Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 11/07/2011 7:57:34 AM PST by marshmallow
Had the Protestant revolutionaries been more like Savaranola and less like Vladimir Lenin, then they would have been part of a real Reformation and not a religious Revolution.
Instead, we got Martin Luther and John Calvin the Lenin and Trotsky of the 16th century who set about starting new religions instead of reforming the Catholic Church from within.
It is more appropriate to refer to the movement that gave birth to Protestantism as the Protestant Revolution.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
You list the following Churches. Armenian Catholic Church • Belarusian Greek Catholic Church • Bulgarian Catholic Church • Chaldean Catholic Church • Coptic Catholic Church • Croatian Greek Catholic Church • Ethiopian Catholic Church • Georgian Catholic Church • Greek Catholic Church • Hungarian Greek Catholic Church • Italo-Albanian Catholic Church • Macedonian Catholic Church • Maronite Catholic Church • Melkite Catholic Church • Romanian Catholic Church • Russian Catholic Church • Ruthenian Catholic Church (usually called the “Byzantine Catholic Church” in the United States) • Slovak Greek Catholic Church • Syrian Catholic Church • Syro-Malabar Church • Syro-Malankara Catholic Church • Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
One problem, they are part of the Catholic Church in union with Rome. I’m assuming you are trying to tie them with the various Protestant sects.
How can you read it otherwise?
“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” 2 Tim 3:14-15)”
“Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek” (Acts 16:1-3).
From reading this verse we learn that Timothy and his family weren't devout Jews. Timothy,as a young, man hadn't even been circumcised yet. It makes one wonder just how much he knew of the old law or just how much of it he had been taught.
Too, Paul refers to Timothy as a disciple. He had to have been taught by someone the things concerning Jesus Christ. Is it not possible that the scriptures Paul are referring to here are the letters written by the apostles among the churches? We know Timothy's mother was a “believer”. Could she not have brought up and taught Timothy scripted she had learned and had received from the church?
I’m not going to get into the entire argument, but I will say about this:
“The Bible does not have an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible. Where did the table of contents come from?”
You’d be surprised about how many people are ignorant about the history of a FEW of a collection of scriptures, collectively known as the Bible. The Bible is composed of a few of the Holy Scriptures given in the History of God’s dealing with man. The Bible as we now know it, has in the history of the last 2,000 years had many books added, many books subtracted, and many books shuffled around. Whoever got the idea that all scripture is contained in the current rendition of the bible, only used for a small fraction of the last 2,000 years, is ignorant of Biblical history.
Sorry, but King James didn’t even have compiled the unabriged writings of the Saints. Yes I believe that the Bible is the word of God, but the limited number of works currently contained therein are not the complete Word of God. Just because some one or a set of someones decided to add in books here and remove books there doesn’t mean that that’s all there is. Many works are now known as Apocrapha.
I'll complain anywhere I like, thank you.
No, I just spent about 10 seconds in a cut and paste. I linked to the site I referenced. I did zero research and editing.
Just trying to show the multitude, when Christ wanted us to be one.
Except for an unresearched cut and paste of denomoniations, all my posts have been based in Scripture, or asking others where their traditions or beliefs are in Scripture.
Please show me where I denounced anyone or "thrive on baiting, on ridiculing, on demeaning, on damning those"
All of my questions, sometimes hard questions, are based on Scripture, and asking how someone comes to a conclusion based on Scripture.
There is a verse about bearing false witness.
You’ve avoided addressing the questions I’ve asked, ant he points I’ve explained from Scripture, FatherofFive.
Let me re-ask this one, which no Roman Catholic has ever responded to:
On one hand, you have your church leadership and tradition saying one thing. Their scholarly position, in fact, is the standard one, accepted by most people around you.
On the other hand, you have the Word of God saying something else. A few people accept this position.
Which do you believe? The church leadership and tradition, or the Word of God?
Then quit fostering division.
Instead, try encouraging unity in Christ. Let me repeat: IN CHRIST (and not under the banner of your denomination).
With all due respect, this is a bizarre statement.
The Church of the apostles was definitely one: "There is one body and one spirit," Paul wrote, "just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all" (Eph. 4:4-5). Paul linked this primitive unity to the Church's common Eucharistic bread: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). Jesus had promised at the outset that "there would be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16).
You are supporting the heresy of Protestantism, and all its divisions.
Christ wanted us to be ONE. That is what I want. That is not what you want.
I accept the Word of God, exactly as written.
When Christ said "This is my Body" I believe Him. It is you who deny the clear words of Scripture.
"If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
It is you who denies the clear words of Scripture.
Indeed, the devil is happy when people deny the real presence in the Eucharist:
"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians:not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” –Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391
So Martin Luther says only the devil believes the bread is only bread.
Where would he get such an idea? From Christ Himself!
What have I said that would give you this impression? I have been quoting Scripture.
These are one in the same. The Church gave us the Bible, and protected it through the generations.
It is you who deny the clear words of Scripture. When Christ says, "This is my Body" why do you call him a liar? The Word of God says Is = Is. He did not say this 'represents' my Body. Is = Is.
So who is denying the clear words of Scripture?
I am a Catholic. I got married in the church. Went to marrige encounters, etc. Still in the church, see many of young (and some old) couples get married. NEVER did my or any priest describe even one sex act.
The biggest problem on Free Republic threads about various religions is how certain—often through rumor, innuendo and hearsay—so many otherwise good and Christian FReepers are about the practices of people in other faiths.
I think the fact that I became a Catholic as an adult, go to church/Mass every week and sometimes multiple times a week, teach Sunday school (I am called a Catechist), stay active and current in my parish and deanery, and simply am eager to learn about any Christian activity, makes me much more knowledgeable than the “cultural Catholics” who never go to mass except Christmas, Good Friday and MAYBE Easter and only remember vaguely about Doctrine and Dogma and half of that is what they learned from Comedy Central or some liberal media machine.
I will not attack your religious beliefs. If you believe Jesus is God, Lord and Master, then Peace unto you, brother! But what you have said is simply not true.
Signed an SMSgt.
“... the heresy of Protestantism.”
There you go again, promoting division.
No, all who are in Christ are one in Christ. I am in Christ. If you are in Christ as well, then we are one in Christ.
It’s really not a difficult concept.
If you’re satisfied eating the physical flesh of Jesus, fine.
I cherish the Spirit of Christ, which is not something you can chew with your molars.
You clearly said in comment #74 that Christ is ONLY sufficient “in the Church he established,” by which I presume to mean your particular denomination.
So you are saying that Christ alone is not sufficient. He (according to your very words) is ONLY sufficient in the Roman Catholic Church.
So, be definition, you deny that Christ alone is sufficient.
Logic 101.
No, they are not “one in the same.”
By “the church leadership and tradition,” I was referring to the religious leaders during the time Jesus walked the earth. By “the Word of God,” I was referring to the Word incarnate, Jesus.
They are not “one in the same.”
Indeed, Jesus condemned the religious leaders of His time, for injecting religious systems and artifacts into faith, where He was calling for repentance and relationship.
Jesus spoke of bread on many occasions, and while others may have thought he was talking of something physical, Jesus meant something else. Consider (if you will, but I suspect you won’t) Matthew 16:5ff:
—
Jesus said to them, “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” And they began discussing it among themselves, saying, “We brought no bread.” But Jesus, aware of this, said, “O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive? ... How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
—
See that? Jesus spoke of bread, and his friends thought he was talking about physical stuff. He was talking about something metaphysical, though.
Or look at His first temptation, in Matthew 4. Satan encourages Jesus to change one substance into another (bread), but he chose not to do so, pointing out that the physical bread is of little worth. “Man shall not live by bread alone,” He said, “but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”
Finally, do you really believe Jesus never used metaphor? Metaphors are POWERFUL. They are not JUST metaphors. They are emphatically metaphors, and Jesus used a lot of them — vine, bread, door, lamb, etc. These weren’t similes, but metaphors.
But that is not what Scripture says.
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
What part of eating his flesh don't you understand?
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.