Take a note, everyone - I hereby dub this the "Step on a crack" apologetic....
Posted on 06/01/2007 2:28:41 PM PDT by Gamecock
|
Following is my resignation letter from the Roman Catholic Church and from my position as Director of the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA), a program designed to teach Catholicism to adults who would like to become Catholics. |
This letter serves to inform you that I am separating myself from the Roman Catholic Church. This decision has come about after many months of intensive research into the Scriptures, the writings of the Patristic fathers of the church, and church history. During this period of research I have considered the writings and/or oral arguments of such Catholic authors as Keating, Sungenis, Ott, Hahn, Matatics, as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). My separation from the church of Rome is driven by differences in doctrine. This is not a matter of rancor but rather a matter of being faithful to my Lord and Savior with a clear conscience. It is worth noting that I might never have reached this conclusion, except that I was appointed to the position of the Director of the RCIA. Being placed in that position compelled me to look at the Scriptures and church in depth as I studied Catholic doctrine. I readily acknowledge that there are many sincere and devout people in the Catholic church that love the Lord Jesus, but I believe that many of them are misled as to how a person is saved. What happened that I should change my mind? When I joined the Church in 1993 I made a serious commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ and to the Catholic church. My commitment to the Lord Jesus remains and has grown, but my decision to join the RCC was based upon only a surface reading of Scriptures and the Catechism of the Catholic church. The more I have looked at Scripture (and not just at localized passages) I discovered that not all the doctrines taught by the RCC are Scriptural. Not being content with this, because I realized that my private interpretation might possibly be in error, I began to read the writings of the early fathers of the church. I found that many of the doctrines held and taught by the RCC today are not in agreement with the early church, nor are they found in Scripture. Many of them actually contradict Scripture. What are some of the doctrinal problems that force me to separate myself? Marian Doctrine
I have reviewed the church’s teaching on Mary, as Co-Mediatrix, her perpetual virginity, Immaculate conception, and being enthroned as Queen of Heaven. These doctrines are not in agreement with scripture or the teachings of the early fathers of the church. Saint Paul writes in his letter to Timothy (1 Tim 2:5) "there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.." It was interesting to discover that none of the early church fathers in the first three hundred years of the church ever wrote about Mary as a Co-Mediator. If there is only one mediator as God’s Word says, how can there be a co-mediator? This is a blatant contradiction. As to Mary’s perpetual virginity Scripture is quite plain. In Matthew 13:55-56 are found references to the brothers and sisters of Jesus. Now I am aware of the claim of some that these terms may refer to cousins or kindred. If one looks up the Greek words for brother and sister in this passage the meaning is clear: the gospel writer means the siblings (adelphos) of the Lord. There are other passages that list the words for cousins (sungenes) as well as for brother (adelphos) or sister in the same passage (such as Luke 21:16). As to the immaculate conception does not Romans 3:23 say: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." It is worth noting that the scripture says that God alone (with respect to human beings) is without sin. There is no mention in scripture for Mary being the Queen of Heaven. Nor do the early church fathers write of this. Scripture does make mention of a Queen of heaven, however, in Jeremiah 44:25. In this portion of scripture the Lord voices his great displeasure with the people of Israel for offering worship to the Queen of Heaven. Indulgences and PurgatoryIn paragraph 1030 of the CCC it says: "All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified…after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." The idea that regenerated believers in Christ can be imperfectly purified is not scriptural. In Hebrews 10:14 it says: " for by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated." If believers in Christ are made perfect by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, how can there be any that are considered impure by God? Again it is written in Hebrews 10:10: "we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." If these passages are not clear enough, we should consider what the Lord Jesus said to the "good" thief, in Luke 23:43 "..Amen I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." Now surely no one would claim that a thief whose crimes were so monstrous as to rate the death penalty would have been able to enter Heaven, because his acts would have rendered him impure and unclean. Instead we see that by his faith in the Lord Jesus, he was cleansed from all imperfection and entered into Christ’s presence in heaven. There is no mention in Scripture of temporal punishment for sin remaining after forgiveness.
Justification
I think that the fundamental difference between Roman Catholic doctrine and the scriptures is most pronounced with respect to how we are saved. The CCC teaches that we can merit eternal life by works done in a state of grace, and not simply by faith alone. St. Paul on the other hand writes in several places that:
The scriptures are clear that salvation comes from repentance and faith in Christ Jesus alone. We will never be justified by our own works whether done in a state of grace or not. Now some have argued that what Paul meant by the law was the ceremonial law of the Mosaic covenant. This cannot be the case, because Paul later refers to coveting as a violation of the law in Romans 7:7-13. So it can be shown that when Paul says that no one will be justified by the works of the law he is in fact referring to the moral code as well as the ceremonial codes.
The scriptures teach that we are declared righteous by God because of our faith in the Lord Jesus, not by performing penances, novenas, masses, obtaining indulgences or experiencing purgatory. Paul writes in Romans 4:6 "So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God credits (imputes, declares) righteousness apart from works." So it can be seen that we cannot earn our way to being declared righteous by God, or receiving supplemental graces from God to earn our way into heaven. I am not saying that those who are justified by Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary have no obligation for obedience to the Lord. Nor am I saying that one is saved by faith, and then allowed to do nothing. In fact those who are called by God our Father, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, repenting of their sins, and believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, will invariably seek to do the will of the Lord. To continue on with the passage in that was quoted earlier:
I freely believe that faith without works is dead (so did the leaders of the Reformation). God does indeed call us to repent from sin and to work in His service. Nevertheless, no human being will be justified by his own works before God (Romans 3:20), because such works can never be performed perfectly. If someone claims faith in the Lord Jesus, yet no evidence of conversion is found, that person has not yet encountered the risen Christ! I agree that sanctification, that is, being conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus, is an on going process that takes a lifetime. I agree that we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16) " even as He is Holy." We are to strive to complete that holiness, (Hebrews 12:14) "without which no one will see the Lord." The work of that holiness comes from the Lord and is His work, and not from ourselves (Ephesians 2:10). By our own efforts we will not succeed. The Eucharist.I fully agree that the Eucharist, true to the meaning of the original Greek, is in fact an offering of praise and thanksgiving to God. It is also certainly a memorial like the Passover, and we are certainly called to be obedient to Christ by celebrating it and proclaiming his death until He comes again. Where Catholic doctrine begins to differ with Scripture is when it states (Paragraph 1367 of the CCC) that the sacrifice of the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, and that Christ is re-sacrificed, but in an unbloody manner. According to Scripture an unbloody sacrifice is not propitiatory, Hebrews 9:22 "and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." The scriptures actually declare that there is no longer an offering for sin, because Christ died once and for all (Romans 6:10). The author of Hebrews declares in 10:18 "Where there is forgiveness of these (sins), there is no longer offering for sin." Again in Hebrews 10:10 " We have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
I am not claiming that Christ is not present in the Eucharist. He is most certainly present in Spirit. He cannot be physically present in the Eucharist because He is in heaven at the right hand of the Father. He will come again physically at the second coming. Did not the angels say to the apostles in Acts 1:11 "Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking up at he sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, will return in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven." Many people in the West today think that the word "spiritual" is synonymous with "not there." I totally disagree with them. Christ is in fact spiritually present with us during the Eucharist, even as he is present in the hearts and spirits of believers. Worship of ImagesOne of the things that has bothered me about the Catholic faith since the beginning, is the reverence and worship offered to images and statues. I tried to ignore this at first, because many a catechist had likened the use of sacred images to keeping of pictures of Jesus, or family members in the home. The problem with this argument is that I don’t worship pictures of my relatives or bow down to them, or pray to them. There is a clear injunction in the second commandment in Exodus 20:4 " You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below, or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them." How can I respect the church’s teaching and maintain a clear conscience before the Lord our God? Scripture no where teaches that we are to pray to any other being other than the Lord. Scripture and TraditionI have no problem with tradition. Tradition must, however be subordinate to and in agreement with the Scriptures or it is not from God. As I have shown above there are a number of traditions of the RCC that are not in agreement with the Scriptures. What does the Bible say about the authority of Scripture? In 2 Timothy 3:16 St Paul writes: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be perfect, equipped for every good work." Some Catholic apologists have argued that Saint Paul was speaking about an independent, parallel, unrecorded Gospel contained in an oral tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6. The problem with this concept is that Paul tells us elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 15:3, 11 " The chief message I handed on to you, as it was handed on to me, was that Christ, as the Scriptures foretold, died for our sins…That is our preaching, mine or theirs as you will; that is the faith that has come to you." It was interesting to discover what St. Augustine had to write about Scripture and Tradition:
PapacyThe RCC teaches that the Pope is the head of the entire Christian church, and as such exercises supreme authority, and is guaranteed to be free of error when teaching on faith or morals (CCC 881 through 891). If the Pope is infallible, how can he and the Magisterium of the church teach doctrines that contradict Scripture? The foundational passage in Scripture used to justify the Pope’s position is Matthew 16:18-19: "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." If the Roman interpretation is correct then Peter did indeed have the keys. How did the early church fathers interpret this key passage?
It appears, that at least in the early church, that the rock referred to by the Lord was the faith of Peter, not Peter himself. In 1 Peter 5:1 Peter writes: " Therefore, I exhort you the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ…" Note that Peter does not refer to himself as the supreme pontiff, rather as a fellow elder! Saint Paul rebuked Peter for his compromising of the Gospel at the Council of Jerusalem. This is recorded in Galatians 2:11-14 and Acts 15. It is worth noting that after Paul’s rebuke that Peter actually repented and changed his position. Where is infallibility in this?
Just for the record there was a Pope who was branded as a heretic. Pope Honorius (625-638 AD) was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical council for supporting monotheletism. Pope Liberius (352-356) signed an Arian confession and denounced Athanasius in order to maintain his See against pressure from the Emperor Constantius II. Pope Zosimus (417-418) rebuked Augustine and the North African church for their condemnation of Pelagius and his heretical teachings. The North African church subsequently rejected the directions and admonitions of Zosimus. Apparently the church has not always believed what Rome requires that we believe today. As I review all these findings I find myself squarely in the position of the Reformed church. How surprising! I thought it would turn out the other way. By God’s grace I am headed back to the faith of my fathers after all. In the Service of Jesus Christ our Lord, Robert W. Mayberry Note: In the parish priest's response to my letter he did not comment on any of the doctrinal issues that I raised.
|
By the grace of God alone, I am mentioned in the Bible several times.
Aren't you referenced here by Paul, too?
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." -- Eph: 2:1-10"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Sale of Indulgences Affirmed (1343)
It was on this date, January 27, 1343, that Pope Clement VI issued a bull, Unigenitus, officially reaffirming that the Catholic Church can grant remission of sin through indulgences. The bull says,
Upon the altar of the Cross Christ shed of His blood not merely a drop, though this would have sufficed, by reason of the union with the Word, to redeem the whole human race, but a copious torrent ... thereby laying up an infinite treasure for mankind. This treasure He neither wrapped up in a napkin nor hid in a field, but entrusted to Blessed Peter, the key-bearer, and his successors, that they might, for just and reasonable causes, distribute it to the faithful in full or in partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.[1]
In other words, says the Catholic Encyclopedia, “the source of indulgences is constituted by the merits of Christ and the saints.” The scheme is fortuitous on a number of levels: the Christian can avoid the expense of a journey to Rome in a Jubilee Year (first instituted by Boniface VIII in 1300 and carried into the modern era by John Paul II as recently as 2000); the horrific doctrine of Hell is mitigated (except for non-Catholics) by the invention of Purgatory, where minor sins can be expunged before going to heaven; and the Catholic Church can make piles of money by “taxing” the granting of “remittance” of sin: that is, granting a partial pardon, or shortening of torture, in the afterlife.
The sale of indulgences was the chief concern of Martin Luther and the chief cause of the Protestant Reformation. But, protests one apologist website,
One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal around indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms — indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences.[2]
A priest selling indulgences to superstitious townspeople
Since apologists can have difficulty with reality, a look at the historical record is instructive. From the Middle Ages one could pay money, get change, and receive a piece of paper with which one got remission of sin. The price is stipulated and there is no indulgence without “alms.” By any reasonable definition that is, outright, “buying” an indulgence. The practice was current to the middle of the 20th century in Spain and Latin America, and may continue to this day.
As historian and ex-priest Joseph McCabe observed, the Council of Constance (1414-1418) “’sold’ absolution from ‘sin’ as well as from the purgatorial punishment of sin (a pœna et culpa). The Council is rude enough to call it a ‘sale.’”[3] Furthermore, the Council of Trent (1545-1563) placed the doctrine close to infallibility when it stated that the Church “condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.”[4] The Council recommended “moderation,” but not regulation, in granting (that is, selling) indulgences.
The chief abusers, after indulgences were instituted in large measure by Boniface, were the anti-pope John XXIII (1400-1415), described by the Council of Constance as a seller of benefices, bulls, sacraments, ordinations, consecrations and anything else that would bring in money, Leo X (1513-1521), who condemned Luther and dispensed indulgences to build St. Peter’s in Rome[5], and Clement VIII (1592-1605), a notorious nepotist, who showered his relatives with gold from sold indulgences.
http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0127b-almanac.htm
God is not mocked by the use of evasive vocabulary.
Your defense of the indefensible dazzles the mind. Even more so, as I am convinced of your sincerity.
Good! Go! Who gives a crap?
Just do a Google search with the words “mary” and ‘co-redemptrix.’ I am copying in what Catholics have written about this:
The Co-redemption
By Cardinal Georges Cottier, O.P.
The following is a presentation given by Cardinal Georges Cottier when he was a Theologian of the Papal Household, on behalf of the Congregation of the Clergy during a world video conference held in Rome on May 29, 2002.
In the beautiful final Chapter of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church Lumen Gentium, dedicated to the Virgin Mary, we read «After this manner the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, (see John 19:25) in keeping with the divine plan (294), grieving exceedingly with her only begotten Son, uniting herself with a maternal heart with His sacrifice, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth. Finally, she was given by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross as a mother to His disciple with these words: “Woman, behold thy son.” (see John 19:26-27)» (no. 58). These very intense lines are the echo of a long tradition authenticated by the Magisterium. The Mother of the Son of God made man is consecrated, at the foot of the cross, the Mother of His Mystical Body.
She was then proclaimed Mother of the Church by Paul VI. This title enlightens the meaning of Mary’s «intimate union» with the Church, where she occupies, «in an eminent and singular way» the «first place» (see no. 63). It is in her person that the Church has already achieved that perfection which makes her without stain or wrinkle (see Eph 5:27). She is the model of the Church (typus). One must perceive that Mary is not outside the Church, since she is its eminent and exemplary member, and that she exercises a maternal function for the Church. The Church’s mystery and Mary’s mystery include and enlighten each other reciprocally.
How can this be explained? The Council, after remembering the words of the apostle (1 Tim 2:5-6): «Since there is only one God, there is only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ, who is a man, and gave Himself as a ransom for them all,» and added that «The maternal duty of Mary toward men in no ways obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power» (n.60).
A life of grace, participation in divine life, exists in principle and in fullness with Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body, so as to be communicated to His Body, which is the Church. With this communication Christ attracts the Church and all its members to be assimilated in Him, to conform to Him and to participate in the gift of Himself to the Father, through whom He saved mankind. The only Mediator: the gift of Himself is totally and infinitely sufficient for the redemption of the world. Allowing His Church to participate in this is the mark of His love and the depth of the union to which He introduces her. Like all lives, a life of grace is fruitful, it brings its fruits in abundance. There is a law here both for the Church and for Mary, in proportion to the singular privileges.
The Council’s text, which we have quoted, strongly emphasises this: Beneath the cross, Mary suffers deeply with Her only born Son, she joins in His sacrifice with maternal love; lovingly consenting the immolation of the victim generated by her: what could these words mean if not that Mary plays an active role in the mystery of the Passion and the work of the Redemption? The Council itself clarifies this: the divine Redemptor’s mother was «and above all others and in a singular way the generous associate»: «(...) was united with Him by compassion as He died on the Cross. In this singular way she co-operated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Saviour in giving back supernatural life to souls. Wherefore she is our mother in the order of grace» (n.61). «Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.» For this reason «the Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix» (n. 62).
Can we add to the title Mediatrix that of co-redemptrix? In the light of the above, the answer is affirmative. In fact the Council itself, so as to avoid any false interpretation, adds that the use of these titles is legitimate. But it must be understood «that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator» (ibid.).
You will notice that this title of co-redemptrix does not appear in the Council’s texts. One might envisage that this intentional absence was the answer to a ecumenical reason. The use of this term needed further development. It is true that, if the word co-redeemer was to evoke a juxtaposition and an addition to the Savior’s redeeming work, it should have been strongly rejected. It is as predestined, provoked, contained by Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, in a subordinated manner, participated, totally dependent on Him, that Mary’s co-redemption beneath the cross is meant, just as it is fully permeated by the intercession of the Son in glory, His mediation in interceding with heaven. The Council enunciated the principle that, translating an intuition of faith, regulates theological meditation in this field: «For all the salvific influence of the Blessed Virgin on men originates, not from some inner necessity, but from the divine pleasure. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on His mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it. In no way does it impede, but rather does it foster the immediate union of the faithful with Christ» (n. 60). In the light of this principle, we understand in which sense Mary, and only Her, is the co-redeemer, and how proportionally the Church is also the co-redeemer. We also understand in which sense, the vocation of all who are baptised for sanctity leads them to participate in the mystery of Redemption. Each of these participations is like an epiphany of the fruitfulness of the cross of Jesus.
1 This of course also applies to the word mediatrix, but this word is covered by the authority of a liturgical tradition.
Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix of the human race because she is Mother of Sorrows. She became our Co-Redemptrix at the foot of the Cross by her participation in Our Lord’s Redemption of us poor sinners. .
.
This site is dedicated primarily to confessing the glories of Mary, particulary in their dogmatic aspects.
At the foot of the Cross Our Lady also became the Mother of the Church. Membership in that Church founded by her Son, and submission to His Vicar, our Holy Father the Pope, is absolutely necessary for salvation. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This site then is secondarily dedicated to confessing the necessity of the Church and submission to our Holy Father for salvation.
Br. Bartholomew
252 Still River Rd.
PO Box 67
Still River, MA 01467
1935: Pope Pius XI gave the title co-redemptrix to Mary during a radio broadcast. 1
1964-NOV-21: The Chapter 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, passed by the Vatican Council II, and “Solemnly promulgated by Holiness Pope Paul VI” states, in part: “Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man’s salvation through faith and obedience. For as St. Irenaeus says, she being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching ...’death through Eve, life through Mary.’ This union of the mother with the son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death” 2
“Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into their blessed home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress and Mediatrix.” 3
“...the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.”
“For no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. Just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by the ministers and by the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different ways to His creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.” (Footnotes deleted) 7
1985: Pope John Paul II recognized Mary as co-redemptrix” during a speech in Guayaquil, Ecuador. He said, in part, “Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity...In fact Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.” 4
1987-MAR-25: In his encyclical Redemptoris Mater, Pope John Paul II “referred to Mary as ‘Mediatrix’ three times, and as ‘Advocate’ twice.” 1
1997-APR-9: During an audience Pope John-Paul II referred to the role of Mary during the crucifixion of Jesus: “Mary … co-operated during the event itself and in the role of mother; thus her co-operation embraces the whole of Christ’s saving work. She alone was associated in this way with the redemptive sacrifice that merited the salvation of all mankind. In union with Christ and in submission to him, she collaborated in obtaining the grace of salvation for all humanity...In God’s plan, Mary is the ‘woman’ (cf. John 2:4; John 19:26), the New Eve, united to the New Adam in restoring humanity to its original dignity. Her cooperation with her Son continues for all time in the universal motherhood which she enjoys in the order of grace. Trusting in this maternal cooperation, let us turn to Mary, imploring her help in all our needs.” 1
Although Mary has been referred to on numerous occasions as co-redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate, none have the force of an infallible papal declaration.**
**there is strong motion within the RCC to get an infallible papal declaration, it is currently being worked on and sought.
I don't see the Chesed of Yah'shua. b'shem Yah'shuaBy their fruits you will know them !
You are never once mentioned in the Bible - not by name. Yet you exist. I was right. You are not. If you were right then you would be able to post the verse that mentions you by name. You failed to do so. There is no such verse.
Now, do you have any evidence at all that popes or the Church approved of the sale of indulgences as a proper act?
No, of course not.
Where exactly did Clement VI approve of the sale of indulgences as a proper act. Show me the sentence.
You wrote:
“Your defense of the indefensible dazzles the mind.”
I have never in my life defended the indefensible. If I ever do, I will let you know.
“Even more so, as I am convinced of your sincerity.”
Be convinced. I see no reason why I should not defend God’s glory, His generosity, the treasury of merits won through the blood of His divine Son, or the care of popes to grant indulgences.
You wrote:
“Strange, I can’t recall even one instance of a former Catholic expressing anger against the Catholic Church. Can you cite one of them?”
Yes, but clearly you’ll just deny they are angry. Go to FCFC (Former Catholic for Christ) and you’ll see plenty of anger. Also, see Catholic Reformation on the ezboard.com network. There’s plenty of anger there.
Also, in personal conversations I have dealt with many angry former Catholics. Most believe something was not told to them that should have been.
“So, if he converted to Catholicism yet again, would you post the same comment on his conversion?”
Yes. I have made similar comments about repeat converts/reverts on one or two occasions before.
By the way, look hard enough on the net and you’ll discover EVEN PROTESTANTS sometimes admit the truth of this:
“Invariably, when you dig a little deeper, you find that these are all former Catholics who are angry over some failing of the Roman Catholic church—to themselves, their family, or to society. Some see it as their God-called duty to take a stand against Catholicism and point out its errors at every opportunity.” http://www.joemckeever.com/mt/archives/000103.html
” I am a Baptist Pastor who was formerly a Catholic. I got over my anger years ago.”
Yep, they are angry.
Simple, but profound.
jesus-is-savior.com is not yet banned here.
You claimed the article sources to jesus-is-lord.com but it doesn't. It sources to jesus-is-savior.com - even so, Dr. Eckleburg did not cite that source.
Take a note, everyone - I hereby dub this the "Step on a crack" apologetic....
“Another question pertaining to that discussion though... if you believe your ties to the Apostles come through Orthodoxy, then why are you not Orthodox?”
Did anyone anwser this, GCC?
Freegards
It seems to me that many of the ‘reformed’ persuasion spend a lot of their time and assets attacking the Catholic Church. If they truly believed in their religion wouldn’t that be enough for them and create in them great joy? On the other hand, I don’t see Catholics bothering much to denounce the various protestant denominations. Why is that?
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.