Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
I am charismatic as well. The point I was attempting to make is that normative Christian practice of the first century (i.e. baptism by immersion and speaking in tongues) is not normative Christian practice for much of the Catholic church. That's all. Thanks for your posts.
But I could swear that there were three acceptable depictions. I'll look it up this evening.
Well, I apologize for "tangentualizing" your post. In the absence of evidence refuting your claims about the "chew" word, I will defer to your knowledge.
SD
As long as you still knelt. :-)
(No kneelers is not an excuse!)
My parish church is being renovated as we speak and we have a service in the social hall. It is too crowded to kneel (which is an excuse), but it just feels weird. Plus, with holding the baby it gets hard on your back standing that long.
SD
Nor is it normative in other churches. Baptism was not only by immersion but in normal practice was in running ("living" both ways) water but I don't know of any churches doing it that way. We shouldn't confuse growth in the manner of worship with a change in the object of worship. Does your church require women to cover their heads? (actually not uncommon, so I'll try a differet tack) Do men wear what they wore in the first century? Do you limit your worship to classical instruments? Or do you have guitars, drum sets, (Heaven forbid) electrical organs?.
Umm.... what's our penance? Kneeling was usually only a part of the service on holy days.
You gonna yell at me if I admit we also had no lavabo(sp)? Kinda makes the job easier on the altar boys.
Oh, that point. :-)
I think you would have a stronger point if the Catholics abandoned Baptism entirely. The sacrament was adapted to more practical use, but full immersion never completely went away. In fact it's having a bit of a revival (thanks to the Spirit of Vatican II). Sarah was immersed. My new Church will have a large moving water font in the entrance to the nave (where the people sit). The symbolism of our entering the church physically and blessing ourselves with Holy Water will be tied to this same font where we "entered" the Church spiritually.
"Tongues" were certainly more prevalent in the aftermath of Pentecost. With the closing of the canon there is no more public revelation. Private revelation is possible. As has been said there are Charismatic Catholic groups which exist.
SD
"To: First Conservative
‘Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years they would swarm in greater numbers than all the reformers.' (Roman Catholic Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, 1504-1579, official representative of the pope and presiding officer of the Council of Trent.)
That quotation is a fraud. But what can we expect when you use The Trail of Blood as your history book.
Baptists are not Reformers
Your(sic) right, in the truest sense of the word they were not Reformers(neither were Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc... How can people who fractured the Body of Christ be called Reformers is beyond me). But they all, including the Baptists, have their origins in the Reformation.
97/162 posted on 10/12/01 7:01 AM Pacific by Catholic(sic) dignan3"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: I have reposted your kind, well documented, and thoughtful reply - SARCASM - so that the "Cardinal" Hosius quote can be restated. In copying the tripe of your response to my P77/T162 addressed to allend, I have corrected your "(sic)" marks and deleted your offensive repetitious request for prayer for YOUR spiritual Father, that Polish RC priest you call "Pope."
So, the poster, dignan3, whom I rejected as a heretic on P16/T66 for deceptively using selected, but disputed, quotations to support HIS OPINIONS, who claimed he was departing these threads 08/28/01, T129 because he was going back to school - a "computer science student" (attending Franciscan U.?) - is back spewing his hatred of all non-Roman Catholics. Did he/she wash out of theological school?
By calling the quotation from YOUR "Cardinal" Hosius a fraud, you are claiming he did not make such a statement. Incidentally, your assertion of my reference for that quote is incorrect, although "The Trail of Blood" is a book I would recommend to any seeker of the TRUTH! The source for the quote: Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, Letters, APUD OPERA, pp 112,113.
Your criticism of the Reformation (note no "sic") is incorrect and unjustified. My reading (not from RC sources, obviously, as is yours) is that the RC priest, Martin Luther, was disgusted and sickened by the dishonesty and immorality of YOUR church - headed by a "Pope" - and was striving to "REFORM" it - the RCC.
Since all Cathlicks(sic), beginning about 250 A.D., came out of the church of Believers which Jesus founded, the church of God of the Scriptures, composed of Believers who were ALL Baptists (critically called anabaptists, "rebaptizers", by their critics since they would not accept infant baptism or baptisms by others), Catholics(sic) like yourself are apostate Baptists! LOL That is why Baptists were not and are not "Reformers" - they were NOT trying to REFORM the apostate Catholic(sic) church, which is NOT, by definition, the "Body of Christ"! The reform of the Roman Catholic Church, YOUR church, was attempted in the 1500s by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others and is generally termed by most historians as the REFORMATION!!! Live with it!
Let me state it again - since you have obvious difficulty accepting and comprehending TRUTH - the First Century church, the earliest Body of Christ, the Believers who were called Christians or Nazarenes, observed the ordinance of Baptism as did Jesus - they were BAPTISTS!!!
Flame away, RCs - I know the TRUTH can be difficult for you after the years of brainwashing.
(Or, I'm sorry, was any of that any actual history showing the existence of historical baptists prior to the reformation?
SD
The quote is most definitely a fraud. And your source is J. Carroll’s “Trail of Blood”, since he uses the same reference as you do. The problem is there is no section titled "Apud Opera" among Hosius‘ complete works. And there is also no letter of that name. So the reference "Letters, Apud Opera" is meaningless.
You’re just to darn gullible FC.
Let's see what 5 minutes of web time can find. Let's search google.com for "APUD OPERA." Well looke here, first entry.
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/forgeries/hosius.html
An excerpt:
The purported statement is nowhere to be found in the letters of Cardinal Hosius
There is no section titled "Apud Opera" among Hosius‘ complete works. And there is no letter of that name. So the reference "Letters, Apud Opera" is apparently meaningless. Similarly, I could find no publication of his with this title.
I decided to check all of Cardinal Hosius‘ letters for references to the Anabaptists. The section in his "Opera Omnia" entitled "Liber Epistelarum" contains all of Cardinal Hosius‘ letters, 277 in total, written in Latin. I have read through all of these letters, and in only 12 of them (letters XXVIII, XLI, XLIII, CV, CXVI, CXXVIII, CXXIX, CXXXIV, CL, CLVII, CLVIII, and CLX) is there any mention of the Anabaptists. In none of them is to be found the statement cited at the top. To all intents and purposes, this statement appears to be a fake.
Nowhere in the letters of Hosius are the "reformers" referred to as such. Rather, they are referred to as "Lutherani", "Calvinisti", "Zuingliani" and, especially in his other works, "haeretici". The purported statement of Hosius uses language he never uses in his "Opera omnia", and so its authenticity must be called into question.
The citation by various Baptist websites of two completely different purported statements by Cardian Hosuis, both given the same page reference, adds to the doubt about the genuineness of either. (The second purported statement is quoted in Note 1 below). The said statements are purported to be found on pages 112, 113 of "Apud Opera". However, only one statement can be found crossing over from page 112 to 113. How can you get two different statements, both starting on page 112 and both ending on page 113? (The only possibility would be if one statement were embedded in the other, but that is clearly not the case here.)
Well gee. The purported work does not exist. In his other works he refers to particular heresies by name, and not as "reformers," so even the language used is suspect.
And finally different Baptist "historians" cite two different quotes as appearing on the same two pages of this nonexistant work.
Yep, that's Protestant (Baptist) scholarship for ya.
Tell me about TRUTH again.
SD
Not so fast. The deliniation of duties was put forth as to the offices of teachers, preachers and the like. But the Apostles had a singular office and a singular function - preaching of the new foundation. The Gospel was their obligation to spread. And that Gospel was paired with the message that there is no more singular chosen priesthood. We are all made priests. We all have the power and authority of the Lord as Christians. We are the church - not some they out there that are appointed over us. Is there a structure, yes. Is the Catholic Church it - No. The Catholic church, if it ever had it right, has lost it's way.
Intelligence is no substitute for spiritual discernment or spiritual understanding. Neither is philosophy derived from intelligence of man any substitute for scripture. Logical carnal arguments cannot contravene the Laws of God. And appeals to reason do not make claims into truth.
One Bread is correct, the lord is the head of the body. Scripturally, He is the head of the house - as the congregation is the Bride, we are to follow His lead. If the men you follow are not being led of God, they have zero authority. If they are led of God, they are in line with scripture and aligned with the Spirit of the Lord. If they aren't in line, they have no business in a pulpit and no business leading anyone. And you can bet everything you have on the Lord taking good care of the false ones. If their congregations are going to be misled, God will demand an answering of blood at their hands.
People grab onto things because they sound reasonable. And they want to call that their lives. People are scared to death to admit to being wrong about anything because they think their lives would be a lie if they admitted it. If it's a lie, it's a lie whether they admit it or not. And waking up from it is the only way to do the right thing with at least some of what's left. So for you lurkers, keep that in mind. If you believed the lies of philosophies, you can shuck it off, embrace the Lord and go on. You may not be popular with your family or friends; but, they can't get you to heaven. And if you're ashamed of the Lord now, you're gonna be rebuked right out of heaven later.
So, ya'll who think you got it because you are in a church whether you call it "the one holy Apostolic" or the "latter day" etc. If it ain't in line with scripture, your playin games with your soul. Plain and simple. God don't play games - it's all for keeps. And the devil's the same way. If you don't believe there's a Devil, two things: you are about to be introduced to him through fullfillment of prophecy in short order. And you are calling God a bald faced liar.
Ya'll think Dr. Phil can get real. You ain't seen anything. The Lord ain't there to play games and he won't put up with them. It doesn't matter what philosophy you follow, if it's not in line with God, it's not inline with God - Period.
So if we cut all ties with any church whatsoever will we be as righteous and holy as you are?
The fact that the site is that easy to find obviously shows (a la JHavard) the Catholic Conspiracy behind the media and the internet. :-)
SD
You're a little early, but I'm giving you Sentence of the Day for this one.
I'll leave it to the reader to discern what, if any, relationship "reason" should have to "truth."
Fides et Ratio
SD
when using the word "catholic" as an adjective, (thank you for correcting me), it is an oxymoron. When using the word "catholic" as a noun, which I was, it is not an oxymoron.
Catholicism is not a denomination.
Whe using the word "catholic" as an adjective it is not a denomination. When using the word "catholic" as a noun, which I was, it is a denomination.
In other words, its a verb when we want it to be and a noun when its convenient as well. Ho hum.
The useage of "catholic" meaning "universal" started, as I said, only in opposition to heresey.
Heresey as discerned by catholic "noun" types by those so called "apostolic age people" well after the real apostolic age.
Without being challenged the Church needs no name. It simply is the Church.
Your catholic church simply isn't "the church". Although there are those among them that are part of "the church".
The Church thus adopted its descriptive adjective as its "name."
Thus we have the "noun" catholic church today.
Every other church picked a name to oppose itself to the universal church.
Sorry my church didn't choose a name to oppose anyone.
They literally de-nominated (to give a name to) themselves.
Kinda like the catholic church denominated when they changed from an adjective to a noun.
The original Church remains. Universal. Catholic. Not denominated.
I totally agree with you on this as I include believers in Christ of all denominations and otherwise.
Oh how sweet. Making God's laws more practical. Hey guys, I guess we really don't need to worry about all that humility and obedience stuff. Just pay it lipservice, do a halfway job of it and God'll honor it - The Catholic Church has proclaimed it.
Did that sink in? If it hasn't, read it again. Jesus didn't say do your own thing, he said do as the father commands. John didn't sprinkle water on Jesus' forehead. Jesus in humility and obedience was put under the water and brought back up. Disobedience in the fullfillment of the command is not obedience to the commandment. I've used the metaphor before; but, if you're told to wash the dishes, you haven't been obedient if they aren't clean when you're done.
Baptism isn't salvation either. Baptism is a witness of your salvation and an act of obedience to God. A child is not saved because it is baptised. Each person has to take it upon themselves to of their own will fulfill the commandments of God. If someone does it for you, you didn't do it. But, of course, many think it's so sweet. Jesus didn't command us to look sweet. He directed us to obey the Lord in all things.
Did I say that? I don't see anywhere that I said that. You might want to actually read it. You might learn something. If you read it while thinking for yourself, you might learn even more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.