Posted on 02/01/2012 3:38:01 PM PST by NYer
I remember coloring in the lions on the paper my Catechism teacher had handed out. The lions in the coliseum were approaching a group of huddled Catholics.
My CCD teacher asked us if we too were willing to suffer for our faith the way the martyrs of old did? I remember looking at those cartoon lions and deciding that yes, I very much had the stuff to stare down a cartoon lion. Easy.
But it’s easy to answer in the affirmative when we’re talking about cartoon lions. It’s different when we’re talking real life. Real lions have teeth.
And make no mistake, real life is what we’re talking now. We have a government that mandates what pro-life counselors must say. We have a government now that mandates that Catholic institutions pay for things it considers sinful. We have a government that now says the cost of being an American is to abandon Catholicism.
Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska in response to the Obama administration’s contraception mandate said, “We cannot and will not comply with this unjust decree. Like the martyrs of old, we must be prepared to accept suffering which could include heavy fines and imprisonment.”
This scares me but it’s true.
Now is the time when decisions must be made by Catholic college presidents and hospital administrators and the heads of all sorts of Catholic institutions. Should I do what the government tells me or what the Church tells me is right? Some whom we have great hope for will choose poorly. Some will stand up unexpectedly and refuse to comply with the government. And they will pay a price for being Catholic.
We’re no longer talking about the slippery slope here. We’ve walked off a cliff. We’re in free fall.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
Yup. Couldn't agree more.*
But look: if you insist that you are only going to unite against Satanic attack with people who share exactly the doctrine that your church believes in, you're going to be in a pretty small group. There are thousands of separate Protestant denominations, all teaching different doctrines. Their adherents all think their church has it right. Logically, then, anybody who disagrees with the teachings of their denomination has it wrong. But since the Protestant denominations do differ in beliefs and practices, they can't all be right.
So who gets to decide? Who is really the best interpreter of Scripture? Honestly, I don't think I am. I'm not smart enough to have it all figured out. It amazes me when I encounter Protestants, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, or whatever who say, "I know better than all the rest of you, I'm much better at interpreting the Word of the Lord than you are, and after my own study of the Word I decided on this church. The rest of y'all are going to hell. My church, which was started a hundred years ago" (or 20 years ago, in many cases) "has it right and you don't. So we want nothing to do with you and we're going to fight the atheist left on our own."
It is not for us to judge the relationship between another person and God. Leave that to Him, Who knows all. They're His Scriptures. Join with your brothers and sisters in Christ. People of other denominations, Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic alike, all love and serve the Lord. Don't give Satan the satisfaction of separating us. Divided we fall.
*Psssst: the particular verse you quoted is one Catholics often use to maintain that it wasn't the best thing for Protestant churches to introduce new doctrines after 1500 years of Christian Catholic unity. Just FYI. :-)
The nature worshipers would fall right in line also.
They all worship a female deity , just by different names.
The world has always been drunk with female deities since Babel , they always have to get one in there some where .
BTW allah was once the name of female deity in the kabbah too , it was Mohammad that reproduced it as male.
All this has it’s roots in sun and moon worship.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
It’s “MAGNUS,” not “Magus.” Magnus means “great” in Latin. You know how we here on FR sometimes refer to Ronald Reagan as Ronaldus Magnus, as a respectful joke? Same usage.
And Simon was Peter’s given name. Peter, or Petros in Greek, means “rock.” Jesus said, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” (Matthew 16: 17-18 NIV) So yes, Catholics say that the church in Rome was established by Peter the Great = Simon Magnus, not some magician or (as the usage was at the time) an astrologer.
..and they take their female deities straight back to the Garden of Eden. Where Eve challenged God, ate of the apple, and they believe with that, SHE first gained God’s knowledge.
Those that are saved are individuals not groups. We each have a personal intimate relationship with The Lord Jesus Christ. None of us has all the truth but we do have the Holy Spirit inside of us to bring us to truth if we do not resist it. Most of the protestant problems in unity are due to pride and common sense man mind interpretation. Fine examples of this is double predestination or those that believe in replacement theology.
FReep mail me. I would love to hear it!
FReepmail me too with you speculation marbren!!
Point is, even if we disagree with a brother or sister about doctrine, we should lay aside our divisions and our bitterness to join together when Satan is threatening us all. Leave it to God to decide how to deal with those who are sincere but (in your view) are mistaken. We must unite! Communism, atheism, and Islam are the enemies, not us.
Again from St. Ignatius, this time from his letter to the Philadelphians:
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop and presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.From St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, inter A.D. 180-199 (This one is quite long but leaves no doubt that the church of the Martyrs was Catholic):
It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been cade known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very one to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely the wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.I would encourage to read more of the Church Fathers. Again, it is not that their writings are inspired or equal to the Bible (indeed they often disagree with one another) but they give testimony to what the early church actually believed.But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church know to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.
The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anecletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their tradition before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. … To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; an Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.
… Again, giving counsel to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits from among His creatures, not as if He needed them, but so that they themselves might be neither unfruitful nor ungrateful, He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, “This is My Body.” The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to with we belong, He confessed to be His Blood.
He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachias, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: “ ‘You do not do My will,’ says the Lord Almighty, ‘and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name is glorified among the gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great i My name among the gentiles,’ says the Lord Almighty.” By these words He make ti plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to Him, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the gentiles.
Sacrifice as such has not bee reprobated. There were sacrifices then, sacrifices among the people; and there are sacrifices now, sacrifices in the Church. Only the kind has been changed; for now the sacrifice is offered not by slaves but by free men.
But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over with thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge the He is the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the food bears fruit, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain on the ear? How can they say that the flesh with has been nourished by the Body of the Lord and by His Blood gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? Let them either change their opinion, or else stop offering the things mentioned.
For thanksgiving is consistent with our opinion; and the Eucharist confirms our opinion. For we offer to Him those things which are His, declaring in a fit manner the gift the acceptance of flesh and spirit. For the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly, so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible but have the hope of resurrection into eternity.
… It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father.
May I just ask what exactly you believe we must unite around? What unites us? And what separates “us” from “them”? There are only TWO “religions” in the world. And I use the term “religion” loosely. Because religion means man working his way to God. Christianity means God reaching out to man. Completely different. If a “religion” teaches works to get to God, then it is a false religion. And I mean “works” as anything man MUST do in order to face God. Communisim and atheism are also religions because they make MAN god. Communism, atheism, Islam, and ANY OTHER religion that teaches that man can possibly do anything to get to God is a false religion. That covers a LOT of religions that use the term “Christian” and yet do not believe God’s Word that saves.
"I believe in one God, Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, Our Lord. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into death. On the third day He rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father. And He will come again to judge both the living and the dead."
This the first paragraph of the Apostle's Creed. This is what we Christians all believe, whether we are Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic, right? Do you have any basic problems with this statement of faith? It is fundamental to Christianity. Around this, surely, we can unite to face the Darkness.
And what separates “us” from “them”?
Unlike them, we are not Communists. We are not totalitarians. We are not atheists. We are not leftists. We are not Muslims. We believe as above. That could unite us into a legion of the Lord greater than all the armies of the world--if some of us could stop rejecting other Christians.
It’s really hard to convince someone that there is nothing. I think it’s too big a sell job. People are essentially wired to believe in something.
So even though there is the risk that mixing in a little truth will open their eyes to more truth, it’s easier to sell than an outright lie.
Besides, if you can mix in a little truth with the lie, then people can feel good about themselves and that is going to keep them from seeing their need for Christ. As long as people can be convinced that they are doing something towards their acquiring their own salvation, they will never give it up. It’s only when you reach the end of your self that you see your need for Christ.
Did you ever read C.S.Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters?
Some of the questions you have could be answered with what he writes.
CS Lewis says that, although I don't know if it's a quote of his or not. See previous post......
we are all sinners in need of a savior.
Groups again? Do you feel you are better than the groups you mentioned?
That's so far off the mark as to be ludicrous.
There are not *thousands* of Protestant denominations to begin with. that has been debunked so many times that it's not funny, but I guess that never stopped anyone from buying the party line.
The other thing is, true believers in Christ do not identify with denominations because their identity is IN CHRIST, not in the church they attend on Sunday morning for worship, who whom they choose to affiliate with.
denominations don't save and if someone thinks they do, they're not saved because they're not trusting Christ.
I don't think the church I attend has it all right and everyone else is wrong and I doubt that there's a Protestant here that does. We left our Catholic upbringing behind us with the us vs them mentality.
And I don't think that every other denomination is wrong either. There are plenty of Protestant churches I could attend because I agree with their doctrinal positions on the critical areas, but instead of church hopping every Sunday, we picked one to attend, but that does not mean that by default, we think all the others are wrong.
Me too.
I’m in....
“That leaves the tribulation saints. And that is focused on the Nation of Israel. So they miss out there, too.”
Rvelation says a multitude from every tribe and nation will be killed for refusing to take the mark...so it isn’t just Israel.
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.