Posted on 05/16/2008 3:19:30 PM PDT by netmilsmom
Stemming from this comment
>>I think the RCC doctrines are a product of the enemy<<
Please tell us where we stand here. Examples welcome, but I'm not sure that actual names can be used when quoting another FReeper, so date and thread title may be better.
>>”It would perhaps be more forthcoming if you stated in the very beginning that you are a professional Catholic Apologist without one ounce of objectivity.”<<
Personally, I think that every person here is a professional Apologist for his/her own side. Some of us aren’t very good at it (me).
In any event the later postings are straight from the "Apologetics" book. It might as well have been from Patrick Madrid.
I just feel it was a drastic change of tone. That's all.
That is called theosis, and it is the most common and best articulated of original doctrines of salvation held by the early Christians. Christ became man so man could become LIKE Him. It does NOT mean that men will become THE ALMIGHTY. It means men will be re-made LIKE HIM BY HIM, as in immortal and in an exalted state.
You need to study your theology history. I believe this idea was best articulated by such leading early Christian thinkers as Athanasius of Alexandria, Irenaeus and Maximus the Confessor, and it was considered entirely orthodox by the Great Church
Sorry, some who are Brilliant may not be. Doesn’t make you any less brilliant!
Well, you found a typo there, I meant “pass on”. Well the use of the word “professional” has a core meaning of “engaged in one of the learned professions”, related to that is a person who carrys about his/her business in a “professional manner”. Additional, but related meansings are “participating for gain or livelihood in an activity usuall engaged in by amateurs (e.g., playing basketball at a City Rec league vs. NBA)” or it could mean “having a profession as a permanent career, engaged by persons receiving a financial return”. Now these definitions are according to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, and I the inference I drew is entirely consistent with the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1999, 10th edition, p. 930).
I stand by what I stated, with respect to thousands of various Protestant Groups. The evidence for that is verifiable. In my local town, the largest and oldest Presbyterian Church recently voted to break fellowship/communion with its Confession (PCUSA), while the other 3 remained in that confession. I am aware of at least 9 Presbyterian Confessions, and I don’t think any of them fellowship/commune, with each other. The Anglican Church is splitting into various groups as we speak, with certains Traditional Anglicans voting to leave oversight of local Bishops and choosing to enter into communion with other Traditional minded Anglicans, while stating that reviisionist Anglicans are not welcome to participate in in the Liturgy of the Traditional Minded Anglicans. I just saw where a Board member of the Southern Baptist Convention resigned, or was forced to resign, over interpretations of Baptism and speaking in tongues, with respect to Mission work. In addition, numerous Baptist Churches in the South (and I live in the Southern U.S.), have broken away from the SBC and now call themselves Christian Churches in the Baptist Tradition, but no longer part of the SBC. Entire congregations in the South in the area of GA, NC, SC, have split from the SBC to form what is called, I think, the New Baptist Alliance. Former President Jimmy Carter, born and rasied an SBC, has been influential in this movement.
All of these splits are over “Doctrinal/Theological questions”. I could go on and on, but the examples I provided will suffice. Now, you may respond that some “Catholics disagree/dissent from Magisterial Teachings of the Church.” But, that statement or view says clearly what is going on, Catholics are “dissenting from established Catholic orthodoxy.”
The Creeds state we believe in “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”. Apostolic means based on the Apostolic Tradition, and Tradition, meaning “what is handed on” is a “beautiful word” and says something about Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as well, which is Catholics and Orthodox Christians see the faith as “something handed on” from Christ, to the Apostles, to the Church Fathers, through the Councils, etc. In other words, it is a Faith received.
Protestantism ultimately, due to the faulty doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the stressing the doctrine of “priesthood of all believers” and pitting it against the Church as teacher of the faith, results in a form of “milatant individualism”. The result is that in many instances, Protestantism becomes a “Faith that is made” according to how an individual sees the Bible, and thus the individual seeks a Church that most agrees with ones individual views, or since there is no Church authority, and no Tradition to be binded too, individuals, using Sola Scriptura, can re-define or define the Church again and again, to conform to what one wishes.
Lastly, I have no problem with your quote from Matthew 22. Love God and Love your neighbor are both things Catholicsm docrinally teaches. So, on that point, we are not in disagreement.
Regards
I don’t see how you can say that since I had harsh words for both of them. But whatever.
One other thing about what you referred to as a “hit and run” with respect to my comments regarding thousands of Protesant Groups. That was a response to an earlier post by a non-Catholic, I think the name was Xenia, who made a statement something to the effect of “the evil one is working with the Catholic Church to cause confusion”. Again, I can’t remember exactly the post number where Xenia posted, but my “paraphrase” is consistent with what was written.
In addition, I am fair minded and ecumenical with other fair minded Protestants and have been in many posts. On the other hand, this thread has a tone in it that was “polemical” as from the very start, some poster(s) stated that Catholic Doctrine is influenced by the “evil one”, or something to that nature.
So in closing, if the tone of “some Protestants” gets into “polemical attack mode”, I will be in “defense mode” or as you say “Apologetic mode”, but I will always do it in ways that dicusses Doctrine and/or historical facts, not playing God and stating who is, and who is not going to Heaven or Hell.
On this point sports fans, I think it is time for me to retire from this particular thread.
Since Ekklesia does not mean church or "Church" but means congregation. and Ekklesia was first used in Deuteronomy 4:10. The Holy Word of Elohim fully supports your position.Amen ! Brother.
shalom b'SHEM Yahshua
All throughout the OT we see Israel, men and women, referred to as "the children of God". We see the males often called "the sons of God", and the females are often referred to as "the house of God".
Were these "children" Christlike? Far from it.
The book of Hebrews calls Christian believers "the children that God has given to Christ", He is the surety of a new covenant, and by His sacrifice and blood, they get salvation. The place prepared for them is the "City of God", the New Jerusalem. As we know from the book of Revelation, this city has only one God shining in it. The redeemed are "just men made perfect". They are nowhere equal to Christ for the one reason that no man and no woman, could ever do the work that He did.
Please do not put words in my mouth.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
We "partake in the Divine Nature;" we do not "become God."
XeniaSt: In an earlier post, you wrote:
“It is amazing how much misdirection and confusion occurs when the evil one does not want to reveal the statements of the RCC to it’s members.”
I wasn’t putting words in your mouth and while it is still my view that your statement was a “polemic”, I will not try to intrepret what you stated again, rather I hope you will “clearly define” what you meant by that post.
So Oldreggie, the post from xeniaSt that I “quoeted directly, was whatI responded to with my statement regarding “thousands of Protestant groups”
Cheers
Thanks for the ping.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shuait's rude to talk behind someone's back
and bear false witness against your neighbor.
I admit I complained that the good Mom and Dr. were carrying the subject too far. I was wrong.
I now agree with Mom that posting the Catechism without the proper footnotes is misleading. After all, the footnotes are critical to the understanding of the subject at hand.
Of course it is a requirement that each footnote be read and understood, otherwise they serve no purpose.
I have taken the liberty of posting the "correct" version of CCC #460 with footnotes. I certainly hope it clears up all misunderstandings.
460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
=====================================================================
78 2 Pt 1:4
2 Peter 1:
4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939P
'For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.'[St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
'For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.'[St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.
'The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.'[St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.]"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have a feeling you are on a merry-go-round have no fear. You are.
On that point, you and I agree. Humans don’t become God, and the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church agree with you as well. However, as 2 Peter 2:4 states we “partake of the Divine Nature” does teach that we “become like God”, not God. Partake means 1) to take part in or experience something along with others, 2)to have a portion (e.g. of food or drink) 3) to possess or share a certain nature or attribute:
The Apostolic Traditon, as expressed by the Fathers (St. Irenaeus in the West, and more commonly taught in the Greek-East (St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nazianus and St. Athanasius), later by St. Thomas Aquinas (Latin Church) teach the doctrine, which is consistent with Incarnational Theology, and the Resurrection, and consistent with Sacred Scripture.
The word partake, as evidenced by definitions 1 and 3, above, supports the idea that for a mortal human being to live for eternity (immortality) is to in fact “partake of the Divine nature” and become like God, which does not mean we become God.
On that point you are correct, it is rude to talk behind someone’s back. I could not remember if your post was the one I was responding too. I thought it was you, and in the end it was. So, I did ping you this time and quoted your statement accurately. So, there was no “false witness”. If I misreperented your statement, well I apologize, but oone could legitimately read your post and reasonbly conclude, although not with 100% certitude, that your post was provocative and polemical.
So again, I hope you will clearly state what you meant by the post.
Pax Domine Christi
How do you read 1097 ?Confusion or heresy ?
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.