“It's easier to fool people
than to convince them
that they have been fooled.”
Posted on 09/11/2023 9:23:22 AM PDT by ebb tide
Constantine did not “found” the Catholic Church; it had been in existence since 33 AD and miraculously became the dominant Faith in all of the Empire. Many souls were saved because the name of Jesus was now known by a large portion of the world.
By the way, Constantine ruled from Byzantium and partook of Eastern Christian tradition and theology. So maybe he actually founded the Eastern Orthodox Church. ;)
Actually, the Canon was known by WORD OF MOUTH until Trent had to codify because there so many malcontents at the time who thought they could decide what books were in the Bible by their own authority.
I’m sure boatbums is a good person, but I’ve been reading about these issues since I was in Grade school and I’m at least as informed as he is.
Yup.
The EXAMPLE of the CORRECT way to worship and practice is found in the first 3 chapters of the last book of the bible that Rome assembled long ago:
the Seven churches in Asia.
We would do well to emulate them, since they are the product of what is known today of Roman Catholicism.
Today they would be deplorables;
who were eviently outnumbered in the last presidential election by non-malcontents.
“It's easier to fool people
than to convince them
that they have been fooled.”
eBB - Combining this thread with THIS (really, the same thread) gets you to almost 700 replies in your week-long "playground".
I think you can do better than that.
For example, the Cult of Mary thread earned over 2,300 replies.
Your addiction and your need for attention may require you to open your "catholic caucuses" so that you can get a better fix - but you might overdose...so use caution.
THANK YOU! It is fun to watch you get taken to task and to see your religious beliefs decimated by true believers who know Scripture, Scriptural Truth, and how to apply Scripture accurately.
What Roman Catholicism cannot, or will not do, is point to any wholly God-inspired promulgation of oral teachings they claim the Jesus and the Apostles handed down. The pope may claim to be "infallibly" handing down an apostolic "oral tradition" of the presumed Assumption of Mary (which, in the absence of written testimony for centuries, Ratzinger posits that Rome "remembered it)", but he cannot claim that his promulgation is God-inspired like Scripture is.
Of course, the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (EPMV) is (at best) also of oral tradition, upon which premise Rome claims EPMV.
And then there is debate over the meaning of support for oral tradition. So-called "Scripture Catholic" lists Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Symyrnaens 8 (c. A.D. 110) as one in saying,
"Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbyterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the bishop..."Which TradCaths would greatly restrict to just a few alive today, if any.
And in contrast to the degrading of Scripture by the OP, against it being sure supreme standard, and the foundation and pillar of our faith, then such as thus is cited. .
The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).
Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,5,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).Yet what is also testified to by the poster, was the recourse to oral tradition (as chosen by the church as being faithful) when faced with heretics, who argued against them on that basis, rather than overcoming them by Scripture, as the Lord did to the Pharisees, and Paul with the like, and we have, by Scriptural substantiation.
And when we challenge them in turn what that tradition, which is from the Apostles, which is guarded by the succession of elders in the churches, they oppose themselves to Tradition, saying that they are wiser, not only than those elders, but even than the Apostles. The Tradition of the Apostles, manifested ‘on the contrary’ in the whole world, is open in every Church to all who see the truth…And, since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the Tradition of that greatest and most ancient and universally known Church, founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a tradition which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men from those Apostles.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1-3 (inter A.D. 180/199).
(Thus RCs resort to the absurd argument that Paul in writing the epistle to the church at Rome (who indicates he had not yet visited them), did not mention Peter among the 27 persons he greets in chapter 16 (among 31 he names, and 34 overall in that chapter) because he wanted to protect him from persecution - while apparently having no scruples about naming the rest) As a result of recourse to inferior oral tradition, which, by its very nature is far more susceptible to undetectable corruption than writing is, with its surpassing number of manuscripts, then an accretion of claimed chosen traditions of men followed, under the premise of EPMV which is part of claimed tradition.
All told, there simply is no argument against the primary of Scripture as God's chosen means of preservation, for as is abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.
And aside from the "Bible only" strawman (as meaning the Bible alone is to be used, and one must be able to read it) the only debate left is as regards its sufficiency. Which relates to is formal and material senses.
If you're series, that's insane.
If you're joking, that's funny.
If one doesn't the difference between "series" and "serious", that's insane.
Sorry!
I thought you had been on FR long enough to know the meme. But it’s only been since 2012.
It seems like you’ve been irritating people longer than that.
I’m quite serious.
ebb tide only annoys Protestants who don’t like to hear any other opinions than theirs. Who needs an infallible Pope when we have you guys here to make definitive statements and tell people they’re going to hell? A lot of “thank God I’m not like other men” style stuff from you guys.
It doesn't say "all that Jesus taught", just that He DID so many things that even the world itself could not contain all the books that should be written so vast is the miraculous incarnation of Jesus Christ and His ways past finding out. It's a cop-out used by cults and religions that either add new doctrines to Scripture or those which may contradict it. I submit that what we have in the Old and New Testaments DOES contain "the whole counsel of God" as Paul stated in his letter to the Ephesians as recorded in Acts 20:27. There is NO new/additional revelation from God meant for believers after Revelation was written.
Paul also wrote to the Corinthians:
Therefore, since God in His mercy has given us this ministry, we do not lose heart. Instead, we have renounced secret and shameful ways. We do not practice deceit, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by open proclamation of the truth, we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. (II Cor. 4:1-3)
Thank God that elsie is not a Johnny One Note!
He manages to annoy all types of folks who proclaim their way is the ONLY way.
Who wrote these gems ?:
"You better worry about your own eternal future instead of mine."
"Please, Don’t Call Protestants Christians" ?
"I don’t want to go where you seem to be going."
.
Now, since you're pretty new here, there are several memes that are repeated regularly here at FR. One of them comes from a typo someone made long ago. Instead of saying "serious", he wrote "series" and it became a regular joke. There are other such memes and maybe you will see them eventually.
I've been here long enough to remember the days when the website was so immature that if a poster left tags open, then the next post would inherit those tags and an admin would have to step in and clear up the mess. Funny! I haven' thought of that for a long time.
I've seen your posts and, in my view you are stuck in a religion that leads people to hell. I am not saying at all Catholics are going to hell. I know some who understand grace and are only engaged in the kind of work that James describes. BUT these people are not following all the baggage that the RCC throws on its adherents.
Here's why: Catholicism is a religion based on works. "Oh!" you scream "NO!" But I have first-hand experience with your "church". It adds works to your faith in Christ and thus renders your faith to be useless. I compare it to what Paul said about Jews who were continuing in their own efforts to follow the Law of Moses (e.g. circumcision). Your church is FULL of work requirements that are added to your Creed. Deny it if you's like. I don't care. The list of added salvation requirements is long, starting with all your "sacraments", death without any unconfessed mortal sins, and includes a host of other required ritualistic observations.
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? (Galatians 3:1-3)
and
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” Galatians 3:10-11
I want to be clear:
If a person holds to the official Roman Catholic understanding of salvation, he or she is not saved. Despite their vigorous affirmations, Roman Catholicism does not truly hold to salvation by grace through faith1.
I won't reply to whatever you write. I already know what you think. You've said enough.
1 Taken from HERE.
“… Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision”
I must need a new Bible, mine says “…circumcision without hands” and I understand what he is comparing.
You don’t.
That is just ONE of your errors.
So, “Bye!”
I know you said that you wouldn’t answer, but do you believe works of the (Mosaic) Law are the same thing as “good works”?
And that's worse than actively practicing homosexual priests who molest minors, eh?
So if that disqualifies or invalidates anything Hus had to say, then what about the corrupt, immoral popes and priests Catholicism is rife with and has been for the last 1,000 years or so??
He considered this part of the “Freedom of the Gospel”.
Sources? Can you back up that accusation?
Is that so?
IIRC, she went to seminary.
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.