Posted on 09/14/2013 5:34:39 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Been there, even as a born again RC, and RCs being close to God in Holy Eucharist makes a mockery of being close to Jesus. What this so-called superstantial bread manifestly effects is perfunctory praise and deadness. And liberalism .
This so-called presence stands in profound contrast to being truly born again and having life in you, which does not and did not happen in Scripture by physically eating, but by repentant personal faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save damned and destitute sinners by His sinless shed blood. Glory be to God.
My brother-in-law, an oncologist, volunteers one day a month. They call it "hippie clinic"......
The absolute worse kind of heretics are former “Catholics”. Catholics brain-washed by holy rollers. So I say to you, you know the truth, you admitted it, but you now deny the truth. You’ll have some big time explaining to do when your time on earth is done.
You had the Fullness of the Faith, i.e., the Catholic Church, and turned away from it. I’ll say a special prayer for you at Mass.
“I do not know what the contention is about but that is a blessed story. God gives unmerited grace to sinners, as the future doc receives here”
But you don’t have to accept that grace. You can turn your back on God. God also gives us free will to do whatever we want to do. This is a beautiful story. How anyone can not see the beauty in it and the very Christian message is beyond me.
Pretty sure that the twerking chick got more hits.
It started a couple of years ago. All the Catholic hospitals in the Phoenix area divested when Obastardcare was passed. They knew they would be forced to provide "care" they consider an abomination.
It’s like a short Kdrama in Thai
Pure bombast. Asserting Rome is the supreme authority does not make her so, while even the premise that dissent from the magisterium, even if the steward of revelation, necessarily invalidates one is not Scriptural and is itself invalid.
You had the Fullness of the Faith, i.e., the Catholic Church,
I had what most RCs have, a form of religion but not the reality of a relationship with the risen Lord Jesus.
Your knowledge of the risen Christ is exactly what Catholics put in the Holy Bible, a Catholic document.
153. How do we know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ?
We know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ because it alone has the marks of the true Church.
154. What do we mean by the marks of the Church?
By the marks of the Church we mean certain clear signs by which all men can recognize it as the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.
(a) Jesus Christ willed that the true Church should have these marks, which would distinguish it from all false religions.
155. What are the chief marks of the Church?
The chief marks of the Church are four: It is one, holy, catholic or universal, and apostolic.
(a) Sacred Scripture teaches that the one true Church of Christ must have these marks.
(b) The marks of the Church are themselves an indication that God guides the Church.
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura2a.htm
That assertion is based upon the false premise that the Roman church is the church of the first century, despite its false gospel and such contrasts as an exalted infallible pope in Rome whom all the church looked, to clergy distinctively called "priests ," to praying to the departed , etc.
The chief marks of the Church are four: It is one, holy, catholic or universal, and apostolic.
All based upon Rome's circular reasoning that only her interpretation of tradition, history and Scripture is authoritative, while these claims are false, as
1. She is not holy, but regardless of official statements-, for faith is shown by what it does - what she effectually conveys is that faith in her can save even the nominal and very liberal (Teddy K type) RCs and which she mostly fosters, in overall relative contrast to evangelicals.
In addition are her unScriptural traditions of men, whom even worse, RCs wrest Scripture seeking to prove. 2. "Church" when used universally in Scripture, meant the whole "household of faith," despite its diversity, (Rv. 2,3) and at best Rome is only "one" as part of that one body, if indeed it may be called a church, vs a false religious system.
Unlike the apostolic church, she lacks the spiritual power to exercise discipline over all that she claims jurisdiction, and resorted to the unScriptural use of the sword of men to do so, including papal sanctioned torture and murder of theological dissidents.
And having lost that unholy use, then as said and shown, she mostly consists of liberals whom she treats as members in life and in death.
3, She is not apostolic, as she not does not have a proven unbroken succession of Peter and the 12, and fails of the qualifications of personal discipleship for such, (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12) and none where elected in accordance with the method use to replace Judas (Acts 1:26) - which prevented the politics usually involved in electing popes (making God to favor Italians - and which was to maintain the number of the original foundational twelve, ((Acts 1:15-25; Rv. 21:14; cf Eph. 2:20) and the only record we have of an apostolic successor (none for James on Acts 12:2)
And instead she has elected men who, like Judas, were immoral men before and during their reign, and not worthy to even be called members. Which believers are commanded to shun, (1Cor. 1:11) not elect as leaders (who thus would not be valid NT successors), as with those who preach a different gospel than Paul's, (Gal. 1:6-9) which Rome's church-centric gospel does with its infant regeneration by ritual upon proxy faith, and perfunctory professions and confidence in personal merit.
MOREOVER, what is ignored is that even if Rome was the steward of Divine revelation, and the inheritor of promises of God's presence and preservation, in addition of historical descent, then this neither requires assured infallibility or promises it, versus truth being established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
Matthew 16:15-17 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
It always amazes me how some regard the knowledge of Christ as if it could all be explained by a paper trail. And certainly God did leave us a paper trail. But anyone who knows the risen Christ does not know him primarily as a set of facts but as a person, and not because of a certain pedigree of records, but because the Father actively chose to reveal Himself to that individual, with an express denial that “flesh and blood,” i.e., human intermediaries, could take credit.
1Cor 3:4-7 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? [5] Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? [6] I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. [7] So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
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.