Posted on 07/17/2017 8:08:32 AM PDT by ebb tide
“Francis is more interested in leftwing politics than in Catholic theology”, George Neumayr, contributing editor of The American Spectator, states talking to Tom Woods on July 14th on tomwoods.com. Woods describes Francis as a result of John Paul II who - as he puts it - appointed "absolutely terrible people" as bishops: "Catholics have suffered under Bergoglios for decades now”.
Neumayr agrees that a lot of the liberal bishops were appointed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He sees Francis as the “culmination of a century” of liberalism and modernism in the Church.
For him it is "highly unlikely" that Francis, who in his theology is “more a Protestant than a Catholic” will convert to Catholicism. Instead, the realistic scenario is that Francis will produce division and chaos, "Catholics will have to decide whether they guard the faith over papolatry.”
And: “The Cardinals have to declare that Francis is a bad pope who must be resisted.”
I did when I was a Catholic. I don't know if all Catholics worship Mary. Most on these threads claim they don't, but I sure worshipped her. Obviously, I don't do that anymore.
Jesus Christ is the Author and Finisher of our faith.
***
Never said that Jesus isn’t.
It’d be a sad day if I ever said that.
“I hope you’re correct.”
Nothing to do with me at all.
It is all Him.
The believer has eternal life.
It is possible to believe and not know you have eternal life - and to be secure in your relationship with Him.
It is also possible to not have faith, but believe you are a Christian. Consequently, this person never had eternal life.
The single best examination I’ve seen of what God declares in Scripture is found in this article:
https://bible.org/seriespage/14-assurance-eternal-security
Not once. Not ever.
You are correct AMPU. Of course, we can not use our salvation as an excuse for wickedness. Being as we are ex Catholics, maybe at that time, you didn't understand it anymore than I did. When I was a Catholic, and maybe many feel the same way I did, but I just thought that people could say they got saved, then they could go out and commit thousands of super bad mortal sins, and just say, I can do that, because all I have to do, is confess it. That is, of course, a bunch of garbage. If one says he is saved, and then never has any change in his life, he may very well, not be saved at all.
Hang in there bro. 😀😆😄
And that even if you can disagree, you are not to engage in public dissent regarding it.
See post 233 .
Do you instead affirm ascertaining the veracity of anything that is taught by examination of the warrant for it from your chosen authoritative documents?
Resorting to your vain argument by mere assertion rant is consistent with the fantasy that you must maintain that the church of Rome is the NT church,
Which church, as manifested in Scripture ( (Acts through Revelation, which shows how the NT church believed the gospels),
1. Was not based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office (papal or conciliar in union with the pope) as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) criteria, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
And thus a faithful RC is not to seek to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences. For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium, by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth.)
For since Catholicism's claim of ensured magisterial veracity is the basis for a faithful Catholics assurance of doctrine, we see statements such as:
"Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter.." [as the premise is false, so is the conclusion] — Providentissimus Deus
"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - Vehementer Nos, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment , and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. — Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII
“Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275)
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — "Most Rev.erend" Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,”
2. Never presumed that being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and recipients of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation meant that such possessed ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, as Catholicism presumes, with Catholics arguing that promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation mean that their church possesses ensured infallibility.
Instead of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office, while the Old Testament magisterial office certainly had authority, with dissent being a capital offense, (Dt. 17:8-13) yet the church began with an itinerant Preacher and preachers who were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses (Mt. 23:2 cf. Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8;
But the NT church began with dissenters (Christ, and apostles and prophets) who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) For the church began (Christ, and apostles and prophets) in Scriptural dissent from the Scribes and Pharisees who sat in the seat of Moses
3. Did not believe that whatever the historical magisterium formally declared was the word of God, as in oral tradition, was necessarily the case and equal to Scripture, but which Catholicism presumes.
Instead, while the formal word of God/the Lord was sometimes first spoken, yet it is manifest that writing is God's means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23; Matthew 4:4; John 20:31; Luke 24:44-45; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:19; 20:12,15) And that, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, as is abundantly evidenced. And which noble souls ascertained the veracity of oral preaching by. (Acts 17:11)
Also, note that Sola Scriptura preachers can enjoin obedience to oral preaching, presuming it is Scriptural, while apostolic preaching could be wholly inspired of God and include new revelation, which even Rome does not claim when speaking the words of her presumed "infallible" promulgations.
4. Never promised or taught ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility was essential for preservation of truth, including writings to be discerned and established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent as the stewards of Scripture means that such possessed ensured infallibility.
Instead, the church began with common people having correctly discerned both men and writings as being of God (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and again, even in dissent from those who sat in the sat of Moses. (Jn. 7:45-49)
5. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
6. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside to be with God (due to removal of "original sin" and by "infused" charity) effected by the act of sprinkling (RC "baptism") even morally incognizant souls (infants), and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.
Instead, while nothing unclean shall enter God's Holy City, (Rv. 21:27) believers are already washed, sanctified and justified (1Co. 6:11) by effectual faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood, (Rem. 3;25 — 5:1; Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5) and are already accepted in the Beloved on His account, and made to spiritually sit with Christ in Heaven, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) and by Him have direct access to God in the holy of holies in prayer. (Heb. 10:19) And who, if they die in faith will go to be with the Lord at death. (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)
And with the only suffering after this life being that of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's revelation and disapproval) at the judgment seat of Christ, which one is saved despite the loss of, and which does not occur until the Lord's return and believers resurrection. (1Cor. 3:8ff; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) And which resurrection being the only transformative the believer looks forward to after this life (Rm. 8:23; 2Co. 5:1-4; Phil 3:20,21; 1Jn. 3:2) — not purgatory, which suffering commences at death in order to enable souls to enter Heaven.
7. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints,” who directly go to Heaven at death, while the rest go to purgatory.
8. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself.
For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
9. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome and the first of a line of supreme infallible heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church. Besides what Scripture reveals, see history section here.
10. Never manifestly saw apostolic successors being voted for after Matthias was chosen for Judas (even though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33)
Furthermore, Rome's so-called apostolic successors fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12)
11. Never had any pastors distinctively titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into the "real" flesh and blood of Christ and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word, (2Tim. 4:2) which alone is said to spiritually nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6; cf. Mt. 4:4) and which builds them up. (Acts 20:32)
12. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace around which all else revolved, “the source and summit of the Christian faith,” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” as being a sacrifice for sins through the intercession of a special class of sacerdotal "priests," (see above) offering the "real" but unbloody flesh and blood of Christ (under the appearance of bread and wine, until these begin to decay, but which are said to no longer exist after the words consecration), which is to be physically consumed in order to obtain spiritual and eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). See here by God's grace.
In contrast, Scripture teaches one receives spiritual life by believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and thus one desires the milk of the word, (1Pt. 2:2) and then receives the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) and built up by the word of God, and letting it dwell in them richly. (Col. 3:16) By which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) with doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once (besides mention of the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:14) in the life of the church, being that in which the focus is on the church as the body of Christ showing unity with Christ and each other, recognizing others as blood-bought members of that Body by that communal meal, thus effectually remembering and showing/declaring the Lord sacrificial death for the church which He (God) purchased with His own sinless shed blood. (Acts 2:28; cf. 1)t. 2:22-24)
13. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or presumed that all pastors were to be distinctively called “father.” (However, rather than excluding al these titles, I think Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).
14. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)
15. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was. Instead, the Spirit commends truth-loving souls who searched the OT Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of apostolic preaching. (Acts 17:11)
15. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.
17. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.
18. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, despite prayer being a most fundamental and common practice, with the Holy Spirit recording approx. 200 prayers in Scripture, nor were we instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven"), even though there were plenty of angels to prayer to, and ascended OT saints after the Lord's resurrection. Moreover, Scripture only manifestly testifies that God alone is able and privileged to hear and respond from Heaven to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to there from earth, mental or vocal, while two-way communication between created beings required both to somehow be in the same location, and was not that of hearing prayer in Heaven (which the offering of prayer in memorial before judgment in Rv. 5:8 and 8:4 does not teach)
19. Never knelled before a statue. praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, even with adulation, attributes, glory and titles never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers addressed to them, and beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them. Which would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine by playing word games they avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.
20. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving: Gn. 2:24; cf. Ruth 3:9) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven (despite lack of evidence) and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as,
• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.
Historical testimony to the progressive deformation of the church. Including falsified history
Development of the distinctive Catholic priesthood Including compelled clerical celibacy
Excellent post.
And just how does the Didache show that vs. Luther, or ECFs uniformly, and above all, the only true church "fathers," that of the Lord and His apostles in Scripture?
Addressing this issue if you were not a schismatic:
• . Some Catholics also assert that it is Mary who crushes the head of the serpent, based on a translation which reads “her seed,”but this crushing is what Christ did.
The Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission explains the controversy:
“The Hebrew text of Genesis 3:15 speaks about enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between the offspring of both. The personal pronoun (hu’) in the words addressed to the serpent, “He will strike at your head”, is masculine. In the Greek translation used by the early Church (LXX), however, the personal pronoun autos (he) cannot refer to the offspring … but must refer to a masculine individual who could then be the Messiah, born of a woman. The Vulgate (mis)translates the clause as ipsa … This feminine pronoun supports a reading of this passage as referring to Mary which has become traditional in the Latin Church.
Note that the Neo-Vulgate (Nova Vulgata), the revised Latin version authorized by the Vatican, corrected the error and changed it from ipsa to ipsum in the Latin. (http://reformedapologeticsministries.blogspot.com/2012/02/catholic-misuse-of-genesis-315.html)
The Catholic Encyclopedia remarks:
"and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent's head, is Christ…” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Immaculate Conception)
• In the Hebrew there is no “the” in “enmity between you and the woman” and it can refer to or include women in general and all women, (Gn. 14:16; Ex. 25:22; Est. 1:17) with the Lord speaking to Eve but including all women.
The approved notes in the official New American Catholic Bible (1970 ver.), while also allowing the Marian view, explains this verse,They will strike…at their heel: the antecedent for “they” and “their” is the collective noun “offspring,” i.e., all the descendants of the woman. Christian tradition has seen in this passage, however, more than unending hostility between snakes and human beings. The snake was identified with the devil (Wis 2:24; Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seemed implied in the verse. Because “the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8), the passage was understood as the first promise of a redeemer for fallen humankind, the protoevangelium. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. A.D. 130–200), in his Against Heresies 5.21.1, followed by several other Fathers of the Church, interpreted the verse as referring to Christ, and cited Gal 3:19 and 4:4 to support the reference. http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/3
• As regards a argument that "spermatos" is not seen elsewhere in Scripture, the fact is that we will not find it anywhere in the Hebrew, as it is Greek, and in which there is no “her” in the phrase “her seed.” Instead, spermatos for “her seed” comes from the Vulgate by way of a translators choice in the LXX, in which “sperm” is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word for “seed.”
The Septuagint also has the same word, “sperma,” for the serpent and speaks of the "spermatos" of the woman and the "spermatos" of the serpent, while there are only 7 words with two repetitions out of the 17 word sentence which is translated "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;" shi^yth (put/place) 'e^yba^h (enmity/hatred) be^yn (between) 'ishsha^h / na^shi^ym (wife/woman) be^yn (between) zera? (seed) zera? (seed), which illustrates the degree of interpretation this verse is open to.
I can’t find anything saying it was altered as you suggest.
Is part of your message missing? I couldn’t understand what you meant?
And your point is...? Because what this shows me is that Mary was highly regarded from the time of the first generations of Christians. This might shock and disturb Protestants, but not Catholics.
Bookmarking this one!
Willful blindness trips one into a very deep ditch! Watch you step ...
“Counter-Reformation” is a term which was thought up by Protestant historians, just as calling the Catholic Church “Roman” was thought up by Anglicans.
The Catholic Church had already entered a period of “reformation” in that councils had been held before Luther’s 95 Theses had been convened for the purpose of setting certain situations right; the most recent having ended several months before Luther’s action.
The Council of Trent did ban the sale of indulgences and make require more rigorous training of priests and religious, but mostly dealt with theological confusions most of which had arisen **as the result** of the Protestant Reformation.
So, no, overall the Protestant Reformation did not bring about the “Counter-Reformation.” What is called the Counter-Reformation would probably have occurred anyway, aside from the aspects related to the Reformation itself.
Christ, to His Apostles: He who rejects you rejects Me.
I was taught that you start out with a clean slate after baptism - so if you were to die you WOULD go right to heaven. Once you receive First Holy Communion, then Confirmation, it's each person's duty to keep the grace balanced in your "soul account". Do good deeds, go to Mass, take Communion, etc., all add grace to the account. Commit a sin, grace gets deducted. Commit a MORTAL sin and the grace goes to zero. You have to start over again by going to confession, doing the penance, being good, doing good deeds, going to Mass, receiving Communion, etc. to start adding grace back into the account. It is a life-long balancing act that at any time a mortal sin can make you overdrawn in your account and, should you die in that state, you go to hell. No wonder some Catholic Freepers freak out when someone dares say they know they are saved and will go to heaven when they die! Such a thing is inconceivable for them - I know it was when I was Catholic. I worried about it all the time, scared to death I might end up in hell.
But when I heard the gospel for myself after asking God to show me the truth, I knew right away that I had been taught wrong my entire life. When I read Jesus' words:
I knew I was hearing the truth and God had answered my prayers. I know I am saved because I believe in Jesus Christ and what He has done for me. He died for me, He shed His precious blood as payment for my sins, and I believe Him when He says He GIVES me eternal life and I will NEVER perish or be plucked from His hands. This is the true gospel. It is not what I do for God but what He has done for me. My life has completely changed. I no longer try to be good out of fear of hell but out of gratitude for His priceless gift and the life I now lead is to glorify and please Him. Not to be saved but because I am saved. My soul account is always in balance because I have the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to me - not my own. If it were my own, it would never be enough. He gets ALL the glory and I have nothing to boast about because it is ALL Him. His grace and mercy has saved me and I rejoice that I will spend all eternity praising Him.
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.