As you wish:
Posted on 10/22/2020 9:52:36 AM PDT by Freedom'sWorthIt
A granddaughter of the Rev. Billy Graham, Jerushah Duford is a committed evangelical Christian who describes herself as “pro-life.” For most of her life, she voted Republican. Yet this year, she is voting for Joe Biden and is encouraging fellow Christians to distance themselves from a president who she says is trying “to hijack our faith for votes.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...
Ooohh, white knight ebb come to save the day, complete with his lack of knowledge of what ‘grammar’ means.
I don’t really care what you have to say either; I shall laugh at you both.
As you wish:
No worries... the Roman Soldiers did the same on Calvary.....but Thank You anyways for the discussion.... we ALL are obligated to search for the deepest truths...
Remembering what that smart man said.... Shallow waters are the easiest waters to see thru, the deeper waters are much more difficult ...
So do you have an answer? Why can't I decide what my flavor of Christianity is going to be? Who has the authority to tell me otherwise ? You ? Anyone else ? Just because I disagree with your ideals - and I think they need to be reformed into what I want to believe... doesn't mean I'm wrong and your right-- absent an absolute authority of course
A good polemical question actually, for it has to do with authority, and with your argument being that an infallible authority is required, and with that being "The Catholic Church" (RC vs. EO).
However, the reason you cannot be your own pope is the same reason the pope cannot be what is claimed for his office, which is that there is a greater and uniquely infallible authority than any magisterium of men, which is the assured established authoritative word of God, and which is Scripture.
And contrast to the Catholic premise than an infallible magisterium is required in order to know which writings are of God, and for them to be established as being from God, a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") " even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, which the Lord often invoked and established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same. (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.)
And which establishment is essentially due to their enduring heavenly qualities and attestation, by which men of God became accepted as being so, even when the magisterium rejected them.
And which is seen in an account which deals with very subject of the validity of authority, and refutes the Catholic premise of infallible magisterium being required in order to know what is of God. In Mark 11 we read:
And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed. And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things. (Mark 11:27-33)
Here, we see the authority of Christ challenged by men who sat in the seat of Moses (Mt. 23:2) -this being the historical magisterium to who conditional obedience was yet enjoined- for as far as they were concerned, Jesus of Nazareth was just an itinerant preacher whom they did not sanction, and who reproved them from Scripture. (Mk. 7:1-13)
And yet who does the Lord invoke in responding to their challenge but John the baptizer, who was another itinerant preacher they rejected. Yet the common people, who heard Jesus gladly, (Mark 12:37) rightly discerned what the magisterium did not, "for all men counted John that he was a prophet indeed."
And if these Jewish leaders had eyes to see and admit the Truth, then they would have admitted what Peter did, that the authority came from God, who in history often raised up men from without the formal magisterium and reproved leadership, in preserving and supplementing the faith.
Therefore NT church did not begin upon the foundation of those who sat in the seat of Moses, but upon "the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Ephesians 2:20) - that of dissenters from the misleading magisterium. And thus the NT church did not begin consistent with the Catholic model for ascertaining Truth with "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," (Pope Pius X) for that would have required them to submit to the judgment of the magisterium as to whom this Jesus Christ was.
Therefore contrary to your argument that "absent an absolute authority" - with that authority being Rome - "just because I disagree with your ideals...doesn't mean I'm wrong and your right," in history the supreme absolute authority by which the church began was Scripture, not the historical magisterium.
For as said, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) 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; 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)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (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.)
Therefore, while in Catholicism when leadership goes South then either the flock follows them, or they essentially become like evangelicals in that they decide what which modern church teachings are valid based upon their judgment of what historical church teachings include and mean (the difference being we are to go back to the most ancient church teachings, Scripture). This does result in the many conservative sects and their divisions(and we have more), but at least they are conservative.
You can argue that Scripture needs an interpreter, and which is true, yet so does Catholic teaching, as seen by its many sects. And rather than SS being rejected due to division, the most liberal Prot churches are not SS ones but are usually those closest to Catholicism, while those who most strongly esteem Scripture testify to being the most unified in conservative beliefs.
In addition, SS does not mean rejection of the magisterial office, but which is affirmed, and it is liberals who are likely to call Rome their home vs. conservative evangelical churches.
I do not think you understand.
There is literally nothing you can say or do that will make me become Catholic; I walked away from that den of iniquity long ago, and I would rather die—literally—than give up my faith to the Whore of Babylon aka Catholicism.
You want me to answer your screaming accusations? Fine. Even if there has to be ‘one voice’ for Christ—an unproven assertion in the first place—it sure as literal Hell should not be from a church that, by its actions, encourages the literal rape of children and protects the rapists.
Now, if it feeds your outrage addiction to be angry at me and throw around accusations, strawmen, and insults, be my guest. It’s on your soul, not mine.
In fact, please do continue. I have a great time using the emotional immaturity of your posts to lead people away from Catholicism.
So do YOU personally, accept this current pope as the legitimately elected, according to church procedure by the college of cardinals, pope?
Catholicism does not trust either its people or the Holy Spirit to b able to interpret Scripture.
So if the people are so incapable of interpreting Scripture that the *church* has to do it for them, then who’s going to interpret the interpretation for them?
Ah...another Catch-22 question! ;o)
Like Daniel1212 reminds us, Jesus often had to toss back these challenges into the laps of those who presumed to be the authority ABOVE God's own sacred word. Sometimes they get it, most don't and they'll stay with the ORG because, "That's just what we believe.".
Exactly. Consider what has occurred since the last time a ecumenical council explained how Catholics are to understand RC teaching.
A web site popular among “RadTrad” RCs who reject Vatican Two is Novus ordo watch and which sums up the V2 situation by saying (https://novusordowatch.org/start-here/),
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.
The first line of thought described above is often termed (not necessarily correctly) “conservative Catholic”, “orthodox Catholic”, “Novus Ordo”, “conservative Novus Ordo”, or “indult”. Prominent organizations and individuals which can be said to promote or be associated with this position would include Catholic Answers, EWTN, Fraternity of St. Peter, Institute of Christ the King, Franciscan University of Steubenville, National Catholic Register, The Wanderer, Latin Mass Magazine, Church Militant, Vericast, Fr. Kenneth Baker, Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Michael Voris, Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, Steve Kellmeyer, Dave Armstrong, Mark Shea, and many others.
The second line of thought described above is often termed (not necessarily correctly) “traditionalist”, “traditional”, “resistance”, “recognize-and-resist” (“R&R”), or “SSPX”. Proponents of this position include the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Fatima Network, Tradition In Action, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, TradCatKnight, Bp. Bernard Fellay, Bp. Richard Williamson, Rev. Paul Kramer, Rev. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari, Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara, Louie Verrecchio, John Salza, Robert Siscoe, Eric Gajewski, and many more. Here at Novus Ordo Watch we like to refer to this position as “recognize-and-resist”, “neo-traditionalist”, “pseudo-traditionalist”, or “semi-traditionalist”.
The third line of thought is the one we espouse at Novus Ordo Watch, and it is a theological position known as “Sedevacantism”, from the Latin sede vacante, “the chair being empty”, referring to the Chair of St. Peter that is occupied by the Pope — when there is a legitimate Pope reigning. Sedevacantism is by far the least popular position, the “black sheep” no one wants to be “tainted” with. Besides Novus Ordo Watch, other groups or individuals who promote or share this position include True Restoration, the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI), Istituto Mater Boni Consilii, Sodalitium, Daily Catholic, The Four Marks newspaper, Bp. Geert Stuyver, Bp. Donald Sanborn, Bp. Mark Pivarunas, Bp. Clarence Kelly, Fr. Anthony Cekada, Fr. Michael Oswalt, Fr. William Jenkins, John Daly, Thomas Droleskey, Stephen Heiner, John Lane, Michael Cain, Mario Derksen, Griff Ruby, Steve Speray, and others.
As for the term “Novus Ordo”, in its most general application it simply refers to the new, pseudo-Catholic religion of Vatican II described above.... To be clear: We adhere fully to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church from her founding in 33 A.D. by the Blessed Lord Jesus Christ through the death of the last known Pope, Pius XII, on October 9, 1958. We are Roman Catholics. - https://novusordowatch.org/start-here/
Murdering innocent little preborn babies is a betrayal of Christ.
Right.
Yes it is.
Pony poo poo.
I see...
Matthew 15:16
"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
Matthew 231. Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
2. "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
4. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5. "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long;
6. they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues;
7. they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them `Rabbi.'
8. "But you are not to be called `Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.
9. And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
10. Nor are you to be called `teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.
11. The greatest among you will be your servant.
12. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
13. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
14. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
16. "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, `If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'
17. You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?
18. You also say, `If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.'
19. You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?
20. Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.
21. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it.
22. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
23. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
24. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
26. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
28. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
29. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.
30. And you say, `If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
31. So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.
32. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
33. "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
34. Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.
35. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
37. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
38. Look, your house is left to you desolate.
39. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' "
Mark 7:26-27
26. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27. "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
And St. Paul chimes in...
Galatians 5:12
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
Sorry; but MormonISM has already touched all those bases.
“Who do YOU say that I am?”
Matthew 10:34-36 ESV
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
God tells us in his word the proper response to false prophets
“What does the Lord say on the matter?”
Meaning, what does God’s word say.
What is the message of the Prophets, what did John the Baptist preach? What did Jesus preach? What did the Apostles preach?
WHAT SHOULD WE AS CHRISTIANS PREACH?
ARE YOU HEARING THAT MESSAGE ANYWHERE? ARE YOU PREACHING THAT MESSAGE ANYWHERE?
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE MESSAGE IS?
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.