Posted on 03/18/2013 9:17:42 AM PDT by marshmallow
Catholic Hispanics will never become as conservative and pro-life as Protestant Hispanics, but every little bit helps.
But, the real question is, "Where does real faith come from if the fake stuff is no good?" Here, Paul can help.
"For by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, that no one hop up and down and say 'See the RCC has got it right, you do have to work to be saved!'" Okay, part of that is a paraphrase.
But, don't try the old dead gender argument. Clearly, Paul is simply saying everything about salvation is a gift from God, not from some kind of transaction. The RCC has made it a transaction. Read Rom. 9 very carefully, my FRiend. Paul knows the claims of those who like to say they control their (and others) destiny.
Define “Catholic Hispanics” and “Protestant Hispanics.”
If you mean those who immigrated from anti-clerical Latin-American nations, regardless of religious affinity compared to those who are enculturated into and remain enculturated into Southern-style, white-led evangelical Christianity, you are correct.
If you mean those who were significantly catechized and participate routinely in the sacraments, compared to those who reject the authority of the Catholic church based on Protestant rationales, you are wrong.
Much of Latin America is very poorly catechized: Priest-to-Congregant ratios are less than one-fifth the European model, and frequently less than one-tenth. The nations are called “Catholic” because they were simply officially declared so, and the peoples baptized without true conversion or even evangelization. US-funded anti-clerical regimes typically placed great difficulties on providing adequate priests; the US-backed Mexican Revolution led to the deaths of 20,000 Mexican priests, nuns and Catechists. Those who emigrate to the United States often represent the poorest catechized, and those from the weakest family backgrounds (otherwise they wouldn’t leave their families and communities behind to break our laws).
Many non-Christian churches have had great success among the poorly catechized of Brazil and other cultures. These churches are typically called “Protestant,” “Evangelical” or “Pentecostalist” by triumphantist Protestants, evangelicals or Pentacostalist, but frequently involve paganism, worshipping of demons, or anti-Christ-like cult leaders. In many cases, the adherents quit Catholicism precisely because during the Post-Vatican evangelization of Latin America, the church leaders finally had the personnel to impose a rejection of syncretic and superstitious faiths.
(Many Protestants characterize such superstitions as if they were part of teh Catholic Church. In fact, they are pre-Christian traditions which persisted because the Catholic Church lacked the missionaries to convert people away from them.)
For these reasons, I’d been posting here and on other fora not to be surprised if the recent elections did not result in a South-American priest; the pool of candidates to be pope (that is, priests) is much smaller (26%) than the overall population (58%).
Catholic Hispanics will never become as conservative and pro-life as Protestant Hispanics, but every little bit helps.
Pro-lifers may never win the Catholic vote again as it is so supportive of the democrat party, but it is possible that it could happen once or twice more.
Guess you're talking about me, then. I was baptized as an infant into the Roman Catholic Church and had first holy communion and confirmation, even went to Catholic grade school a number of years. I rejected the false doctrines of the Catholic Church when I heard the Gospel as spoken of in John 10:27-30, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." I don't seek the abolition of the Catholic Church, just the salvation of all those who diligently seek to know Christ.
Just reading those few verses convinced me that I was in the wrong church (the Holy Spirit opened my eyes). I received the gift of eternal life which was given to me by the grace of God through faith in Christ. So, according to the Catholic dogma, I'm a lost cause unless I repent and return to Catholicism before I die. But according to God, I am his born-again child of faith. Do you need to guess which one really matters to me? Salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, NOT through the Catholic Church. The church cannot save anyone, but the TRUE church is made up of all believers in Christ and He knows His sheep and they know Him.
LOL!
Friend, I have COMMENTARIES WRITTEN BY LUTHER ON THOSE BOOKS!
I suggest you walk out of the echo chamber and read what he wrote. I don’t expect you to agree, but you would look less like a fool.
Nothing could be added to, or taken away from, this very straightforward, and truthful expression of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thank you, my FRiend.
Amen, Sister!
Catholic dogma vs God’s word? The Catholic Church vs HIS church of believers?
God IS prevailing as testaments like yours continually demonstrate.
Joshua 24:14-24
Choose You This Day Whom Ye Will Serve,
But As For Me And My House We Will Serve The Lord
Oh my goodness! You have a commentary! Well, I guess that settles that.
Luther: Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God.
Catholic Church: Right there. Hebrews. Maccabees. Revelation. 2 Peter. James. Wisdom.
Luther: Oh, not THOSE books. Those books don’t count.
“Did you not notice John wrote such things as, “Yea, verily I tell you this: unless you eat of my body and drink of my flesh, you shall not have life within you?” “
And, apparently, you’re unfamiliar with Christ’s explanation:
Joh 6:61-63 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? (62) What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? (63) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
“Or, “He who believes in me will do the things the Father has commanded him?””
So why must it be Roman works, instead of the ones that all Christians do as a result of their regeneration?
The idea that carnal Roman rituals can actually have an effect on the spirit, when salvation is by the direct hand of God, is simply absurd.
“Do you believe that the Epistle of St. James is the bible or not? Because St. James wrote, “Even demons believe that God is One, and they shudder. Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; And so the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” And so he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.””
So what is the fulfillment of the law, according to James?
Jas 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well.
It certainly is not Popery. No grand commandments to knee before the Priest, or take the wafer, or go to confession, or pray the hail Mary, for to save your soul. And does James really contradict Paul, who says that we are saved by grace, and not by the works of the law?
Here is what Paul says:
Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Again, using the same example of James:
Rom 4:2-5 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. (3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
And here is James:
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Would James utterly contradict Paul? God forbid, for the scripture cannot be broken. James is speaking to Christians, regarding proper Christian conduct. His issue is not with faith, but with Saving Faith and mere sentiments of religion. Those who are born again, filled with the Holy Spirit, show their faith by their works:
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Thus, saving faith is faith which leads to good works, but the works themselves do not save. Otherwise, the thief on the cross would be damned. Cornelius, who was not a Christian previously and had not even been baptized, was filled and baptized by the Holy Ghost:
Act 10:44-47 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Salvation, itself, has nothing to do with the human will at all. It is the work of God, who draws us, and makes us who we are.
Joh_15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
2Ti_1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Not according to our works, but according to HIS purpose, given to us before the world began. This is not something won through Roman obedience to dead rituals, but is the gift of God:
Rom 8:29-33 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (30) Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (31) What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? (32) He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? (33) Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.
Note that all who are predesinated, God calls. All who are called, God justifies. Whom God justifies, He glorifies.
Rom 9:14-16 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. (15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Key phrase, not of him that WILLETH, or even he who runneth, but God who sheweth mercy.
Joh_6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
“Catholic Church: Right there. Hebrews. Maccabees. Revelation. 2 Peter. James. Wisdom.
Luther: Oh, not THOSE books. Those books don’t count.”
Maccabees is not in the canon of scripture. According to Pope Gregory the First:
“Concerning which thing we do nothing irregularly, if we adduce a testimony from the books, which although not canonical are published for the edification of the people. For Eleazar wounding an elephant in battle, slew him, but fell under him whom he had destroyed.” — Morals, book 19, on 39th chap, of Job.
Same thing for Wisdom, according to Jerome:
“But you must know that there are other books, which are not canonical, but were called by the ancients ecclesiastical, that is to say, the book of Wisdom, which is said to be Solomon’s, and the other Wisdom, which is said to be the son of Sirach’s, which book is called by the Latins by the general name of Ecclesiasticus, by which name not the author of the book, but the nature of the writing is declared. Of the same class is the book of Tobit, and Judith, and the books of Maccabees. And in the New Testament the book of the Shepherd, or Hermes, which is called the two roads, or the judgment of Peter, all of which they have thought fit to be read in the churches, but not to be brought forward for the confirmation of the faith. — Symbol of Ruffinus, vol. 9, p. 186.
“Whatsoever is without these, is to be placed among the Apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly called the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.” — Preface to the Book of Kings, vol. 3, book 24.
And Athanasius:
“All the Scriptures of us Christians are inspired. And there are riot innumerable books, but on the contrary the books are defined and in cluded in a canon, and these are the books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judge*, Ruth, the first and second of Kings, the third and fourth of Kings, the first and second of Chronicles, the first and second of Ezra, the Psalter of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Twelve Prophets, Amos, Micaiah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habukkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zacha- riah, Malachi. These twelve are in one book. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. There are other books of the Old Testament be sides these, which are not canonical. The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias. These are not canonical.” — Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures. (Paris, 1627.)
Those other books are fine. And none of them are a Papist’s friend.
Yes, I have what he said about those books (which he admitted to not liking as much as others), as opposed to the various black legends floating around.
Pope Gregory was not condemning the Book of Maccabees.
Saint Jerome was describing the beliefs of the Jews. He called those who accused him of holding those beliefs personally, “fools and slanderers.” If, as Protestants argue without evidence, he insisted he was misinterpreted only for fear of being considered a heretic by the Catholic church, that only all the more establishes that the Catholic church permitted no dissent on the books of the canon.
Athanasius included among his list of books not to be read, the Book of Esther, but includes as canonical the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah. His canon is not the Catholic canon, but is neither the Protestant canon.
The truth is that for hundreds of years, the canon of the Old Testament was volatile. But for more than 1000 years, the first and second Book of Maccabees was published in every bible, and every Church, Roman or Orthodox, or Oriental, or Coptic, or Thomistic included them.
The only grain of truth to the notion that the Catholic Church “added” books to the bible at the Council of Trent is this:
Certain churches used the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (in Greek, a single book called Esdras.) Others used a shortened version of Esdras, redacted in Greek, which became known as Greek Esdras. The Council of Trent found that there was nothing doctrinal to be found in the Greek Esdras that was not found in Ezra and Nehemiah, so did not include Greek Esdras separately as a book which must be defended as a source of doctrine.
Pope Gregory said Maccabees is not canonical. Saint Jerome said they are not canonical, and said that the CHURCH did not use them for the confirmation of the faith. No mention of the jews. Your quote of Jerome applied to an abuse in a statement of his preface in Daniel. My quotes are two separate ones. That Athanasius did not share the Catholic canon, and was more protestant than Catholic, was the point.
Fact is, there was never any question of Maccabees, insomuch that it itself tells us it is not an inspired work. Why not take it at its word? Same for Wisdom, which contradicts the scripture no one doubts. Josephus said that only 22 books made up the canon, and all the others are not due to the failure of the succession of prophets. Those who study it for themselves are of a greater value than a thousand dead Roman assertions.
You can repeat yourself all you want about St. Jerome and Pope St. Gregory. Doesn’t make it true.
As for Athanasius being Protestant: LOL!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! OK, his canon was wrong, but it wasn’t the Protestant canon, either. Have you ever read Athanasius?
He’s perhaps most noted for promulgating the Council of Nicea, promoting monasticism, founding a rule of bishops, etc. The notion that he might be a Protestant just means you’ve never read a single thing he’s ever written, or anything about him, or his culture.
Oh, and your little tidbit about the Book of Daniel? The problem is that Jerome specifically mentions the portions of the Book of Daniel that are rejected by Protestants. Here’s the full quote:
What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn’t relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us
Also:
Also, he writes: “Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’” Not according to you; that’s Sirach he’s not only calling scripture, but using to base a doctrinal assertion on.
He also calls Baruch a prophet: “I would cite the words of the psalmist: ‘the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel ‘I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] And those of Baruch ,’Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] And many other proclamations made by the trumpet of such prophets.”
In fact, dozens of times, Jerome cites as scripture — and bases theological arguments on — the deuterocanonical books. So why refer solely to the portions of Daniel than Luther left on the cutting room floor? Because those were specifically the ones he was charged with considering non-canonical.
None of this however, justifies Luther’s rejection of the other books I’ve mentioned, but serves only as a distraction from the larger point.
Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean language, it is counted among the historical books. But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was forcibly restrained, I have given a single night's work, translating according to sense rather than verbatim.So when Protestants cite his preface to Wisdom as if he regards it as nonscriptural, how can they ignore that he just defended, in the very same work, Judith as scriptural?
As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church."Simple: he's already explained that "among the canonical Scriptures" refers to the books that the JEWS consider canonical. When he says, "not to give authority to doctrines of the Church," he's referring to arguing with Jews: No point telling the Jews, "See? Your scriptures affirm Christianity" when the Jews don't recognize such scripture!
Now, it's true that, out of context of the introduction to Judith, you could read what he says as suggesting that the Church considers them non-scriptural. That's why Jerome had to address accusations made against him that he considered them non-scriptural. But consider the bitterness with which he denies the accusation ("fools and slanderers") as your hint of how firmly the Church rejected any dissent.
Must you trouble me with irrelevant and nonsensical comments? Jerome’s words I provided are not from Daniel, nor do they touch on them. This is the second time you attributed my quotes as from Daniel, when the references on the canon are from two different works. Why you accuse me of an argument I have not provided, I suppose, is the only way you can get out of it. And, aye, I need not repeat them; their words stand on their own. Evidently, you project your repititious nature on me. As for the silly comment on Athanasius, I said his canon was more protestant than catholic. Do take the time to read my posts before barking.
A spurious and wishful argument in the third post. It says the church does not read them as canonical, and the church themselves does not put them forward as a confirmation of the faith, though they do use them for edification. My quotes are from the Symbol and the preface for Kings. What would something in the preface of Judith matter? The Jews have nothing whatever to do with his statements therein, and you have to ignore the actual wording to do it. As for Baruch, many church fathers quote all sorts of works. It does not change that he called them noncanonical.
“The Catholic belief is that all salvation comes through the Catholic church. “
No; the Catholic belief has always been more specific, i.e., “there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church”.
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.