Posted on 10/04/2022 2:33:44 PM PDT by Angelino97
Gee, I was thinking the same thing about you boys. 😎
Just to clarify… no Catholic priest can get married without being laicized. However, under certain circumstances a married man can be ordained a priest.(e.g., an Anglican priest who converts to Catholicism, or a man in one of the Eastern Catholic rites). In other words, you have to be married before ordination.
That is correct.
Many Christian denominations use the same Bible translation. It's the study notes that differ.
I have a couple of good Catholic Study Bibles. But also come others that I dip into on occasion, such as the MacArthur Study Bible (Dispensationalist Calvinist).
It's curious that they'll sometimes give opposite study notes on the same verse. As if the authors are peeking over each other's shoulder, thinking, "Damn, I knew he'd get that wrong. Okay, here's what it really means."
For instance, when Peter baptizes Cornelius's household, the Catholic study notes say that "household" means everyone, of every age. Whereas the MacArthur study notes say that "household" means only the adults.
Each side uses that verse to state its position on infant baptism, even though the verse doesn't specifically address the issue.
this is because the nation is run by perverts that can’t stand any public scrutiny...
There are sects of the Roman Catholic Church which do allow married men to become priests but not to become bishops. I met some from Ukraine.
It is possible that her husband had been an Anglican priest. The Catholic Church has a program that accepts married Anglican who wish to become Catholic.
“and said she had to surrender her jewellery before being interviewed at a police station in Guildford.”
What is the reason for taking the jewelry?
Sounds accurate to me.
But the truth teller gets harassed and punished, and the evil mother is left alone.
In Acts 10:43 Peter tells us that Cornelius believed, and in Acts 8:30 Philip asked the Ethiopian eunuch is he understood what he was reading. An infant in incapable of either of those things, but a child can. Cornelius’ household, therefore, included those that understood and believed. We can bet that if there were any infants in his house that one day they too would understand and believe.
We do not need study Bibles - we only need the Bible. The Bible is the Bible’s best interpreter. :)
Thus, assigning yourselves authority you deny to those in whom Christ vested the authority.
Then why do so many people read the same Bible, and disagree on interpretation?
I used to talk with a Jehovah's Witness over coffee. I didn't shoo him away, so he must have thought I was a good prospect for conversion. He kept coming up to me every time I entered Starbucks.
I told him, "I'm not looking to be converted."
He replied, "Oh, we don't want to convert anyone. We just want to show them what's in the Bible, then let them make up their own mind."
He read the Bible a lot. Yet Jehovah's Witnesses are non-Trinitarians. He told me that Jesus was the son of God, but not God. That God existed first, then He created Jesus.
He got that from reading the Bible.
Even the Ethiopian eunuch you cite said, "How can I understand this if no one will explain it to me?" And so Philip got into the chariot to explain the scriptures.
The Catholic church cites that incident as proof that sola scriptura is inadequate. If the Ethiopian unique needed experts to teach him (i.e., the church), then so do we.
You are speaking of the apocryphal books which Jesus never endorsed therefore earning him the RCC’s anathema- also they removed “without a cause” from Matthew 5:22 making Jesus a sinner from being angry in the temple. I’m totally fine with sola scriptura
Satanism has taken over the West. A total horror show awaits.
Angelino, the answer to your first question is because they refuse to “rightly divide the word of truth” -all heresy is based in failing to differentiate when a verse is directed to a Jew, a gentile, or a Christian. People under the law, for example, can very much lose there salvation because it is based on works of obedience. A Christian cannot because he is sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption. The whole doctrine of salvation changed after the resurrection and is fully revealed in the epistles of Paul.
Philip did not quote the experts to the eunuch - he explained to him Isaiah 53. After that, he understood- and then he beloved - and then he was scripturally baptized.
Beloved = believed
"therefore earning him the RCC’s anathema" - Who "him"?
Where in Scripture do you find "sola scriptura"?
Jesus quoted from (endorsed) the Septuagint. And those apocryphal books are found in the Septuagint
Philip was a trained expert. The eunuch didn't understand just by reading Isaiah; he needed Philip's (i.e., the church's) expert explanation.
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.