Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
SD
BTW, I have heard Mother Teresa is up for sainthood, which bends the rules already as there is suppose to be a waiting period. But I read an interview given by her once where she said (I am parapharseing) basically that she told Hindus, and Muslims when they were on their death beds and asking fearfully what was coming after death, that if they had enough faith in their own gods, they would surly go to heaven.
Other then not believeing that this was not a valid quote in the article I read:) what do you make of that.
I also read that the women who took her place says that the nuns in her order already pray to her for spiritual guidance. Is that proper?
I am not trying to be offensive, but these are valid questions that you don't have to answer, they just stand out like a sore thumb:) IMO. I am not bad mouthing this woman either. This all seems contradictory to me.
Becky
If you must pry, the gospel according to alcoholics anonymous.
As for me, I believe that Christ did what He did to give me the power to become actually holy, not to have me considered holy.
This is a slap in the face of God (so to speak). I know you don't mean it to be, but it IS !!! Look, Dave, to say that you want the power to become actually holy rather than be clothed with HIS righteousness is an INSULT to Jesus. He took your sin that you might have HIS righteousness. Have you ever given someone a gift, only to have them refuse to take it? What an insult it is!
I think I may have used verbal shorthand here. I didn't mean to say that "I" would have the power to make me holy, I meant that the power of Christ, working through me will make me actually holy. Does that make a difference?
As for the rest, which is better, to accept a gift which changes your life, which makes you actually innocent, actually pure, actually worthy to stand in God's Presence. Or to be content with being acquitted, being in Heaven with flaws and blemishes, but "let off" because of Christ.
I will choose to have my soul actually cleaned, thank you.
SD
Well, everyone knows that the real 'America's Team' wears Green and Gold. When the Packers won their first NFL Championship, Tom Landry was still in kindergarten.
Oh, I just realized, that pergatory would be better defined as forced salvation, what we can't accomplish with God's Spirit and the blood of Christ, God then forces us to final submission with out giving us our free moral agency to decide whether or not we want to be with God enough to submit to it.
This whole idea goes against everything the scripture teaches on our salvation being to our choosing.
Deut 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed;
If you must pry, the gospel according to alcoholics anonymous.
I was making an apparently weak attempt at humor. "To thine own self be true" is a line recited by the character Polonius in Shakespeare's Hamlet.
This has been talked about before you know. For convenience sake I'm just going to re-post my responses to this argument made long ago...
He didn't actually teach it, so he can't be a Heretic now can he. And that was the belief of Pope St. Leo II. The Council of Constantinople 680-681 drew up a list of condemned Monothelite haretics in the thirteenth session of the council March 28, 681, it states, as an after thought...
But Pope Honorius had never provided such a statement. Culpably, he left the matter open. Fortunately such a moment of madness in an ecumenical council does not conflict with Catholic doctrine about the Holy Spirit being present, for His presence does not guarantee councils from error, other wise there would be no need for a Pope to review and confirm them for the Church.
The council sent its decrees to Pope St Leo II who confirmed the final decree, while at the same time redefining its language on Pope Honorius conforming to the fact that he had not endorsed Sergius' ideas, but only refrained from condemning them. This we know from the five extant letters of St Leo II in which he states that Pope Honorius was condemned not for being a heretic but for negligence in not denouncing the heresy.
The fact remains that no decree of a council has effect in the Catholic Church unless and until it is confirmed by the Pope, and Only in the form that he confirms it Therefor, Pope Honorius was never condemned for heresy by the supreme Church authority, but only for negligence allowing a heresy to spred and grow, when he should have denounced it. This matter was extensively debated during the First Vatican Council.
By the way, I wouldn't' go to Christian Resources if I were you. From an earlier post I made... JHavard: Just how would any one go about finding an anti Catholic web site, you have every site monopolized with your own anti non-Catholic spin?
Look up Christian Resources on Yahoo. Its one of the many I've come across and it's full of demonstrably historical inaccuracies, and biblical fallacies, and most of the common arguments lobbed at us. Not to many Proddies actually advocate the killing of "papists" youd have to go back in history to find them, perhaps you've heard of them? Luth, Knox, Zwingli,... The fact is the whole Rebellion was and is an anti-Catholic thing ergo all true Protestant web sites are anti-Catholic just as all true Communist web sites would be opposed to Capitalism.
Hay RCs out there, I think at this point we should be able to continue arguing with the Proddies by just re-posting old stuff. After all it is what they do[g].
Sure ... kick a man while he's down! ;o)
I've broached this subject before with one of these passages from Isaiah, they were recieved by deaf ears. When the point is sealed, they cry foul but will not address the blatent nature of the affront their doctrines represent to the Bible. The ears close as they curse the speaker of scripture and cling to their philosophies.
As long as we don't beef up our patrol along the Mexican/US border the Dallas Cowboys will continue to be America's team. :-)
Yesterday in mass, the priest talked a while about prayer, about coming to God in truth, being truthful about who you are (particularly since God knows).
We spend a lot of mental time being untruthful to ourself about who we really are, I think.
To thine own self be true. It's harder than it sounds.
I am not the Church, that's how. If I am convinced of my own salvation it will lead to complacency. We are to persevere, not assume we already have won. The Church, on the other hand, has been given the right to bind and loose and can determine things as they are in Heaven. No contradiction at all. (And all the saints are dead, too. The Church doesn't tell any living (on earth) person that they are definitly going to heaven)
This "devils advocate" can he read a persons heart, beacause as you know the bible tells us ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. We have all sinned so for this/these advocates to say we looked for sin but this person came out clean is setting themselves up as judge.
Does not the Bible also say that our faith can be known from the fruits it produces?
You and many others have stated that it is not for us to judge who has gone to hell, but the church can judge who has gone to heaven? I think it's easier to see those who are not going to heaven then who are, because let's face it we are all slime:)
The Church does not "sentence" anyone to hell because to do so would be to refuse God His mercy. We can not know the intimate details and cuplability of persons whose fruits appear to be rotten. We can assume that those with good fruit have good faith.
BTW, I have heard Mother Teresa is up for sainthood, which bends the rules already as there is suppose to be a waiting period.
Those supporting the idea are preparing her "case," and the Vatican has agreed to start looking at it early, I believe. This does violate a normal "rule," but the Church will do as she wishes. I think it will be a long time efore we see her case get resolved.
But I read an interview given by her once where she said (I am parapharseing) basically that she told Hindus, and Muslims when they were on their death beds and asking fearfully what was coming after death, that if they had enough faith in their own gods, they would surly go to heaven.
Mother Theresa served the poor and sick by meeting their material needs and need for comfort. That she did not place a great emphasis on conversion is practically to her credit. (Literally practical) Many would scream bloody murder if Theresa had made a condition of getting bread or medical help listening to a sermon or converting to Catholiciism.
The criticism here is typical of much the Church receives. If she had placed here emphasis on changing hearts to Christ, she would be accused of extorting souls by dangling food, shelter and medical care as a reward. Since she focused on the material needs of the people she serves she now is accused of not paying attentionto their spiritual needs.
We do believe that a poor Hindu with no knowledge of Christ could, note: could, still merit Heaven. This is probably where the twisted quote originated. Would you want to get into a religious argument with a devout Muslim woman as she lay dying or would you pray for her soul and comfort her as you can?
I also read that the women who took her place says that the nuns in her order already pray to her for spiritual guidance. Is that proper?
It is in fact necessary. If you believe someone is a saint already it is good to pray for their help. Only a tiny fraction of the folks in heaven are listed as "official" saints. Part of the criteria for official sainthood is that the person must acheive two miracles after they are dead. This is accomplished by asking for the person's intercession.
SD
Dude, you misspelled "black." :-)
SD
I would rather the rest of America keeps their mits off of my team. Even tho I know it would be tempting to claim a team that's won 50% of the Superbowls in the past 4 years.
Oh, I just realized, that pergatory would be better defined as forced salvation, what we can't accomplish with God's Spirit and the blood of Christ, God then forces us to final submission with out giving us our free moral agency to decide whether or not we want to be with God enough to submit to it.
No, try again. When will it occur to at least one of you folks that Purgatory IS the application of Christ's blood to our souls? I know I've said it a few times.
And don't be ridiculous, this doesn't violate our free will. Those in Purgatory will be there because of the choices they have made. In life.
SD
But you really aren't, God just sees you that way? I am sorry but in Heaven I will be truly pure. Innocent, not merely "acquitted.
But the way God sees me is the only thing that is important! Your spliting hairs, and this is the kind of remark that shows the convoluted way catholics keep issues confused so that no one really knows what to think.
You think that being "seen" as pure versus being actually made pure is "splitting hairs"? Why is the power of Christ apparently limited to only "covering" our sins? It can only fool God into thinking we are clean? Why isn't Christ powerful enough to actually make us pure?
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.