Posted on 05/30/2014 10:23:23 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
I guess THIS could be why Catholics tend to IGNORE the LETTER found in Acts 15.
The Jews certainly NEVER taught the lamb meat and the wine EVER changed into the body and blood of the Messiah to come.
Catholics are choosing to die on a very small hillock.
Are you willing to ALSO accept OTHER things these 'early Christians' thought?
In for a penny; in for a pound...
SHOULD be?
How nice!
"Search for the truth. I tell you things and I always ask you to verify what I say. I told you yesterday that there was an attack and a retreat at Saddam's airport."
A Catholic being accused of child molestation is common news these days, but what IS news is when a Protestant is accused of the same thing; for it allows a LOOK OVER THERE moment.
And BOTH Catholics and Protestants have this in common.
Protestants think Catholics waste time with their extra stuff found in it’s interpretation of Scripture.
Catholics think Protestants are in GRAVE danger if they don’t not engage in the things THEY think are important.
oops....wrong again.
It is sad to see the way the Sacred Scriptures are contorted to fit the traditions of men. With the gift of Faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that comes from union with Jesus Christ and with his Mystical Body the Church, the meaning of the Sacred Scriptures is manifest. It is not a struggle to understand most passages. Many private interpretations that come from the sola scripture crowd as just plain off, their only rule of Faith fails them.
If a patient ignores the divine Physician’s advice or refuses to take the prescribed regime or medicine, what will become of him? Maybe he will get better, or maybe he will die? But would it not be better and faster and surer to follow Him, to listen to His voice, to be one flock, one shepherd?
That looks like an unattributed cut and paste...
Mangling and twisting and trying to make St. Paul’s words into something they are not does not change them. Paul was very specific about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. A could give a rats patootie what some protestant “theologian” thinks about scripture. I look to the Church fathers for my guidance on scripture, starting with Paul, and not a one of them thought Jesus was speaking symbolically at the Last Supper. So finally, between the Catholics and Orthodox churches, over half the Christians on earth believe in the Real Presence. These two ancient Christians faiths, that have been around since the days of Christ. The disbelievers are outnumbered for a reason and it’s about time they accept reality.
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
How is this a basis for your assurance of Truth? Are you saying that it is based upon your examination of history? If so, don't forget to leave out that even by the early 4th century you have a pope enlisting a murderous mob in securing his seat over his rival candidate. None were even elected by the method that was used for the only apostolic successor in Scripture (which was to maintain the original number).
There are SEVEN rules of Faith, papal authority and the Sacred Scriptures are only two.
Which proves what? This answer is one more example of superficial RC thinking. What is the basis for your assurance that these rules are true, and that Rome is the one true infallible church?
I suppose if the See of Peter ever taught anything infallibly regarding Faith or Morals, and it was found later to be blatantly false, then even one example would suffice to discredit the notion that the bishop elevated to the office of the papacy has special guidance from the Holy Spirit, more so than any of the other successors of the apostles.
This applies not only to the pope, but to all infallible conciliar teachings as well. Yet do you even have an infallible list of all infallible teachings? Meanwhile, of course it can be claimed that there is no contradictions, since Rome autocratically defines what a contradiction is!
One example of a papal infallibility is Unam Sanctam:
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
"If [some translations say “when"] therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, an authority on papal bulls and decrees” states on Unam Sanctam:
“This bull, then, was beyond all doubt an act ex cathedra... Whatever definition, therefore, is to be found in this bull is to be received as of faith." — Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1875. pg 57
Which is confirmed by the Fifth Lateran Council:
Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore...renew and give our approval to that constitution... Fifth Lateran CouncilSession 11, 19 December 1516, http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm
And Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus: ...all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff." Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (On The Care Of The Churches), Encyclical promulgated on April 8, 1862, # 3. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9AMANT2.HTM
And Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos:
"No one is found in the one Church of Christ, and no one perseveres in it, unless he acknowledges and accepts obediently the supreme authority of St. Peter and his legitimate successors." Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM
And the COUNCIL of FLORENCE
“nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”, and that the souls of those who depart this life “in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”(eph. mine) — https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36 http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38
Pius XII, Humani Generis (27,28): "Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation...These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons." http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
• Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium." Satis Cognitum (# 9): June 29, 1896: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html
Note that what is stated is such things as that all those who are "not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ." and that "subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation," and that no one is found in the one Church of Christ unless he "accepts obediently the supreme authority" of the pope, and that "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same," and that they are "outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium," and thus "nobody can be saved...even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”
Thus some RCs even exclude the EOs as being of the sheep of Christ, since
"The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." — .” Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135;
And which is not all they reject from Rome, but while it is a stretch to say they are "committed to Peter and to his successors" by being in "subjection to the Roman pontiff" who "accepts obediently the supreme authority" of the pope, much more is this requirement manifest as being a redefinition in V2 teaching and afterwards, in which it is asserted,
"..there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities…"
"They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood." — LUMEN GENTIUM: 16.
Dominus Iesus: " …those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.” “All who have been justified by Faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ: they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” — http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities [code for Prots] as means of salvation... — CCC 818.
How these can be considered to be brothers by the children of the Catholic Church, being in a certain communion, if imperfect, with the Church takes some imagination when salvation was said to require being in subjection to the pope and to have persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church," and "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same," and "no one is found in the one Church of Christ" unless he "accepts obediently the supreme authority" of the pope"? .
Thus an ambiguous statement was inserted by to placate the conservative element in V2, which states,
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?[335] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:…Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.[336] (RCC: 846; Lumen Gentium 14)
But which does not refer to those ignorant of Catholicism, (CCC 847) while to make this refer to all Prots who know of the claims of the Catholic Church but do not know they are true, as myself, is to basically make the broad statements meaningless which affirm baptized Prots as being born again brethren, in ecclesial communities which are means of salvation!
Thus it most reasonably must refer to those who actually see the claims of the Catholic Church as true, but rebellious refuse to admit it and submit (which many RCs seem to imagine us as doing).
But this V2 qualifier is not seen in the infallible absolute Extra ecclesiam nulla salus proclamation of Boniface VIII, which is not mitigated due to the historical context which provoked it, nor is this seen in the other historical statements listed which affirm it. Instead, the contrast remains an example of how Rome can redefine herself and avoid the charge of contradiction.
“So finally, between the Catholics and Orthodox churches, over half the Christians on earth believe in the Real Presence. “
And half of them or more seem to never attend church to partake in the “real presence.”
What good is that belief?
How strong is it?
Do they really believe it, if they don’t care?
Are they really Christians, if they never attend?
“participation” = fellowship in Greek
“A could give a rats patootie ...”
It always comforts me when someone advocating a false position is so familiar with the backside of a rat...
“I look to the Church fathers for my guidance on scripture,”
Since most of them were far longer than 100 years later, perhaps you might want to study the Scriptures themselves. It is part of “loving God with your whole mind”.
“not a one of them thought Jesus was speaking symbolically at the Last Supper.”
[Target rich environment]
And that doesn’t prove anything! They didn’t even agree with each other about many important topics!
“The disbelievers are outnumbered for a reason and it’s about time they accept reality.”
Disbelievers = Christ-followers who obey His command “to do this in memory of Me.”
Reality is your numbers are false.
Reality is your claims are false.
Reality is you have yet to provide proof for your Africa claims.
Where’s the beef??
You are confusing the grace which enables man to believe and have assurance, and the instrumental causes of it. The former is a given, and should not even be your answer to the question as to your basis for assurance of Truth, as in Scripture it is clear that this is provided. Thus the importance of the resurrection.
Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance [pistis] unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. (Act 17:31)
Whereof he hath given assurance (pistin paraschōn). Second aorist active participle of parechō, old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence. Note this old use of pistis as conviction or ground of confidence (Heb_11:1) like a note or title-deed, a conviction resting on solid basis of fact. All the other uses of pistis grow out of this one from peithō, to persuade. - WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENTby Archibald Thomas Robertson
What is prior, what is posterior, what is causal, what is an effect, these are all terms well understood by those who have a sound foundation in philosophy, logic, natural theology, metaphysics. But who has such an education today?
Seriously, this is a common sense thing, as appeal to evidence as providing a degree of evidential warrant for assurance of truth is very manifest in life and in Scripture.
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. (John 2:23)
And as shown, the widow women after Elijah had raised her son from death, "said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth." (1 Kings 17:24)
The presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is not subjective..
I said your feeling was subjective.
His presence in the Holy Eucharist is an objective truth. The Sacred Scriptures are most clear on this
Then is Scripture your basis for assurance that the Catholic interpretation (or decree) of what Scripture says is true?
This doctrine may be “too hard” for some, and they may not follow Jesus as a result.
It is indeed to hard to hold to if one will be consistent with Scripture, however for you to be consistent then, you must hold that those who deny Jn. 6:53,54 as literal can not be saved.
Ananias and Sapphira were slain for lying to the Holy Spirit about the gift they were giving in support of the body of Christ, the church. Peter tells them they could have done with their property whatever they liked. But instead they tried make themselves seem more generous than they really were. They told this lie to people belonging to the body of Christ, yet Peter says they lied to the Holy Spirit. A lie to make yourself look good is disrespect to the victims of your lie. The lesson of their death is that it is exceedingly dangerous to disrespect the body of Christ, whether the individual members of that body are rich or poor, mighty or of low estate, because you aren’t just messing with people; you are messing with the Bride of Christ, and He will have none of it.
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.