Posted on 09/07/2020 7:14:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Certainly repentance is more than turning from sinful behavior. The word repentance is the English translation of the Greek metanoéo. As Professor Zodiates explains when translating:
“repentance not just as a feeling sorry, or changing one’s mind, but as a turning round, a complete alteration of the basic motivation and direction of one’s life. This is why the best translation for meta do; is often ‘to convert’, that is, ‘to turn round”.
Which is just another way of saying to sincerely believe, with all your heart, everything Christ taught, did, and stood for.
Great post.
For the Christian, repentance is a constant, daily, moment-by-moment process as we walk in faith with the Lord Jesus Christ.
What if the magisterium does come to a majority conclusion? Such as artificial birth control is not sinful?
Is the Vicar of Christ subject to a majority vote?
You really dislike Luther that much?
***
Invoking Luther is a non-sequitor.
Classic Catholic deflection tactic when their rote talking points are failing.
Invoking Luther is a non-sequitor.
Classic Catholic deflection tactic when their rote talking points are failing.
__________________________________________
That was not my intention, but I do know that the present church I attend hold Paul and Luther as the “dynamic duo” on Christian Theology.
Conscious repentance by self effort or as a means of being righteous is a dead work of the fleash.
Unconscious repentance resulting from hearing the anointed Word of God is a fruit of the spirit and is of grace.
Remember, righteousness is a person - Jesus Christ - not what you do. We are righteous as a gift (Romans 7:17) and by grace we are the righteousness of God in Christ (2 Cor 5:21), not by our works (Rom. 4:6).
What if the magisterium does come to a majority conclusion? Such as artificial birth control is not sinful?
Is the Vicar of Christ subject to a majority vote?
_________________________________________________
My understanding is that “Ex Cathedra” rulings only stem from prolonged periods of indecisive debate among the College of Cardinals. The main point is to leave virtually all issues to the Magisterium. Maybe someone more learned in the details could clarify.
Your understanding is sadly mistaken.
Your understanding is sadly mistaken.
_____________________________________________
Then enlighten us, Oh Wise One.
I’m not your personal search engine.
I’m not your personal search engine.
__________________________________________
Does the Pope often issue “Ex Cathedra” rulings against/without consenting the Magisterium?
Do Popes even issue “Ex Cathedra” rulings much at all?
Please, honor us.
Spare us the tedium of research just this once.
No and No.
A parroted polemic which you have been reproved for resorting to before, yet you persist in it, testing that you are one who being often reproved, ignores it in order to justify Catholic error. For "Protestant" is so broad that includes those who do not even believe the Bible to be the wholly inspired and accurate word of God, nor does SS mean that all its teachings are clear for each person. And thus your polemic that different versions and interpretations of God’s Truth disallows SS as being true is invalid.
In addition to which are the problems with your alternative to SS, that of sola ecclesia, under which you also have different versions and interpretations of what is claimed to be God’s Truth.
What is true is that the more strongly persons believe in the Bible as being the wholly inspired, substantive accurate and authoritative word of God then the more unified they are, in contrast to the fruit of Catholicism today.
God desires unity of His followers to believe in His revealed Truth and accept His love for us, but allows each person with their ‘free will’ to either choose God and follow His way or reject God and follow the ways of the world.
And as even one of your fellows RCs posts, in Catholicism you have,
1. Church Militant who chastise the Bishops but not the Pope
2. The Wanderer supporters
3. The Remnant led by the brother of the publisher of The Wanderer who now disowns The Wanderer
4. The SSPX
5. Those that believe the SSPX is a valid Catholic organization but aren't members.
6. Those who believe the SSPX is in apostasy
7. Those former members of the SSPX that believe Fellay is too deferential to the Pope
8. Sedevacantists who believe Francis is the first anti-Pope or non-Pope
9. Sedevacantists who believe John XXIII was the first anti-pope or non-Pope and that the Second Vatican Council is invalid
10. Those that believe in various conspiracy theories that the Church is now completely controlled by: The Vatican Bank, Gays, Masons, Space Aliens, the Illuminati or some combination of the above
11. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who either quietly or on record disagree with the Pope but are unwilling to go all the way and call him a heretic
12. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who are willing to call the Pope a heretic but are also willing to wait for the process of replacement to unfold in an orderly manner
(NOTE: Church Militant may have changed its position recently to be more directly in opposition to the Pope but I haven't kept track.)
A web site popular among “RadTrad” RCs who reject Vatican Two is https://novusordowatch.org and which sums up the situation the way they see it by saying,
In response to the phenomenon of the Vatican II revolution, there are three essential lines of thought that have been proposed as “solutions” to understanding the situation. This is not now the place or time to critique or justify any of them. For now, we want to just describe them: (1) despite appearances, nothing has really substantially changed, and any interpretation of Vatican II that arrives at the conclusion that there has been a substantial change must be incorrect; (2) we must oppose (resist) these substantial changes and stick to the traditional, age-old teaching instead and ignore the Vatican II novelties while recognizing, however, that the authorities in the Vatican are legitimate and genuine Roman Catholic authorities — we just cannot agree with them on these points; (3) because it is impossible for the Catholic Church to change substantially, and because Vatican II constitutes such an impossible substantial change, it is necessary to conclude that the authority which gave us Vatican II is not in fact the legitimate Catholic authority; that is to say, the “Popes” which gave us Vatican II are not true Popes, nor are their successors, who have implemented and expanded this new religion that has its roots in the council. In fact, the entire religion that now occupies the Vatican and the official structures of the Catholic Church throughout the world is false — it is not the Catholic religion at all, and its putative authorities are not Catholics but heretical usurpers.
Are protestant churches based on man’s doctrines and not God’s Truth, based on heresy and rejecting the Church that Jesus founded?
What "protestant churches?" What we do know is that distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
As true followers of Christ, we need to accept God’s Truth and His love as a community of followers, The Body of Christ, members of Christ’s true church with our love for God and neighbor.
The only one true church which the Lord promised to overcome the gates of Hell was and is not one organic organization outside of which no believers were to be found, but the one true church was and is the body of Christ that the Spirit baptizes every believer into, (1Co. 12:13) and to which He is married. (Eph. 5:25) For it uniquely only and always consists 100% of true believers, while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.
And remember, you started this exchange by provocatively exaltation your church, maybe to get an indulgence (which you never denied) even though, as before, your parroting of prevaricating propaganda is an argument against being a Catholic. .
You’re such a hypocrite.
There are protestants who believe:
1. In transubstantiation
2. Don’t believe in transubstantiation
3. Approve artificial birth conttrol
4. Don’t approve of artificial birth control
5. Condone abortion.
6. Condemn abortion
7. Approve homosexual “marrigas”.
8. Condemn homosexual “marriages”.
8. Approve lesbian “priests” and “bishops”
9. Condemn lesbian “priests” and bishops.
10. Support sodomites.
11. Believe sodomy is a terrible sin.
Yup and there are a myriad of catholics who believe your exact same list. There are even priests who believe all the things on your list, and ora h the. from the pulpit with impunity
Could you please translate?
No one can believe my “exact same list”, protestant or catholic, because each statement is followed by counter statement.
Yes, I’m serious.
You made a statement you seem to expect us to take as fact.
What are we supposed to do? Accept it as truth and fact merely on your say so?
On the contrary, it was a unanimous church decision.
You claimed they had to be in agreement. They were in Acts 15, unlike today where Catholicism takes a simple majority rules tack.
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.