Posted on 12/08/2012 2:24:39 PM PST by NYer
How do you know that? I do not worship a goddess; I venerate Mary and pray to her. Yes, she us a mortal human, -- that is the Catholic teaching.
It is generally a good idea to figure out what is it that you post about before you post. So, figure out what sainthood is, then post. Please. Both I and your readers are busy people and have no time for ignorant stupidities.
I learn my faith from the Holy Church, as Christ and his Holy Apostles tells me.
Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed [...] bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts Of Apostles 20:28)
It is generally a good idea to figure out something about the subject upon which you post, then make the post.
Huh?
pain is our friend
True.
Jesus was a fornicator? Who knew?
Your religion endorses it. Pederast priests who are never dealt with. Homosexuality within the priesthood. Annulments.
Don't whine at me about my *religion*.
I'll ask you the same questions I asked someone else....
Suppose someone made a satanist vow before becoming a Christian? Would you demand they remain a faithful satanist their entire lives simply because they took an oath or made a vow?
And of course, expecting the worst since it seems to be served up with regular predictability, the point is about making and breaking vows not about any comparisons between the two groups.
But I do not trust that someone will not try to make it about that to avoid answering the real question, which is, whether you would condemn someone for breaking a satanist vow or demand that they be held in bondage to that vow their entire lives? After all, a vow is a vow.
I agree with you that one cannot summarily accuse former Catholics of ignorance. It should depend on the post and specific instance of ignorance. This being said, I see plenty of it.
His "wife" left it hidden in a barrel. Neither was free to marry.
Really?
Surely the English Reformation started because Henry VIII could not keep his pants zipped; Luther supported bigamy too? Tell us more.
A human with Godlike powers which has no Scriptural support but is given by the RCC.
Right...
It is generally a good idea to figure out what is it that you post about before you post. So, figure out what sainthood is, then post. Please. Both I and your readers are busy people and have no time for ignorant stupidities.
I'm sure GeronL knows quite well what a saint is. Do YOU?
Scripturally, a saint is a believer in Christ. Not someone special the RCC has canonized, making the RCC respecters of persons, which is a sin according to the book of James, the Catholics favorite book of the Bible considering how much they quote it and defend it.
Vows to Satan are null; vows to Christ are not. This is true even if a vow is made outside a Catholic context. Thus, Protestant marriages are valid and one defecting from a marital or monastic obligation undertaken in a Protestant setting is committing a fornication, just as bad as Luther, your Founding Jerk.
Acts 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
Where is the Catholic church mentioned in that passage?
He was speaking to the elders at Ephesus here. (v 17)
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
There appears to be a significant difference in what Catholics refer to as *the faith* and *faith*.
*The Faith* is often used as to be interchangeable with Roman Catholicism.
Biblical faith is * the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen* (Heb 11:1)
And so, while you have to be taught Catholicism, the rest of the world comes to faith by hearing the Word of Christ.
Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
In St. Paul's usage, indeed we cannot discern a more narrow meaning. However, in the practice of the Church, saints are those who by their works of faith became an example of others; to them we direct intercessory prayers. They do not have godlike powers though. You can pray to anyone who dies a good death and you personally believe them to be in the company of Christ. The canonized saints are those who the Church believes to be a good example of faith to others, but you may pray to any saint, -- this is how veneration of any saint starts.
I learn my faith from the Holy Church, as Christ and his Holy Apostles tells me.
Acts 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
Where is the Catholic church mentioned in that passage?
He was speaking to the elders at Ephesus here. (v 17)
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
There appears to be a significant difference in what Catholics refer to as *the faith* and *faith*.
*The Faith* is often used as to be interchangeable with Roman Catholicism.
Biblical faith is * the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen* (Heb 11:1)
And so, while you have to be taught Catholicism, the rest of the world comes to faith in Christ by hearing the Word of Christ.
Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Not necessarily Roman, Catholicism as a whole, including the Eastern Orthodox. We can of course speak of Protestant faith, but it is a crippled remnant of the True Catholic Faith.
How very telling.
And what an indictment against the Catholic church.
They were saved, forgiven, new creatures in Christ, not subject to the bondage of this world any longer. They were free to do whatever they pleased, and if the Catholic church didn't or doesn't like it, it can go pound sand.
Catholicism ≠ Christ.
A vow to the Catholic church ≠ a vow to Christ.
Thus, Protestant marriages are valid and one defecting from a marital or monastic obligation undertaken in a Protestant setting is committing a fornication, just as bad as Luther, your Founding Jerk.
Luther isn't my founding anything.
Read this carefully and I'll type really slowly so you can maybe understand.
I . d o . n o t . f o l l o w . L u t h e r . o r . a n y . o t h e r . h u m a n . b e i n g.
H e . d i d . n o t . f o u n d . m y . c h u r c h . . . I . d o n ' t . k n o w . t h a t . h e . f o u n d e d . a n y . c h u r c h.
Why? A vow is a vow.
Besides, when the RCC makes people take vows, it is disobeying Jesus' own command thus invalidating the vow since the people did it in ignorance with deceit on the part of the Catholic church.
Matthew 5:36-38 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.
So just like any sin, in this case taking an oath, if they confess it, it is forgiven of them.
The RCC, claiming to be the representation of Christ on the earth, has no business demanding that people act in direct disobedience to the clear command of Christ. That is in essence, forcing people to sin because I can sure bet those people weren't told about Jesus' teaching on oaths or vows.
That means the vow was made under false pretenses and it invalidates it.
I’ll pray only to God as Jesus taught us, thank you.
No need to waste time praying to dead people who can’t help me in disobedience to Jesus’ teaching.
I sin enough. I don’t need to add more to it.
Thank you for your explanation, Salvation. A counter argument would necessarily be "If Jesus needed a pure womb to be pure, then so would have Mary."
However, your answer is the first time I've ever been given an answer to my question. Thank you very much for that.
And, since it is the first time I've received an answer, then I'll take time to reflect on it until I rely on a quick, brash response to a very well-meaning, longtime Christian FRiend.
Obviously what historical fact is being denied by you is that Luther was married, with both parties never having been married before, and which Scripturally was a marriage.
Thus your charge against them is technically adultery, but which presupposes physical adultery takes place when one denies a vow he made to stay single (Luther himself had been released from his Augustinian vows by Johann von Staupitz, as the head of the order, but that likely did not absolve him of his vow of chastity according to Rome).
(Also, contrary to the charge or inference that he left Rome in order to have sex are his writings prior to that in which he said at that time that he had no intent to marry, and which only occurred some years after his excommunication.)
Thus what we deny is that Luther and Kathrina were necessarily bound by the vows they made at that time. In Scripture vows that God confirms must be kept (but not a "Herod's vow"), yet religious vows made as an unbeliever are not necessarily binding, and as we see it both Luther and wife were no more born again when they made their vows than a Muslim is.
And as in Scripture lifelong vows of clerical celibacy are not required, and even if one marries after making a vow of celibacy then they are married, then the charge of fornication does not apply.
That they were living in adultery rests upon the premise that Rome has the power to bind such to celibacy, which premise is what we deny, and thus is the real issue.
I am typing this on a laptop which for me is even slower than normal, so i am being somewhat brief.
Fine. You go ahead and follow *the faith* (aka the Church) and I will follow Jesus through faith.
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.