Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

reformation21 ^ | April 2012 | Carl Trueman

[Elsie]

She contradicted me directly thereby calling me a liar.

You may contradict me all you want; and I won't think you are calling me a liar.

Just make sure you have a handful of facts.

[metmom]

Only because of 1 Corinthians 1:26-29.

[LurkingSince'98]

Do Holy people worship dead bodies on display?

Maybe you missed my post on the topic:

If ANY Catholic EVER worships ANYONE other than the three persons of the TRINITY they are automatically EXCOMMUNICATED Latae sententiae.

Latae sententiae is a Latin phrase, meaning “sentence (already) passed”, used in the canon law of the Catholic Church.

A latae sententiae penalty is one that follows ipso facto or automatically, by force of the law itself, when a law is contravened; a penalty that binds a guilty party only after it has been imposed on the person is known as a ferendae sententiae (meaning “sentence to be passed”) penalty.[1]

The Code of Canon Law, which binds Catholics of the Latin Church, inflicts latae sententiae censures for certain forbidden actions. Worshiping anyone other than the trinity does it.

Now I have said it multiple times, so if you have read that and still repeat the lie - then why?

Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam

[Gamecock]

Out darned spot, out I say… .

[LurkingSince'98]

nice snark.

BTW what do you say to all the protestants who are going through RCIA right now to enter the Catholic Church.

are they escaping protestantism or they just not protesting anymore?

AMDG

[Karl Spooner]

Mow how many times do I have to post the picture of the Pope worshiping Mary? Why do you ignore them?

[LurkingSince'98]

you may have lived in a Catholic neighborhood, but you obviously never attended a Catholic Mass, because if you did you would know it is all Scriptural.

I believe, nearly 80% of the Old and New Testaments are read at daily Mass over a period of three years. This is a hold-over from the first centuries when no one had any bible at all so whatever they know they heard in Church.

I wouldn’t know since I have never been to a protestant service, however, I have been told by protestants that there is more Scripture in a Catholic Mass than they hear from their preacher or pastor on any given Sunday.

Now if you actually go to a Church on the Lords day, your particular mileage may vary.

For The Greater Glory of God

[LurkingSince'98]

Prayer is not Worship, well maybe for a protestant since it is all they know but not to a Catholic.

and since this will be the second time I am posting the same thing in the same thread I will say goodbye.

I believe the problem originates from what I have been told by protestants I trust who have told me that prayer is worship and worship is prayer so if you are praying to Mary you are in fact worshiping her.

However, if protestants have only one kind of prayer, which is always ‘worship’; it should be fairly obvious that is the catch.

Because for a Catholic there at least seven distinct types of prayer that I am aware of and probably others I am not.

Distinct Catholic Prayer Types:

1) Adoration - as I understand it equivalent to a protestant’s worship;

2) Contrition - a prayer of sorrow and repentance;

3) Thanksgiving - such as saying grace before meals;

4) Supplication - a request for strength, healing or help;

5) Meditation - prayer for understanding a particularly deep aspect of Christ’s life - like the Agony in the garden;

6) Contemplation - a prayer state of being open to hearing the words of the Holy Spirit; and

7) lectio divinia - a very slow, deliberate contemplation on a scriptural passage or passages.

My Prayer for today Wednesday:

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

My Lord and My God, how truly wonderful and glorious you are, I adore you with profound reverence.

Forgive me for my transgressions and weaknesses of this day, as I am sorry for how they hurt you, since you have suffered so much for me when I have so much trouble making my sacrifices for you during Lent.

Thank you for all the gifts you have bestowed on me and my family, I am forever in awe of the insights you provide to me in my work that enable me to do your work.

I ask for for the grace to better serve my family better especially my wife and daughter and for the understanding of other folks point of view.

Glory be to the Father and The Son and the holy Spirit as it is now and ever shall be world without end, Amen.

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

For the Greater Glory of God

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies

[Karl Spooner]

what was wrong with 588?

[Religion Moderator]

You accused the other poster of dishonesty.

Do not accuse another Freeper of telling a lie (or repeating a lie) - it attributes motive, the intent to deceive. It is a form of "making it personal."

Words such as "false" "wrong" "error" do not attribute motive.

Also, do not assume that because another Freeper contradicts you that he is calling you a liar. That is "taking it personally." Posters who take things personally may have problems on "open" Religion Forum threads where their deeply held beliefs may be condemned. Such posters should ignore "open" RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled "prayer" "ecumenical" "devotional" or "caucus."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[LurkingSince'98]

hey KS

just repeat what you said so we can all have a look-see.

AMDG

[Karl Spooner]

Yes you win. You can call everyone a liar, but I get docked.

[Gamecock]

If it walks like a duck…

[Religion Moderator]

My warning was addressed to both of you and everyone else.

[LurkingSince'98]

but what did you actually say?

maybe you could rephrase it so we get the gist - that’s what I’ve been trying to do - without much success.

AMDG

[LurkingSince'98]

Point of order??

you said: “You accused the other poster of dishonesty.”

What do you think she did, blow kisses?

[Karl Spooner]

but what did you actually say?

Maybe the mod will say. I didn't mean to hurt anyone other to try to drift them to the truth.

[Religion Moderator]

I’ll restore 588 so you can see. It wasn’t as bad as some of the other posts accusing others of telling lies, but it was the first one I saw tonight.

[daniel1212]

Of course Salvation doesn't, -- no one is that ignorant.

Not ignorant to believe but perhaps as to what words can convey, but i provided the second option which she should have argued for if it was.

Surely nothing justifies the sleazy Protestant "highly favored".

They both simply use charitoō, and your opinion is just that, which also should make you even more opposed to the NABRE : "And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." Also here and here .

And the Jerusalem Bible : "He went in and said to her, 'Rejoice, you who enjoy God's favour! The Lord is with you.'" These are read far more than the Vulgate or the DRB.

In addition, an apologist with a bit more weight than you (Jimmy Akin states in response to a questioner:

I was watching EWTN earlier and it was mentioned that only two people in the New Testament are referred to as “full of grace” – Jesus (John 1:14) and Mary (Luke 1:28). Of course I thought this would be a really neat thing to mention to my Protestant friends (especially if we’re talking about Jesus and Mary being the New Adam and New Eve).

BUT I wanted to go beyond the English and examine the original Greek – but I don’t know a lot about Greek! So I have two twofold questions:

(1) does John 1:14 use kecharitomene as fully (pardon the pun) as Luke’s usage in 1:28 or does John 1:14 follow more closely to Acts 6:8 when Stephen is referred to as “full of grace and power”?

John 1:14 says that Jesus was plErEs charitos, which literally means "full of grace." (Those capital Es arepresent etas, so pronounce them like the e in "they"; the word is thus pronounced PLAY-RACE).

Luke 1:28 uses kecharitomene, which literally means "one who has been graced" or "woman who has been graced" (since the gender is female). It doesn't literally mean "full of grace," though that is defensible as a free translation.

Acts 6:8 refers to Stephen as plErEs charitos, so again it's literally "full of grace" and just the same as the description used of Jesus in John 1:14.

If it is the latter, (2) does that mean there really isn’t a literal “full of grace” parallel between Luke 1:28 and John 1:14 or can I find that literal parallel somewhere else in the New Testament?

Not that I'm aware of, and I'd almost certainly be aware of it if there were.

Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch Luke in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible affirm "graced," and use it to justify their theological interpretation: The Gospel of Luke could have described her with the words full of grace (Gk. pleres charitos) as he did of Stephen in Acts 6:8, yet here he uses a different expression (Gk. kecharitomene) that is even more revealing than the traditional rendering. . It indicates that God has already "graced" Mary previous to this point, making her a vessel who "has been" and "is now" filled with divine life.- http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=11460004&postcount=3

And she was, but it is the excess extrapolative attributions that go far above and beyond what is written that is the issue.

when a doctor of the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, his words are inspired by God..What sets the Holy Scripture apart from other teaching of the Magisterium is not that the Holy Scripture is the only inspired text, but that it is canonized by the Church to be inerrant and relate directly to the historical events surrounding Christ.

You also said in your next post,

The canonicity of scripture means that this is a material (1) directly related to the historical events surrounding Jesus Christ; (2) written by an apostle or a person equally connected to the person of Christ; (3) is inerrant; (4) was used in the Holy Liturgy of the Early Church.

Thus I see no distinction being made btwn the manner and level of Divine inspiration, but what sets them apart is its canoncity, content, authorship, inerrancy, use used in early Holy Liturgy, unless docs and prelates speaking on matters of faith and morals can be Divinely inspired and yet make errors.

What if any distinction do you see are regards any type and level of Divine inspiration of Scripture, and doctors and prelates of the church of Rome? And can you specify who some of these are if not popes, and the works you hold as being Divinely inspired (and thus binding i would assume)?

Infallibility of the Pope is different from both inspiration and canonicity as it pertains to the Pope's authority to settle disputes even among the bishops when the consensus is lacking.

But all you state is a functional difference, not any theological distinction btwn any type and level of Divine inspiration of Scripture and infallible statements, while the claimed charism of infallibility precludes errors.

Finally, it is a useful idiom do say instead of "inspired", "dictated by the Holy Ghost", but I am only aware of the expression used ex cathedra in Providentissimus Deus:

I was aware of what Providentissimus Deus states, which is why i asked, and thus in essence you were and making no real distinction btwn the Divine inspiration of Scripture and doctors, prelates (popes or including them) in speaking on faith and morals.

you do not even have a list of all infallible teachings

Of course not. This is akin to telling us when Christ will come again: not useful knowledge. Whether formally and canonically binding as dogma or not, any uttering of the Magisterium is to be met with serious attention, and if formulated as definitive, with obedience.

Hardly. The very requirement of obedience to that which is formulated as definitive makes a definitive list of what is definitive useful to say the least. Some way all encyclicals are infallible, others say no; some think Humanae Vitae is infallible, while the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops rejected it; some think some arguments behind infallible statements are infallible, while being uncertain the level of other magisterial teachings, and wonder what constitute "official teaching on many issues.

You exhibit the typical Protestant legalistic thinking that confuses the Holy Church with a police station.

Oh? It is RCs who present Rome as the police station and judge that solves the problem of interpretation, according as they interpret Scripture and Rome.