Posted on 03/16/2010 10:51:13 AM PDT by Paragon Defender
What does YOPIOS stand for?
Well, MM leoni has posted to me they don’t care at all about any religion as they are all false. One has to wonder why one would spend so much time telling us what is false if they don’t care.
Paragon, do YOU behave in a Christ like manner? Does anyone, truly?
Although I strive to follow my Savior, it is the clear understanding that I fail to live as He wants me to, that makes me look to Him to save me from my fallen nature.
If this Mormon apologist is suggesting that anyone who acts in a manner that isn’t “Christ like” is not Christian, then we all fit into that category - even you.
Let me try.
You Old People Insult Our Smith
Why, in 1840, would God “reveal” to Joseph Smith in the language of 1540?
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS [ A. D. 434 ]
With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity. I received almost always the same answer from all of them, that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and sound in a sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of the divine law; and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
[Here, perhaps, someone may ask: “If the canon of the Scriptures be perfect, and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?” Because, quite plainly, Sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. The same passage is interpreted in one way by some, in another by others, so that it can almost appear as if there are as many opinions as there are men. Novatian explains a passage in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another; Anus, Eunomius, Macedonius in another; Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian in another; Jovinian, Pelagius, Caelestius in another; and afterwards in still another, Nestorius. And thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning.
In the Catholic Church herself every care must be taken that we may hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is then truly and properly Catholic. That is what the force and meaning of the name itself declares, a name that embraces all almost universally. This general rule will be correctly applied if we pursue universality, antiquity, and agreement. And we follow universality in this way, if we confess this one faith to be true, which is confessed by the whole Church throughout the whole world; antiquity, however, if we in no way depart from those interpretations which, it is clear our holy predecessors and fathers solemnized; and likewise agreement, if, in this very antiquity, we adopt the definitions and theses of all or certainly of almost all priests and teachers.
To announce, therefore, to Catholic Christians something other than that which they have received has never been permitted, is nowhere permitted, and never will be permitted. And to anathematize those who announce anything other than that which has been received once and for all has never been unnecessary, is nowhere unnecessary and never will be unnecessary.
He is a true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, the Church, and the Body of Christ; who puts nothing else before divine religion and the Catholic Faith, neither the authority nor the love nor the genius nor the eloquence nor the philosophy of any man whatsoever, but, despising all that and being fixed, stable, and persevering in his faith, is determined in himself to hold and believe that only which he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times.
"Guard" he says, "what has been committed." What does it mean, "what has been committed”? It is what has been faithfully entrusted to you, not what has been discovered by you; what you have received, not what you have thought up; a matter not of ingenuity, but of doctrine; not of private acquisition, but of public Tradition; a matter brought to you, not put forth by you, in which you must be not the author but the guardian, not the founder but the sharer, not the leader, but the follower. "Guard," he says, "what has been committed."Keep the talent of the Catholic Faith inviolate and unimpaired. What has been faithfully entrusted, let it remain in your possession, let it be handed on by you. You have received gold, so give gold. For my part I do not want you to substitute one thing for mother; I do not want you impudently to put lead in place of gold, or, fraudulently brass. I do not want the appearance of gold, but the real thing. O Timothy, O priest. O interpreter, O teacher, if a divine gift has made you suitable in genius, in experience, in doctrine to be the Beseleel of the spiritual tabernacle, cut out the precious gems of divine dogma, shape them faithfully, ornament them wisely, add splendor, grace and beauty to them! By your expounding it, may that now be understood more clearly which formerly was believed even in its obscurity. May posterity, by means of you, rejoice in understanding what in times past was venerated without understanding, Nevertheless, teach the same that you have learned, so that if you say something anew, it is not something new that you say.
But perhaps someone is saying: "Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ?" Certainly there is, and the greatest. For who is there so envious toward men and so exceedingly hateful toward God, that he would try to prohibit progress? But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself, by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in the group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion. The progress of religion in souls is like the growth of bodies, which, in the course of years, evolve and develop, but still remain what they were. . . . For example: Our fathers of old sowed the seeds of the wheat of faith in this field which is the Church. Certainly it would be unjust and incongruous if we, their descendents, were to gather, instead of the genuine truth of wheat, the noxious error of weeds. On the contrary, it is right and logically proper that there be no discrepancy between what is first and what is last and that we reap, in the increment of wheat from the wheat of instruction, the fruit also of dogma. And thus, although in the course of time something evolved from those first seeds and has now expanded under careful cultivation, nothing of the characteristics of the seeds is changed. Granted that appearance, beauty, and distinction has been added, still, the same nature of each kind remains. May it never happen that the rose garden of the Catholic sense be turned into thistles and thorns. May it never happen, I say, that darnel and monk's hood suddenly spring up in the spiritual paradise of shoots of cinnamon and balsam.
We must most studiously investigate and follow this ancient agreement of the holy fathers, not in all the lesser questions of the divine Law, but certainly and especially in the rule of faith. . . . But only those opinions of the fathers are to he brought forward which were expressed by those who lived, taught, and persevered wisely and constantly in the holy Catholic faith and communion, and who merited either to die faithfully in Christ or to be killed gloriously for Christ. Those men, moreover, are to be believed, in accord with the rule that only that is to be held as undoubted, certain, and valid, which either all or most of them have confirmed by receiving, holding, and handing on in one and the same sense, manifestly, frequently, and persistently, as if by a council of teachers in mutual agreement. But whatever was thought outside of or even against the opinion of all, although it be by a holy and learned man, or although by a confessor and martyr, must be removed from the authority of the common and public and general opinion, as being among his personal and peculiar and private views. In this way we shall not, as is the sacrilegious custom of heretics and schismatics, reject the ancient truth of universal dogma, to pursue, with great danger to our eternal salvation, the novel error of one man.
Huh?
Sorry I wasn’t replying to you really I just clicked reply to add on to the thread.
So group think works, eh?
Hello, those men who the Catholic Church elevates as somehow more spiritual or holy than the rest of us, are INDIVIDUALS who also interpret Scripture.
Well it’s a little deeper than that really. Did you read it?
I do agree that we all fall short of course.
So who interpreted the Bible for Vincent ???
All non-Catholic religions are false religions and roads to perdition (gates of hell). I post only for one reason, to save your soul from eternal perdition. [By the way, any Catholic that dies with ONE single mortal sin on his soul, will also go to perdition. So, don't think that being a baptized Catholic is automatic salvation. "St. Teresa.... had she not risen from the state of lukewarmness in which she lived, she would in the end have lost the grace of God and been damned. ( St. Alphonsus Liguori) ]
Catholic Dogma:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Yes, thank you Elsie, exactly.
Yes I read it. The author is judging Christianity based upon someone hurting his Mormon feelings. He is wrong.
There is a huge discrepancy between Mormonism and Christianity. Even the author and you should be able to admit it. Speaking about those differences is certainly Christlike - sometimes the manner we use isn’t.
I want to tell you, Paragon, that I recognize the morality of Mormons. They are very good at obedience. When someone suggests that Mormonism is not Christian, we are not suggesting that Mormons are not good, moral people. We are only suggesting that Mormonism teaches a different Christ than Christianity. I that so hard for Mormons to admit? If so, why?
Why would Mormons want to deceive people into thinking that Mormonism is just like any Christian Church?
Well kid thanks for constantly bumping the thread...
Even if you wont answer the FReepers...
Very well said.
The problem there days is that people have made the terms *Christian* and *moral* synonymous, and while they should be to the extent that all Christians SHOULD BE moral, not everyone who is moral is Christian.
It’s no insult to say a person is not a Christian when their beliefs don’t put them in that category. It’s merely an observation based on their stated belief system.
Been there done that.
Hopefully you “got” that I am not anti-mormon but anti-mormonism.
Indeed. Mormons tend distort most of what is touched. Let me give you a historical example, admitted to by a Mormon author:
Latter-day Saints have universally condemned the notorios Haun's Mill Massacre by a mob-militia shiortly after Missouri Governor Boggs issued the infamous extermination order as the result of actions of a Hitler-like official. A second look at the definition of the word 'exterminate' as it was used in 1838, however, might cause us to take a second look at Governor Boggs as well. An American Dictionary of the English Language, published in 1828, defines 'exterminate' as 'literally, to drive from within the limits or borders.' Is this all the Governor intended? (George W. Givens, 500 More Little-Known Facts in Mormon History, p. 26)
So, here Mormons for generations have been assuming that the MO guv wanted all Mormons in that state killed off. (And I'm sure some would simply say, "Well, it was bad enough that he wanted them out of Missouri"; and granted, that is true).
But it goes to show you, Metmom, exactly how Mormons are so prone to exaggeration. And God has allowed them to be religious disciples of Joseph Smith -- religious disciples of exaggeration -- because they follow after the great exaggerator...as even Joey Smith's mother conceded in this "pro-Mormon" book edited by Preston Nibley:
"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of the continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them. On the twenty-second of September, 1824, Joseph again visited the place where he found the plates the year previous; and supporting at this time that the only thing required, in order to possess them until the time for their translation, was to be able to keep the commandments of God...he fully expected to carry them home with him. (Lucy Mack Smith, edited by Preston Nibley, History of Joseph Smith, p. 83, Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, 1958)
Now keep in mind Lucy Mack Smith's account placed all this, time-wise, before Smith, Jr. had ever supposedly "translated" any gold plates of ancient history -- about the age 17.
Sorry bud, you don’t Save Jesus Christ Saves. He and He alone.
I am Saved by the Grace of God.
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.