Posted on 01/03/2014 8:59:21 PM PST by matthewrobertolson
Protestants opposed contraception until the 1930 Lambeth Conference. After this, positions changed. So, did the Bible change, or did they?
The true church of God would not have perverted the gospel in the first place.
Well now you can KNOW they are and you read their very own recent platform resolutions. Does this mean you will now stop asserting, "The SBC embraces the murder of children as a moral choice in selective circumstances. Protestants must like murdering babies (in select circumstances of course)."? I hope so.
I don't know how you can defend one position of the Roman church while ignoring other positions clearly that are not Christian at all. Here is what is going on within your own Roman walls while you point out others have specks in their eye:
"Boston pastor praised by Cardinal O’Malley puts Holy Family on par with homosexual couples"
Shows the dishonesty of the research done by certain religious groups. How do we know this data was not reviewed and discarded for a convenient older statement? Sounds like the "research" MSNBC would conduct.
You mean something like a church knowing priests are raping little boys and teen boys and when confronted just move those priests to another parish? Yep, real reliable teachers of doctrine and scripture in no case. No one should ever trust them with their children or believe them.
“The true church of God would not have perverted the gospel in the first place.”
So why did Protestants do it? The Catholic Church never did.
“Well now you can KNOW they are ...”
No, I don’t know that. I have no reason to trust recent statements from the SBC because they are so contradictory from earlier statements showing the SBC to be unreliable and possibly even dishonest - which is a good bet since it is a Protestant sect.
“I don’t know how you can defend one position of the Roman church while ignoring other positions clearly that are not Christian at all.”
We have no “not Christian at all” positions on anything. It’s a logical impossibility.
“Here is what is going on within your own Roman walls while you point out others have specks in their eye:
“Boston pastor praised by Cardinal O’Malley puts Holy Family on par with homosexual couples”
So you mean you discovered a person who is messed up??? Shocker?! Stop the presses! Now, if and when he becomes a Church Council or a Pope and allows abortion like the SBC let me know. Until then he is nothing more than a mere man not acting in union with the Church whereas you could murder babies and be in complete communion with the SBC apparently (even if only at one time).
“You mean something like a church knowing priests are raping little boys and teen boys and when confronted just move those priests to another parish?”
Nope, not at all. There is a huge difference between the Church having very fallible people in it who do wrong things and a sect officially teaching that murdering babies is doctrinally okay.
If your sect’s pastor cheated on his wife, you would certainly denounce that sinful activity as wrong, right? How much worse would it be if he not only cheated on his wife, but taught from the pulpit is was doctrinally right to cheat on his wife and okay for you to do the same? The rape of children is disgusting. The covering up of it is disgusting. The official condoning of murdering children as doctrinally sound and moral- approving of the murdering of children - is worse. And that is exactly what a multitude of Protestant sects do OFFICIALLY.
“Yep, real reliable teachers of doctrine and scripture in no case. No one should ever trust them with their children or believe them.”
I wouldn’t trust a rapist either. The Church raped no one, however. The SBC supported the murder of children OFFICIALLY. can anyone in such body can be trusted?
You are spreading inaccuracies again. The SBC position was clearly spelled out by boatbums up thread.
So having Cardinals and bishops who promote homosexual “marriage” as on par with the Holy Family is your idea of a church practicing infallible doctrine?
Did you read the 2003 statement? If not please do so. Very interesting in what the SBC said about what they were straying from...the authority of God’s Written Word. So the SBC was following a tradition of men, a later council admitted it and went to scriptural authority. Kind of like Pope John Paul II apologizing for the Crusades.
“So having Cardinals and bishops who promote homosexual “marriage” as on par with the Holy Family is your idea of a church practicing infallible doctrine?”
A cardinal or bishop isn’t the Church, nor is he infallible.
“Did you read the 2003 statement?”
Yes.
“So the SBC was following a tradition of men,”
Protestantism is a tradition of men.
“Kind of like Pope John Paul II apologizing for the Crusades.”
He never apologized for the crusades. He apologized for excesses committed by crusaders. John Paul II would never apologize for the crusades but many stupid people - especially grossly misinformed twits on the internet - always say he did. I don’t get it.
Myth 7: Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades.
This is an odd myth, given that the pope was so roundly criticized for failing to apologize directly for the Crusades when he asked forgiveness from all those that Christians had unjustly harmed. It is true that John Paul recently apologized to the Greeks for the Fourth Crusade’s sack of Constantinople in 1204. But the pope at the time, Innocent III, expressed similar regret. That, too, was a tragic misfire that Innocent had done everything he could to avoid. http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/tmadden_crusademyths_feb05.asp
Sounds like an apology. But of course it was not an infallible decision.
So those thumbing their nose to doctrine and teachings of the church are not disciplined? If you don’t enforce the infallible rules then what good are they. That is like me saying a pot smoking soldier who beats his wife is not really in the Army, yet he has U.S. Army over his left breast pocket. Of course we bring the UCMJ on such a soldier for not adhering to Army standards and law. When is Rome going to remove this cardinal? Will he at least get a reprimand?
It was an apology on John Paul’s part. It just wasn’t what you claimed it to be.
“So those thumbing their nose to doctrine and teachings of the church are not disciplined?”
Often they’re not.
“If you don’t enforce the infallible rules then what good are they.”
What “infallible rules”? It amazes me how you just make things up out of thin air.
“That is like me saying a pot smoking soldier who beats his wife is not really in the Army, yet he has U.S. Army over his left breast pocket.”
Your analogy makes no sense. He might have simply picked the shirt up at an Army/Navy store. Do you think you can make an analogy that actually makes sense?
“Of course we bring the UCMJ on such a soldier for not adhering to Army standards and law.”
You do? Really? Every single time? So, all soldiers who beat their wives are caught and prosecuted? Every single one? And how many MPs, investigators and prosecutors does the US Army have? Care to guess how many police officers, investigators and prosecutors the entire Catholic Church has? A tiny, tiny handful. Again, your analogy complete fails.
“When is Rome going to remove this cardinal?”
Why remove the cardinal, when it is a priest who did something wrong? Can you even get your story straight?
“Will he at least get a reprimand?”
Ask his bishop.
What's this about how Catholics don't make a determination of anyone's spiritual condition?
Whatever happened to *Judge not....* and all every time some non-Catholic questions a Catholic's salvation, even though no Catholic is ever sure of their own salvation anyway.
Catholic priests and bishops do not follow their own church requirements for not serving communion to pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage congregants, be they lay parishioners of in the limelight politicians, and are more than happy to count them as members when wanting to brag about 1.2 billion strong.
Make all the excuses you want for that.
It's the epitome of hypocrisy.
Finish the quote. Matthew 7:1-2 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
Izzy did not express the slightest bit of sympathy on learning of the death of my child, or the slightest remorse for his cold callous remarks. On the other hand a number of others did and even apologized for him.
MY assessment if spot on. And if you agree with him...well that says quite a bit about you as well.
I will continue to pray for your soul.
this is my last post on the matter feel free to have the last word.
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.