Posted on 11/30/2005 5:58:13 AM PST by HarleyD
Do you know at what time in history the Three Musketeers is set? I'll give you a clue. It's not medieval. They did not have muskets in the Middle Ages. Did you know that? Really, truly, there were no medieval musketeers. The story is set in the early modern, during the time of the de facto domination of the Church by the state. It supports my interpretation of the non-state church Middle Ages entirely. It's also written with an agenda. It's not a historian's work.
(You pinged yourself. ;-) )
LOL. Since I've begun insulting myself, I guess now would be a good time to call it a day.
I imagine you intended this to go to me. No, I don't insult everyone. But neither do I suffer nonsense lightly. Do you normally put up with foolishness?
With respect, what you have written is shows complete ignorance of medieval history and culture. If you feel insulted by that, I'm sorry. I do not intend to insult but I do intend to be blunt about the quality of what you write. What you wrote was self-contradictory, self-refuting, uninformed. That is a studied judgment on the historical information and the reasoning you employed. I'm sorry that it insulted you because that means you still don't get the point: you need to do some actual study of the things you claim to know something about.
I pay you the utmost respect of taking the time to try to point out to you how uninformed your assertions are. You should not be insulted. You should be embarrassed.
And now I will compliment you. You sure are persistent.
This deserves a second compliment. The ability to LOL at oneself is a great virtue and I admire you for it. I mean that sincerely.
Yes, correct, of course. God acted through the Church, in a manner of speaking, as Peter "announced" the punishment coming from God. God did the same thing with Moses in the desert regarding the golden calf and the rebellion of Korah. I always have found these interesting Scriptures that are often bypassed by many. God works in mysterious ways, doesn't He? He even works through heathen sinners...
Regards
I was going to respond to this, but you are much better qualified. I am amazed at the "history" of this article's thread compared to scholarly books on the period that I have read (written by secular historians).
Good luck!!!
Regards
I don't know. But what I have seen so far, the Sacrament is a recent innovation invented to bring money into the Church... It reminds me of our Eucharist discussion - you know how that ended and I do not wish to go there, as I don't know if I can handle another such laughing attack! As you know, the Fathers DO talk about confession, and Jesus DID give the Church the power to forgive sins to men, didn't He? Certainly, the possibility of abuse can occur EVERYWHERE when man has power. This is not a good enough reason to deny what Christ did, however.
Regards
I read the Bible and became a Christian because of it. Before I did not know the TRUE MEANING of calling ones self CHRISTIAN just as many do not.
There must be an inner change you will know (free from the power of sin, your nature), and so you are "born again", dead to your old self as you "put on Christ" then you are His. Your life no longer belongs to you. So you do His Will, not yours
Keep this saying in mind: If you are what you were, then your not. "born again"
The "old man" has to die
Jesus says "you must be born again"
That is the Truth, Jesus Christ by His Word, because He IS the Word, and He wants you to know the Truth.
If you do not accept His Way, His Sacrifice (not ours, nothing we can add or take away, and I am speaking of whole churches here) and reject His Word you will die a second death. For it is written:
Hebrews 9:27: And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment(because of the fall of Adam and Eve we are ALL under a sentence of death, and in fact died Spiritually, which means to be separated from God)
Religion in itself cannot save you. A church in itself cannot save you. Works in itself cannot save you. Rituals in itself cannot save you. Looking to man for your salvation cannot save you. A denomination in itself cannot save you. Only by accepting Jesus Christ and His Finished Work at the Cross are you saved. Anything else is just religion.
LOL!!!
Stop it, I'm crying here!
I'm not holding anyone to any type of standard especially the post-Vatican II Catholic Church. I'm merely posting the history of the Reformation and how Protestants were formed. I have no control over people who find history offensive. And, yes, I hope to post some Protestant history as well.
If you must know my reasoning for posting this information, there have been numerous discussions questioning the validity of Protestant doctrinal interpretation, especially during the Middle Ages. In most of these discussions I have found people denied the historical doctrinal development of the Church/church such as the Eucharist, devotion to Mary, etc. I have been told the Church always held these views and merely confirm positions through Councils which, of course, IMHO is rubbish. (Indulgences and penance are good examples of differing views.) Several people recommended I post the history of the church. I decided since that is the basis for many of these discussions it may be a good idea to post some history out here, fully understanding most people would be offended.
There is nothing incorrect or mean spirited with what this author has stated and none of the comments directed to me has dealt with the inaccuracy of three popes on the seat of Peter at the same time (contrary to what is often portrayed) or the problem with indulgences.
Your comment about the spirit of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church also ignores the historical position of the Vatican I Council which states there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. This position goes back to the Council of Trent and the Fourth Lateran Council of 1211. These are often glossed over by our Catholic brethern but have not been rescinded. Since you are not a member of the Catholic Church, you are, by their decree, at risk regardless of what post-Vatican II states. I presume you have not been baptized into the Church and since you do not personally partake of the Eucharist you are not receiving the grace of God. I don't believe I have to remind you that Protestants by some of our earliest confessions do not question the salvation of Catholics and accept them as our brethren based upon their confession of Christ as Lord.
Personally I take doctrine very seriously and try to make sure that I’m correct in my doctrinal understanding. Ecumenicalism is simply a watering down of the gospel. It is commanded by God for us to point out where we feel others may be in error and we do them and God a great disservice when we fail to do so. That's not to say we're always correct but there are certainly things we know to be true. History is a good place to start.
Two comments.
First, the Bible can't save you, either.
Second, the above are tired cliches. They don't really mean anything in the practical world. They are "buzz words". Only by accepting Jesus work on the Cross can we be saved? That's it? Are you sure about that? What exactly does that mean? The devil "accepted" that Christ died - I presume he knows and believes it happened. Is he saved?
I think formulas can cause problems to people. Could you kindly explain what you mean?
Regards
jo kus-LOL!!! Stop it, I'm crying here!
It was meant tongue-in-cheek. Personally I laughed when I wrote it.
You conveniently ignore over 1000 years, first of all. You thus present a picture of a corrupt beast of a "Church" as if that was ALWAYS the Catholic Church. By presenting the Church in ONLY its bad side, what do you hope to accomplish - the presentation of unbiased, critical history, or a farce that attacks the straw man you love calling the Catholic Church? Perhaps you should glance at what you post, first.
Your comment about the spirit of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church also ignores the historical position of the Vatican I Council which states there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.
It sounds like you don't know what that means, even though I wrote you exactly the Catholic viewpoint. Clearly, it does not mean what you make it out to be. Also, this is not a new doctrine, as I posted quotes from the Early Church Fathers, such as Justin the Martyr - 150 AD. I think when you continue to ignore corrections, it LOOKS like you have other intentions than "correcting" us Catholics.
There is nothing incorrect or mean spirited with what this author has stated and none of the comments directed to me has dealt with the inaccuracy of three popes on the seat of Peter at the same time
There weren't three popes at once, there were three people all simultaneously CLAIMING to be the pope. If I claim to be the pope, does that mean there are two popes now? This is a political issue, certainly, not a theological one.
It is commanded by God for us to point out where we feel others may be in error and we do them and God a great disservice when we fail to do so
Agree. But at what point does one admit when they are wrong? I imagine the question can be reversed - and I will admit it when it is pointed out. But when over 1000 years of unanimous writing makes a claim, and is tossed out by you, can you then continue to make the above claim? That is why so many people are questioning your motives.
Regards
I am still wondering if there is not another HarleyD posting here!
You should make a side comment when you post such stuff...
Regards
I'm gonna enjoy meeting this guy...
You should know better then this. A Protestant Baptism, done in the name of the Trinity using water, is considered a valid Baptism. This, again, has been the teaching of the Church since the Rebaptism issue back in St. Cyprian's time (200's). So Protestants ARE "in" the Church as a result of their Baptism, in some mysterious way. Also, the Eucharist is not the only way to receive God's Grace. It is the most effective way. But not the only way.
It is OBVIOUS that some Protestants are receiving the Holy Spirit, as THEY, TOO, bear fruit of His presence!!! Perhaps you should take a week or two off and read the Catechism. It would clear up a lot of your confusion.
Regards
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.