Posted on 01/11/2018 6:54:52 PM PST by Salvation
"Just" an inactive one, no matter what you do. Catholic eternal security = eternally secure Catholic membership. It will not help you in Hell, along with typical faithful ones, sad to say. .
We're still here and still trying to bring all readers of FR to a saving faith in Christ.
Ear infections stink! But hopefully things are better now. Hopefully. I’ve been out of it for over a month thanks to the infection. BLEH.
However, I’m doing pretty well.
I suspect you are right but I just got through going through at least a half dozen different dictionary’s and at least four
of them said that cephas meant rock.
Which means you don’t know and you were beginning to be my
hero.
Glad you are feeling better. Welcome back.
He is only basically considered to be speaking infallibly when declaring/defining a matter on faith and morals to the whole church. But many Rs also hold that the pope has no authority over them in the manner of teachings which prior papal teaching said they were to submit to. Many RCs do not even consider Francis (whom they usually refer as Bergoglio) to be a valid pope.
Here Francis has been judged to be a Marxist, dictatorial, power hungry, false prophet Pope, and in Nostra Aetate and Evangelli Gaudium to be teaching (formal I assume) heresy, and that a heretic cannot be a valid pope, and that Pope Benedict failed in his duty to the Church.
Well, you are a very active conservative Catholic, since you cannot escape being the latter according to the fantasy that flow from Rome's rote ritual regeneration. You are just not active as a Catholic, like men such as Ted Kennedy was according to how Rome treated him. And here we thought faith without works is dead.
A man named Luther actually said the same thing .
The latter could be said of Queen Esther, that if she held her peace then there would have been no Mary, and she clearly risked her very life, but which does not make her a demigoddess as Caths make of Mary.
Moreover, the noble Mordecai warned,
For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this? (Esther 4:14)
But the object is not to Mary being honored as the holy chosen vessel to bring forth Christ, but to the excess ascriptions, appelations, exaltation, and adoration (and the manner of exegesis behind it), ascribed to the Catholic Mary, whether officially or by Catholics (with implicit sanction of authority). And which presumes that bowing down to a statute and attributing to the person it represent attributes and glory that are uniquely ascribed to God/Christ in Scripture, including the power to hear in Heaven incessant multitudinous mental prayers addressed to them from earth and respond to them, and imploring such for heavenly aid, would be understood and vindicated as merely being "hyperdulia," and not "latria" (which Rome states is the manner of adoration reserved for God).
As making that distinction itself is presumptuous, the Scriptures do not sanction religiously bowing down to any statue in supplication, nor supplies even one single prayer to anyone in Heaven but the Lord (crying "Abba, Father," Gal. 4:6; not "Mama, Mother"), nor in instructions on who to pray to ("our Father who art in Heaven," not "our Mother").
Note that many Catholic Marian attributions much parallel even that of Christ:
For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,
As the the Son of God has a unique unique relationship with the Persons of the Trinity, so also Mary is said to have a unique relationship with all three Persons of the Trinity;
As Christ is the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father;
As Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which naturally infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture, which even clarifies Israel birthed Christ "according to the flesh, God blessed for ever": Rm. 9:4,5);
As the the Son of God supernaturally, spiritually makes believing souls into children of God, Mary is said to be the mother of Christians in "supernatural and spiritual generation."
As Christ was sinless, so Mary was;
As the Lord remained a virgin, so also Mary;
As the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
As the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is said to be enthroned above all creation (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;
As Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”
As Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, so Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;” and showing less restraint, to be "omnipotent" (by grace);
As God the Father made His Divine Son functionally the Lord over the universe, so Mary states, "I command what I will, and introduce whom I will."
As no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;
As those whom God has chosen will come to Him, so it is said that if Mary wills our salvation, and then we are sure to obtain it.
As the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);
As Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also, even all the consequences of sin;
As Christ redeemed mankind (as many as truly believe) with the Father and the Spirit, so it is said of Mary that "we might rightly say she redeemed the human race together with Christ."
As Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
As all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace; that "through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation."
As believers have confidence through Christ, so Mary is extolled as being the foundation of all the believer's confidence.
As the Lord wills all souls to be saved through Christ, so it is said that it is God's will that we obtain everything through Mary.
And as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
As Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”
As Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to be in constant intercession;
as only to God is ascribed the power and privilege of hearing prayer from all flesh, so also is Mary extolled as doing so;
as believers only address God/Christ in prayer to Heaven, including in prostration before Him, so also do Catholics pray to Mary;
as believers only pray to God to have mercy on sinners, so Catholics beseech Mary to do so.
As Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His "real" flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);
And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!
Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.
In addition, although (technically) Mary is not to be worshiped in the same sense that God is worshiped, yet the distinctions between devotion to Mary and the worship of God are quite fine , and much due to the psychological appeal of a heavenly mother (especially among those for whom Scripture is not supreme), then the historical practice of Catholics has been to exalt Mary above that which is written. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "By the sixteenth century, as evidenced by the spiritual struggles of the Reformers, the image of Mary had largely eclipsed the centrality of Jesus Christ in the life of believers." (Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, revised and updated; NY: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987, pp.32,33)
Right, I suspect even though Luther had some problems with
the church he did not lose his common sense.
Nonsense. Without God Mary could not even exist, and God is not limited in His choices of instruments. But while Scripture emphasizes mans debt to God, Catholicism emphasizes God's debt to here, as if God has any to His creation, whose breath is in His hand.
And rather than the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over the church, we see no exalted reverence of Peter as in Roman Catholicism, with not even one exhortation in any of the letters to the churches to look to or submit to Peter as their supreme head. For good (the norm) or for bad, Peter is street-level leader among the 11, and lead pastor of the first church, and the first to use the keys to the kingdom of God, that being the evangelical gospel. (Acts 2; 10; 15:7-9; Col. 1:13) As such, unlike Paul, (Acts 20:17) he does not call any council and charge preachers, but exhorts the assembled elders to treat the Gentiles consistent with the gospel of grace, God having "purifying their heart by faith," (Acts 15:9) while consistent with this, it is James who issues the concluding Scripturally substantiated judgment as to what should be done. (Acts 15)
Peter is also listed after James in Gal. 2 as one of those who appeared to be pillars, and who (contrary to his overall holy character) lead souls astray by his example, resulting in him being publicly rebuked by Paul, who stated "in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing," (2 Corinthians 12:11) but who of his own accord sought to make manifest his sanction by those who seemed to be pillars.
After in contrast to the focus and centrality ascribed to the pope in Catholicism,Acts 15 Peter is left out of any mention in the last 13 chapters of Acts, the narrative focusing on the labors of Paul, who only mentions Peter (sometimes as Cephas) in two of his 13 letters of instruction, nor is Peter mentioned in Hebrews, James, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. And while Peters own 2 letters convey a general pastoral sense, what is lacking is any reference to him as a supreme head ("a servant," "an apostle," "an elder") or anything distinctively Catholic. Instead, Peter refers to Scripture as "a more sure word of prophecy," distinctively attesting to its Divine inspiration. (Note also that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" is not referring to interpretation of Scripture, which Catholics wrongly interpret it as forbidding, but of how prophecy was given by Divine inspiration, so that the prophets did not know "what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." - 1 Peter 1:11)
OK, now its time for sleep, praise the Lord. Good night.
I suppose we can interpret any thing however we want that is why there is a thousand different beliefs.
Jesus called Simon Cephas on their first meeting, I don’t have any doubt that it was because Jesus knew that Peter would take
the lead an he did and we have the proof in the scriptures.
I agree with much of what you say but I think we can believe something with out adding to or taking away from scripture.
I believe we can just say what we think it means with out trying to pretend we are some kind of an authority who knows more than Jesus did.
What is wrong with me? what I do is just read the scripture, if it don’t say quite what I want it to I am not going to add
to it
I tend to believe the same as what I assume you do, that Jesus
was referring to himself. as the rock but the scripture does not say that.
Also when Jesus and Peter first met Jesus called Peter cephas
which means rock in Hebrew and Aramic.
You can take his word lightly if you like but not me because all of this religious bias don’t mean that much to me because
I believe religion is of the devil.
I just haven’t figured out where the biggest liars are, in the Catholic Church or her daughter’s the prostitutes.
Some points, like "on this rock (petra, feminine gender, and equating with a massive, miles-long geological escarpment)" does not fit at all with "Thou art Peter (petros, masculine gender, might equate with a stone that you or a front-end loader can pick up regarding weight, but here could be well noted for its density) which serendipitally fits Simon bar Jona not only because as a nickname it is necessarily masculine in gender, but in quality it could refer to a mind somewhat lacking in nimbleness and teachability.
Compare Simon "Peter"s writing to that of, say, Levi, who put together a fine synopsis of Jesus' life and ministry. In fact, Peter did not even write an account. It had to be done by John Mark, his disciple, and even then, in a less literate way than Paul or Luke, men of high educability.
Do you get the point? The situation in Matthew 19 was not one in which Jesus created a new sobriquet for Simon. Jesus had already given that label to Peter two years before when they first met, and Jesus named him "Kefas"(in Aramaic) which by interpretation is "Petros" in Greek (see John 1:42), or in English "Stone."
But for sure, it did not call to mind Peter as being morally strong or unmoveable in determination or consistent in loyalty. His reputation was not distinguished by those qualities, as seen in reading the New Testament very carefully.
You will find that the biggest liars are the humans who are still children of Satan, the god of this world. Some are those who have phony religion. The rest are simply those who hate religion, any kind of it, and would bring it down, if they could.
As long as the message is simply...”Returning to the Church”, then one might as well say returning to “temple” or “mosque”.
Returning to or even converting to THE WAY of Christ Jesus is what the message should be...no matter what “church” or grass hut or converted mall store front space one happens to have attended!
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.