Posted on 02/08/2015 3:28:55 PM PST by RnMomof7
So Tery...
Are your above popes listed going to HELL or not?
Why don’t CATHOLICS ever get called out for bickering?
Uh; they don't advertise or brag?
Not to be confused with the MORMON word: Telestial.
HEAVEN-The Mormon church teaches there are three levels of heaven (three "degrees of glory"):
All roads lead to Rome...
bttt
Jeff, I didn’t either. I’m an ex-Protestant who was brought to the Catholic Church by Bible reading, especially through the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John and the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.
That's a keeper and I am.
There are also these questions that remain unanswered...
Which body is it participating in the sacrifice of?
His old body that died and was buried?
Or His new resurrected body?
WOW...so do I...where on Earth can I get such a book and who brought us this book through the centuries since it was written?????? Oh, wait a minute...it was those darned Catholics.........sigh.
And so even if it was true that RCs wrote the Bible - which it is not as they manifestly were not RCs - the logical argument is what? That we are to assent to the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ? If that is not it, then what import does this assertion have, which we often see❔ 😩
And if knowing what the Bible consists of is so critical, then why did RCs not know for sure what the entire canon consisted of until after Luther's death❔, unless an infallible magisterium is not essential for that, contrary to what RCs say. And if personal interpretation of Scripture is to be censored they way it often is by RCs toward Prots, then why have hardly any texts been infallibly interpreted by Rome, or an official unchanging commentary on Scripture been provided, leaving RCs a great deal of library instead to interpret Scripture within the parameters of RC teaching❓
And do you agree with the bishops choice of the NAB was the Bible for America? If not, must you engage in interpretation to know what is right, while telling us to look to your One True Church® for sure guidance? Or what class of teaching is that restricted to that does not require you to engage in interpretation of what they are or mean
Placemarker
Every time a religious leader is called “father” and does not correct the one who said it, glory and honor are usurped from our Father in Heaven.
It is one thing to acknowledge the role of the Catholic church, both the Roman and EOs, in preserving the text of the Bible, but it is another thing to assert the authors were Catholic, and or that even being the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ renders them the infallible interpreters of it, or otherwise of possessing ensured perpetual superior veracity.
It is one thing to love your church, 💒, and another to ascribe an attribute of deity to it, above that which is written. 😦
I doubt they are taught Arthur. If they were there wouldn’t by so many following those weak priests who still offer blood sacrifices daily.
If you meant no infallible, indisputable canon, then that is true .
Recalls this from Jesus:
"So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’”—Luke 17:10
A good antidote for seeking praise from men. We have only done our DUTY.
Of course with God there is no past or future, but Divine revelation relates to us in this real of time, and uses the term "eternal/everlasting" in distinction to it. And thus use God inhabiting eternity to justify a one time event as happening continually makes a mockery of Divine revelation, and the Lord's supper, which itself has a time limit.
Consistent with your recourse, ever event from creation to the birth of Christ to His second coming as well as the Lord's supper will be literally taking place for ever.
Instead, the Lord's supper is a commemoration of the Lord's death in which the church is to remember how the Lord's body was broken and His sinless blood poured out for them as a body, and which sacrifice the elements represent, and thus declare/proclaim His death for the body of Christ by manifesting that caring love for each other as being part of that blood-bought body in sharing food during that actual communal meal.
Which is what the only detailed description of it in the life of the church teaches . (1Cor. 11:20-34) And thus by going ahead and eating while others had none, shaming them that had not and were hungry, then the apostle said they were not actually coming together to eat the Lord's supper, but their own. Thus they were to come to fill their belly, but to effectually recognize each other as being part of that body for whom Christ died, which is the body that was the focus here, and in the next chapters.
Indeed. As unprofitable servants.
Interesting - “It is finished” was the battle cry of a field general as he declared victory at the completion of the battle. And as I read it, Jesus refused the wine at the cross. The fourth cup is the cup of redemption, and he did not drink of it until after the resurrection.
At least, that’s the way I read it.
Thanks,
Jesus said: Let your light shine before men.
Why don't you take the words of Jesus seriously?
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.