Posted on 05/14/2008 10:16:49 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
You seem to be very confused. Intervening and saving are two TOTALLY different words, especially in this context.
You seem to think such mysteries are as "simple" as, say, a recipe for quick bread or a simple algebra formula, something that you can actually know completely.
The first step toward removing the mystery from these spiritual matters is to lock each word down to a singular immovable meaning (preferably the one that least fits the context of its use by Catholics in the given context—if two or more singular immovable definitions are necessary to negate a Catholic teaching, well, hey, whatever it takes.
“After 800+ posts it has become evident that no matter how many times and ways Catholics tell others that they don’t worship Mary, it is an exercise in futility to attempt to convince those who insist otherwise. Just love God, Christ, and His mother and practice your faith with pride. I say this as a Protestant who loves my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.”
Hey, yours might be the best post on the whole thread. It might be futile to argue about whether or not a cat thinks that Catholics worship Mary, but I am interested in how such a cat thinks Catholics worship Mary but don’t know they do, and how Catholics in fact call such worship the gravest sort of sin. I reckon Catholics must be thought of as the shoddiest goddess worshippers ever.
Freegards, great post, God bless
I want make sure that I understand what you are saying before I comment further. Are you saying that Catholics all know that they are worshipping Mary but that there is a world-wide conspiracy to keep this hidden; that only ex-priests and ex-Catholics are letting the secret out of the bag?
Additionally, if the Bible doesn't specifically say something happened, then it didn't happen. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. We must ignore the fact that the Bible never talks about Mary having other children, because logic would dictate the Mary and Joseph's sexual yearnings would certainly take precedence over caring for the Son of God.
Also, the Reformers were right about everything EXCEPT what they believed about the Blessed Virgin. They didn't have any problems rewriting Scripture, disobeying the Holy See, in fact they were even willing to risk death. However, they retained their beliefs about the Blessed Mother because they were "too Catholic."
Also, all of the Apostles taught "sola scriptura" even though Scripture HAD NOT yet been written and despite the fact that it would be another FIFTEEN CENTURIES before the average person could even hope to obtain their own Bible.
The Mormons claim to be Christian but an in-depth study of the faith will eventually turn up that it has nothing much in common with mainstream Christian faiths, not the least of which it rejects the OT and the NT in that "they must be interpreted correctly" and are not the scriptures most used by them, but instead they refer to the BOM. Also they believe that Joseph Smith needs a password from everybody after death so that he can stamp their way into heaven.
If a Pesbyterian church really did claim to worship Christ, yet had statues of Calvin, more than lifesize, inside, outside, in every home, and he was offered up prayers, and they claimed that he stands between man and Christ, what would you think?
I hope I don’t give you a bad reputation by agreeing with you (nobody likes me, donchaknow), but that is a lovely sentiment and post. God bless you.
Good question. Utbay ebay arefulcay otnay toay ivegay tooay uchmay ofay uoray igbay ecretsay outay..
Eegardsfray
>>The Mormon Freepers say that the LDS believes such and such. The ex-Mormons say the LDS believes such and such. The never-Mormons say that the LDS believes such and such.<<
Please understand, I’m not being snippy here, I’m genuinely asking.
A Mormon and an ex-Mormon can SAY things. The Mormon gives documentation from the Mormon church and the ex-Mormon does not have documentation, it should stand with the documentation. Otherwise actually it’s slander (or really libel because it is printed).
Here, it’s not Catholics and ex-Catholics (mostly) it’s other denominations. So a Catholic shows Vatican documentation and says this is proof, but another denomination states, here is a group of Catholics that don’t agree. Does that make the splinter group right and the documentation wrong? If it’s not wrong, then it should not be allowed to be “Catholics” but rather “some Catholics”.
If an LDS FReeper states we believe in hell and gives documentation that says it (which I had posted to me on an LDS thread), an ex-LDS stating simply “no you don’t” should not nulify the documentation.
The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. All of us have been asked for documentation, a link, to something that we have said. When a Vatican document (not a website by Catholics, because that would mean that a DUer can state his interpertation of the consitution without showing proof from the consitution) is given, that should be taken as fact unless another Vatican document is produced to say the contrary. Vatican document, not what the AP or Reuters say the Pope says because we know how they handle conservatives all the way around!
I’m sure that when the LDS FReepers tiff, they show documentation. In fact, from what I saw on one of the threads, many times the ex-LDS ASKED for documentation and didn’t get it. Then no, without proof, it cannot be taken as fact. That is only reasonable.
>>Tom Cruise claims that he is both a Scientologist and a Catholic. <<
Can you give a link to that? Because....
Does not state that Tom says he is Catholic but rather that Both Nicole and Katie (the wives) are Catholic.
They don't? Is it that they are following the teachings of Calvin?
Im sure that when the LDS FReepers tiff, they show documentation. In fact, from what I saw on one of the threads, many times the ex-LDS ASKED for documentation and didnt get it. Then no, without proof, it cannot be taken as fact. That is only reasonable.
Many times the LDS freeper know what the anti is up too and wishes not to play their game.
I am sure there were times you might have saw the question answered when from a legit inquirer!
Posters are free to testify as to what they believe, their experiences, doctrines, traditions, dogmas, history, etc. as long as they stay within the guidelines for the type of thread.
Well, since Tom Cruise is lying, so is the Catholic Church.
Riiiight.
Amen sister!
Speaking for myself here, (and I have no intention of undermining your dialog with the RM, I'm interested to see how it will play out), I'm perfectly content to let any post I make that's done with source material stand on its own, as, when I make posts, I'm not only speaking to the person I'm posting to, but I also consider any lurker out there.
I have confidence in the ability of the lurker to be reasonable. IOW, I'm not so concerned with "getting the last word in" (not that you are either, I'm just saying it for the record), because, like you said, if one has sources to back one's claim up and another doesn't, it doesn't really matter, to a reasonable person, who gets the last word. There can be 1,000 posts after a reasonable post, but if none of them actually respond to the original reasonable one, then it's just further evidence to any reasonable lurker that the "other side" doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Take my latest post discussing the "worship of Mary", for example. I'm still waiting to see if anyone responds to it, but if they don't, and just keep posting the same claim over and over again ("Catholics worship Mary, therefore they are idolatrous"), then any reasonable lurker isn't going to be convinced of their position, no matter how many times they say it.
"Some" religions? You only give an example of scientology, which claims to be a religion, but doesn't meet the standards generally accepted to mark a religion. I can't imagine what they think they're doing with cross (and I don't think I want to know). I doubt that it's possible to be a scientologist and a Catholic at the same time, unless you have a truly bizarre understanding of one or both, but there's no proposition so nuts that someone won't claim to accept it.
The Mormons claim to be Christian but an in-depth study of the faith will eventually turn up that it has nothing much in common with mainstream Christian faiths, not the least of which it rejects the OT and the NT in that "they must be interpreted correctly" and are not the scriptures most used by them, but instead they refer to the BOM. Also they believe that Joseph Smith needs a password from everybody after death so that he can stamp their way into heaven.
What kind of example is this? It seems to me they just define "Christian" differently from the way the major Christian religions do. Are they making a secret of what they actually believe -- seems to me they're quite open about it.
If a Pesbyterian church really did claim to worship Christ, yet had statues of Calvin, more than lifesize, inside, outside, in every home, and he was offered up prayers, and they claimed that he stands between man and Christ, what would you think?
I would think that they considered Calvin a saint, someone to be honored and respected as especially close to God. Or do you mean if they had statues only of Calvin and addressed all their prayers to Calvin and maybe had some kind of communion service ("Do this in memory of Calvin"?) -- because you don't mention any other aspect of this hypothetical church -- In that case, I would think they were very strange indeed.
Beats me, but they certainly do teach people things about Mary that produce worship, in some.
"So, then, it is taught in authorized books, that 'it is morally impossible for those to be saved who neglect the devotion to the Blessed Virgin;' that 'it is the will of God that all graces should pass through her hands;' that 'no creature obtained any grace from God, save according to the dispensation of His holy Mother;'
I'm sure the wise guys didn't go around the countryside hunting down babies that would one day be the King of any given race, or religion...
I imagine they KNEW that the Messiah was prophesied in the OT and they knew THIS King was the one the world was waiting for...
This was no ordinary King...And they knew it...I don't think they were just showing respect and honor to a king...They were worshipping and bowing to THE King...
What God has clarified, call not a mystery.
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.