Posted on 05/16/2008 3:19:30 PM PDT by netmilsmom
Where, as anyone with eyes to see, can read I posted the exact words from the RCC catechism #460.
Deleting two footnote numbers does not change the words nor the meaning of the excerpt.
But if that's all a person has to go on in order to defend the indefensible, so be it.
>>You owe me an apology from saying I posted from an anti-catholic website when I clearly posted from (and linked to) vatican.va. <<
It isn’t “clearly” posted from nor linked to Vatican.va. That post has no link..... Let’s look
To: AnalogReigns; netmilsmom; Alex Murphy; Lord_Calvinus; Gamecock; OLD REGGIE; Uncle Chip; ...
Perhaps the answer is found in the RCC catechism itself...
“For the Son of man became man so that we might become God. 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.” (page 116, #460)
That right there tells us pretty much all we need to know about Rome. Rome believes the church turns men into gods by infusing righteousness into them and turning them into perfect creatures. Voila! A god.
Therefore perhaps it’s not such a stretch to believe Mary was “sinless” and Mary is the “co-redeemer” and a “pope is infallible” and a priest is “another Christ.”
Whereas the Bible instructs and the Reformation restated that all men are fallen and the only thing that saves anyone is Christ’s righteousness mercifully imputed to the believer by grace through faith.
So it’s probably easy for Rome to curse Protestants because Protestants are outside the RCC and do not believe they become a god in any way. Christ indwells us, but He remains always Christ and we remain always the creature, 100% guilty but 100% acquitted of our sins by Christ’s rightousness through His atoning work on the cross.
Our differences really seem profound some days.
140 posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 8:19:04 PM by Dr. Eckleburg (”I don’t think they want my respect; I think they want my submission.” - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
I excerpted from vatican.va.
I posted from vatican.va.
I linked to vatican.va.
All "conditions" met.
And that's IT! One hit.
What are you trying to say this proves???
Thanks!
And actually what I was saying was that when I used the quote in a Google search string, no link to the Catechism could be found.
It just looked odd to be from the CCC and not have numbers in it.
A link was provided to vatican.va.
And as for some link to "Let Us Reason" website, I haven't the faintest idea what that is. As shown, Netmilsmom's google "evidence" takes us back to this thread and that's ALL.
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.
It’s a clickable link that starts with
www.google.com
Last I looked, that wasn’t FR.
Hi Guys:
Thanks for the reference to my post #498. And you are correct, a few Protestants here have responded fairly (e.g. Uncle Chip). There have been statements, by some of our Protestant-Calvinist friends, that the CCC Para. 460 is not defensible. That is totally incorrect. It just doesn’t fit the Gospel according to Calvin. In a theological dispute between St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc and Calvin, Guess who wins and it isn’t even close.!!!!!
I’m so glad you’re here!
LOL. One man was executed in Geneva, and not by the order of Calvin but by the edict of the city government.
Servetus was also being hunted by the Roman Catholic church for denying the Trinity. If caught, Rome had promised to burn him at the stake.
Them's the facts. Hope this helps your understanding.
You're welcome, and that's not surprising, since the original entry from vatican.va and scborromeo.com would have the footnote numbers interspersed in it, and so, when Google didn't find that exact quote with the numbers in it, it returned only Dr. E's quote which did not have the footnote numbers in it, presumably because she removed them manually before posting.
I certainly hope we're on the same page here. *sigh*. I can't help but notice though the only one's talking about paragraph #460 on this thread (at least at this present time) are those talking about the controversy surrounding posts 140 and 169, and not the actual substance of paragraph #460, or really, again, the excellent apologetic work of CTrent1564 regarding such (in post #498).
I could speculate this is a "diversionary tactic", but I don't want to be accused of reading minds. Suffice it to say, if anyone really wanted a good Catholic explanation of CCC 460, they would look at and respond to CTent's #498. That much, should be obvious.
That was not an acknowledgement, hense the quote marks. Catholics get around making 'cahnges' by claiming they are just 'clarifications'.
Kudos to Uncle Chip then for actually engaging in dialog. I should have pinged you to my post 892 also CTrent, sorry I forgot.
I've said I removed the two footnote numbers, like I do when I post from the WCF.
And then I reinserted them and linked to Vatican.va.
None of this explains why when presented with the actual words from the RCC catechism you called them a "lie," nor why you accused me of posting from an anti-catholic website when the words are verbatim from the RCC catechism.
What about those words made you feel uncomfortable, leading you to call them a "lie."
Well, I have to respectively disagree with you here. I think it is more that it is amazing the confusion that has been caused by the thousands of quarelling Protestant groups, none of which, Doctrinally and Theologically agree on anything. There is another thread, not started by a Catholic, which indicates that a Board member from the Southern Baptist Convention resigned over Baptism and Speaking in Tongues, etc.
I have only lived in the Southern U.S. (3 states) and I can tell you that I have seen Protestant Churches split over Baptism, which version of the Bible to read, Rapture doctrines, etc. So, if you want to see confusion, go look at various Protestant Groups statements of faith/Doctrines.
The CCC is the Doctrine of the Catholic Church and just because some Catholic individual has not read that part of the CCC, in no way implys the Church is keeping its teachings from its member or is causing confusion. Any Catholic at the age of reason knows there is a CCC which gives a sure basis for what is Catholic orthodoxy and what is not.
Regards
In general, I don't look for a lot of explanation and analysis. I think of Loyola trying to figure out which thoughts are mortal sins and which thoughts are venial sins. He was told, quite sensibly I think, to forget it for three years.
Alright fair enough, I stand corrected. I'm curious, what thoughts do you have re my post #869, if any?
The fact remains the words of the RCC catechism somehow caused netmilsmom to call them a "lie."
>>I certainly hope we’re on the same page here. *sigh*. I can’t help but notice though the only one’s talking about paragraph #460 on this thread (at least at this present time) are those talking about the controversy surrounding posts 140 and 169, and not the actual substance of paragraph #460, or really, again, the excellent apologetic work of CTrent1564 regarding such (in post #498).
I could speculate this is a “diversionary tactic”, but I don’t want to be accused of reading minds. Suffice it to say, if anyone really wanted a good Catholic explanation of CCC 460, they would look at and respond to CTent’s #498. That much, should be obvious. <<
I am in total agreement with you!
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.