Posted on 06/02/2007 12:50:30 PM PDT by Titanites
I choose to stake my eternity on God’s Word rather than church liturgy. I have taken heed to the advise and warnings of God’s Word about adding too or taking away from His Word. His Word is inspired by the Holy Spirit, church liturgy is not. When man contradicts God’s Word, regardless of who they may be — they are simply wrong. When a man stands before God, what the church said, what the Pope said, what the preacher said, will not be admissable in God’s Court Room. His Word will be the Judge my friend, neither Protestant nor Catholic dogma will stand the test. Both will burned in the process.
The modern RCC does not requires ALL priests to be unmarried and celibate.
If I’m not mistaken isn’t ear_to_hear basically endorsing Islamic theology?
I choose to stake my eternity on God’s Word rather than church liturgy.
As a Catholic I find little to disagree with there.
His Word is inspired by the Holy Spirit, church liturgy is not.Certainly many (but not, I daresay, all) of the details are not, but the command was given: "Do this in remembrance of me." So we do.
Do please give us chapter and verse on this. I do not find it in my Bible.
I bless God for your continuing recovery. God is merciful beyond our wildest expectations.
You do know that we teach that it was through the atoning act of Christ that Mary was conceived without sin. We teach that she Most certainly DID need Him to be sinless.
She was the mother of Jesus in His humanity my friend, but not in His Deity.When was Jesus's Humanity separate from His divinity. Did he become Divine at a point after his birth? Every mother give only some of what her child is. My child has some of my "nature" and some of my wife's nature. From the moment of conception she was herself and not all that she was came from her mother, but the boss-lady is still the mother of who and what the 'orrible brat child is.
Likewise, from the moment of His conception, we hold, Jesus was who He was (and is.) Not all that He was came from His Mother, yet she was His mother as much as any other human mother is the mother of all of her child. She is the one who carried God the son of God, incarnate of the substance of the virgin Mary His mother. She brought God the Son of God to term and gave birth to Him. In what way is she not His mother? Or if she is not the Mother of God, then in what way is he not God?
look like your second sentence shows a certain lintonesque quality. All does not mean all.
Read Acts lately?
There are two types that convert to Romanism.
Those who want “smells and bells” and those who want to work their way to heaven (or both).
Of course, no responsible person would make such a statement without being careful to make sure it was true. So you must have done considerable research and have reams of data. Otherwise how could you meaningfully and responsibly characterize so large a group?
May we see your data?
I note that you characterize only those who convert to "Romanism". By this term do you mean to include only those who become Roman Catholics, or also those who become members of rites which are not Roman but which are in communion with the See of Rome?
It occurs to me that your conclusion has a corollary, that I haven't quite formulated yet. When I converted the Church where I worshipped was a little cinder block monstrosity without a bell to be found anywhere, and "smells" trotted dout only rarely. Therefore since I cannot be in the "smells and bells" crowd, according to your theory, I must be in the "work their way to heaven" group.
this probably has evangelical consequences. You could scout out the habits and usages of the parish where your "prospect" worships. If it's beautiful and the worship is ornate, then you could make your pitch on the basis of the beauty of Holiness. If it's ugly, like the church where I used to worship was - where we sang hymns translated badly from foreign languages by people whose native language was anything but standard English, and the draft translations were all given to third grade boys for style checking - then you could conclude that all the worshippers were into "works-righteousness" and make your pitch accordingly.
Or, just as a suggestion, the evangelist might take care to avoid making sweeping generalizations which suggest more about the lack of either rigor or courtesy in his thought and expression than about the people whom he is hastily sweeping into little prefab boxes.
But, no. Who would do that? Thought is hard. Courtesy is boring.
*sigh*
Last time I checked it was commonly understood that "pretty much" is NOT synonymous with "absolutely." She's mentioned by name in Acts 1:14. Feel free to show me where she's mentioned by name in any of the rest of the NT.
Good grief...talk about your splitting hairs...
Seriously, this is theology here. It's about as much precision as we can muster. The mention in Acts is NOT trivial IMHO.
And EXACTLY, how immense is the attention Mary gets in the RC Church. How do you measure it? How much mention (if any) attention in the NT would justify the allegedly immense amount of attention paid to her?
Or, upon further review, would you say that your post amounted to little more than, "I think Catholics pay too much attention to Mary," And if more, then WHAT more?
I guess I'm suggesting in a round about way that making a slam against a religious entity is one thing. Making what amounts to a slam but looks like an argument is quite another thing. So the purpose of my response is to test whether it was an argument or just a slam.
Then, if it was just a slam, we can maybe enquire into what good is served by slamming a religious entity.
Galatians 1:6-10
I cannot say how important to the entire nature of the discussion here it is to find out how exactly it happened that something was presented as a quote from Scripture when in fact it was changed to support one side in an argument. Without such an accounting I will have to check everything you present as a quote - and that would be a nuisance.
gospel equals truth
Scripture equals truth
Scripture equals gospel
Scripture equals the written word of God
Word of God equals truth
The gospel of Jesus Christ is found only in Word of God (Scripture)
Hence, anything contrary to God's Word is accursed! Not to mention the condemnation upon those who add or take away from the Scriptures as does Roman Catholicism.
Well, that was quite a diatribe.
You’ll need to excuse me as I dismiss your false sensitivities towards putative discourtesies in light of the grandstanding and backslapping of the Catholic Caucus whenever an Evangelical falls to the wiles of Romanism.
My data? That’s simple. My data is your data. I simply read your own ballyhoo and deconstruct the Converts motives and deduce the conclusion from the evidence.
I doubt any other “rigorous” reading outside of Catholic propaganda would lead to a different conclusion.
That’s all very well, but what do you call misquoting Scripture to make a point? Is that truth?
Well, I do my humble best.
You’ll need to excuse me as I dismiss your false sensitivities towards putative discourtesies in light of the grandstanding and backslapping of the Catholic Caucus whenever an Evangelical falls to the wiles of Romanism.
Sensitivities? MY sensitivities? My FALSE sensitivities?
You made a statement. It characterized all converts. It was, in my opinion, false and especially questionable because it suggested that you know the converts' motives better than we do ourselves. When the statement is challenged you suggest that I am pretending to various sensitivities.
Okay, let me "deconstruct" that -- good for the goose, ditto gander: You have neither data nor argument. You are saying that you are not obliged to show either reason or manners because we are happy that someone has joined the Church. A disagreement with your point of view is grounds to make sweeping and evidence-free generalizations about the motives of those who disagree with you. Thought and courtesy have nothing to do with it.
My data? That’s simple. My data is your data. I simply read your own ballyhoo and deconstruct the Converts motives and deduce the conclusion from the evidence.
In other words we may not see either your data or your reasoning from it. The generalization should be sufficient for us.
Well, it's not persuasive.
Did Ratzinger really say that? From your tagline?
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.