for herself that invite and incite debate.

    But all RCs see is what reproves Rome's errors and elitism, and whine about what exposes her. Which is what their posting has resulted in, as can be shown, by God's grace.

    The recent supply of pro-Truth anti-Catholic articles was in response to such, and to certain RCs who said we should post our own threads rather than object to theirs. So here you go.

  • BREAKING: Catholic Relief Services vice-president is in a gay ‘marriage’, promotes gay agenda

    04/23/2015 2:50:48 AM PDT · 84 of 85
    daniel1212 to HurriKane
    there is so much to learn, thank you again for taking the time to share your view... Blessings, HK

    Thanks. For more debate on this issue i would recommend such resources as the Beggars All blog, William Webster's site, the Reformation500 site, and James White's Vintage site on Roman Catholicism.

    The redeemed have come to God as souls damned for their works - not saved because of them - and destitute of any means or merit whereby they may escape their just and eternal punishment in Hell Fire and gain eternal life with God. And with contrite heart have cast their whole-hearted repentant faith upon the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Divine Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood. (Rm. 3:9 - 5:1) And whose faith is thus counted as righteousness, but it is a faith that will follow Him.

  • Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

    04/23/2015 2:46:24 AM PDT · 864 of 949
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o; Iscool; ealgeone; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    It was a mistake for me to use the word "nobody," since it can be falsified by a single person who holds this erroneous position. That probably led this discussion down a rabbit trail. My bad; sorry.

    Thanks. I would have saved me some typing if that had been clarified earlier.

    What I ought to have said, is that this is what the Catholic Church calls heresy.

    Then you would be saying that what Iscool posted from RCs was heresy. Could you be specific about what was?

    I know of nothing that can be said to violate RC doctrine, for while Rome "exhorts theologians and preachers of the divine word to abstain zealously both from all gross exaggerations [not merely exaggerations]...Let them assiduously keep away from whatever, either by word or deed, could lead separated brethren or any other into error regarding the true doctrine of the Church," yet by choosing to primarily use the most easily misunderstood term "Mother of God," since that naturally denotes ontological oneness, then the Vatican itself fosters leading separated brethren or any other into error regarding the true doctrine of the Church, as evidenced here.

    Meanwhile, the gross exaggerations of Mary's place and power by her own popes interpret the such exhortations as the above exaggerations while Rome "admonishes all the sons of the Church that the cult, especially the liturgical cult, of the Blessed Virgin, be generously fostered..." (LUMEN GENTIUM) "Generously fostered" equates to "gross exaggerations" Biblically speaking.

    Scripture nowhere records 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.

    BTW, I have seen more expressions of individual and group vilificaion on this thread, than I have seen ever before on the FRRF.

    I have actually not been reading thru the tread, only responding to posts to me so i cannot comment on what others see.

  • Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

    04/23/2015 2:23:41 AM PDT · 863 of 949
    daniel1212 to metmom
    The title is wrong.

    True. If Cath wanted to be sure to avoid blasphemy then at least they would be careful to call her the mother of God the Son. RCs even refrain from calling Mary the Theotokos as "God-bearer," which is less likely to be misunderstood than "Mother of God," since that naturally denotes ontological oneness.

    But instead RCs insist on the most easily misleading term, as they are either ignorant or would rather exalt Mary as a demigoddess than be careful to avoid fostering a blasphemous idea about Mary.

  • Chimpanzees Granted Petition To Hear 'Legal Persons' Status In Court

    04/22/2015 4:25:37 AM PDT · 22 of 24
    daniel1212 to Paladin2

    Denmark bans bestiality in move against animal sex tourism

    So bestiality promoters will argue the animals have right to this perversion.

    But will not prevail in God's courtroom:

    Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. (Leviticus 18:23)

    And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:15-16)

  • AMD CEO Says Windows 10 Will Launch ‘At The End Of July’ [Can Microsoft Pull it off?]

  • Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

    04/21/2015 7:10:05 PM PDT · 610 of 949
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o; Iscool; ealgeone
    the views presented about Marian devotion in this forum have resulted in a distorted picture of the Church, much like the elephant as perceived by the six blind men...

    An analogy: I once read with great interest a short book called "The Trail of Blood"

    Your analogy is faulty if the issue is what RCs teach, which is what the poster responded to ("Nobody thinks that the saints...."), and what he cited does not present a false description about Marian devotion, nor a distorted picture of the Church since she allows such to abound, and which even comes from popes, as overall they are not seen to contradict official statements.

    when comparing doctrines, the first thing you want to determine is whether the proposition or text you are discussing is actually a doctrine.

    But when responding to statements, the first thing you want to determine is what the text you are discussing is actually referring to, which in thus case was in regard to the "Nobody thinks" how saints in heaven act, not what is officially taught. Which itself is subject to interpretation by RCs.

    my advice would be to stick with authoritative summaries of doctrine, e.g. the Catechism. Or to ask a knowledgeable Catholic, "What do you mean by this?" with the expectation of a good-faith explanation.

    CCC statements was not the issue, but what knowledgeable Catholics say about Mary. Changing the subject will not change that.

  • Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

    04/21/2015 6:42:51 PM PDT · 582 of 949
    daniel1212 to Elsie

    What a typo! Thanks.

  • BREAKING: Catholic Relief Services vice-president is in a gay ‘marriage’, promotes gay agenda

    04/21/2015 6:38:50 PM PDT · 69 of 85
    daniel1212 to HurriKane
    Regarding your comment about the SSPV & SSPX... I am coming to believe that “Rome” may have separated itself from the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church... it kills me to see Christ’s Mystical Body suffer at the hands of the deniers and betrayers of the Church within the Church... maybe the Church really lives in these pockets of tradition like the SSPV & SSPX... I don’t know... but this business with CRS is sickening, especially in light of what’s happening to tradition & traditionalists everywhere who are trying to hold on to truth.

    I understand your angst, for an institution must be consistent with itself, esp. one that claims to be the one true and unchanging church. I myself affirm that Rome is not consistent with her past teachings, though i also see many of her teachings as not supported and often not consistent with Scripture .

    . However, the liberal character of the vast multitudes of RCs is consistent with the Roman model for unity and ideological conformity. Which is not that of determining the veracity of RC teaching by examining what Scripture and or the historical sources say, the latter of which is what conservative Cath sects and schisms engage in, but as this make the veracity of a teaching dependent upon the weight of the evidence, and may thus allow for dissent (which is how the church began, instead Rome presumed perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility (conditional) and veracity at least in all salvific matters. Under which dissent is supposed to be disallowed or discreet if allowed (depending on the magisterial level). Yet this same model cannot dispense with the need for interpretation, both as to which magisterial level belongs to, as well as its meaning to varying degrees.

    But which interpretation is expressed by the popes and prelates in their comments and actions/inactions, which effectually conveys what they really believe. The hearers of teaching tend to look for the meaning of it by how the preachers of it translate into their own lives, and Rome encourages implicit obedience to Roman pastors. While conservative RCs placate others who are alarmed by how liberal popes and prelates are seen to violate church teaching as they understand it by assuring them that the authorities have not changed any dogma, they miss the fact that dogma is meaningless unless souls see it as authoritative, and liberal prelates indicate it can be interpreted contrary to past ones.

    "The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."

    “The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit... Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? How can he consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it? Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense? — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ; http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18438/18438-h/18438-h.htm)

    ..having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. You have sought for the Teacher sent by God, and you have secured him; what need of further speculation?" “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]

    The strength of the sola ecclesia model, in which what the church says is the sole supreme authority, not Scripture, for doctrinal purity and unity is that it is the easiest path to achieving doctrinal conformity, when the leaders to which the people look to above all are committed to this and require implicit obedience and effectually punish dissent. As was seen in medieval Rome and is seen in cults today.

    However, this is contrary to how the NT church began, and is not the Scriptural means of unity, moreover, as souls are to give assent of faith toward the teaching men and not ascertain the veracity of teaching by Scripture, then when the leadership goes South then so do the multitudes. Meanwhile conservatives can be charged with being like Protestants because they dissent from aspect of V2 teaching based upon their interpretation of what the church teaches.

  • BREAKING: Catholic Relief Services vice-president is in a gay ‘marriage’, promotes gay agenda

    04/21/2015 4:03:52 AM PDT · 58 of 85
    daniel1212 to manc; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    Can’t the Pope get rid of these Priests and Bishops who go against their religion and if so then why does he not?

    Because what you really believe is shown by your actions and fruit. (Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20) And the popes and prelates overall must believe that treating even publicly known proabortion/sodomite/Muslim souls and their supporters as members in life and in death is right, without which Rome would lose a lot of its membership.

    Unlike fund. evangelicals, conservative RCs cannot separate from these "brethren," except by becoming part of a sect like the SSPX, or a schism, like the SSPV. Which means they are like Protestants, since they rely upon their interpretation of what is written as being the truth, versus following the leadership who show by their actions and fruit the meaning of historical RC teaching.

    "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),

  • Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

    04/20/2015 7:39:40 PM PDT · 203 of 949
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o; Iscool
    You ought to look into this, iscool. For someone who does not believe the Pope is infallible under any circumstances, you seem to think Catholics hold the saints to be infallible in every circumstance.

    That does not follow, as he was not responding to a claim of infallible teaching, but "Nobody thinks that the saints in heaven act as independent agents, dispensing favors by their own power or piety, apart from Christ Our Lord."

    iscool responded with "false rcc teachings on Mary," the like of which also has popes as sources, and which, even if not "official," is uncensored teaching by RCs.

    Now since you responded with distinguishing infallible teaching from what Iscool listed, then we can dispense with the majority of what RCs profess and practice, and parts of encyclicals and the CCC that do not infallible dogma. But which makes an infallible list of all infallible teachings needful, as well as an infallible interpreter to avoid or reduce interpretive variants, such as we see.

    However, even if you uphold every teachings of the Ordinary Mag. also, and win the debate with the SSPX and SSPV over modern RC teaching, then we must still deal with the vast collection of accolades given to Mary, as well as the vast collection of unofficial RC apologetics. Which does testify to what many/most RCs believe, and for you to dismiss that simply because it is not infallible or official promulgation itself is hardly reasonable.

  • Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

    04/20/2015 6:43:25 PM PDT · 193 of 949
    daniel1212 to NYer
    Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

    1. The Saints in Heaven are Alive, not Dead, as their spirits are with the Lord, the only place that that Scripture clearly teaches is the next place for believers after this life, not Cath. purgatory, wherever Scripture manifestly deals with this issue. (Lk. 23:39-43; Acts 7:59; Phil. 1:21-23; 2Cor. 5:8; 1Thes. 4:17)

    Nor are the Saints a distinct class of believers, as Scripture teaches that all believers are saints, using the word interchangeably for believers , as even the Corinthians were washed, sanctified and justified in the name of Jesus and by the Spirit of God. (1Cor. 6:11). already accepted in the Beloved and seated with Christ, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6)

    And in Scripture all sanctifying work is done in this world with its trials and temptations, in which there is an sinful alternative to suffering. And thus it was here that the Lord was made "perfect," in the sense being tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. (Heb. 4:15)

    Meanwhile, the only postmortem suffering spoken of is that of suffering the loss of rewards, and thus the grievous shame of the Lord's disapproval, at the judgment seat of Christ, and which is at the return of the Lord, not commencing at death. See here .

    Even the EO's tend to reject Rome's purgatory (though they have a theory of preparation)

    Also, the Orthodox Church does not believe in indulgences as remissions from purgatorial punishment. Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church, and when they were enforced and applied they brought about evil practices at the expense of the prevailing Truths of the Church. If Almighty God in His merciful loving-kindness changes the dreadful situation of the sinner, it is unknown to the Church of Christ. The Church lived for fifteen hundred years without such a theory. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076

    2. The Saints in Heaven are Witnesses, not Sleeping or Ignorant, but Rv. 6:9-11 that the RCs compel to support them only shows they crying out for judgment, which could have been due to the increase of martyred souls arriving in Heaven, indicating the time of judgment should be near.

    Likewise, RCs compel Heb. 12:1-2 to support them, but which is not speaking about communicating with the departed, but in context (Heb. 11) that of being in the company of such as part of the same body.

    In any case, this query for judgment simply does not support created beings in Heaven being able to hear prayers addressed to them and respond , not does offering up prayers as a memorial at the time of the day of the Lord.

    In fact, nowhere does the Spirit ever record even one prayer, supplications or offerings addressed to anyone else by God - except by pagans - even though He records over 200 in Scripture! Argument by silence much?

    3. The Saints in Heaven are Still Part of the Church, yet neither this, nor exhortations to pray for each others teach that created beings in Heaven are able to hear and respond to prayer from earth addressed to them in Heaven, and do so.

    Moreover, from what I see, all two-way communication required both created beings to somehow be consciously operating in the same realm.

    What saith the Scriptures?” (Rm. 4:3; 11:2; Gal. 4:30) “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:6)”


    Prayers in Scripture addressed to God in Heaven

    Over 200 prayers, besides instruction on prayer to Heaven. (“Our Father who art in Heaven,” not “Out Mother.”)

    Prayers in Scripture addressed to any created beings in Heaven

    ZERO prayers or examples, or in instruction on prayer to Heaven


    Examples or teaching showing God being able to hear and respond to prayer from earth addressed to Him in Heaven.

    Multiple. “I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee..” (2 Kings 20:5; cf. Ps. 65:2; 66:19,20; Lk 1:13)

    Examples or teaching showing created beings being able to hear and respond to prayer from earth addressed to them in Heaven.

    ZERO. Angels and elders offering up prayers before the judgments of the last days in memorial (Rev. 5:8 and 8:3,4; f. Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15) does not constitute this ability, which is unique to God.


    Examples or teaching showing God able to personally communicate with man from Heaven.

    Many. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. (2 Corinthians 12:8-9)

    Examples or teaching showing created beings being able to converse with man from Heaven.

    ZERO. From what I see, all two-way communication required both created beings to somehow be consciously operating in the same realm.


    Examples or teaching Christ as being the heavenly intercessor between man and God.

    Many. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5) For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:18) For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:15-16) Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)

    Examples or teaching any as created beings as heavenly intercessor between man and God.

    ZERO. See under 2 above.

  • Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

    04/20/2015 6:41:32 PM PDT · 192 of 949
    daniel1212 to DannyTN; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    Scripture is very supportive of enlisting others to prayer. "where two or more are gathered.." And that's what I understand Roman Catholic theology is basically advocating. But are the saints omnipresent that they can hear our prayers? or omniscient that they can know our thoughts if the prayer is not voiced? Because if they aren't, then for the saints to hear the prayers, then the Holy Spirit is going to have to pass the prayers to them in order for them to hear.

    So without looking down on the catholic practice of praying to the saints, it always made sense to me, to just go straight to the source, to "boldly enter the throne room" and lay our petitions before Him. Or to enlist the help of living saints, rather than enlist the help of past saints which may or may not be able to hear or which might be inundated.

    Well said. It simply has no actually support, only Cath attempts to extrapolate it out of earthly relations, which ignores the seperation of realms only God is shown able to ignore.

    It is the psychological seduction of a Heavenly Mother that the pagans also found attractive.

  • Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

    04/20/2015 5:41:28 PM PDT · 149 of 949
    daniel1212 to RnMomof7
    THERE WERE NO CHAPTERS IN THE EPISTLES WHEN WRITTEN ...So Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 are the same topic.. So what is the topic of chapter 11??? IT IS THE ROLL CALL OF SAINTS SAVED BY FAITH

    Correct: The text, "surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses" refers to just that, being in the company of such as part of the same body, but not as communicating with them in Heaven, which is nowhere seen. Nor any Roman purgatory.

  • Traveling the Path to Catholicism

    04/20/2015 5:33:20 PM PDT · 77 of 78
    daniel1212 to MamaB
    Well, make mine a bottle of water. I do not leave home without it. Keep up the good work.

    And the Living Water is the Best, and is not the Eucharist!

  • Oklahoma approves execution by nitrogen gas as a backup to lethal injections

    04/20/2015 10:30:47 AM PDT · 27 of 32
    daniel1212 to thackney; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    As with capital crimes in Scriptur e, the conviction should be at the mouth of 2 or 3 eye witnesses, with perjurers receiving the penalty their false testimony incurred, and the execution being done by the community through stoning.

    Thus all the community would take part in the death of the guilty, impressing upon them the gravity of the offence with its communal effects and accountability, and the nature of its penalty in this life, as well as take part in the satisfaction of justice. But which also has a deterrent effect against false testimony, more so than antiseptic execution by the state.


    04/20/2015 9:55:29 AM PDT · 65 of 70
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet
    Father Rutler has forgotten more about scripture than you will ever learn.

    Another desperate assertion in lieu of an argument. Prove it.


    04/20/2015 9:54:23 AM PDT · 64 of 70
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet
    The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky. Do yourself a favor and go to any library in the world and read some Christianity 100. If you have to put down the Catholic Church and her’s teachings 24/7 will you please quit reading the Bible, which is a very Catholic document. Not the first protestant had the first thing to do with the Bible.

    More mere meaningless assertions, which vain soliloquy is to be ignored until you answer the necessary questions i asked you.

  • Traveling the Path to Catholicism

    04/20/2015 4:26:19 AM PDT · 70 of 78
    daniel1212 to Religion Moderator
    If you don’t get an answer to your question after one or two tries, then you must accept ‘no answer’ as the answer.

    However, i only asked the questions once, while the other posts were in response to "i don't answer to you," to which i explained how a forum works, and "Your purpose is to be decisive by asking questions, purposefully misinterpreting them, and cherry picking quotes (Biblical and otherwise) in an effort to justify your own beliefs" [mind reading, which i did not flag], to which i explained how truth is divisive, and challenged the poster to substantiate her charges, and "You did exactly as I wrote you would." To which last spitball i gave my last rebuke. Then another poster chimed in, and one perhaps hit the abuse button.

    You have a tough job, but keep it up!

  • Traveling the Path to Catholicism

    04/19/2015 8:20:58 PM PDT · 67 of 78
    daniel1212 to mlizzy; goodwithagun
    I could use a cold one myself after reading your perpetual pestering posts.

    I assure you a cold one is a poor recourse when dealing with eternal matters. When a person on a public forum which is being used to promote an elitist church posts a public positive comment regarding conversion to it, and is thus asked a couple relevant questions, but avoids answering them by misconstruing this as being about having to submit to others.

    And then resorts to mind-reading and fallacious unsubstantiated charges in response to a reasonable reply, then what you term "pestering posts," in calling her to account, is warranted.


    04/19/2015 7:17:16 PM PDT · 43 of 70
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet
    You mean the same Catholic document that Catholics compiled, codified, and safeguarded for centuries so protestants and everyone else could know the Word of God. Or is there another Bible I’m not familiar with? Just as God worked through men to write individual books of inspired Scripture, He worked through the authority of the Catholic Church’s Bishops to determine for us what books belong in the Bible. All Christians must admit that their confidence that the Bible is Sacred Scripture – the inerrant and divinely inspired Word of God – stems from the authority of the Catholic Church. God made Scripture holy…but we know this because He revealed it to us through the Catholic Church.

    So once again you trot out this polemical assertion, but you never have affirmed the logic that gives this assertion any weight. That being, is your argument that being the instruments and stewards of Holy Spirit mean that such are the infallible authorities on what it means, and thus wilful dissent from such is rebellion against God, and invalidates any claim to authority.

    Clearly affirm or deny for once, esp. as your present your church as being the choice of geniuses.


    04/19/2015 7:06:01 PM PDT · 42 of 70
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet
    Who is Father Charles Rutler? Just another former protestant, with a genius IQ I might add, who converted to the One, True Faith. I’ll put his knowledge of scripture up against anyone on FR.

    You are one. Get him to show up here and let us know. Of course, the devil knows Scripture better than us, but by God's grace let us expose his specious "genius" like others you have relied upon, imagining letters makes one superior. But the church began with common people discerning who was of God while most of the learned were lost, as most RCs sadly are.

    "Forsake the foolish and live." (Prov. 9:6)

  • Traveling the Path to Catholicism

    04/19/2015 7:00:24 PM PDT · 60 of 78
    daniel1212 to terycarl
    I think that is the longest sentence that I have ever seen!!!

    Yes, it is long, but only one, and not complex, which could easily be split up (next time maybe). And as you might know, i usually write with many short paragraphs.

    But as a RC you should be used to long sentences. Just one of the many examples of the plethora of papal prolixity, is an encyclical (QUADRAGESIMO ANNO, POPE PIUS Xl ,MAY 15, 1931) of over 20,000 words, with more than one paragraph of over 400 words, and at least one sentence of over 90 words!

    Still, WP says, "Jonathan Coe's The Rotters' Club appears to hold the record at 13,955 words."

  • Traveling the Path to Catholicism

    04/19/2015 6:40:09 PM PDT · 59 of 78
    daniel1212 to goodwithagun
    You did exactly as I wrote you would.

    Since that is another accusation that you fail to show, then grabbing a "cold one" is not surprising. Altered senses go together with converting to Rome, which i am sorry to see you choose.