Posted on 09/21/2004 7:43:13 AM PDT by Tantumergo
All believers are saints, but its up to God to name them such, not men who know nothing about the real heart and soul of the person.
I call the apostles by the same names they called each other in the Bible, of course you don't believe the Bible has the athority to set the example, do you?
Your claim that the Catholic church adopted them is a result of your mis interpretations because the Church willingly invites all into Her fold as adopted children - but where you stumble is in the fact that it is they who have not only adopted the RCC for their own, they did it because they knew that She is the only way to God.
They would never have recognize the church they were a part of just 50 years later. They would never have accepted its horrendous history of murdering other believers, or using forged documents to gain political power, not to mention the sin that's in it now. I guess you just call those warts, don't you? :)
JH :)
They are referred to as a group, similar to the way they do the church, but not one time do they place a name with the word saint.
I guess it's another one of your traditions, huh? I suppose it does sound better if you add the word saint to a name, especially if your going to pray to him.
JH :)
"We" don't!
Yeah right. You say that as though he had no conviction in his belief or in his conversion.
He understood that the church Christ established was a group of believers who were the members of the body of Christ, but Christ was the head, and not some man.
He understood exactly what he said. Remember, he was one of the most intelligent and learned folks of his time. Just because you suppose he was accustomed to contradicting himself for thew sake of your own personal convenience while the ovewhelming proof to the opposite is abundant does not make it so.
Had you been able to read it, when he actually wrote it, it would have probably said, “except in the universal assembly can a man have salvation.” At the time he said it, I may have agreed with him, but your Church is no longer that assembly.
You are obviously unfamiliar with his works. I cautiously suggest for you to check out St. Augustine's, "The City of God". "Cautiously" because I hope you do not mis-interpret what ever you read of it. Google it, "City of God" Saint Augustine.
What is the earliest extant copy you have of that quote you posted from Augustine? I’d be interested in seeing it.
That quote came from the Haydock Bible. My copy is only about two hundred years old. http://www.catholictreasures.com/cartdescrip/11050.html
I see you’ve followed “Catholic Apologetics 101,” pretty well. You managed to divert the subject from Mary giving birth of four other boys and a couple of girls, then to Sola Scripture, and now finally into your Church History, which is all smoke and mirrors that could easily leave a sane person babbling to him self and cutting out little paper dolls. :)
The subjects has gotten too general for a discussion, but if you care to go back and work on whether or not Mary remained a virgin, I’ll be glad to accommodate you.
I have not followed 101 anything. You mis-quote Catholic saints to try to suit your own theology, same as you mis-quote your own Bible to show that the Bible is the "sole authority" while ignoring your own Bible's condemnation of the same.
I have already showed you that your interpretation of Our Lady having other contradicts what my Bible and my Church teaches. You are stuck in your solo scriptura, 2Peter 3:16 will once again prove itself true if you choose to remain solo scriptura.
Thats your definition based on your personal interpretation of your bible. In reality, the verses that you mis-quote according to your private interpretation contradict those who wrote them because "You search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and that they give testimony of God" yet you cannot find God under those (your) terms. Mark 5:39,40.
Saint Matthew and the other OT and NT writers are, sadly, the most mis-quoted and mis-interpreted saints of all. The teachings of St. Augustine are in perfect harmony with each and every lesson of my Bible - as are the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas More, and on and on the list goes.
They would never have recognize the church they were a part of just 50 years later. They would never have accepted its horrendous history of murdering other believers, or using forged documents to gain political power, not to mention the sin that's in it now. I guess you just call those warts, don't you? :)
The Church, from its beginnings, has been attacked repeatedly by the devil and is once again under attack. The devil does not bother with those who he figures are already his, he always goes after the ones who are not his with the most verosity. Such is what we see happening today.
Thats right, its the same tradition St. Paul teaches about in 2Thes. 3:6
Gal. 1:8,9: if anyone, if we ourselves or an angel from heaven, should preach a Gospel at variance with the Gospel we preached to you, let him be anathema.
etc. etc. etc.
I realize that your ploy is to go off in as many different directions and bunny trails as possible, that way you can never be pinned down to any one belief, so I will deal with these scripture you post because that’s what trusting the word is all about.
2Thes. 2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
Gal. 1:8,9: if anyone, if we ourselves or an angel from heaven, should preach a Gospel at variance with the Gospel we preached to you, let him be anathema.
Please answer these questions.
What or who’s traditions are they to stand fast with?
When did they learn them?
Who would have given them the verbal word?
Were the letters Paul wrote to the churches the epistles he referred to?
Did Paul mean that they could develop traditions from anyone other then what he preached?
Did Paul tell them they could develop traditions from others who preached a different gospel then he did?
If only Paul preached the true Gospel of Christ to the Gentiles, then isn’t it true that anything that isn’t in his Gospel would be at variance with it, and therefore be accursed?
Did Paul mean that anyone who preached from his time on would be fine to make tradition of?
If an angle came to you from heaven, and preached a different gospel then what Paul taught, how would you know it was different if you didn’t have his epistle to compare it with?
Please answer these, since it was you who posted them to support your own belief in traditions.
JH :)
The unwritten traditions of the Apostles. They are no less to be recieved than their Epistles. The Apostles did not deliver all things that were to be believed by writing, but many things by word of mouth only, which have been perpetuated by tradition, and these traditions, no less than the writings of the Apostles, are deserving of faith.
When did they learn them?
Don't know the exact date off hand but I would say it was when some days after Our Lord's Ascension, the Holy Ghost, the Third Person of the most Blessed Trinity, sent down by Jesus triumphant, descended upon the Apostles, as audible as wind, as visible as a dove, to evoke the messages of Christianity from raging tongues of fire, and to make the men who announced it to the world sheer targets for blazing martyrdoms that God will ever remember and the world can never forget.
Who would have given them the verbal word?
God
Were the letters Paul wrote to the churches the epistles he referred to?
Yes. They, along with his verbal teachings and admonitions.
Did Paul mean that they could develop traditions from anyone other then what he preached?
No.
Did Paul tell them they could develop traditions from others who preached a different gospel then he did?
No.
If only Paul preached the true Gospel of Christ to the Gentiles, then isn’t it true that anything that isn’t in his Gospel would be at variance with it, and therefore be accursed?
Yes.
Did Paul mean that anyone who preached from his time on would be fine to make tradition of?
No.
If an angle came to you from heaven, and preached a different gospel then what Paul taught, how would you know it was different if you didn’t have his epistle to compare it with?
Because of what I have been taught by word as well as by reading.
Q- In What or who’s traditions are they to stand fast with?
Stubborn- The unwritten traditions of the Apostles. They are no less to be recieved than their Epistles. The Apostles did not deliver all things that were to be believed by writing, but many things by word of mouth only, which have been perpetuated by tradition, and these traditions, no less than the writings of the Apostles, are deserving of faith.
In Matthew 15:1-9, Jesus condemned the Pharisees, and called them hypocrites because they condemned him and his disciples because they ate bread with out washing their hands.
The Pharisees had no come back, because their traditions were not backed by the Old Testament scripture. It’s too bad they didn’t tell him they were unwritten traditions from the founding fathers, because everything that happened since Adam was not written down. Lol
Q- When did they learn them?
Stubborn- Don't know the exact date off hand but I would say it was when some days after Our Lord's Ascension, the Holy Ghost, the Third Person of the most Blessed Trinity, sent down by Jesus triumphant, descended upon the Apostles, as audible as wind, as visible as a dove, to evoke the messages of Christianity from raging tongues of fire, and to make the men who announced it to the world sheer targets for blazing martyrdoms that God will ever remember and the world can never forget.
In other words, you have no idea? Send up some smoke and go on to the next question, huh? :)
Q- Who would have given them the verbal word?
Stubborn- God
Are you saying that God came down and gave the Catholic Church its verbal traditions?
Q- Were the letters Paul wrote to the churches, the epistles he referred to?
Stubborn- Yes. They, along with his verbal teachings and admonitions.
And no one was there who took notes, or wrote it down? It was their little secret just between them and God. SHHHHHhhhh :)
Q- Did Paul mean that they could develop traditions from anyone other then what he preached?
Stubborn- No.
Oh, just those that God gave them at their secret meeting?
Q- Did Paul tell them they could develop traditions from others who preached a different gospel then he did?
Stubborn- No.
Then God must have given them their traditions from Paul’s epistles?
Q- If only Paul preached the true Gospel of Christ to the Gentiles, then isn’t it true that anything that isn’t in his Gospel would be at variance with it, and therefore be accursed?
Stubborn- Yes.
Then if God gave them traditions that weren’t in Paul’s epistles, then is God accursed?
Q- Did Paul mean that anyone who preached from his time on would be fine to make tradition of?
Stubburn No.
Your definitely Stubborn, and I’m certainly confused over what you believe.
Q- If an angle came to you from heaven, and preached a different gospel then what Paul taught, how would you know it was different if you didn’t have his epistle to compare it with?
Stubborn - Because of what I have been taught by word as well as by reading.
What if he told you it was one of those secret traditions God taught while you were gone to the bathroom, and you missed it?
I think it’s much safer to depend on Gods written word. I just can’t picture Him getting angry at me for believing everything He said, but I wouldn’t be that confident if I had to tell Him I ignored his word and followed gossip and hearsay. :)
JH :)
I think it’s much safer to depend on Gods written word. I just can’t picture Him getting angry at me for believing everything He said, but I wouldn’t be that confident if I had to tell Him I ignored his word and followed gossip and hearsay.
You are contradicting Scripture, and the Faith, therefore the Church thet God established here on earth to teach, govern, sanctify and save all men. 2 Timothy 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.
Best advice I have for you is to start praying the Rosary.
It’s too bad you can’t read just what it says. Paul told Timothy to only teach those things that many faithful witnesses have heard him say previously, and are willing to confirm that he said them.
Catholics would have us believe that they were on the inside, and heard and knew things that no one else was privy to hear. If a faith doesn’t need biblical support for the traditions it teaches, then there was no need for scripture or God’s word in the first place.
That’s why whole cloth traditions are condemned. They need biblical roots, or there nothing more then the traditions and commandments of men.
You seem to believe that if someone brings a tradition into the Church that was never taught in the Bible, and if others like it, and begin to emulate it, then eventually it becomes an official Church tradition, and it has the same weight as the biblical commands.
If a Pagan attended the early Church and practiced one of their Pagan rituals, such as making the sign of “T,” for Tamaz on their chest, and everyone thought how neat it looked, and soon everyone was doing the same thing, that could end up a Church tradition.
Since there is no biblical support for it, it would be a man made tradition, and not a command of God.
Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Best advice I have for you is to start praying the Rosary.
Another man made tradition? You have traditions for your traditions, and my guess is that a few sincere words from the heart mean more to God then a thousand memorized words that are not from the heart but by rote.
JH :)
You follow your book that is different than mine - mine was here first so now what?...You might want to add this to your Bible
Then the creator of all things commanded, and said to me: and he that made me, rested in my tabernacle,......I am the mother of fair love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope. In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue. Come over to me, all ye that desire me, and be filled with my fruits. For my spirit is sweet above honey, and my inheritance above honey and the honeycomb. My memory is unto everlasting generations. They that eat me, shall yet hunger: and they that drink me, shall yet thirst. He that hearkeneth to me, shall not be confounded: and they that work by me, shall not sin. They that explain me shall have life everlasting. All these things are the book of life, and the covenant of the most High, and the knowledge of truth.
144 posted on 09/21/2004 4:27:48 PM PDT by DManA
Wisdom! I am learning a lot but the level of contempt and attitude shown by some here (one in particular) is certainly not very Christian. Christ was the Messiah, who died for our sins so that we might live forever with He and the Father in heaven. ALL else proceeds from that whether you agree in the IC (I do) or not is not (AS)important as believing in Christ's divinity and sacrifice. Are they important, YES, but lets remember this is a family fued. We are all still on the same team here.
I will not call my Baptist bretheren "Heretics" because of their views, not will I accept their counter-claims as valid. The goal is to grow in Christ working together to discover the truth to the questions that divide us.
Mary's Immaculate Conception: A Memorable Anniversary
Ineffabilis Deus: 8 December 1854 (Dogma of the Immaculate Conception)
Why do we believe in the Immaculate Conception?
John Paul II goes to Lourdes; reflections on the Immaculate Conception
Your Praises We Sing--on the Dogma of the Proclamation of the Immaculate Conception, Dec. 8th
Eastern Christianity and the Immaculate Conception (Q&A From EWTN)
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.