Posted on 03/08/2013 9:01:51 PM PST by daniel1212
Caracas, Venezuela, Mar 6, 2013 / 12:01 pm (CNA).- A source in Venezuela has revealed to CNA that President Hugo Chavez died “in bosom of the Church” and received spiritual direction and the sacraments in his last days.
In announcing Chavez’s death to the nation on March 5, Vice President Nicolas Maduro said the Venezuelan leader died “clinging to Christ.” The source in Venezuela told CNA that during the last weeks of his life, Chavez requested spiritual direction and asked to receive the sacraments.
Ever since he assumed power in 1999, Chavez butted heads continuously with the Catholic Church over statements by the bishops warning of the risks and excesses of his Socialist agenda. In 2002, Chavez accused the Venezuelan bishops of being a “tumor” for his revolutionary goals and demanded that the Vatican not intervene in the internal affairs of the country.
In recent years, Chavez occasionally took part in the religious services of distinct denominations, but he surprised the press in April 2012 when he showed up at a Catholic church in his hometown of Barinas to attend Holy Week services. He wore a rosary around his neck and prayed for strength to fight his illness. Last July, Chavez made public his request to meet with the Catholic bishops.
After Chavez’s death, the Archdiocese of Caracas, led by Cardinal Jorge Urosa who is currently in Rome for the conclave, sent its condolences
The secretary general of the Bishops’ Conference of Venezuela, Bishop Jesus Gonzalez de Zarate, called for national unity. “At this time let us all put forth our best sentiments,” he said during an interview on Venezuelan television. “Death is not the end of our life,” he added. “Death only opens the way to a life of complete happiness, at the side of God our Father.”
Jesus is not the Lamb of God slain for our sins?
Jesus is not the Good Shepard?
Jesus is not the gate by which we enter the heavenly kingdom?
Jesus is not the Living water, such as the rock which the Jews drank from in the desert?
Jesus is not the Divine Son, equal to the Father?
Jesus is not the Bread of Life which came down from heaven?
Jesus is not the Lord?
Jesus is not the true Vine?
Wow, I guess we Catholics really have gotten it all wrong!
****Rather, what we see is more RC eisegesis, reading into texts what is not there, and in other passages excluding any other interpretation other than Romes, even though allegory is what is most supported. Do not claim you are being objective, as you are not and you cannot if you will defend Rome.****
You claim that Catholics read into Scripture what is not there and the Church says that those who do not believe do so because they do not see the truth that is there.
I cannot claim objectivity? Why, because my objective opinion and belief in the opposite of yours? Do you have some infallible power that is not available to me?
I will say again, as I said to another here in this thread, you don’t know the first thing about me, how I came to believe or why I believe so strongly, and yet feel confident in commenting on something so deeply personal.
The arrogance and presumption is some of these posts couldn’t be more contradictory of the humility of Christianity.
So be it.
I do not try to convert anyone, or change their mind regarding their beliefs and Bible interpretation. I merely stand behind my own, freely and thoughtfully formed through study and prayer.
I also do not presume to be superior or to belittle anyone because they differ so radically from me in belief.
I think we have said all that can be said here and when the conversation becomes an attack, I must withdraw.
Peace be with you.
|
1. Do you view Communion as an "actual communion with the risen Christ (1 Cor. 10:16)"? Yes, for as explained, taking part in a pagan feast in which food it eaten which was dedicated to idols constituted having fellowship with devils. What is unknown to most is that such communal eating together signified worship of the object which the ceremony was dedicated to, and oneness with the people you eat with. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? " (1 Corinthians 10:16-18) As they all ate of the altar then they were all worshipers, and this is how communion of the blood of Christ is explained, But note that neither fellowship with devils or Israelites with God was by eating the actual flesh of the object of worship, but by communally partaking in the ceremony and thus eating what was dedicated to that object of worship. In the Lord's supper believers are communally signifying fellowship with Christ as the people He bought with His own blood, (Acts 20:28) and thus the fellowship is not simply with Christ but with each other: “For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” And as signifying fellowship with Christ and His death in communal eating means having communion with others in a manner consistent with Him, thus in 1Cor. 11:20 they actually were not coming together to eat the Lord's supper, because they were doing so in a manner inconsistent with His death (ignoring needy members).. The focus was not on the elements, but what partaking of them represented, and having communion with the Lord by acting accordingly. As explained here
And which bread as figurative is entirely consistent with John (as seen below) and Scriptural figurative elsewhere, in which even the Canaanites were said to be “bread for us:” “neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us.” (Num. 14:9) In what sense were they “bread?” Certainly not literally, but by what they would provide, and in Scripture and especially in John's writing, the life the Lord provided via His atonement was appropriated by faith in Christ to save them by His sinless shed blood — and nowhere by eating. The Canaanite's death provided land for the people of God, thus figuratively they were “bread” for them, and likewise Christ's voluntary death provided redemption for the same people, thus figuratively He is life-giving bread for those who receive Him by repentant faith in the gospel. "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:9-10) "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;" (Romans 3:25) "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. " (Romans 10:9-10) In like use of analogy, after being given water from the well of Bethlehem gained from behind enemy lines, David said, “My God forbid it me, that I should do this thing: shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy? for with their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mightiest. " (1 Chronicles 11:19) Here David equates that which was obtained at the risk of the men's lives with that of their lives themselves, which blood represents. And also figuratively, the elements given to the disciples in the Lord supper represents the flesh and blood (which denotes man as regards his mortal being: 1Cor. 15:50) of the Lord who gave Himself for them.
And continuing to compare Scripture with Scripture, what is shown is that it is by believing the gospel message that one is born again and made inward alive, passing from death unto life, and who then lives in another sense by living according to the word of God. Again, this inward life is never shown to be a result of physically consuming anything, which would make physical digestion a requirement for salvation. "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. " (Acts 10:43-44) "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? " (Acts 10:47) "And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. " (Acts 15:7-9) "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) " (Ephesians 2:5)
And the word is not REAL, as opposed to metaphor, but “of a truth,” (Jn. 7:40) or “Truly,” Verily, as truly it is food that give eternal life — which is by believing the gospel — just as much as Jesus was truly the door indeed by which the sheep enter into the sheepfold. And of a truth the Canannites were bread for the Israelites. This verse flows from the previous verse, and “verily” refers to the efficacy of the food to give eternal life, which again is by spiritually believing on the Lord Jesus Christ as the propitiation for our sins."And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. " (John 3:14-15) They looked and lived. The same word (alēthōs) is used in Luke 21:3: "And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all," but which is not as if she literally gave more, but in the sense of God's accounting. And by which Christ is verily also the Lamb of God, (Jn. 1:29) the temple of God, (Jn. 2:21) the bridegroom, (Jn. 3:29) the giver of living water, (Jn. 4:14) the living bread (Jn. 6:15) the light of the world, (Jn. 8:12) the door of the sheep, and Good Shepherd, (Jn. 10:7,11) the resurrection, and the life, (Jn. 11:25) the way, the truth and the life, (Jn. 14:6) and the vine. (Jn. 15:5)
This text further affirms that the eating and drinking of John 6 by which one not only has life, but lives by Christ, is figurative of receiving/believing the crucified and risen Lord. As seen in Scripture, one is made alive in regeneration by repentant faith in the gospel, and never by taking part in the Lord's supper (which is a result of being made alive), and then one abides in Christ by living according to every word of God. "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4) "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." (John 15:10) In contrast to the cardinal importance Catholicism places on the Lords supper, outside of recording the simply act in the gospels, the Holy Spirit provides only one manifest observance of it, and in which the focus is not on the elements being eaten, but upon what eating the supper signifies, and taking part of it accordingly by effectually recognizing other members as parts of the cooperate body of Christ. As shown here.
This also affirms that feeding on Christ refers to receiving and thus living by His word. As seen above, man is to live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, and which came from the OT, long before some supposed the Lord was referring to eating His corporeal flesh. And as Christ said “follow Me,” and serves as the example here as to how to live, the question is “just how did the Son live by the Father? By eating His corporeal flesh or by obeying His word? The answer comes from the Lord Himself just 2 chapters previous, , and as is fitting: "Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34) For as can be said to the carnally minded who supposed Jesus was speaking about eating His corporeal flesh, He said unto them, “I have meat to eat that ye know not of." (John 4:32)
And indeed, where does the Holy Spirit anywhere teach that eternal life is gained by taking part in the Lord's supper, versus this being a gift given to those who believe? If that were necessary, no one could be saved unless they could partake of it, eliminating the “good thief” and all those who were born again, and washed, sanctified and justified, even before they ever heard of the Lord's supper. "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. " (1 John 5:13) And none of the things John told them that they may have eternal life thereby was about receiving transubstantiated bread and wine, but about believing on the Lord Jesus, and confessing sins and living holy, and loving the brethren. "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. " (John 3:14-15) "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36) According to those who teach that Jn. 6 refers to the literal eating, then no one is justified and passed from death unto life until they take part in the Lord's supper. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" (Titus 3:5) In summation, that having life and living by consuming Christ is figurative of believing/receiving the crucified and risen Lord, who was made “bread for us,” is the only meaning that is consistent with how souls attains life in themselves, and then lives by the Lord, even as He lived by the Father. And which is especially consistent with the use of allegory and metaphors in John. Those who assumed the Lord was referring to His literal flesh and blood being consumed make the same mistake as the carnally minded souls who supposed the same in Jn. 6, and thus left, as that is indeed contrary to Scripture, (Lv. 17:11) (and which would require an exegetical explanation), and they were not interested in the “meat” that they knew not of. (John 4:32) In contrast, those who by now had “heard, and had learned of the Father” (Jn. 6:45) continued with Christ to the end, and who concluded,"What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. " (John 6:62-63) As Christ flesh would not longer be with them, and He said nothing about bread and wine being transubstantiated into it, only that He would give them His flesh and blood, then once gone then they would have no supply based on His words here, if indeed this were somehow literal. And the explanation is not about transubstantiation, but that “the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Corporeal flesh itself cannot give eternal life, but is to be crucified and then changed, thus Christ would be, while “the word of the Lord endureth forever, and it is by believing the gospel of Christ that one gains life and lives accordingly as one that possesses eternal life.
Because revelation requires seeking and obeying light. (Jn. 12:34-36) Thus the Lord spoke in parables, to separate those who wanted truth from superficial inquirers who wanted not the Truth. "And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. " (Luke 8:10) As with Nicodemus in John 3, the Lord spoke enigmatically, and like as Nic supposed He was speaking of physical birth, so the carnally minded Jews, who had came back for another free meal, supposed the Lord was speaking of cannibalism. But seekers of truth remain, looking for the explanation, which was given as believing being the way one receives the Lord Christ and life.
Because it is not speaking at all about Communion. That is a Catholic invention. Paul did not use it at all either in the only manifest place the Holy Spirit describes the Lord's supper.
Sure, and then end up being Catholic if convinced eternal life is gained by eating. This fits right in with the institutionalized faith in which rituals work ex opere operato (by the act itself) to effect changes, which fosters perfunctory professions and or a codependency upon the priests, and keeps them in business. But what you will never find the NT church doing is preaching the Lord's supper as the means to gain life in you. While saving faith is one that obeys, and includes the Lord's supper, yet one is born again long before that, and the Lord's supper is about remembering the Lords' death by sharing food with each other in a way that is consistent with His unselfish death, and after examining yourself as to whether you are treating the others as members of the Body of Christ . The question is, why is this not emphasized much. Catholics focus on reverencing the elements, and not much on the supposed members of the body, and such can rush out the doors after or while consuming elements. I think most Protestant observances seem focused upon remembering that the Lord died, and eating a piece of bread, but with little thought about how they are treating other members of their body, or desire for fellowship. But in the NT the Lord supper was not about eating a piece of bread, but it was part of a communal meal of sharing, and which sharing was done in remembrance of the Lord's sacrificial giving, and called for examining whether they were treating other members of the body as members for whom Christ died. Not to say i do not come too short in this. |
****Where do you see that?!***
It is in the letter(apology) written by St. Justin Martyr regarding the celebration of the Eucharist by Christians in the second century. An apologist, St. Justin, wrote of the belief in the true presence of Christ and describes in detail what the Mass is and why only those who believe are permitted to receive.
St. Justin was born around 100A.D. and converted around 130A.D. and was martyred around 165A.D.
You don't need to do anything.
When you receive Christ, believe in His name, you become a child of God. (John 1:12).
The righteousness of Christ, IOW, HIS good works, is credited to your account. We don't NEED to do good works because when God sees us clothed in the righteousness of Christ, He sees us as having done the righteous deeds that Jesus did.
The verse about *If you love me, you will obey my commandments* is not a command but rather Him explaining what the natural outworking of loving Him will be.
It's not that we have to do good works to prove our love for Him but that those good works will just flow out of us as naturally as breathing.
If someone has to plan them and keeps tally, then it's unlikely that they are the true fruit of a truly changed life.
Lots of people will appeal to their works to save them and Jesus will send them away, saying that He never knew them.
Those sheep who He invites in were doing good works almost without even being cognizant of them.
God and Jesus give us grace. Period. The Catholic idea that grace comes through physical elements has zero Scriptural support. It limits God's acting in the life of the believer.
What gives us life is the Spirit.
Baptism if the moment when we become children of God, brothers and sisters of Christ, but it is the start of our journey not the end all and be all.
So baptism saves except that it doesn't. If baptism saves people, then God is in the business of sending His children to hell if they're not good enough. What kind of father would send his own children to hell?
What you call hoops, Catholics call the commands of Christ. And no one earns eternal life, it is freely given.
Then why do Catholics teach that one must be baptized, take communion, do works of righteousness, like feeding the hungry and caring for the poor?
Why do they quote James that faith without works is dead?
If salvation is a gift freely given, it's freely given, not earned, not deserved, not nothing.
Catholics cannot have it both ways.
They cannot claim that its a gift freely given and then put conditions on it. That is not forgiveness. If there are conditions on it then it's not a gift and it's not freely given. It's earned. It's wages due for service given.
So, no one can feed the poor, visit the sick and imprisoned, forgive others, cloth the naked, care for the widow and the orphan?
The question is nonsense. It doesn't even make sense.
It must be a dreary Christianity which you live.
On the contrary, the dreary religion is what I left behind with all it's rules and regulations and do's and don't's that Catholicism imposes on its followers.
For freedom Christ has set us free. We are free to serve Him as He directs us, to do the good works that He prepared in advance for us to walk in. (Ephesians 2)
Catholics love to imply that non-Catholics don't do good works because they don't need to for salvation but that is a mischaracterization of what non-Catholics say and demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the role of works in the life of the believer.
Better tell all that to Pope Francis, mettie, let him get with your program ASAP!
Catholicism teaches that those works must be done as part of earning salvation. That it is done for the sake of the believer, for what he can get out of it, ie eternal life.
True believers do the works to glorify God, to share the love of Christ with a hurting, lost, and dying world, to validate their claims to faith, to minister to others with not thought of return or what they've getting out of it.
It's a totally different mindset than the one that looks at those works as something that will benefit the person doing the works.
He’s got a Bible, I’m sure, and I don’t doubt he knows how to read it.
John 6 is also not talking about the Last Supper since it is not occurring in Jerusalem and it is not the 14th of Nissan (they are in the Galilee ,Last Supper was a Passover Sedar and Passover Sedars were to be celebrated in Jerusalem not the Galilee)
Eat the word , eating the word means believing it . It’s what it always meant in it’s Jewish context.
Jer 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.
Rev 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.
Rev 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.
Eze 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.
Eze 3:2 So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.
Eze 3:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.
To say John 6 is talking about communion is to take it out of context much like when Satan took what he said to Eve out of context when he seduced her into eating from the tree.
Great work!
I 'literally' don't know why SO many folks just can't take 2 verses LITERALLY:
John 6:28-29
Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
1 John 3:21-24
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
Good explanation.
I think where problems come in is when a verse has been (and can be) taken EITHER way!
NOW you've done it! ;^)
Your homepage may have a clue...
...likely to ignore idiots when there seems to be no hope for them.
Catholics and Protests both believe folks are saved by grace.
It appears that we differ in agreeing just what ‘grace’ means.
We Protestants tend to think that how we are KEPT differs as well.
We believe we are KEPT by grace; while Catholicism seems to require works to be KEPT.
It seems the cardinals have selected a good man for the job.
I, as a Protestant, wish him well.
It appears that we differ in agreeing just what ‘grace’ means.
We Protestants tend to think that how we are KEPT differs as well.
We believe we are KEPT by grace; while Catholicism seems to require works to be KEPT.
And, as usual, Scripture addresses that. It's like the book of Galatians was written for the Catholic church.
Galatians 3:1- O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10 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.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
Indeed, you once again have exampled a misapprehension of context, which shows the use of the use of metaphors versus literal. Jesus is not literally a transubstantiated into an animal, or literally a snake, or vine, or a sheepgate, but He is literally the Divine Son of God and the Lord.
I cannot claim objectivity? Why, because my objective opinion and belief in the opposite of yours?
No, because you must defend Rome, and therefor cannot even allow as a possibility any other interpretation than that which supports her.
I will say again, as I said to another here in this thread, you don’t know the first thing about me
Yes, i do, i know that you evidence yourself to be a RC who must defend Rome, and therefor cannot even allow as a possibility any other interpretation than that which supports her.
The arrogance and presumption is some of these posts couldn’t be more contradictory of the humility of Christianity.
Rather, it is you and fellow RCs who are relegating all evangelical Christians to be third class citizens (after the second class EOs), and cannot allow even the possibility that they could be right in anything that contradicts Rome's official teaching. And who then protest when her arrogation is challenged and refuted.
I also do not presume to be superior or to belittle anyone because they differ so radically from me in belief.
i appreciate the attitude, but you are belittling what we believe, and as a Catholic you presume that you are part of a superior class who by a "supernatural sense of faith" under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium "unfailingly adheres to this faith." (CCC, 889
And as Rome has infallibly declared she is infallible, when speaking in accordance with her infallibly declared formula, she cannot be wrong when she thus says she is right. And thus you cannot allow even the possibility that we could be right in anything that contradicts Rome's supreme magisterium, regardless of the weight of substantiation.
I think we have said all that can be said here and when the conversation becomes an attack, I must withdraw.
All debate is an attack on a contrary position, and thus on those who hold to it. You may want dialog, but when one cannot allow that the opposing party could be right, then it is no longer dialog .
As my response shows, the "Where do you see that?" remark was in rgards to your assertion that "Some of it was reserved and taken to those who were not present."
And the context is the Scriptural passages, not what a CF wrote, which is not what is determinative of doctrine.
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.