Posted on 07/23/2007 3:36:15 PM PDT by annalex
>>And I’ve never seen decency drain out of a conversation so fast as when the term “anti-Catholic” gets thrown around in the same tone as “bigot” or “racist.” In what way can someone who has strong theological objections to “Romanism” but is not a bigot defend themselves against that charge?
I’m not sure what you’re saying in the second statement about making it personal...could you elaborate?<<
It’s this simple. There is discussing a point from a Pro side or an Anti side.
When a non-Catholic comes into a thread “discussing” from an Anti-Catholic point of view rather than a Pro-non-Catholic point of view, what would you suggest we call it? Sorry if it makes those who come into a thread uncomfortable to be called Anti-Catholic. They certainly are not pro-Catholic. If one doesn’t want to be called Anti-Catholic then perhaps witnessing to one’s own faith and relationship with Our Lord, instead of proclaiming how the relationship of another poster should be handled, would be in order.
I have no problem calling one an Anti-Romanist or Anti-Papist. But telling Catholics how we do it wrong is not the same as telling us how you do it right.
I’m the person who started the “Anti-Catholic Troll Hunters”. I have used the label three times and watch very carefully who I apply it to. If you would like to state that this should never be used, that is closing your eyes to human nature.
No one goes onto the Jewish threads and debates their theology. But we get posters who feel that Catholics are fair game. Hmmmm.
Did not Jesus preach to the dead?
I understand. This is not a thread about Protestant theology, and indeed all we ask is that if you cannot leave us alone, then at least describe our beliefs accurately before you comment on them.
But since you bring this up, what is and what is not in the Bible depends on (1) according to whom and (2) what Bible. We think that it is the role of the Church to interpret the Bible; that everything we believe in has at least indirect scriptural support; that you look at an incomplete canon of the Bible. Also, the very assumption, that "if it isn’t in the Bible, I don’t believe it" is not in the Bible.
So Christ being our High Priest doesn’t count? The bible does say that we are “a Royal priesthood”?
First of all, what do you mean by "theistic evolution?" Do you mean evolution guided by G-d ("intelligent design"), or do you reject that in favor of some other form of evolution by which G-d created the universe without guiding it? And how do you explain such a thing anyway?
Evolution (theistic or otherwise) doesn't contradict scripture you if dismiss it as a purely symbolic narrative containing only theological truth. And if the Catholic Church teaches this, then yes, it teaches the Bible is mythology.
Do you even understand what "total inerrancy" means?
Nor was Jesus asking Moses or Elijah to intercede with God for him. The transfiguration is not related to praying to the dead. In fact, we have other scripture, from Jesus, no less, that emphasizes the futility of it.
Furthermore, you have no way of knowing where the departed soul that you "talk to" went. If they have fooled you on earth with their piety and were not sincere, or were not elect,then your prayers are not only in vain, but something worse. Maybe you are "talking to" a lost soul.
Pardon me for not understanding your doctrine, I just cannot comprehend praying directly to the Father, through His Son. This is the tradition that the bible teaches us.
How do you suppose a Saint does miracles? Through the Grace of God. If a Saint is already in heaven and can see the Beatific Vision of God, then it stands to reason that a miracle is evidence of someone absolutely being in the presence of God. Or if they were on earth when the miracles occurred, then it is evidence that they were especially close to God. The first miracle after the Day of Pentecost was Peter curing the lame man at the gate of the Temple Beautiful “Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.” Acts 3:6-7
Jesus picked Paul to spread His Word: “But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:” Acts 9:15
He picked Peter to lead the Church: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:18-19
The two Saints had entirely different roles.
The 70 (Luke 10:1) were sent out before the Crucifixion, not after the Resurrection, so they don’t have anything to do with this discussion.
Guinness is proof that there is a God and that he wants us to be happy.
I'm not perfect and some things I don't fully understand.
The fact that the name Mary is in the bible and that she is called blessed among women is quite a bit less than Marianism. But you are perfectly free to believe that she can hear your prayers and that she can intercede for you and that all grace comes from her and that she is the Queen of Heaven and has a thousand other titles. You can believe that she was ever virgin and was assumed into heaven and that Jesus must obey her. But none of that is in the Bible. I'll have nothing to do with it or any religion that does.
Spiritists talk to the dead, that’s what you are not supposed to do.
It is as far as I'm concerned.
This is a good point that you bring up. Looking closely at the writings of the Catholic Church, one can see it persists in magical thinking, not faith. It really is more like the religion of old Rome than Christianity, but to point it out will raise howls of protests. And there's not even a full moon
I think we're on the same sheet of music.
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 6 | 4 |
| Disclaimer: The post made herewith is for the purposes of information and discussion only and is not to be interpreted, read, or construed as intended to induce, invite, cajole, compel, or influence in any manner whatsoever any person of whatever Confession reading the aforesaid post or participating in the aforesaid discussion to join, attend, inquire, contemplate, believe, or concur with the Roman Catholic Church or any of the other 22 (twenty-two) Rites of the Church aforesaid. The party/ies posting disclaim, reject, and abjure responsibility to said persons, Free Republic, and/or its Moderators for any Acts of God by which the Holy Spirit or another Person of the Holy Trinity induces, persuades, or influences the persons aforesaid to seek such information on their own accord through Divine Intervention or by the process hereby denominated "sanctifying grace." The party/ies posting warrant that this is not his/her responsibility or intent and arises from a Power that cannot be controlled by him or her in this life or hereafter. This disclaimer cannot be revoked as it is not governed by the civil or criminal, statutory or common law of the United States of America or any other governmental entity and is the sole responsibility of Divine Intervention. |
Studying Mary on the web is exactly like studying Diana or any other Goddess with a couple of subtle curtsies to some Bible themes. The word worship is dropped from worship but full use of a thesaurus is made to back fill. "venerate, adore, etc etc"
According to whom? You're not citing any Scripture to support your position, because it's not Scriptural.
What was Jesus doing at the Transfiguration? Was he setting a bad example for us?
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.
