Posted on 02/04/2017 5:55:17 PM PST by marshmallow
Edited on 02/04/2017 6:26:43 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
VATICAN CITY (AP)
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
"Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you." Hebrews 13:17
I see you've gone full Luther and threw out Hebrews along with a big portion of the Old Testament. And unlike the pure ignorance of the statement I quote from your comment, there is nothing in the New Testament that says to throw out part of the Old Testament, that's for sure.
And still nothing on the papacy nor a requirement to be subject to the roman see for salvation.
I see you've gone full catholic.
Now, if you want to bring up Hebrews we can do so in relationship to the false doctrine of the catholic mass where Christ is re-sacrificed over and over and over again contrary to what is taught in Hebrews that Christ was sacrificed once for our sins.
That has to be one of the most comical things I've read in a while.
So; it comes full circle.
Without appologising for being egotistical, I shall make the history of so much of my own life, as has elapsed since I saw you, the subject of this letter. And by the way I now discover, that, in order to give a full and inteligible account of the things I have done and suffered since I saw you, I shall necessarily have to relate some that happened before.
It was, then, in the autumn of 1836, that a married lady of my acquaintance, [2] and who was a great friend of mine, being about to pay a visit to her father and other relatives residing in Kentucky, proposed to me, that on her return she would bring a sister [3] of hers with her, upon condition that I would engage to become her brother-in-law with all convenient dispach. I, of course, accepted the proposal; for you know I could not have done otherwise, had I really been averse to it; but privately between you and me, I was most confoundedly well pleased with the project. I had seen the said sister some three years before, thought her inteligent and agreeable, and saw no good objection to plodding life through hand in hand with her. Time passed on, the lady took her journey and in due time returned, sister in company sure enough. This stomached me a little; for it appeared to me, that her coming so readily showed that she was a trifle too willing; but on reflection it occured to me, that she might have been prevailed on by her married sister to come, without any thing concerning me ever having been mentioned to her; and so I concluded that if no other objection presented itself, I would consent to wave this. All this occured upon my hearing of her arrival in the neighbourhood; for, be it remembered, I had not yet seen her, except about three years previous, as before mentioned.
In a few days we had an interview, and although I had seen her before, she did not look as my immagination had pictured her. I knew she was over-size, but she now appeared a fair match for Falstaff; I knew she was called an ``old maid'', and I felt no doubt of the truth of at least half of the appelation; but now, when I beheld her, I could not for my life avoid thinking of my mother; and this, not from withered features, for her skin was too full of fat, to permit its contracting in to wrinkles; but from her want of teeth, weather-beaten appearance in general, and from a kind of notion that ran in my head, that nothing could have commenced at the size of infancy, and reached her present bulk in less than thirtyfive or forty years; and, in short, I was not all pleased with her. But what could I do? I had told her sister that I would take her for better or for worse; and I made a point of honor and conscience in all things, to stick to my word, especially if others had been induced to act on it, which in this case, I doubted not they had, for I was now fairly convinced, that no other man on earth would have her, and hence the conclusion that they were bent on holding me to my bargain. Well, thought I, I have said it, and, be consequences what they may, it shall not be my fault if I fail to do it. At once I determined to consider her my wife; and this done, all my powers of discovery were put to the rack, in search of perfections in her, which might be fairly set-off against her defects. I tried to immagine she was handsome, which, but for her unfortunate corpulency, was actually true. Exclusive of this, no woman that I have seen, has a finer face. I also tried to convince myself, that the mind was much more to be valued than the person; and in this, she was not inferior, as I could discover, to any with whom I had been acquainted.
Shortly after this, without attempting to come to any positive understanding with her, I set out for Vandalia, where and when you first saw me. During my stay there, I had letters from her, which did not change my opinion of either her intelect or intention; but on the contrary, confirmed it in both.
All this while, although I was fixed ``firm as the surge repelling rock'' in my resolution, I found I was continually repenting the rashness, which had led me to make it. Through life I have been in no bondage, either real or immaginary from the thraldom of which I so much desired to be free.
After my return home, I saw nothing to change my opinion of her in any particular. She was the same and so was I. I now spent my time between planing how I might get along through life after my contemplated change of circumstances should have taken place; and how I might procrastinate the evil day for a time, which I really dreaded as much---perhaps more, than an irishman does the halter.
After all my suffering upon this deeply interesting subject, here I am, wholly unexpectedly, completely out of the ``scrape''; and I now want to know, if you can guess how I got out of it. Out clear in every sense of the term; no violation of word, honor or conscience. I dont believe you can guess, and so I may as well tell you at once. As the lawyers say, it was done in the manner following, towit. After I had delayed the matter as long as I thought I could in honor do, which by the way had brought me round into the last fall, I concluded I might as well bring it to a consumation without further delay; and so I mustered my resolution, and made the proposal to her direct; but, shocking to relate, she answered, No. At first I supposed she did it through an affectation of modesty, which I thought but ill-become her, under the peculiar circumstances of her case; but on my renewal of the charge, I found she repeled it with greater firmness than before. I tried it again and again, but with the same success, or rather with the same want of success. I finally was forced to give it up, at which I verry unexpectedly found myself mortified almost beyond endurance. I was mortified, it seemed to me, in a hundred different ways. My vanity was deeply wounded by the reflection, that I had so long been too stupid to discover her intentions, and at the same time never doubting that I understood them perfectly; and also, that she whom I had taught myself to believe no body else would have, had actually rejected me with all my fancied greatness; and to cap the whole, I then, for the first time, began to suspect that I was really a little in love with her. But let it all go. I'll try and out live it. Others have been made fools of by the girls; but this can never be with truth said of me. I most emphatically, in this instance, made a fool of myself. I have now come to the conclusion never again to think of marrying; and for this reason; I can never be satisfied with any one who would be block-head enough to have me.
When you receive this, write me a long yarn about something to amuse me. Give my respects to Mr. Browning. Your sincere friend
Mrs. O. H. Browning. A. LINCOLN
[1] ALS, CSmH. The wife of Orville H. Browning of Quincy, Illinois, (nee Eliza Caldwell) was like her husband a native of Kentucky. The Brownings were married in 1836, and in the same year Browning was elected state senator from Adams County. Their political careers beginning only two years apart, Lincoln and Browning were to remain closely associated throughout Lincoln's life, and on the social side Mrs. Browning remained one of Lincoln's most valued friends.
[2] Mrs. Bennett Abell.
[3] Miss Mary S. Owens. See Lincoln's letters (supra) of December 13, 1836; May 7, 1837; August 16, 1837.
If you can't handle the debate then perhaps you'd best not post in the open forums and stick to the caucus threads.
I wasn’t addressing you, I was a addressing a fellow Catholic.
Were you not replying in regards to a post I made?
Utter nonsense! Jesus did not establish the Catholic Org (rhymes with Borg). He establish a body of believers to which He is still adding, and not strictly under one org name or another: BY FAITH not by Romish dictate.
You just described Roman Catholicism to a T.
Again...the passage from Hebrews has nothing to do with the papacy.
But it does tell us:
24For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. Hebrews 9:24-28 NASB
This refutes the roman catholic position on the Mass where Christ is re-sacrificed over and over and over and over again.
You insist on believing the same thing Core was swalled alinve into Hell for and think you'll have a different endpoint. You won't.
It is the catholic who is in contradiction of the Word regarding the Mass and what we have revealed in Hebrews.
|
Live Source of the priest’s views, please.
As iowamark correctly quoted from the source , "Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not currently and actively a member of the caucus group. For instance, if it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not currently, actively Catholic, then do not post to the thread.
But which is not the same as what some RCs imagine, that ones baptized (sprinkled) Catholic you are always a Catholics, and that thus even inactive Catholics may take part in Religion Forum threads labeled “Caucus.” If that were allowed (without an invite) then we would not get booted off such since we are no longer Catholic and expose the deformation of it.
It’s in the Faith of Millions book he wrote.
Nobody said anything about *throwing out the OT* so you can stop with the exaggeration and hyperbole.
We are now under a new covenant, the old one no longer is in effect as God is dealing with mankind according to the new covenant in the age of grace.
We are no longer under the Law, under obligation to obey it.
Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
The Council at Jerusalem dealt with the issue of those who claimed we had to obey the law.
Acts 15:1-29 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. 5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”
The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
“‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Romans 3:20-30 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Matthew 23: 8-10 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.
He provided the source.
Look it up yourself.
And when faced with the fact that Rome manifestly considers even her proabortion pols to be members, then they are declared to be non-Catholic, having latae sententiae excommunicated themselves (versus ferendae sententiae, formally by the intervention of a RC authority). Yet even then, this latae sententiae condition is not for another lay person to declare about another, and a look at all the conditions make it clear "The 1983 Code of Canon Law has made it much more difficult to incur penalties in general" (http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=497718&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=; cf. http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2010/10/21/have-pro-abortion-politicians-excommunicated-themselves/)
But i think we made it, thank God, but sadly since the declension of Rome was such that it required it. (2Co. 6:14-18)
I suppose that if I still thought that my salvation depended on membership or submission to a church, then I would probably still be there.
However, since I found the freedom in Christ that comes from having my sins forgiven forever and being filled with God’s Holy Spirit, I know that I am no longer in bondage to the Law, to rules, regulations, sacraments, people, whatever......
JESUS CHRIST saved me, not the Catholic church.
HE gets my allegiance, not them.
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.