Posted on 09/30/2003 9:32:47 AM PDT by Fifthmark
Protestantism is founded on many lies: (1) That Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did not create a visible, hierarchical Church. (2) That there is no authority given by Our Lord to the Pope and his bishops and priests to govern and to sanctify the faithful. (3) That each believer has an immediate and personal relationship with the Savior as soon as he makes a profession of faith on his lips and in his heart, therefore being perpetually justified before God. (4) Having been justified by faith alone, a believer has no need of an intermediary from a non-existent hierarchical priesthood to forgive him his sins. He is forgiven by God immediately when he asks forgiveness. (5) This state of justification is not earned by good works. While good works are laudable, especially to help unbelievers convert, they do not impute unto salvation. Salvation is the result of the profession of faith that justifies the sinner. (6) That grace is merely, in the words of Martin Luther, the snowflakes that cover up the "dungheap" that is man. (7) That there is only one source of Divine Revelation, Sacred Scripture. (8) That each individual is his own interpreter of Sacred Scripture. (9) That there is a strict separation of Church and State. Princes, to draw from Luther himself, may be Christians but it is not as a Christian that they ought to rule. These lies have permutated in thousands of different directions. However, they have sewn the fabric of the modern state and popular culture for nearly 500 years (I shudder to think how the Vatican is going to commemorate the 500th anniversary of Luther's posting his 95 theses on the church doors in Wittenberg fourteen years from now).
Here below are explanations of these lies and their multifaceted implications for the world in which we live:
(1-2) The contention that Our Lord did not create a visible, hierarchical church vitiates the need for a hierarchical, sacerdotal priesthood for the administration of the sacraments. It is a rejection of the entirety of the history of Christianity prior to the Sixteenth Century. It is a denial of the lesson taught us by Our Lord by means of His submission to His own creatures, Saint Joseph and the Blessed Mother, in the Holy Family of Nazareth that each of us is to live our entire lives under authority, starting with the authority of the Vicar of Christ and those bishops who are in full communion with him. The rejection of the visible, hierarchical church is founded on the prideful belief that we are able to govern ourselves without being directed by anyone else on earth. This contention would lead in due course to the rejection of any and all religious belief as necessary for individuals and for societies. Luther and Calvin paved the way for Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the French Revolution that followed so closely the latter's deification of man.
(3-6) Baptism is merely symbolic of the Christian's desire to be associated with the Savior in the amorphous body known as the Church. What is determinative of the believer's relationship with Christ is his profession of faith. As the believer remains a reprobate sinner, all he can do is to seek forgiveness by confessing his sins privately to God. This gives the Protestant of the Lutheran strain the presumptuous sense that there is almost nothing he can do to lose his salvation once he has made his profession of faith in the Lord Jesus. There is thus no belief that a person can scale the heights of personal sanctity by means of sanctifying grace. It is impossible, as Luther projected from his own unwillingness to cooperate with sanctifying grace to overcome his battles with lust, for the believer to be anything other than a dungheap. Thus a Protestant can sin freely without for once considering that he has killed the life of sanctifying grace in his soul, thereby darkening his intellect and weakening the will and inclining himself all the more to sin-and all the more a vessel of disorder and injustice in the larger life of society.
(7-8) The rejection of a visible, hierarchical Church and the rejection of Apostolic Tradition as a source of Divine Revelation protected by that Church leads in both instances to theological relativism. Without an authoritative guide to interpret Divine Revelation, including Sacred Scripture, individual believers can come to mutually contradictory conclusions about the meaning of passages, the precise thing that has given rise to literally thousands of Protestant sects. And if a believer can reduce the Bible, which he believes is the sole source of Divine Revelation, to the level of individual interpretation, then there is nothing to prevent anyone from doing the same with all written documents, including the documents of a nation's founding. If the plain words of Scripture can be deconstructed of their meaning, it is easy to do so, say, with the words of a governmental constitution. Theological relativism paved the way for moral relativism. Moral relativism paved the way for the triumph of positivism and deconstructionism as normative in the realm of theology and that of law and popular culture.
(9) The overthrow of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ as it was exercised by His true Church in the Middle Ages by the Protestant concept of the separation of Church and State is what gave rise to royal absolutism in Europe in the immediate aftermath of Luther's handiwork. Indeed, as I have noted any number of times before, it is arguably the case that the conditions that bred resentment on the part of colonists in English America prior to 1776 might never have developed if England had remained a Catholic nation. The monarchy would have been subject in the Eighteenth Century to same constraints as it had in the Tenth or Eleventh Centuries, namely, that kings and queens would have continued to understand that the Church reserved unto herself the right to interpose herself in the event that rulers had done things-or proposed to do things-that were contrary to the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law and/or were injurious of the cause of the sanctification and salvation of the souls of their subjects. The overthrow of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ deposited power first of all in the hands of monarchs eager to be rid of the "interference" of the Church and ultimately in the hands of whoever happened to hold the reins of governmental power in the modern "democratic" state. Despotism has been the result in both cases
(Excerpt) Read more at seattlecatholic.com ...
Uh, no it doesn't.
Genesis 5:3
3. When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
Now what?????????
Adam's image was that of Whom? If I paint a picture that looks like a Van Gogh, and you then paint a picture that looks like my picture, does your picture look like a Van Gogh?
SD
You are incorrect. The Holy Spirit can lead a person individually to the Truth, the real truth, the Truth which is in line with the Magisterium. There is no sin in accepting an inspiration that is authentic.
So then Jesus was Lying when he asked the Father for what had already existed in his body which resided in space/time?
Jesus, if you recall, emptied Himself and took the form of a man when He became Incarnate. He was not lying when He desired, in the flesh, to be glorified.
Do you really think God operates in time, that He had to wait for Jesus to die on the Cross before He could bless anyone with the grace from the Sacrifice? Were Old Testament saints saved by some other source of grace, other than Christ on the Cross?
SD
How much time do you have?
You've fallen off the rock and accepted numerous false ideas, chief of which is the "faith alone" belief.
You also fail to understand ecclesiology and the role of saints. Sacraments and their necessity to growth in grace. Grace in general.
And to top it all off, you seem to have trouble with your Christology, highlighting on this thread at least twice the belief that a sinless man is sufficient for atonement. You also fail to affirm that Mary is the mother of God, further calling into question your belief that Jesus is True God and True man.
SD
Insufficient evidence
Okay, now lets decline the verb properly.
charitoo - to grace, favor
ke - signifying perfect tense, thus a present state resulting from a past action is indicated. Hence here, we might properly translate "are graced". "Are" indicating the present state, "graced" indicating it was accomplished in the past.
mene - signifying a passive participle, meaning an outside source is acting upon the subject of the verb, which has characteristics of a noun. Hence here, it is being said that "God graced you", and this is being used as a name for Mary by the Archangel Gabriel
So The Archangel Gabriel is coming up to Mary and saying in effect "Hail, [You] Are-Graced [by God], the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women."
The implication is perfectly obvious. The Angel is coming to Mary and seeing the results of God's work on Mary in the past that remains up to the present.
Mom, this is pointless for at least two reasons. First, this is obviously an Anglican article. Second, nothing here even hints at the fact that childbirth is a "sin," which is what you stated.
SD
Are you applauding the application of an irrelevant Anglican cut-and-paste which doesn't answer the question, or are you applauding the criticism of a saint?
SD
Catholics believe God made the world "good". It is people who are corrupted by sin, not the elements of the earth.
Do you claim they were or do you retract your claim that Scripture says they were sinless?
No I agree with you. I'm just trying to show you that "all" does not always mean "all" in Scripture.
Don't make me equate words that I reject as equated. I'm tired of you putting words in my mouth. Christ said we must keep the commandments perfectly, and repent when we do not. We will never be as Holy as God, though we can participate in His holiness through grace. Perfection in morality is a fruit of holiness, so the two things are quite distinct.
So you view St. Paul as being a standing abomination before God, and not merely talking in superlatives out of humility as to his being the chief sinner of humanity? He was a great abomination than Emperor Caligula? 2,899 posted on 10/13/2003 10:08 PM EDT by Hermann the Cherusker
I had not used the word abomination with Paul..that was your choice of words.. That appeared to be your opinion of a saint that admits sin.
O Deceiver! That is not my view! Note the word "YOU" right before "view" in what I wrote. You told us sin is an abomination, and that St. Paul assures us that he is the chiefmost sinner of the world. I combined your two assertions and asked if this was truly your view. Note the question marks.
Again, I DENY that when St. Paul says he is the foremost sinner in the world that He is speaking of the state of his soul at that instant. I assert most forcefully that he is referring to the totality of his life up to that time, especially the year he spent persecuting Christians and Christ.
the full mercy at the cross and your addition of works
Where?
the sin of a righteous man
A righteous man does not commit mortal sins. If a righteous man sins, he becomes unrighteous. You speak in nonsequiturs and oxymorons.
Anyone reading your sees your obsession with earning your own way to heaven..just look at the post I am responding, so even to a casual reader it is clear how you believe one is saved. Laws, Laws and more Laws with God paying the wage you earned.
Answer me point blank - are Christians required to keep the commandments? Will a Christian who does not keep the commandments and does not repent of post-Baptismal sins be admitted into heaven based on their faith? Are you, in other words, an antinomian?
I did a search for the conversation we had on the OT saints and can not find it. But your posts on being saved by the church and the sacraments ..especially the "sacrifice " of the bread and wine and your insistence that it is possible to keep the law..all speak for themselves So I will allow you to call me a liar
Thank you for admitting that I did not say that in your own roundabout way. The Saints of the Old Testament were saved by persevering in faith in Christ, which gave them the grace to follow the Law.
For some reason I missed that comment..Hermann..God is bound by His word..He can not just do whatever He pleases. The plan of salvation was formed before the beginning of the world..God is bound to His word and His plan. The sin had to be paid for His righteousness demanded it
God is bound by His word, but He also could have spoken another word. That is all that I meant. You always insist on reading your own prejudicies into what others speak. I merely state that God could have, but did not, redeemed mankind in another way.
Reading the word of God, though, does not sprinkle you with the Blood of Christ and enter you into the new testament or give you a participation in it
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Word - the words spoken in Baptism along with the washign of water.
Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Thy word - thy promises.
Do you seriously believe that every time the word "word" is used in Scripture, it means "Protestant Bible"?
It is the hearing of the word that brings us to faith
Thank you for that admission. Faith does not come by reading the Bible, but is given us by God through the lips of preachers whom He sends.
How can you worship what you do not know?
You can't properly.
Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Word of God - the good news in Christ preached by the Apostles and Disciples. When St. Paul wrote this, there was, of course, no New Testament. The Faith of Christians comes from God through the lips of their preachers. Atheists and Jews read the Bible and it profits them not.
Nowhere are we told - go read the Bible to find the faith.
How can someone incapable of a relationship with God be God's mother?
Do you have a relationship with God ?
Thank you for your concise post. Your summary is correct !
I was without power most of the day ..:>(
Missed you ...
Glad to see you're back ;^)
You also fail to affirm that Mary is the mother of God, further calling into question your belief that Jesus is True God and True man.
Noone quoted in the New Testament referred to Mary as the mother of God,... Jesus included.
Are they all potential heretics, as well ?
I like to think so. Curious question. Is there some relation to the Mary discussion?
SD
You don't really find a lot of Christological discussion going on in the Scripture. That happened later, as we tried to make sense of what was Revealed.
To stand here today, with what we do know and to refuse to acknowledge Jesus as God is to engage in heresy, yes. If Paul or John or anyone in the NT would refuse to consider Mary as Theotokos today, they would be in heresy.
SD
That is the description TODAY . We were discussing the purification of Mary from the sin of childbirth .
In the Jewish law (Lev. XII.) women for forty days after the birth of a boy, and for eighty after that of a girl,were regarded as unclean and kept out of the temple, and required, at the end of that time, to bring a lamb as a holocaust, and a dove as a propitiatory sacrifice to the temple, and be pronounced pure by the prayer of the priest. This law does not, it is true, apply to Christian women, because the Church has abolished the Jewish ceremonies: but the Church, nevertheless, permits them to remain absent from church for six weeks, or so long as circumstances may require, after the birth of a child, in order to take care of their health. This should be remembered by husbands, who should see that their wives have the necessary quiet and attendance which nature requires for recovery after the birth of a child. The Church desires that at the end of this time the mother, following Mary's example, should resort to the church to obtain the blessing of the priest, thank God for her delivery, offer the child to God, praying with the priest for the grace to bring up her offspring in sanctity and piety. This comprises the Churching of women, which is a very old and praiseworthy custom and should not be neglected. This practice was not instituted to prevent their being harmed by the devil, by malicious persons, or by ghosts, and it would be not only a foolish fear, but a superstition to be condemned, if one were to suppose that a woman were liable to harm if she should go abroad before she were churched. The delicate health of women and of children is generally owing to their having injured themselves by want of proper care and attention.
As I had said originally that a woman that had given birth was considered sinful
You questioned that ...but the ceremony was the "purification" of Mary. As was the custom she mad a sin sacrifice.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/The_Church_Year/Purification_Virgin_Mary.htm
Wetzer-Welte’s Catholic encyclopedia (1886) describes it : ‘Like catechumens and penitents, the puerpera [woman who has recently given birth] must initially stand or even kneel outside the church door. Not until she has been lustrated with holy water and priestly prayer does the priest conduct her into church after the manner of catechumens prior to baptism and, in former times, of public penitents on Holy Thursday’
(Wetzer-Welte, I, p. 1711).
That was my experience..I had to stand in the back of the church ..be sprinkled with holy water and have the priest pray , only then could i enter the church . So if you want to call it a "blessing" I had to be forgiven before i could enter the church.
Mother Teresa witnessed to Christ by showing His love to all through compassionate care, especially to those rejected pagans dying alone in the gutters, to abandoned orphans, and other pitiful cases ("Religion pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to give aid to orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself unspotted from this world." - St. James 1.27). Her charism was not to preach Christ to people who did not wish to hear it, although she gladly preached and baptized all who evidenced an interest (she nicknamed her baptisms of the unconscious she found on death's door "Peter's Passport"). But if someone wished to die a Hindu and was not interested in knowing Christ, she was content to let them have their wish, and to comfort them at their last hours when all others had abandoned them.
Yes and she sent them to Hell without knowing the gospel .How do you know the man wanted to die a hindi? She never offered him the gospel
"... it is they who follow the Law that will be justified. When the Gentiles who have no law do by nature what the Law prescribes, these having no law are a law unto themselves. They show the work of the Law written on their hearts. Their conscience bears witness to them, even when conflicting thoughts accuse or defend them. This will take place on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the hidden secrets of men through Jesus Christ." (Romans 2.13-16)
I thought you did not believe in salvation by law keeping?.Actually Romens teaches that no man is justified by the law..the written law or the law on their heart,
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
No man comes to the Father BUT BY ME
We were discussing the purification of Mary from the sin of childbirth .
As I had said originally that a woman that had given birth was considered sinful
Mom, this is not a sacrifice for sin. There is no sin here. This is a purity thing, which is not the same thing as a sin.
Women also had to undergo special rituals when their "time of the month" had ended. This was to restore them to ritual purity. This is not to imply that menstruating is a sin. It is not. Sin is the voluntary, willfull, and knowing violation of a precept of God. It is the choosing to do wrong. Menstruating is nto a choice women make and it is not a "wrong" that God has intructed us not to commit.
Neither is giving birth. If childbirth is a sin, then contraception is a sacrament.
What do you think sin is? And how is bearing children wrong?
SD
Do you have a relationship with God ? I like to think so. Curious question. Is there some relation to the Mary discussion?
So you are ... capable of having a relationship with God, ... and yet, were not immaculately conceived ?
That is correct. I had to wait until several weeks after I was born to have my original sin removed.
SD
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.