Thanks. I had a rather rough physical today, my beloved cat is sick, and I needed a big
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
They further held that approval of their rule by earlier popes was a matter pertaining to faith and morals; and since the rule was equal to the Gospel (they said), no subsequent Pope could change or revoke it.
Pope John rejected this fantastic doctrine in a bull of 1324 entitled QUIA QUORUNDAM. He denied the "Spirituals'" contention that their rule and style of poverty was equal to the Gospel and he pointed out that papal approval of a religious order and its rule was a matter of Church legislation, not of faith or morals. Therefore, he taught, a pope could (and sometimes might have to ) modify an earlier pope's legislation or revoke it.
In the course of the encyclical, Pope John denied the existence of a "key of knowledge", in virtue of which the "Spirituals" contended that earlier popes had unchangeably established this rule and lifestyle. (The phrase `key of knowledge' comes from Luke 11:52, which the "Spirituals" misused).
Pope John was not dealing with an issue of doctrinal infallibility, but with a defective understanding of the Church's governing power as invested in the Pope.
Infallibility, as defined in the First Vatican Council, requires that the faith of the whole Church be the norm of papal definitions; that these definitions be according to Scripture; that the pope speaks infallibly only when he speaks as teacher and pastor of all the faithful, with the infallibility with which Christ endowed his Church as a whole. This is `ex cathedra' infallibility.
It makes no sense for you to mindlessly declare that Papal Infallibility was universally accepted in the RCC prior to 1870. After 1870 "Catholics" were required to accept it.
For hundreds of years there was discussion and disagreement among Bishops, Theologians, and "Church Fathers" concerning the Bodily Assumption of Mary. After 1950 there could no longer be any discussion.
It makes no sense to mindlessly repeat the falsehood that the RCC universally believed in the Bodily Assumption prior to 1950.
mas cerveza por favor wrote:
“Mary testified that her spirit had rejoiced in her Savior before Christ was even born. Nobody else fits in that category.”
This is a keeper for the ages!
It is wrong on so many levels. And it is wrong because of fundamental Roman Catholic doctrine that denies that the faithful of the Old Testament were saved by grace through faith in the promised Savior. When Job confessed, “I know that My Redeemer lives. And He shall stand at last on the earth; and after my skin is destroyed, this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall behold for myself, and my eyes shall behold and not another. How my heart yearns within me,” (Job 19:25-27) he confessed that his hope of resurrection to life everlasting was grounded in Him who would “stand at last on the earth.” This is identically the same faith that Martha expressed in the NT: “Now Martha said to Jesus, ‘Lord if You had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.’ Jesus said to her, ‘Your brother will rise again.’ Martha said to Him, ‘I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.’ Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believe in Me, though He may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believe in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?’ She said to Him, ‘Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who IS TO COME into the world.’” (John 11:21-27)
This is Old Testament faith!!!!!!! It is the faith of Eve and Abraham, of Moses and David, of Isaiah and Daniel. Martha was no Jewish convert to Christianity, she was a “daughter of Abraham” from the get go, as was Mary her sister, Elizabeth, Anna, and MARY THE MOTHER OF OUR LORD!!!!!
That such absurd statements as this are made by Catholics is a testament to the complete chaos that the Roman Magisterium has brought upon the Scriptural and Apostolic doctrine that she was bequeathed. That doctrine was never hers to alter in any way, for it is God’s, as Paul and Peter, Mark and Luke, John and James all knew with unshakeable certainty. In this matter Rome has sinned, not simply against humanity, but against God Himself. And what a cluttered and impoverished faith she has been reduced to peddling to the unwary today, and trying so vainly to defend in the public square!
It's about time to stop playing little girlie "take that back" games and begin playing with the big kids.
mas cerveza por favor wrote:
“I can understand that you do not accept the doctrine of infallibility, but it makes no sense for you to mindlessly repeat the falsehood that Catholics themselves did not believe this doctrine prior to 1870.”
Diamond did not say that. His point is more than clear. Before (at least) the mid-7th century A.D. it is demonstrably true the bishops (pastors) of the Catholic (Christian) church did not accept or teach papal infallibility. It slowly developed from there until the pope and magisterial authorities felt emboldened enough to make public this abomination novel to apostolic Christianity. No matter how many new patches succeeding popes and councils keep putting on the decrepit old wineskin of post-7th century Roman Catholicism it keeps bursting at the seams and leaking.
Whatever truth was left in Roman doctrine 500 hundred years ago when Rome finally had “jumped the shark” in the eyes of the public the Reformation retained. Look at the Augsburg Confession, the Roman Confutation that gave Rome’s answer to it (what a pitiful answer!), and the Apology (Defense) of the Augsburg that demolished the Confutation.
Whatever truth has been left in it to this day is purely because of the grace of God and His unfathomable faithfulness to those believers in His Son who are still entangled in the braided cords of truth and falsehood that make up its deceptive web of teaching.
No. Mary was not awaiting a savior to come like the saints of the old testament. Her spirit had rejoiced in her Savior because she had already been blessed.
mas cerveza por favor responded:
“No. Mary was not awaiting a savior to come like the saints of the old testament. Her spirit had rejoiced in her Savior because she had already been blessed.”
Sorry, this is a talking point not an argument. That is all you have, talking points, to be repeated until you simply wear out the opposition. But you know what, that may work in politics (although it really doesn’t work there either), but it does not and will not work with the royal priesthood that is Christ’s holy people, holy by grace through faith, bonded together not by the threats of papal power but by the unity the Spirit of God supplies.
I will give you this, however, that you give your talking points with self-typed words that could be your own instead of simply giving boilerplate links. You know your Roman doctrine. You just don’t seem to be able to truly set it against the Scriptures and let God’s word highlight its many, many shortcomings and falsities.
Where and when did your convenient definition of ex cathreda come about? Honorius was condemned for heresy by a valid Ecumenical Council. No ex post facto definition can change that.
It appears you are holding yourself out as an expert concerning "infallible" Papal Declarations. Please identify them.
Diamond answered me here and I responded here.
Look at the Augsburg Confession, the Roman Confutation that gave Rome’s answer to it (what a pitiful answer!), and the Apology (Defense) of the Augsburg that demolished the Confutation.
I have not read those documents yet. If the Catholic answers were weak as you say, have any stronger arguments been made subsequent to that exchange? If so, should not the strong arguments receive greater attention than the weaker ones?
Did Martin Luther retain his opinions? Do Protestants retain those opinions now?
Thanks. I had a rather rough physical today, my beloved cat is sick, and I needed a big
This of course is one of the many myths put out by your religion...
Just for the record, who is the first of your church fathers who recorded this tradition???
mas, how long are you going to continue saying Peter was in charge of ANYTHING at the First Church Council in Jerusalem? It has been proven over and over that James was president of the council. It doesn’t even need to be proven. All it has to do is be READ. Really, if you want to be taken seriously in anything, PLEASE don’t use any credibility you may earn up by saying this nonsense anymore. Do you think we will forget that James was in charge, and just start believing Peter was because you repeat it every chance you get?
“”Further note that no place, nowhere, no how, does the Catholic Church identify “infallible” declarations of the Popes””
To my knowledge there is a list of dogma’s(De fide = “Of the faith,”= official dogma), but not a list of some of the others that are given classifications such as...
Sent. = sententia = belief)
Sent. fidei proxima = directly deduced from a dogma; necessary conclusion
Sent. certa = always been held to be true; official doctrine but at a lower level than dogma
Sent. communis = a universally held belief; traditional doctrine
Sent. pia et probabilis = a pious and probable belief; traditional doctrine
Sent. communior = a widely held belief; traditional doctrine
list of dogmas
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/dogma1.htm
For your cat,dear OR...
St. Francis of Assisi Lover of all Creation Prayer for Sick Animals: Heavenly Father, you created all things for your glory and made us stewards of this creature If it is your will, restore it to health and strength. Blessed are you, Lord God, and holy is your name for ever and ever. Amen
Preach it brother....
”Further note that no place, nowhere, no how, does the Catholic Church identify “infallible” declarations of the Popes.”
This list would be sufficient. Thank you.
Thank you with all my heart.
stfassisi wrote:
“Sent. = sententia = belief)
Sent. fidei proxima = directly deduced from a dogma; necessary conclusion
Sent. certa = always been held to be true; official doctrine but at a lower level than dogma
Sent. communis = a universally held belief; traditional doctrine
Sent. pia et probabilis = a pious and probable belief; traditional doctrine
Sent. communior = a widely held belief; traditional doctrine”
Thank you for this list of teachings, ranked according to ... what? ... their relative truthiness.
Looking at this list, stfassisi, I simply repeat what I posted earlier today about Rome’s teaching (at whatever level of veracity): “Whatever truth has been left in it to this day is purely because of the grace of God and His unfathomable faithfulness to those believers in His Son who are still entangled in the braided cords of truth and falsehood that make up its deceptive web of teaching”
I previously wrote:
“Look at the Augsburg Confession, the Roman Confutation that gave Rome’s answer to it (what a pitiful answer!), and the Apology (Defense) of the Augsburg that demolished the Confutation.”
mas cerveza por favor responded:
“I have not read those documents yet. If the Catholic answers were weak as you say, have any stronger arguments been made subsequent to that exchange? If so, should not the strong arguments receive greater attention than the weaker ones?”
Really! Then it is long past time you read them. They are the first successful critique (i.e. in that the author and supporters survived the papal “answer”) of medieval Roman doctrine (which simply intended to return the Catholic Church to the teaching of the first centuries, or to put it in the language of recent posts on this thread, the pre-7th century A.D. church). They remain definitive. However, they have been expanded upon due to Roman, shall we say, shucking and jiving, much the same way as the Apostles Creed remains definitive, but has been expanded upon (definitively!) by the Nicene Creed due to the shucking and jiving of heretical teachers within the visible church, and then again by the Athanasian Creed. If you want to go deeper, the Lutherans also answered Trent in detail: “Examination of the Canons and Degrees of the Council of Trent,” Martin Chemnitz. It is available in English translation, four volumes, Concordia Publishing House, or in the original Latin, usually referred to as simply the “Examen.” Each canon, each decree is examined and critiqued in the light of both the Holy Scriptures and the church fathers.
mcpf also wrote:
“Did Martin Luther retain his opinions?”
He affirmed his doctrinal statements to his death. And was asked such by his colleagues on his death bed, to which question he answered in the affirmative. The Lutheran Confessions, i.e. the Book of Concord, refer to the doctrinal and polemical works of Luther that are affirmed by all true Lutherans to this day. By true Lutherans I do not mean, for example, the ELCA. They are apostate, and have been for quite awhile ... which fact always puzzled me when the Roman pope treated them seriously several times in the fairly recent past. What a joke to give the time of day to apostates.
mcpf also wrote:
“Do Protestants retain those opinions now?”
Protestant is a Roman term, a pejorative actually. It was used by Roman clerics in the same spirit as “tea-bagger” is used today by those who sneer at the “tea party” phenomenon of the last year or so. Today it has become merely a term of institutionalized snobbery.
I cannot answer for those who are not Lutheran. They must answer for themselves, even as each must answer for him/herself on judgment day.
There is no deceptive teaching,it is only the those who elevate their personal beliefs or have been deceived that are deceptive.
As Blessed Bishop Fulton Sheen said...
"There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church."-Bishop Fulton Sheen
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.