Strategies for Returning to the [Catholic] Church

CE.com ^ | 01-11-18 | James Day

[ravenwolf]

Ignore my last post as I am fighting with this little monster.

What I was meaning to say, is it that you don’t have the guts?

[ADSUM]

Your comment: “I guess your baseless belief would have to buy that lie, too.

The depth of dark deception is beyond imagination.

Your position is so untenable and twisted that I think we’re done.”

your comment: “Even thought there’s so much low-hanging fruit to choose, I try not to “make it personal.”

I don’t take it personally, as some are not informed or have their mind made up by man-made religion and they attempt to denigrate the Catholic Church as founded by Christ.

Some are like democrats and cannot state their position clearly without facts or cliches or verbosity.

The Catholic Church has been consistent in preaching the Truth of Jesus. The Church has dealt with many heresies from man-made religions that are false prophets that do not always preach the Truth.

God would not have allowed Jesus to be touched by sin through the genes of His Mother. Otherwise, Jesus would be touched by sin. We do honor and pray to the Saints as well as the Blessed Mother as they are in Heaven and their prayers to God on our behalf are beneficial.

May you and others find God’s Peace and true Faith in God.

[boatbums]

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527")

This quote is frequently cited on Roman Catholic web pages attempting to prove Luther’s lifelong belief in Mary’s immaculate conception. Unfortunately, the quote is almost impossible to track down. The sermon is not included in the English edition of Luther’s Works, and rarely will Roman Catholic web sites give any documentation other than, “Sermon: ‘On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God.’” The exception has been Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong. Up until the posting of this paper, Mr. Armstrong cited the above quote from the work of Hartmann Grisar’s book, Luther Vol. IV. Grisar cites the source as “Werke,” Erl. Ed., 15 Page 58. Of the quote he says,

“The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther’s approval. The same statements concerning the immaculate conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in later editions which appeared during Luther’s lifetime they disappear.”

The reason for their disappearance is that as Luther’s Christo-centric theology developed, aspects of Luther’s Mariology were abandoned. Grisar recognizes this. In regards to the Luther quote in question, Grisar says,

“As Luther’s intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works.”

For a much fuller treatment of Luther’s view of the Immaculate Conception, please see my “Luther’s Theology of Mary: A Response To Dave Armstrong” found on this website. (https://web.archive.org/web/20140803220104/http://tquid.sharpens.org/luther_mary1.htm

[imardmd1]

I am not very smart myself so I just have to believe what Jesus said and it has already been translated into English.

There you have it. Apparently you are mot smart enough to know that a translation is never a God-breathed (inspired) text, but rather one which is a work done by fallible mankind, and therefore not only can be but somewhere is erroneous in rendering the message of the original text from which the translation was made.

The flaw in your criticism is that you are willing to believe, seemingly without question, lock, stock. and barrel, what someone other fallible person tells you that Jesus said; but you are not even willing to consider what, based on the same original Greek text used by the translator, I think Jesus said according to well-established grammar, syntax, and contexual principles.

You are, in fact, setting yourself up as the authority to prejudicially opine that whatever I say is false. And if you do that with me, I presume you are doing the same thing with others, not realizing that in the end, nobody is going to listen to you at all.

I would like to treat you as an adult, but your reactions and replies force me to treat you as a child. For instance, you come up with the irrational condemning statement:

(a) I don’t think any thing about it . . .

and then you plow right ahead telling me your thoughts:

(b). . . you have not said anything . . .

so then you follow up by telling me what (erroneously) you think I did say, which is:

(c) . . . all you have done is to deny every thing Jesus said.

plus, this last is not only false, but judgmental as well. Going on, you contradict yourself in two things:

(d) I might tell some one what I think . . .

which is what you have done while saying that is not what you did, and then:

. . . but I do not judge them.

which is what you just did.

Now, how does one answer that kind of irrational ranting? And what kind of an answer do you expect? Eh?

[MHGinTN]

You often claim the teaching authority of the 'early church fathers', yet you reject what Augustine taught regarding the rock upon which Jesus builds His Church: "The future rock upon whom the church will be built is still a man of “little faith”... ADSUM

You are aware that Augustine taught the rock was the profession of faith in Jesus as “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” [Matt 16:16], not the man who uttered the words, right?

[MHGinTN]

Perhaps the Priest does not understand or believe that the average man (and all men excerpt Jesus) inherits a sin nature via the father. Thus, since God is The Father of Jesus, ONLY Jesus did not inherit such a sin nature as Mary inherited. There are several Gordian knot beliefs in the religion of catholiciism, this being one of the priMARY ones.

[ADSUM]

Thank you for the additional information.

It does not surprise me that he could change his mind on the Blessed Mother. It was not one of the 50 rejections of his doctrines that led to his excommunication in 1521 from the Catholic Church.

Interesting that he asked for Mary’s help twice for a leg wound.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“God would not have allowed Jesus to be touched by sin through the genes of His Mother. Otherwise, Jesus would be touched by sin. “

Totally, non-Scripture, Roman Hopium.

If God could miraculously make Mary with no original sin, He could easily place His sinless Son in the womb of a sinful Mary.

Perhaps that wouldn’t allow Romans to make Mary into the demigoddess that they do?

“We do honor and pray to the Saints as well as the Blessed Mother as they are in Heaven and their prayers to God on our behalf are beneficial.”

Totally, non-Scripture, Roman Hopium.

Why are so many of your posted beliefs never found in Scripture??

[boatbums]

Thank you for the additional information. It does not surprise me that he could change his mind on the Blessed Mother. It was not one of the 50 rejections of his doctrines that led to his excommunication in 1521 from the Catholic Church. Interesting that he asked for Mary’s help twice for a leg wound.

Though it is humorous to see how frequently Luther is one moment vilified and the next quoted positively, context is often lacking in Catholic apologists' use of Luther to bolster their beliefs about him. Young Luther was enveloped in a religious climate consisting of a host of saints and superstitions. It shouldn't be any surprise that he kept many of his Catholic-centric beliefs though he gradually relied less and less on them as his spiritual eyes were opened to the gospel and the truth of a loving and merciful Savior in Jesus Christ.

Luther, however, NEVER thought dogmas about Mary were salvific - or that belief in them were necessary to be saved. He asked for Mary's help for his leg injuries while he was STILL a Catholic, it should be noted, and this was due in large part to the common belief in his time that Jesus was cruel, judgmental and indifferent to human suffering.

A recollection from Luther’s Table Talk verifies the impact medieval Mariolatry had on the young Martin Luther. Sometime in 1503, he unintentionally stabbed his shin on a short sword and cut an artery in his leg. Thinking himself near death from the wound, he cried out, “Mary, help!” Help indeed arrived, but in the form of a surgeon who dressed the wound. Later that evening, the wound broke open again. The same fear of death gripped him, and Mary was called upon once more to save his life. Had Mary saved Luther? The mature Luther looking back on this experience realized how far from the spiritual help of Christ he actually was: “I would have died with my trust in Mary.”

[Luther said,] 'When I looked on Christ, I saw the Devil: so [I said], ‘Dear Mary, pray to your Son for me and still His anger.’

Luther said,

Take note of this: no one should put his trust or confidence in the Mother of God or in her merits, for such trust is worthy of God alone and is the lofty service due only to him. Rather praise and thank God through Mary and the grace given her. Laud and love her simply as the one who, without merit, obtained such blessings from God, sheerly out of his mercy, as she herself testifies in the Magnificat.

[Iscool]

So your saying that God allowed His only begotten “sinless” son to be born and raised by a “sinful” Mother?

Absolutely...If you'd pay more attention to what God told us in his scriptures instead of listening to the propaganda from the Catholic religion you'd know that Jesus had to have at least one parent who was a sinner like the rest of us...

Jesus not only looked like a human, he had human flesh and bones...And he had a human nature as well...Jesus chose to be sinless, not that he was incapable of sinning...

[ravenwolf]

The problem is that you are doing the same thing as what you are accusing me of and three times as much, I believe Jesus called Simon Cephas because that is what the Bible says.

If you can find where Jesus said any thing to dispute that just write it down as I will not take your word for it.

As I have already tried to explain to you the Bible is of
God, don’t you think he knew how to translate it? It is done
all we have to do is read and learn, if you have a reading or
Comprehension problem I will be glad to help you, what are brothers for any way.

Get back to as soon as you can, the quicker we start the lessons the quicker you will be on course.

Love to hear from you brother.

[Mark17]

Why are so many of your posted beliefs never found in Scripture??

I am glad I was never a self righteous false religionist. I never thought I had a snow balls chance of Heaven, so when the truth was presented to me, I took it to heart. 🇵🇭😇👍

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“...so when the truth was presented to me, I took it to heart.”

Thankfully, the Father pursued me over several years until I was checkmated and saw myself as the sinner I was, who desperately needed a Savior.

A message absent from Romanism.

[Elsie]

Cephas which means Peter in english.

Oh?

In what Translation???

---

KJV says:

And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

[Elsie]

Well; if your strategy was to confuse me; you've succeeded.

If it wasn't, then you've STILL succeeded!

[ravenwolf]

That is because cephas is already translated from Aramaic or Hebrew into Greek, some versions have translated it on to Peter.

It is believed by many or maybe most that Jesus spoke Aramaic or Hebrew, Cephas is rock for both.

And Jesus did say cephas according to scripture.

And hey, it was not me who started this word definition crap.

[MHGinTN]

Notice how the Roman Hopium assumes Jesus has Mary’s genes in Him? One deceit requires a long list of more assumed things to support it ... or maybe Catholic Priest don’t know the Biology?

[ravenwolf]

No, my aim is not to confuse any one as I am not even bright
enough for that.

there are people who are using word definations to try and prove their points. I am willing to just use what scripture
says and wonder about it.

But i can find definations if need be, it wasn’t you but they
try to change the meaning of scripture by changing the definations of words.

[Mark17]

Thankfully, the Father pursued me over several years until I was checkmated and saw myself as the sinner I was, who desperately needed a Savior.

I left home at 19, to join the Air Force. It took me about 2 years, to mentally drop out of the RCC, even though I mechanically went to mass and confession, but I knew I could not make it to Heaven, and I was afraid God was just waiting to zap me.
I still didn’t know what to do about it. Those guys affiliated with the Navs came along. Their lives were SO MUCH more pure than mine, and I wanted to know why. After 3 months, they used the Navs bridge illustration on me. It worked, I got saved too. I still use the bridge illustration, but after awhile, you memorize it from start to finish, so I don’t actually need a tract anymore. Praise God for his indescribable gift bro. 😇👍

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Praise God for his indescribable gift bro.

Amen! I’m glad I’m not on the Roman Catholic Hamster Wheel of Guilt and Works.

I’m grateful I am saved and have assurance of salvation!

I’m grateful to be a saint.

He is The Indescribable Gift to all who want eternal life.

If any Catholics is reading this and wants salvation, pm me. I will share how you can know you will spend eternity in the presence of God.