Posted on 05/03/2015 12:05:34 PM PDT by RnMomof7
That’s good to know. As long as we specify a sect of Protestantism and label it a cult, it is not directed at any individual and is therefore within the rules. I think I’ll screenshot that post.
That’s a direct quote out of your own CCC.
Are you saying that it doesn’t mean what it says? It means what someone says it means?
Let me guess.....
I *interpreted* it wrong.
You particular cult of fallen away catholics demonstrates via their anything goes ‘divinely inspired’ personal reinterpretation of Catholic beliefs.
AMDG
“It was directed at every single individual Catholic FReeper. Disturbing indeed.”
It was not as was explained to you already.
Keep with the issues, stop picking at the scab or you will be asked to leave the thread.
Not really...Rome has only infallibly interpreted a handful of scripture..the rest is up for grabs , and freely interpreted by parish priests, bishops, theologians and apologists ...just as fallible as any protestant..
See Lurking.. Catholics are fallible and may be wrong about how "infallible" Rome is ...
Call a divorce an “annulment” and nobody is guilty of sin.
Ain’t it great to be able to technically not violate the rules while still violating the intent of them?
In addition to the Catholic Church (Roman and Uniate) there are also the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Non-Chalcaedonian Churches (Miaphysites or "Oriental Orthodox"), and the Non-Ephesenes or Nestorians. All of these traditions claim to be the authentic original "apostolic" church from which the others all broke off. And each one claims the others are the ones who went wrong. Yet each one can "prove" it is the true one--by its own internal criteria. But that's the problem: anything is write by its own internal criteria!
Each of these four basic groups further shatter into other groups. Catholics have the mainstream, the traditionalists, the sedevacantists, and the conclavists. And this doesn't even include the various "Old Catholic" groupings. The mainstream Eastern Orthodox churches are decried as heretics by traditionalist, old calendar, and anti-ecumenical groups. The Miaphysites theoretically possess the same "faith" but include the peculiar, insular, and syncretistic Ethiopian and Eritrean churches as well as two Armenian catholicosates (granted, in communion with each other) and two quarreling churches in India. And the Nestorians have broken into "old calendar" and "new calendar" factions as well.
Now keep in mind that each and every one of the above has a legitimate claim to going "all the way back." How in the name of all that is reasonable does one sift through all this and find "the real thing" when the only means to do so is to accept the internal criteria of the church decided upon? However, at least unlike the versions of chrstianity that have been "restored" by "reading the bible," their number isn't infinite.
Further, while Catholics and Protestants like to pretend it is all about them ("you have to pick one of us; which one will it be?") this is not the truth at all. Of the above ancient churches, the Armenian, Ethiopian, Assyrian, and multiple Indian churches simply could not have been created by Constantine. The Armenian Church became established in Armenia while chrstianity was still illegal in the Roman Empire, yet the Armenian Church has priests, confession, prayers to the virgin and saints, and "the holy sacrifice." If all this was started by Constantine, why were they doing it outside Rome before Constantine was ever emperor to begin with?
The Ethiopian and Indian churches also were totally isolated from Rome for centuries (though there was a brief Catholic period in Ethiopia after the Jesuits came along), yet they also have all this stuff that "Constantine invented." In fact, the "St. Thomas churches" of India existed in blissful isolation from Europe until about 1599, yet when they were discovered they too had all that stuff that Constantine had allegedly invented in 313.
Of all the ancient churches, perhaps the one that comes closest to the Protestant myth of First Baptist Church, Jerusalem is the Nestorian Church, which existed outside Rome and Byzantium in the Persian Empire. Like Protestants they reject images, and they are the only one of all the ancient churches who historically refuse to call Mary the "mother of gxd" (though they still regard her as a saint and pray to her), but aside from these they too have the priests, the sacraments, the "holy sacrifice," etc. In other words, the "original Protestant church before Constantine" is a myth that persists only because there are people who need to believe in it.
I am no apologist for the ancient churches, and those of you who have followed my posts over the years know that I have been their harshest critic and have defended Protestants, especially Fundamentalist Protestants, many times. But that wasn't because I thought Protestant assumptions were correct.
One side seeks an Absolutely Authentic Bible, the other an Absolutely Authentic Oral Tradition. Neither can be found in chrstianity, Protestant or "apostolic." There is no agreement on which "ancient" church is the one the others split off of and certainly no agreement on which "restoration" has been the correct one (or even if it has been discovered yet). Yet everyone agrees absolutely that at one time Judaism was the One True Religion, that its Bible was undoubtedly true and that its Oral Tradition from Sinai was undoubtedly true. The problem is that people insist its place was taken by something else--and people have been fighting for two millenia about just what that "something else" is!
I have tried to resist making this appeal, but we live in apocalyptic times. It is time to stop running in circles trying to find what never existed. G-d spoke at Sinai. Neither a bible nor the authorization of J*sus was ever necessary to know that this is true. The Jews got their religion from G-d Himself while everyone else has gotten their "gxd" from their religion. All legitimate longings are answered in Judaism--the desire for an unquestionable Book, an unquestionable Tradition and an unquestionable Authority as well as the simultaneous but apparently contradictory desires for universal and particular Truth, for the destruction of ancient myths and the validation of Ancient, Unchanging Truth.
Please, dear people--if you have never done it before, or even if you have, please consider the claims of Judaism/Noachism. Because we have entered the final stage of history. Things will never go back to the way they were before because that way permitted the existence of false religions and false "gxds." The only thing awaiting us, the only thing that can save us now, is Absolute Truth--not family or national tradition.
Please think about it.
Your reinterpretation is definitely opposed to the Magisterium.
Im sure God is pleased with how you misinterpret Catholicism.
AMSG
I don’t belong to a cult of fallen away Catholics.
There may be some former Catholics in the church where I worship, but I don’t go around asking everyone what their religious background is.
It’s irrelevant if they are trusting in Christ alone for salvation.
Ugg. The annulment issue has been explained to you so many times. Typing your lie over and over again doesn’t make it true.
Perhaps if Catholics were more concise and careful about how they worded things, there would be less trouble with *misinterpretations*.
But clarity in writing is not a strong suit within Catholicism.
Accusing another member of a lie is attributing motive, which is against the guidelines.
Leave the thread and review the Religion Forum guidelines.
Just saw your instruction to to poster to leave the thread.
I know that posting to someone under those circumstances is discouraged.
Sorry about that.
Maybe someone needs to look in the mirror!
And yet...day in and day out we have catholics posting their own personal interpretations of Scripture right here on FR.
**And yet...day in and day out we have catholics posting their own personal interpretations of Scripture right here on FR. **
Why do you say that when Catholic articles are always linked?
It is laughable that a protestant can’t tell the difference between a faithful Catholic defending his faith from protestant calumny and someone who spends time thinking about what you think.
Your lack of discernment ia amazing.
AMDG
Both are rocks. But it is clear that Peter is a rock and more, importantly, that he had the power to bind and loose.
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.