Posted on 06/01/2007 2:28:41 PM PDT by Gamecock
You have indicated that you have decided to become a Protestant. Your private interpretation of Scripture is normative for you and basically you are involved with a classic Protestant “Scripture alone” approach. Hence you are the authority not Scripture or Tradition for that matter. That’s the problem. These issues you raise are not new and have been answered over and over. Again the problem is that you have become the authority not the Church founded by the Lord.
St. Paul in preaching the Gospel didn’t tell people to interpret Scripture on their own (at that time the NT existed in the authoritative living voice of the Church and that part of that living Tradition began to be written down) You’re leaving the whole for the part and I suspect you will be back if for nothing else than the Real Substantial Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
Just one other point. Prayer for the dead was part of Jewush practice and early Church practice as evidenced by grafitti in the catacombs. This only makes sense if the dead are in need of prayer because the same Scripture indicate that nothing unclean may enter the sight of God and St. Paul talks of purification by fire. It is also common sense. Most people have not totally gotten rid of “the old man” and chances are when God calls us our love for him has yet to reach the Scripture: Love God with your while heart, mind, and strength.
Regardless, I perceive telling someone they have a high opinion of themself is very personal.
There is always the high ground-—such as: “excuse me, but I didn’t say that-—you did”.
It seems that it is just too easy to counter in one way on screen, but it wouldn’t be so easy to do the same vis-a-vis.
You must esteem the person of every man. 1Peter 2:17
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”
Hmm... Jesus didn't include his birth mother and siblings in His statement. It could be inferred, at this time, they did not yet believe in Him.
Oh...all right....I’ll think about it.
But don’t expect a lot. :>)
His birth mother did not yet believe in Him?
Surely you can’t serious when you say this.
As for your interpretation meaning that Jesus’ words to the crowd might mean that He automatically excludes His mother; actually He is calling everyman to the level of faith and faith-living exemplified by His mother.
Of course, I fully understand that this is a YOPIOS situtation.
I would expect the very best. :-)
We have no way of knowing Mary's level of faith at all points of her life. We know only what the Scripture contains. Certainly there are times when it can be inferred that Mary experienced ups and downs in her faith, and at times one can infer she may not have understood the true nature of her Son. This is one of those times.
Mary did not understand the magnitude or the purpose or work or destiny of Christ . She, like most Jews was looking for a political Savior to free them, a new King.
Remember when Jesus chided her?
Luk 2:46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
Luk 2:47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
Luk 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Your interpretation
LOL! We’re finally getting around to YOPIOS!
It appears the claim was false on several counts. You didn’t link to the banned website, the article does not appear on the list of articles at the banned website and the content does not source back to the banned website by google.
You wrote: “Popes no longer speak for the RCC?”
No pope ever approved of the sale of indulgences as a proper act. It was, in fact, a violation of canon law.
“As for the purchased masses and candles... of course they aren’t bought (wink, wink!).”
I know of plenty of people, including myself, who have had Masses said and no money was exchanged in the process.
“And just because the vernacular with the laity includes the language “why don’t you buy a mass for poor ole uncle felix; it will mean a lot to aunt esther”, doesn’t mean that they really believe they’re making a purchase.”
I have never heard any Catholic say, “buy” a Mass. I have heard, my whole life long, “Have a Mass said.”
“The defenders of the “faith” will be judged more harshly because of their responsibility.”
I have nothing to worry about in that regard. I don’t spread lies. You might want to think twice about what you spread - especially since you failed to provide a single actual example of what you claimed.
You wrote:
“I was asking if you thought orthodox to be catholic.”
Uh, no, no your weren’t.
“To me, you dodged the question.”
Since it was irrelevant it hardly matters.
“However, what we are doing now is “jumping threads.” That is against religion forum rules, IIRC.”
I wasn’t jumping threads. I disproved your claim.
You wrote: “Pss the reformation was Calvinist in doctrine.”
Calvinism was Calvinist in doctrine.
“Luther like Augustine held most of the Calvinist doctrines including predestination, election etc”
Augustine never knew or held any Calvinist doctrines. That would be an anachronism and an impossibility.
“Do not be confused by the form of worship.”
I am not confused by the “form of worship.” I also do not ignore it.
The Catholic-Orthodox Church (including the Oriental churches and the Assyrian Church) ARE the True Church. These are all Apostolic Churches.
I’ve been around FR a long time, and carrying over a discussion from another thread is “jumping threads.”
You disproved nothing. In fact, I’m fairly certain now that you were involved on that old thread in a discussion with yourself....both the ask and the answer parts. With mirrors on both sides to accomodate a different focus for each, your head would spin faster than an exorcist in an Addams family movie.
You wrote:
“Huh? Are you purposely lying in order to get me in trouble, since we all know JesusisLord.com is not a website permitted on this forum?”
Where you get your quotes that you pass off as Catholic teaching is your problem.
“Or do you just naively hope that every site which throws light on the RCC is from JesusisLord.com?”
The info is posted at Jesus-is-Lord.com. I pointed that out. You used the info. Deal with it.
“If you had actually read the link I provided, you’d see that excerpt was from William Webster’s excellent essay found at Monergism.com via ChristianTruth.com.”
You provided NO LINK in post #356. NONE. Please be honest. You provided NO LINK WHATSOEVER in post #356.
“I’ll post it again for your discernment.”
Don’t bother. I already proved my point. The information is bogus in any case. You did not research it yourself. Pages and pages of text are discarded to make up quotes that otherwise would not even exist.
“I forgive you.”
I don’t need your forgiveness since you were the only one at fault. My conscience is clear. Maybe you should forgive William Webster for lying to you by making up quotes and taking others out of context.
Nice try with that #356 nonsense, since the link was in #352. Little tricks of the trade, eh?.....
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.