Posted on 08/16/2023 6:39:10 AM PDT by zucchini bob
(2 Peter 1:20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (Isaiah 28:10) For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:13) But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
So you're calling us all liars, eh?
The ignorance of the Catholic Faith comments you make come right out of a Jack Chick tract. Because ANY lapsed Catholic would know that any recent dogma introduced by the Church was based on centuries of cobtemplating and understanding Christian theology.
Faulty reasoning to excuse others of lying about their Catholic upbringing.
And now next level; think how Mother and Child in utero share DNA cellular make up as we scientifically now know this is reality. The exchanged DNA cellular make up of Christ and between, and IN The Blessed Virgin Mary would not have died- and been interred here on earth- if Christ- ALL OF CHRIST- EVERY biological cell of his human existence was not to remain on earth. And dont tell me the Blessed Virgin needed a chariot like Elijah when he was assumed in Heaven either.
That's not *proof*. That's Olympic level mental gymnastics trying to justify an unscriptural doctrine with ZERO support at all from Scripture. Heck, there's not even a verse in the Bible for Catholicism to take out of context and twist to make it support that *doctrine*.
Take Mary out of Catholicism and the whole religion collapses like a house of cards.
In your dreams.
But go ahead and believe it if it makes you happy.
And Catholics would have us believe that Jesus condemned tradition when the Jewish priesthood did it but approve of it when the Catholic priesthood does the exact same thing.
One would think so. Actually, I think it is blasphemy to claim anyone but God, can forgive sins. When I was a Catholic, I used to go to confession and confess my racy sins. He gave me 20 our fathers and 20 hail Mary’s, but I think he was getting his jollies, listening to my racy sins. He started asking me why I did this and what was I thinking of at the time. So, I lied to the priest in the confessional. I didn’t care if I was committing a mortal sin of sacrilege, I wasn’t going to tell him the truth, cuz I thought he was a pervert. That might have been the time I began to reject the RCC. The rejection was completed, after I joined the Air Force. 😁😅😃
By the way, you all can have a YOPIOS, Sola Scriptura, saved by grace alone, outside any false religion, OSAS, confession of sin to God only, never fear Hell again, type of evening. And, no need to eat fish on Friday. You can eat whatever you want, unless it was offered to idols. 👍👍👍👍👍
Had Limbo been invented yet? My mom told me she thought my dad would go to Limbo. My question would be, if they uninvented Limbo, what happened to all the folks who went there in the first place?
I doubt any of them could find the grave of Genghis Khan, or Hannibal, or Crispus Attucks, but does that mean their graves don’t exist? I think not. 😅😂😊
Hey bro, I remember you telling someone to read the Greek. I seem to remember it was concerning the verses, telling the apostles they could retain of forgive sins. I know you can read Greek. I will go one better. I have a friend here, who is from Greece. Guess what his first language is? It’s GREEK. Amazing. Anyway I had him look at the Greek, concerning those verses. I asked him, if it meant the apostles had the power to forgive or retain sins. He said, it doesn’t even come remotely close to saying that. He said, what it means, is the apostles (and every believer) can preach the gospel, and if they become born anew from above, they could truthfully say, because of your faith in Christ, God has forgiven your sins, and if you reject Jesus, (which 95% of the world does) we can say, because of your rejection of Christ, God has NOT forgiven you. But no way, on God’s green earth, can people forgive anyone’s sins. Only God forgives sins. It’s blasphemous to say anyone else can.
” I think he was getting his jollies, listening to my racy sins. “
I was wondering about that. Probably the next best thing to phone sex. Pulling (no put intended) a Toobin?
I don’t know, we didn’t have Zoom back then, so I am not sure what he was doing, though I have my suspicions. I didn’t hear any heavy breathing, and he never invited me into the sacristy. I didn’t know what might have happened, if this had gone on much longer. I got out of there, and didn’t answer his questions. It was there I started lying to the priest in the confessional. I didn’t care if I was committing a mortal sin of sacrilege, I wasn’t going to let this dude know my life story. I saw him around a lot, but he didn’t know who I was. I made sure it stayed that way.
“I saw him around a lot, but he didn’t know who I was.”
Do you think that’s true? They really can’t see who’s on the other side of that curtain or wall or window?
When I was in seminary, the school bought an old monestary (Maryknoll). The summer before the first semester there, we helped prepare it for classes. We were goofing in the confessional booths and it seemed you could get glimpses both ways.
But it’s been a almost 50 years, so I may not recall correctly.
You adopted it.
Mary isn’t just some flea bitten handmaiden.
Strawwoman. I nowhere denigrated this pious, holy, virtuous, Spirit-filled instrument of God as a redeemed sinner, only the Cath hyper-exaltation of her far., far, far "above that which is written," contrary to what is written, (1 Co. 4:6) whether 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. She is probably third only to the Beatles and Jesus Christ. Not in Scripture, in which the Holy Spirit shows Paul as being the redeemed sinner who labored the most, birthing souls into the kingdom of God, even being willing to be damned in order to save his brethren according to the flesh, and fervently loving and unselfishly caring for the flock, and successfully enduring the most trials. This is simply what is written, though comparatively saint Paul is relatively marginalized in Catholicism. Think of the money the RCC could make off of her relics alone (if they did exist). Are you mad, Bro? the girdle and veil of Mary among other items, and while selling such relics them has been outlawed, though some merchants offer them, (3 years ago Ebay offered a small silver-plated case containing some hair of the Virgin Mary for a little more than $2,000) yet in the past relics were used to obtain mammon for Rome via selling the promise of indulgences. And Rome could "remember" that some were real.
“in the past relics were used to obtain mammon for Rome via selling the promise of indulgences.”
Yep. RC didn’t start as a religion. It began as a revenue-generating scam. Indulgences. Beads. Necromancy.
“Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative. What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared. This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word.” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59. END POSTAgain, rather than anything being changed by his desperate appealing to the premise that Rome can "remember" something , what I quoted attests to the fact I was substantiating, that that the assumption of an assumption is critically lacking evidence for in the hundreds of years after this alleged event took place, besides what it must rely on. Thus the recourse that Rome must claim to remembers something that relevant history forgot.
Thus thanks again for posting the latter indictment, which as said, is based upon Rome's own self-declaration of EPMV, so that according to her interpolation and interpretation, history, Scripture and Tradition on authoritatively means what she promulgated. As supremely summed up by Manning:
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....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. — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228
With a critical absence being the problem.
He is speaking of old views of tradition, and then, if you read through to the end you will get to his then current definition of “tradition”, i.e. “Ratzinger's belief of “tradition” included “the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word.” This is exact;y why I took offense to Daniel1212 cutting the statement in half.
See above
WOW.
Not this Catholic.
Well, I know couldn’t see the priest through the veil, and as far as I know, he couldn’t see me, but I could be wrong. All I know is, if he knew who I was as, he didn’t seem to let on that he did.
And did you read this as meaning anything contrary to the assumption of an assumption facing the problem of critical lack of evidence in the hundreds of years after this alleged event took place, besides what it must rely on ?
And did Ratzinger's resourceful Roman "remembering" rationalization in any way contradict that reality of critical lack?
And how did Ratzinger's recollection rationalization help you to believe and justify Rome's tradition as being the word of God?
And lest you doubt that was Rome says is true is therefore true, did you know (remember) that in RC theology you the unconverted cannot even ascertain what writings are all wholly inspired of God apart from an act of faith in Rome, and thus appeal to the Scriptures are to be as a merely reliable historical source, which hopefully helps the potential convert to ascertain that the church of Rome is what she says it is, and thereby know what writings are of God?
And thus you are to submit to all the judgments of the magisterial stewards of Scripture and authorities on it, versus following itinerant preachers?
Just checking your oromethodoxy.
Well; so far so good.
No one has in THIS thread.
I; however; have pointed out some 'facts' about Rome's 'Mary' that are not very complementary.
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.