Posted on 02/05/2012 2:58:27 PM PST by marshmallow
Wait, you mean to tell me that the RCC has changed it’s doctrines over the years? Say it ain’t so! Bet they didn’t have their pointy hat and expensive shoes on when they said those things so it ain’t official.
Dave Hunt is an unreliable liar ,here is the historical facts.
DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html
excerpts
6. The tradition of the Church has always held that human life must be protected and favored from the beginning, just as at the various stages of its development. Opposing the morals of the Greco-Roman world, the Church of the first centuries insisted on the difference that exists on this point between those morals and Christian morals. In the Didache it is clearly said: “You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born.”[6] Athenagoras emphasizes that Christians consider as murderers those women who take medicines to procure an abortion; he condemns the killers of children, including those still living in their mother’s womb, “where they are already the object of the care of divine Providence.” Tertullian did not always perhaps use the same language; he nevertheless clearly affirms the essential principle: “To prevent birth is anticipated murder; it makes little difference whether one destroys a life already born or does away with it in its nascent stage. The one who will be a man is already one.”[8]
7. In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine - the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous. Among the many documents it is sufficient to recall certain ones. The first Council of Mainz in 847 reconsidered the penalties against abortion which had been established by preceding Councils. It decided that the most rigorous penance would be imposed “on women who procure the elimination of the fruit conceived in their womb.”[9] The Decree of Gratian reported the following words of Pope Stephen V: “That person is a murderer who causes to perish by abortion what has been conceived.”[10] St. Thomas, the Common Doctor of the Church, teaches that abortion is a grave sin against the natural law.” At the time of the Renaissance Pope Sixtus V condemned abortion with the greatest severity.[12] A century later, Innocent XI rejected the propositions of certain lax canonists who sought to excuse an abortion procured before the moment accepted by some as the moment of the spiritual animation of the new being.[13] In our days the recent Roman Pontiffs have proclaimed the same doctrine with the greatest clarity. Pius XI explicitly answered the most serious objections.[14] Pius XII clearly excluded all direct abortion, that is, abortion which is either an end or a means.[15] John XXIII recalled the teaching of the Fathers on the sacred character of life “which from its beginning demands the action of God the Creator.”[16] Most recently, the Second Vatican Council, presided over by Paul VI, has most severely condemned abortion: “Life must be safeguarded with extreme care from conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.”[17] The same Paul VI, speaking on this subject on many occasions, has not been afraid to declare that this teaching of the Church “has not changed and is unchangeable.”[18]
That's right ,but some people around here are google historians and internet theologians who believe whatever nut like Dave Hunt and others have to say to support their belief
So are you saying that the popes that were mentioned did NOT reverse previous popes positions? That Sixtus V, in his Bull of 1588 did NOT disagree with the previous pope? Then why the need to proclaim the previous pope’s position? And Sixtus V’s successor, Gregory XIV did NOT reverse the new decree of Sixtus V? And on and on? What about the 1621 Vatican issued pastoral directive permitting abortion up to 40 days? Are you saying that this is NOT real church history that CAN be proven to have happened? No matter how much you abhore the messenger as a “liar”, the message CAN be researched for accuracy. If one cares to find the truth of popes and their reversals on each other’s doctrines. And if these plainly stated facts are either true or they are a lie. And the author should be sued for slander. But if they are not lies, then the Catholic Church should own up to the truth. Shooting the messenger does NOT make the message a lie.
History is the enemy of the Church of the Individual. Snippets and charlatans are the preferred diet.
Hunt, and Dan Brown, hit a gold mine in some of these folks.
Ok, I think I get everything on the trailer but the dog bone with the tears?
10 Internet Bucks to whoever can translate that part.
You obviously meant the way the Catholics believe it with the literal flesh of Christ right? Here’s what Jesus said about things like that.
Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? "But this man, [Jesus] because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did ONCE, when he offered up himself." Hebrews 7:24-27, KJV
That is an innovative way of not dealing with proof. Something of a triumph, really.
Jesus said that his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink. Care to discuss that?
You obviously meant the way the Catholics believe it with the literal flesh of Christ right? Here’s what Jesus said about things like that.
Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? "But this man, [Jesus] because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did ONCE, when he offered up himself." Hebrews 7:24-27, KJV
That is an innovative way of not dealing with proof. Something of a triumph, really.
Jesus said that his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink. Care to discuss that?
Yep the odd views of a poster who claims that Catholics are idolaters, that those who celebrate Easter and Christmas are pagans and that claims that the idea of church on Sunday is a man made tradition and apparently not either Christian or Biblical. Given that this is the point of view from which you view the world, why should anyone not assume that you are a member of a "church of one"? If you actually belong to some whack-a-doodle trailer park sect that believes the odd nonsense you post, feel free to speak up. Until then, the assumption that you are alone in your particular heresies seems quite reasonable to me.
It was indeed tuff for non Catholics to survive since the RCC put most of them they could find to death but they did survive and finally with the invention of the printing press could get scripture into the hands of the lay people and expose the lies of the RCC. The evil of the RCC will once again reign after the rapture of the true church.
Another triumphant ignoring of history. More congratulations. The Latin branch was relatively small in size compared to the proportions that it is now. However, how many people did the entire Catholic Church (not just the Latin branch) put to death prior to Nicea?
Interesting statement. Let us compare free will Baptists and hardcore Calvinists, for example. Still make the claim?
It’s more convenient to attack another’s history if one has no history.
It’s more convenient to attack another church if one has no church.
It’s so convenient to be nothing, devoid of history, attacking others at will, invisible behind one’s keyboard.
If only this convenience conferred credibility. Alas..
Hey! That’s a Catholic bus! Look at the cross on the sword! I know a lot of the hippies in the 60s were Catholic.
An aversion to crosses is a telltale sign of a Vampire Cult.
:)
“Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of' the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, “from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice” as John also declares in the Apocalypse: “The incense is the prayers of the saints.” Then again, Paul exhorts us “to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” And again, “Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.” Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God “in spirit and in truth.” And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom.” -Irenaeus, Fragments of the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, Fragment XXXVII
“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,-of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle...Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.” -Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 1.6
Origen also seems to have it right.
“For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery.” -Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.19
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Ezek 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go speak unto the house of Israel. 2 So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that scroll. 3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.
Jer 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.
1 Corinthians 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
We can’t stop Catholics from assuming. They assume Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. They assume the Pope is infallible. They assume Mary is the queen of heaven, and they assume they can talk to ceramic statue and get results.
The Church all along was against abortion from conception ,anything that anyone said afterwards means nothing since dogma can never change. There is no authentic record of what Dave Hunt is even saying that states the Church changed its position . Hunt is a liar.
I wasn't arguing FOR the Calvinist position, remember? It would be better for someone who holds to that view to speak about it as I only gave my impression of what I have understood it to be. I don't claim infallibility. :o)
However, whether one comes to saving faith in Jesus Christ because he is moved by the irresistible grace of God or by his own response to that grace, the saving factor is STILL faith. That was my point. Those who are saved become saved when they, by faith, receive God's gift of eternal life through Christ. At that moment, they are sealed with the indwelling Holy Spirit and born again into the family of God. Now, God already knows all those who are going to receive him BEFORE we even existed, right? It does not change the nature of God at all because he is sovereign over all and nothing happens that is outside of his will, otherwise, that WOULD change the nature of God and would make him dependent upon his creation in order to fulfill his perfect will. Again, I do not come down straight on one side or the other in the predestination/free will debate. I accept that it is outside of my ability to fully grasp. It does not change, though, my belief that God is in control, that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose and he is the author and finisher of my faith.
For salvation by election, that's analogous to shooting someone in the chest and saying the dying factor was heart failure.
In Calvinist predestination, whether one will be saved, have faith, is determined, before they are born. If elect, they will have it, if not, not. Faith is a completely dependent cause, completely conditional upon election.
This is *quite* a different God, more akin to the ancient's Fate, than Christ. And quite a different man, with no choice, no decision to love, or to hate; with no ability to choose, no responsibility for choosing. Therefore, there is quite a different relationship between this 'god' and this 'man.'
I accept that it is outside of my ability to fully grasp.
Certainly, I agree we cannot fully grasp it. However, we can recognize when theology has gone to such an extreme as above. We can know that, however one gets there, it is a destination in error.
I've sometimes said: God is omnipotent; He created man with free will; the rest is speculation. Lot's of room for speculation, but not to the point that denies either God's omnipotence or man's free will as in full-blown (or is it bloom?) Calvinism.
The the point of discussion, Calvinism and Arminianism, both sola scriptura, arrive a very different theology and soteriolgy and all the rest.
thanks very much for your reply.
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.