Posted on 04/21/2015 3:46:42 PM PDT by JPII Be Not Afraid
Well, your data is well contradicted. Believe as you choose.
I suspect all the "contradictions" come from self-serving Catholic "authorities". If you can show me in the Scriptures a contradiction of my claims, I am listening. Are you? Come away from the propaganda line peddled by Rome, examine the Bible and notice the doctrines of sacerdotalism, papalism, sacramentalism, purgatory, absolution, Roman superiority, are simply not there. I'll believe what the Scriptures teach...you may believe what "you choose".
I have shown you repeated references, yet you choose to call them propaganda, etc. Every time you ask, I provide it, yet it contradicts your point of view, so you reject it.
Your line of argumentation is merely rejection. One basic example: the Bible didn’t organize itself, rather it was organized by the Catholic Church.
The Old Testament as it is known to Christians, already existed, and the Church decided the canonical books of the New Testament. In 397 AD, the New Testament was declared complete. This is verifiable by non-Catholic sources, yet you choose to disagree.
When I provide a Scripture reference and explanation, the complaint is that the interpretation is wrong, again, as it doesn’t suit your beliefs.
I don’t agree with you, but I treat you with dignity, as you are a child of God. I have asked God’s blessing be with you, and encouraged your spiritual journey.
None of those things have been reciprocated. Instead, it has been derision, condescension, and a general lack of basic respect.
When I encounter behavior of that sort, it appears neither as love nor charity.
I say these things as you may not be aware of how you are received. We are our own worst critics, but sometimes we fail to see how we are received. I will accept on face value you have real concern for Catholics.
Again, I will wish God’s blessings come upon you, most importantly, His peace. I pray you will continue to seek and cling to the Lord.
“No, I am saying that Mariolatry is an insidious part of Catholicism.”
Why did you SPECIFICALLY refer to me if your statement was not a reference to me?
I am very sorry that you feel my remarks are not delivered with respect and care. They are sent to you with the utmost in mind. But, no, you have not given me any Scriptural references to support your claims. And, what you may view as giving me "dignity", I view as simply giving the party line that "Rome is right because Rome says it is right." But, again, the Romanist organization is not the body of believers referred to in the Scriptures and its doctrines are not to be found in the Bible. Rome is a cult.
Your so-called "repeated references" have been from Catholic sources which is all that self-proving claims can do...but it all lacks authority. No, my FRiend, you have told me nothing except, as I said, Rome claims that Rome is right because Rome is right.
"When I encounter behavior of that sort, it appears neither as love nor charity."
When I encounter a stubborn claim to an unsupported, self-proving view, I find it tragic. With no Scriptural support for Rome's many claims and doctrines, yet holding to its insistence on enslaving folks with its guilt-laden pomposity, it causes me to fear for Rome's many victims.
You may be looking for "charity"...I am offering truth. If your child ran into the street, would you consider it more loving to grab them by the shoulder or whisper polite nothings? In reality I am far more caring than the RCs when I say, "Run, don't walk, from Rome. It is a darkened gathering of death and error with doctrines of demons."
Charity, comes from the Latin word, caritas. When ones speaks of caritas, it is opposed to eros, meaning physical love.
Dignity is rooted in man’s creation in the image and likeness of God. Dignity and charity go together, and when taken with the 4-10th Commandments, direct how we should treat each other.
It would not be charitable to allow a child to run in the street, for the simple reason it puts the child in mortal danger. We recognize the dignity of the child, as it is in the image and likeness of God, and seek to protect it.
Something yet to be discussed is what is the source of your beliefs and opinions. We all had to be taught about God, the Bible, and theology. As individuals, we accepted responsibility for ourselves to continue to learn.
When it comes to learning about God, for me, it has been experiential, academic, and self-taught (continued).
I have read and studied that which the Catholic Church proposes for belief. I have questioned these things, read some of the many works associated with teachings, and found them to meet an acceptable criteria for belief. Included, of course, is a lot of prayer, asking for the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.
As I am not a child, I don’t accept the “Because I told you so” line of reasoning. Coincidentally, that is not how the Church teaches. Belief in God, and in Catholicism are both reasonable, in that one can use reason to come to truths taught.
The truths taught about God came directly from Jesus himself, to the Apostles, and from the Apostles, written in the New Testament. The immediate successors to the Apostles also taught in both writing and orally, with many of their works surviving 2000 years.
Were it not for the organization and standardization of the New Testament, officially, by 393 AD, no one from thence could know what was true about Jesus and His teachings. Were it not for the Church choosing to include the epistles of Paul and Peter, or any of the other books, our knowledge of Christianity would be severely lacking. Additionally, had books of questionable value been added, then our views would also be skewed.
The Bible is the primary document in teaching of Christianity. While heresies and apostasy existed before the Reformation, they slipped away into history, as they lacked the Truth of God.
With the Reformation, people decided they would become cafeteria Christians, taking what they wanted and protesting what the didn’t from the Catholic Church. It became, and remains apparent, the first meaningful example of relativism. Each claimed objective truth contrary to the other, and all claimed, no matter what, the Catholic Church was wrong. Truth is binary, either something is true or it isn’t. If there is no authority, or objective truth, then any thing is game, and like modern atheists, the individual decides for themselves what is right and wrong.
So how does this relate to this thread? The good Bishop, seeking to protect his flock, at great personal risk from murderous Muslims (Boko Haram), while praying believed he received direction from God that people praying the Rosary would lead to the end of Boko Haram. This is very similar to what Pope Pius V did, in leading the Rosary during the Battle of Lepanto, in which the Ottoman fleet was beaten back.
Catholics hold the Rosary as a powerful prayer for two very simple reasons. The first is that method of prayer reflects upon the life of Christ, His Passion, and His ministry. Secondly, the prayers of the Rosary are based in Scripture. See the Angelic Salutation (Luke 1:28, and Luke 1:42), and the Lord’s Prayer.
It is the Catholic belief, as found in Luke 2:3-5, that Mary intercedes for people and then commands those for whom she intercedes to “Do whatever He tells you.” Mary is and always will be subservient to God, and as human, requiring salvation.
As one can see, the truth proposed for belief are both found in the Bible, (organized and codified by the Catholic Church) and also can be reasoned to. Should a person challenge or question a belief, one can read the Scripture, as well as the myriad of writings of the Patristics, etc., that elucidate any number of difficult passages. Additionally, there are any number of Biblical commentaries.
Any person with a well-formed conscience should feel guilt, when guilty. It is the proper response to offending God.
No person, at least in modern time, is or can be, forced to be Catholic. It would be immoral to attempt to do so. As preachers of the Gospel in both word and deed, the Church is not the work of the devil or demons. The Church can not proclaim the Jesus Christ, His love, mercy, and salvation while being a servant of the evil one (Matthew 12: 25-27).
As I understand your version of truth, it only stands in opposition. In that case, you can keep it.
May you always seek God’s wisdom, feeling and sharing His love.
So, we begin…
Many folks (even many evangelicals) believe the Scriptures are organized like a spiritual “encyclopedia”. You seem to hold a view similar to this. For example, you noted that, “Dignity and charity go together, and when taken with the 4-10th Commandments, direct how we should treat each other.”
This is an example of an encyclopedic hermeneutic. You were interested in good behavior, so you found an appearance of a directive and assumed that this is teaching us, “…how we should treat each other.”
This is, however, not how the Scriptures are organized. If you step back and take an “overview” of the Scriptures, you find they are organized much like an historical nove. That is, the real message, the true “Word of God” is an unfolding message delivered over thousands of years. Granted, Moses was the first “writer” (circa 1450BC) and John the likely last writer (circa 92AD), so we have the text created over 1500 years. But, the history over which the message is spread begins (for the most part) with Adam and extends to the end of the world.
If this conclusion is true, then it becomes important to “follow the story line”, to see what exactly is being delivered at what time. I often provide the following example of a historical novel when discussing this matter (assume this actually happened):
Bob loved Sally
Sally went out with Tom
Bob found out
Bob hated Sally
Question: Does Bob love Sally or hate Sally?
Answer: It depends on where in the story you are reading.
Can you see this important feature of a “story line”? If so, then you will appreciate that it makes a difference when the Decalogue (10 commandments) appears in the story. It also, then, follows that it depends on what is happening and to whom it is directed. In the Bible’s case, the 10 commandments are directed to the Jews.
In the story line (at the delivery of the Decalogue), the Jews had been selected to become a “chosen people” (by God to Abraham- Gen. 11), and (as we discover over their 18+ century history), they are on stage for all humanity to watch. From their inception (Abraham) to their removal from favor (after the cross of Christ), the Jews are the folks receiving the revelation of God. To be favored, they are they must obey God. The Jews sadly disappoint. Irrespective of God’s demanding, cajoling, threatening or promising…they fail to obey. Peter even notes this in Acts 15.
Their failure to perform requires God to step in and rescue them from themselves. How will He do this? Ahhh, the Messiah (Is. 53). Follow this story line along and notice something important about their Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. He has come to rescue them from their biggest problem…the inability to obey God and the resultant sin-guilt they bear. He has NOT come for the rest of the world (the term "Gentiles" refers to). He specifically notes this Himself (Matt. 15:24).
Thus, further notice, what does this mean for the so-called “Sermon on the Mount”. It is to the Jews…not to teach Gentiles Christian living (we are not even in the picture, yet). Jesus is pounding on the Jews to drive them to hopelessness. Tear out your eye if it offends! Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect! Give all your possessions to anyone who asks! If you call a man a fool you will burn in hell!
I am not stretching the text…these are the actual demands Jesus makes. Why? Because He is driving His “chosen people” to despair of their ability to rescue themselves. “What is impossible with man…is possible with God.” Only God will be able to rescue Jews from sin. But, what about us Gentiles?
Glad you asked…when do we show up in the script? Notice, please, that Paul makes it clear in Eph. 2 that you and I (Gentiles) do not have access to the Messiah until after the blood is shed (the crucifixion). The story line is moving along and Paul says we were, “…AT THAT TIME without God in the world.” When Jesus died, however, He broke down the separating wall, the Law of Moses, and made the two groups into one new man…believers in Jesus who were granted faith for rescue. The Law is fulfilled and no longer required (Rom. 3) Until the blood is shed, our time as Gentiles had not yet come. The door was not yet opened. And, of course, one may ask, what does that mean? Well, if one follows this “historical development” of the story, it means the so-called “Gospels” are principally written to the Jews. The “Lord’s Prayer” (Matt. 5 - 7) is Jesus telling Jews how to pray as Jews. Read the entire prayer, and see that the end of it reminds the Jews that they will not be forgiven if they do not forgive. Is this a doctrine of the Catholic Church? If it is, then they are abiding by the Mosaic Law…not the Gospel of Grace.
The so-called “Golden Rule” (Matt. 7:12) is the Law of Moses. It ends with the remark, “…for this is the Law and the Prophets.” It is all about the Law and the Jews having to keep that Law. Notice, Jesus is telling the Jews that they must be serious about obedience or they will not enter heaven…and they do not, cannot comply. “Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect”.
Can we comply with this command? Of course not. And you should not…it is not directed at you, a Gentile. But, it is directed to Jews. Jesus is there to hold the mirror of the Law in front of them, teaching them that they cannot meet its perfect standard. They finally get enough of it and kill Him.
To a large extent, the Gospel of Grace begins for Gentiles with the Book of Acts…really Luke II. But, this understanding requires an historical hermeneutic, not an encyclopedic hermeneutic. And, it is why believers who reject Rome, point principally at the Epistles, not the so-called Gospels for their theology. Rome relies heavily on the "Gospels" for training it constituency.
Please notice, the word “Gospel” is NOT IN THE TITLES OF Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. The real Greek texts say, “According to Matthew”, “According to Mark”, etc. Check me on this, if you don't believe it. But, your organization has focused its attention on these books as if they are written to train believing Gentiles. They are not.
So, there you have it. Your lesson in biblical theology and hermeneutics. And, while sincerity is important, it is not the most important thing. The Muslims are deeply sincere…and dead wrong. Truth is most important and I offer you truth. Thank you for your kind thoughts, and I pray for you to seek God’s truth, and let the “feelings” derive from what is truthful.
Thank you for your text. The first “Catholic” source I use is the Bible, which, as you noted, was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for also noting it is arranged, again by Catholics, as continuum, a playing out of prophets, prophesies, and fulfilled prophesies.
Regarding the Decalogue, and the whole of the Old Testament, there are a myriad of lessons we can take from them, that align perfectly with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Though we are not bound by the laws the Jews were, it still makes sense that Jesus didn’t start from zero, so to speak.
We are aware that Jesus was speaking to the Chosen People first, in terms they would understand. That is why the whole of John 6 is so important. After feeding them earthly bread, Jesus called them to eat his flesh and drink his blood. He is the bread come down from Heaven, not as manna, but the bread of eternal life. Such statements were so abhorrent to the Jews they said it was a “hard saying” and left him.
As you continue your text about the Sermon on the Mount, and the Lord’s prayer, I agree that it was given to Jews, as they were first chosen to hear the word. These were people who yearned to hear Jesus and be freed of mountain of changing rules and regulations heaped upon them by the Pharisees, etc. However, do you doubt the Lord’s Prayer, or the Beatitudes are without merit for everyday living?
Jesus rarely spoke to non-Jews. Exceptions would be the Samaritan woman at the well and Pilate. Is that to say His message was only for Jews? Was the great commission only for the Jews?
We agree there were Jews who wanted him killed, obviously. He upset the order of the day, challenge their core beliefs, and pointed them out as wanting.
What strikes me about the remaining paragraphs is what appears to be a diminishment of the Gospels and the applicability of what Jesus taught and said.
Do you disregard the Gospels? Jesus is the fulfillment of the law, and commands His disciples to spread His word. That word is found in the Gospels. How can a person who seriously wishes to evangelize not teach what Jesus taught in the Gospels?
The purpose of the Epistles is to help get the new Church up, and on its feet. They provided guidance and direction, as well as clarification. A Gentile, without the context of the Old Testament, would need someone to explain why Jesus quotes the Old Testament so often. They would also need to know what Jesus taught was for everybody, just like His sacrifice.
If I have misunderstood what you have written, please let me know.
Oh, and you didn’t respond to any of previous Biblical references I gave. Was that intentional or just an oversight?
With all due respect, you have not read my post carefully. The entire post was a response to your incorrect usage of the so-called Lord’s Prayer, the remarks of Mary, and the Decalogue. You ask if you misunderstood me...the answer is “yes” and (more importantly) it appears you misunderstand the Bible. Do you or don’t you tear out your eyes when they offend? If you want to use the “Gospels” (your term, not mine) for Christian living, then I am interested in how you handle these commands by Jesus. When this is settled, we either can move the discussion along or we are hopelessly mired.
Thanks for your reply, as I am always interested in different points of view.
Regarding the Decalogue, it is good for living, as it was the spoken word of God, which Jesus obeyed perfectly.
Second, there were certainly some things that Jesus said that were metaphors and analogies, and some things were precise. For example, I am the vines and you are the branches. Jesus isn’t a plant, nor is he a plant type. However, He was the Lamb of God (which is a type), sacrificed, and then consumed by the priests (us). His admonition to tear out your eye if it causes you to sin is not to be taken literally, as we are temples of the Lord. Logically, we wouldn’t destroy, that which He had built.
I guess we have very different opinions on the purpose and meaning of Scripture, as well as its value. My impression is (and I could be wrong), that you value the different books of Scripture differently, with the Epistles holding more weight than the Gospels (as they commonly known).
I believe the following 8 things about Scripture:
All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, “because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ” (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2,8:PL 176,642: cf. ibid. 2,9:PL 176,642-643).
“The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God” (DV 24).
God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).
Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully “understood except by the Spirit’s action’ (cf. Origen, Hom. in Ex. 4, 5: PG 12, 320).
The Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New.
The four Gospels occupy a central place because Christ Jesus is their center.
The unity of the two Testaments proceeds from the unity of God’s plan and his Revelation. The Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old; the two shed light on each other; both are true Word of God.
“The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord” (DV 21): both nourish and govern the whole Christian life. “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Ps 119:105; cf. Is 50:4).
After recently having paid more attention to the Religion Forum lately than I used to, I've been reviewing certain passages (mainly in the New Testament letters) about speech and related conduct. They're interesting, especially when read in contrast to what sometimes happens in the Religion Forum. Consider, for example, Philippians 4:5, and how often those who identify as Christians practice it.
Whether or not the rosary helps defeat sarcasm--and I'm not going to pass judgment on that question right now--sarcasm seems less important "biblically" than the world tries to make it sound. Although I don't see a total biblical prohibition of sarcasm, whether by command or by example, and one can arguably point to examples of the use of sarcasm by "good people" in the Bible, neither point seems to commend sarcasm as a leading virtue in Christian speech.
Unless I'm missing something big, I'm not aware of any command to cultivate one's sarcasm skills, even on behalf of apologetics or for some other presumably pressing reason. Unless I'm missing something big, certainly the Bible doesn't seem to commend sarcasm as one's dominant mode of speech or posting. I'm not even sure that sarcasm helps much against Boko Haram.
Thanks for the compliment.
A gracious tip of the hat and curtsy to you. :)
Before I address your other remarks (and I assure you, I will), I am curious about your statement,”…I am always interested in different points of view.”
What exactly do you mean by this? I have listed some possibilities.
1. I am interested and would change my mind if your argument was persuasive.
2. I am interested because I want to see where the errors are in your argument.
3. I am interested because I want to see how to change your mind.
4. I am interested because new ideas are a hobby.
5. I am interested because there is nothing else to do today.
6. I am interested because I question whether my view is true.
7. I am just saying that I am interested because it is a polite way to behave
8. I am just saying that I am interested because I believe it will disarm the speaker.
9. I am saying that I am interested because I was taught this debate technique.
10. I am interested in other views because truth is malleable and there are many contradictory precepts that are simultaneously true.
There are likely other iterations of this statement. When I began to list the possibilities, I was surprised how many seemed to come to mind. What was your intention when you penned this? I ask because you have a rather vague method of communicating (to my mind) and it is almost as if you want to avoid direct issues. Again, what do you mean by, “...I am always interested in different points of view.”
I respect that honest people can view the same thing and come to very different conclusions. I respect that I am not the pinnacle of knowledge. I respect that even those I disagree with may offer a shade or nuance I hadn’t consider.
Ultimately, it is about respecting another person and what they believe and have experienced.
I would rather listen to someone, and be at peace with them, then plug my ears and not. I may not like or agree with what they say, but I have given an honest effort to hearing them.
Thank you for that clarification.
Perhaps I should give a similar registration. Paul seemed to listen to some folks politely and soundly reject (even angrily reject) others. Notice the difference between the treatment of the pagans at Mars Hill and the Judaizers. I cannot find a reference that specifically refers to his method of differentiating, but I do find that he coached Timothy using the following, “But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” IITim2:23ff. Notice, no reference to the Decalogue.
I certainly don’t pretend to hold the rank of Timothy, but as a fellow believing Gentile it seems the advice to him is now applicable to me. And, it is entirely likely that we are approaching this threshold.
You seem to view the Bible as a flat, encyclopedic document (as I described before), useful for a kind smorgasbord selection of useful sayings and advice (cf Ps 119 cite). I, OTOH, view it as an unfolding story delivered long before there was ever such a thing as a “Roman Catholic Church”. History seems to support my view, but Rome supports your view.
And, all 66 books of the true Bible are equally valuable…not all of them, however, are written directly to me. And, you seem to have a hint of this, too. There is a reason you do not go to Jerusalem, even though Jesus ordered this clearly in the text. You have some sense that He was not speaking directly to you. Sadly, this pick-and-choose mentality is what permits the Romanists to create a homemade religion. It is not, however, the Gospel of Jesus as delivered by Paul (read the entire letter to the Romans).
The Epistles explain what believing Gentiles should hold as true and how to behave accordingly. You are welcome to believe you are doing the things described in the so-called Gospels (again, these words are not in the text), just recall that I cautioned you against this view. And, of course, Jesus spoke in types and shadows and figures. But, when He demands that you be, “…perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect.”, no one with any kind of reasonable hermeneutic believes this is one of those “figures”. I am curious to know if you believe you meet His demand.
Because, if you do not satisfy this, and all other parts of the Law, be aware that you will be guilty of it all (if you believe you should accomplish it). Perhaps it pleases you to feel that the “old college try” is adequate, I cannot tell. Perhaps, you believe your sincerity is adequate. Again, the Muslims are deeply sincere.
I sign off, here, hoping that you can hear this. But, I know from the Scriptures that the choice is in the hands of Jesus.
I appreciate your generous remarks.
I view the Bible as the history of salvation. However, more than that (which seems impossible), the Bible does provide specific, and practical advice for daily living, moral and spiritual development, and is the basis for understanding Christ’s ministry on Earth.
Regarding what God has commanded and does command are two different things, though there can be overlap. God commands we shall worship no other than He. However, the dietary laws no longer apply. In attempting to decipher what applies and what doesn’t can be tricky. However, by understanding Jesus came to fulfill the law, helps quite a bit.
Finally, the Gospels are the definitive source for Jesus and His teachings. Regarding your quotation, it is true that none of us can be perfect like the Father, because of our human nature. In this statement we recognize we need help. Fortunately, because of the sacrifice of Jesus, and God’s infinite mercy, we are able to approach the throne, provided we reject sin and seek to be His son.
Religion is a very difficult topic because of its personal and spiritual nature, as well as a wholly unintelligible God (by humans). In a way, religion is unique, as each person is unique. God reaches to us both as an individual, as well as family of believers. Additionally, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not given equally, especially the gift of faith.
We are all God’s creation, from the most holy to the most evil. He loves each of us and seeks our love. He has given us the ability to choose to love or reject Him. Let us hope all people feel this call of love in their hearts, every moment of everyday.
Better not tell the Protestants. If it isn't written in Scripture, they won't believe it. No reason to start roiling the site. AND it was started in Prouille, France. Who likes the frogs?
Well, no one is ABSOLUTELY sure when and where it started, and it really doesn't matter, does it?
I am a TOTAL failure when it comes to "giving up" ANYthing for Lent. So, I decided to say two rosaries every day for Lent. THAT worked much better for me. Forty minutes of continual prayer...THAT is a better Lent for me.
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.