Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
Wrong. Forced conversion is not valid in the Catholic Church. The Spanish Inquisition started 14 years prior to completing the reconquest of Spain from Muslims. Only public, baptized Catholics were investigated. In 1492, Spanish Catholics finally finished 800 years of extremely bloody domestic warfare and frequent enslavement by Muslim raiders. According to terms of surrender, the Muslims were allowed to remain in Spain and keep their religion.
Jews had originally assisted the Muslim conquest along with traitorous Catholics. Both groups were considered ongoing security risks by the government. Repeated powerful attempts at renewed invasion from Africa and Turkey were a constant threat. The rooting out of Catholic traitors by Inquisition had been considered essential to the military victory. That self-defense would continue and the Jews would be expelled. Many Jews left but those who converted were allowed to stay. The unconverted Muslims were allowed to stay for another 100 years until, after many attempts at revolt, they were also finally expelled. Nobody was forced to convert, but those who did were treated equally under the law with long-standing Catholics.
Without the Inquisition, Spain could not have won her freedom.
This is what you wrote: (The bolded sentences were quoted directly by Dr. Eckleburg)
No, you must have never learned history. The Spanish Inquisition was only concerned with public, baptized Catholics. Jews and Muslims were outside of its scope. On the other hand, any heretical Catholic bishops seeking to destroy the Church from within should be investigated and punished, then and now.The Spanish government had made heresy a capital crime. Catholic heretics who would not repent were turned over to the state. It is unlikely that modern states would pass similar laws against heresy. Inquisition is purely an internal Catholic matter and not really the business of any non-Catholic.
So again I ask, when you said, "Inquisition is purely an internal Catholic matter and not really the business of any non-Catholic", is "Inquisition" a generalization, or did you intend to refer only to the Spanish Inquisition?
Second, when you say that she selectively quoted from your sentence to cut out the word "Spanish", what sentence are you talking about? Dr. Eckleburg's quotation of your words has the word, "Spanish" in it.
Your defense that she was not deceitful rests entirely upon the supposition that she was really referring to another sentence that she never quoted. That is quite a stretch.
Are we reading the same thread? The bolded words above are yours, and they are exactly as Dr. Eckleburg quoted them.
Be that as it may, when you said that inquisition is purely an internal Catholic matter and not really the business of any non-Catholic were you refering to just the Spanish Inquisiiton or not?
Cordially,
Then must it be discarded? Acts says that Judas was succeeded. The Fathers and history says the rest of the Apostles were also succeeded. Are you saying it really never happened or that you know it was against the will of God?
The Word of God IS infallible ...please use that as your source if the point is to prove the proof of a doctrine
But you just ignore any words of God that you disapprove. The Gospel of John says that many of Jesus' teachings were not written in Scripture and Paul says we must "hold fast" to the spoken Apostolic traditions. Why aren't these doctrines infallible?
Yes it would be nice if Jesus wrote a huge FAQ that answered any conceivable question that we might have. He did not do that though, did He? Perhaps that was intentional and He wanted us to rely upon the Church He set up.
Excellent Truth.
Not exactly. This is the post that I said was deceitful because it gratuitously cut out the word "Spanish":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2618333/posts?page=1678#1666
Be that as it may, when you said that inquisition is purely an internal Catholic matter and not really the business of any non-Catholic were you refering to just the Spanish Inquisiiton or not?
Of course. I said that inquisition is only the business of Catholics in the context of the Spanish Inquisition applying only to Catholics. If inquisition is applied to somebody else, how could it not be that party's business?
Interesting question. The line of Peter's successors are well-documented. Barnabas is mentioned on this wikipedia page that refers to several lines have also been recorded.
The Patriarchate of Constantinople claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Andrew.
The Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Mark[18]
The Russian Orthodox Church claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Andrew[19]
The Armenian Apostolic Church claims unbroken succession to the Thrones of Saint Bartholomew and Saint Jude Thaddeus[20]
The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Mark[21]
The Assyrian Church of the East, including the Saint Thomas Church (e.g., Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church[22]) claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Thomas
The Orthodox Church of Cyprus claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Barnabas[23]
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims succession to the Throne of Saint Philip[24]
The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem claims succession to the Throne of Saint James the Just,[25] although this line includes Patriarchs in exile.[26] (see Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem )
The Roman Papacy of the Catholic Church claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Peter called "Prince of the Apostles" (see Petrine Succession )
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2618333/posts?page=1678#1666
Uh, that is your post, not Dr. Eckleburg's post. I assume that you are not saying that it was your own post that was deceitful. Dr. Eckleburg's post to which you were replying in the "deceitful" post does not leave out the word, "Spanish". The quotes were verbatim, as I showed.
I said that inquisition is only the business of Catholics in the context of the Spanish Inquisition applying only to Catholics.
Ok. Thank you for the clarification. As questionable as the claim is historically, it does limit the scope of the claim to Spain, and therefore cannot taken as a generalization applicable to other countries where non-Catholics were indeed persecuted and killed in Catholic inquisitions.
Cordially,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2618333/posts?page=1678#1666 (Dr.E: "...and permits people like annalex to call for a return to the Inquisition.")
What are you talking about???
Did you miss the fact that I was speaking about annalex' calling for a return to the Inquisition? Why would I "cut out the word 'Spanish'" when I wasn't speaking about you, but about annalex and his desire for a return to "the Inquisition?"
"The Holy Inquisition in its full vigor is something modernity sorely lacks" -- 328 posted on 08/01/2008 4:59:56 PM PDT by annalex
Post 1678: Your selective quoting of me is deceitful.
Post 1877: Your defense that she was not deceitful...
To call me "deceitful" is just one more instance of Roman Catholic apologists breaking the rules by making it personal and imputing motive.
It's also a great example of deflecting the argument away from the ugly candor already spoken on this forum -- Roman Catholic apologists desire a return to the Inquisition -- Spanish, French, Portuguese, Roman...whatever you got, they'll go for it.
Here it is, an epistle written to the saints , not about how to be saved but teaching them that their salvation is to the Glory of God, not themselves.. crediting God and His grace and His mercy NOT their works.. teaching that all the works they do are ORDAINED by God..God working in them and through them
AMEN!
To turn Paul's wonderful encouragement "to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus" into men's back-slapping self-congratulations for a job well done is just about as blind as it gets.
They do not know what grace is.
*cough* Jesuits
You should learn history to see who educated all those communist dictators.
We don't know, but one probability is that it happened in her conversations with St. Luke.
why Mary's normal physical relationship with her legal husband after the birth of our Lord is viewed in any way as wrong or dirty or sinful
Is it really the first time you ask me this? I handled this question half a dozen times on this thread alone. It would not be in the least sinful for Mary to have marital relations with St. Joseph. She remained virgin because she chose to; there was no obligation on her to do so.
See my preceding post.
Look it up. There are mountains more of historical proof. Do you think that historical record has relevance to this issue?
NO, not Catholic history...
No doubt many Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons heard a lot of preaching from Billy Graham...So what???
This history of yours doesn't mean that Irenaeus believed anything PolyCarp had to say...Or that he taught what PolyCarp taught...
And with the track record of your religion, no one can say for certain that Irenaeus had any contact with PolyCarp anyway...
Your historical evidence amounts to, nothing...
That is true of nearly anything you read in the scripture, too, other than there was a caesar and a temple in Jerusalem. The rest you take on faith from the Church.
See my post to Boatbums made about a minute ago.
Yes, most probably she did get examined by a physician who ascertained her virginity even in her old age. Why is this so astonishing? Have you ever been to see a doctor?
However, that refers to an examination right after the miraculous birth. I don't know if one was done later.
That the Protoevengelium is extracanonical does not make it "fraudulent". What is with you people thinking everyone want to lie to you? Too much time spent with your pastor?
You have purported this to be a direct quote, in reality it is only a PARTIAL QUOTE and the remainder is YOUR COMMENTARY.
Here is the ACTUAL QUOTE which says something far different from what you claimed:
The oldest links in the chain of Roman bishops are veiled in impenetrable darkness. Tertullian and most of the Latins (and the pseudo-Clementina), make Clement (Phil. 4:3), the first successor of Peter;228 but Irenaeus, Eusebius, and other Greeks, also Jerome and the Roman Catalogue, give him the third place, and put Linus (2 Tim. 4:21), and Anacletus (or Anincletus), between him and Peter.229 In some lists Cletus is substituted for Anacletus, in others the two are distinguished. Perhaps Linus and Anacletus acted during the life time of Paul and Peter as assistants or presided only over one part of the church, while Clement may have had charge of another branch; for at that early day, the government of the congregation composed of Jewish and Gentile Christian elements was not so centralized as it afterwards became. Furthermore, the earliest fathers, with a true sense of the distinction between the apostolic and episcopal offices, do not reckon Peter among the bishops of Rome at all; and the Roman Catalogue in placing Peter in the line of bishops, is strangely regardless of Paul, whose independent labors in Rome are attested not only by tradition, but by the clear witness of his own epistles and the book of Acts.
Lipsius, after a laborious critical comparison of the different catalogues of popes, arrives at the conclusion that Linus, Anacletus, and Clement were Roman presbyters (or presbyter-bishops in the N. T. sense of the term), at the close of the first century, Evaristus and Alexander presbyters at the beginning of the second, Xystus I. (Latinized: Sixtus), presbyter for ten years till about 128, Telesphorus for eleven years, till about 139, and next successors diocesan bishops.230
It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preeminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople; and this must carry great weight with those who ground their views chiefly on external testimonies, without being able to rise to the free Protestant conception of Christianity and its history of development on earth.
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.