Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
It is you who magnified St. Francis eccentricity when we could be discussing the Gospel between us humans. But generally, I would take an opinion of a medieval saint and mystic over virtually anyone in the past five centuries. I explained why St. Francis said what he said, and no it has nothing to do with the gnostics, or the hindus, or what have you. It has everything to do with Christ.
Here is another anecdote from the life of St. Francis. There was a priest who was known to be a bad priest. He lived with a woman as his wife, cursed at God, etc. St. Francis wandered into the town and the locals took him to that priest hoping that St. Francis would rebuke him. St. Francis met the priest, fell on his knees, kissed the priest's hand and exclaimed: -- Blessed be the hand that gives me my Lord! The priest repented and reformed himself instantly.
"Clarity counts."
Precisely, dear lady, precisely! :)
What's the old gospel then?
And regarding our belief about who is among the elect, this too has been discussed at length on FR threads. No,we do not believe what you say we believe. I honestly do not understand where you get off making wild accusations about what we "probably" believe then launching a half-dozen posts taking for granted what you have accused us of out of the blue.
We believe, with Augustine, BASED ON SCRIPTURE, A PARABLE THAT JESUS TOLD that the Church is made up of wheat and weeds. Jesus told us that many who claim to be his followers will end up in outer darkness. The Catholic Church has many adherents who have sinned against God and refused to repent. We hope they will yet repent but if they do not, they go to hell and are not elect.
We also believe that many who do not adhere to the Catholic faith will nonetheless end up in heaven because they obeyed according to what knowledge they have of the truth, that is, they did not choose to reject God or reject God's grace within the knowledge they had. Calvin and Luther knew the truth and deliberate chose against it but we hope that before they died they repented. Only God knows.
Orthodox share with us nearly all our beliefs. We are sadly not in communion fellowship though we do not normally even call Orthodox schismatics and certainly not heretics. Any Orthodox who accepts God's grace and lives according to it, does not refuse it, is among the elect.
A follower of Calvin or Luther or any other Protestant group who truly does not realize that he has embraced a false teaching, who was never taught differently but studies the Bible and depends on Jesus and, because of his invincible (non-overcoverable) ignorance of the fact that the interpretations of the Bible he has lived with are false ones, can go to heaven. So a lot of Protestants out there have a good chance and a lot of Catholics and Orthodox, unless they shape up (they can't plead invincible ignorance so easily, though if their leaders have misled them, the leaders will be culpable) will end up in hell.
Your problem and your co-religionists on this thread is that we have been giving your reasons why your interpretations of the Bible are untrue. You simply dismiss them, tell us we don't study the Bible, and pat yourselves on the back that you study the Bible diligently thus your interpretations have to be correct. This line of reasoning makes no sense to me but you luxuriate in it.
Did it ever occur to you that God's providential guidance may have brought you into contact with Christians who read the Bible and reach different conclusions that you do because God want's you to reach different conclusions? You've been exposed to the fact that differences exist. You refuse even to entertain them on their merits but dismiss them as impossible. I have done that all my life. You see I was raised with your conclusions. But I was not so stuck on them that I was not always open to considering the conclusions others draw from the same Bible which I have diligently studied for 50 years now and open to listening to the Jesus I depend on to see where he was leading me.
No, we don't believe we have a club. We believe Jesus chose the apostles and entrusted to them his message, entirely (since he did not write it down) and entrusted to them the interpretation of his message and we believe that this is recorded in dozens of passages in the NT. You read those passages differently.
Just be sure your reading is the right one. You've been challenged. It might be for a reason. It might, of course, be diabolical temptation. How do you know which one it is?
Shoot back with gotcha barbs, if you wish. But what if Jesus actually wanted you to drop all the gotcha garbage and actually consider our interpretations? I, for one, spent 20 years considering your interpretations before I made up my mind. How many years have you spent honestly and openly considering ours? I've seen zero evidence on these FR threads that you've spent ten seconds honestly considering an opposing viewpoint.
The gotcha game is a dangerous one, Zeeb. Just be sure Someone far Wiser than you doesn't end up in the end saying "Gotcha" to you.
I can quote the scripture all day long about the marks of the Church, but as St. Francis taught me, it is of limited use.
Christ founded one Church on one rock. Not two and not 20,000. He gave one set of keys to one man, St. Peter, to open one gate, to one heaven. He predicted that the Church will be one again, and we know it will. That is about "one".
He gave His Eucharist and explained that unless one is baptized of water and spirit and eats of His body, he will not go to heaven. He charged the priesthood to feed and guide us. He told us to strive for perfection, to give up the world and follow Him. That is about "holy".
He taught that our Father is love Who wishes salvation of all. He said that the last sheep, the worst sinner, is to be welcomed to the Church as brother. That is "catholic".
He sent his disciples to teach others and to make rules for the world, even as His Father sent Him. The Apostles obeyed: they wrote the gospels, corrected errors and condemned heretics. That is "apostolic".
As always, if any of the above scriptural references are not immediately coming to mind, ask for direct quotes.
Has Eckleburg come preaching a Christ different from the One that Paul preached? Please defend your statement, thanks.
Did it ever occur to you that God's providential guidance may have brought you into contact with Christians who read the Bible and reach different conclusions that you do because God want's you to reach different conclusions? You've been exposed to the fact that differences exist. You refuse even to entertain them on their merits but dismiss them as impossible. I have done that all my life.
I've tried preaching the gospel to my cat. He smiles and purrs and then goes outside and murders some innocent little furry animal and brings it back to me.
I don't think he quite gets it. When I talk about the blood of the lamb, he just licks his lips. (do cats have lips?)
You need reading comprehension. I asked annalex if that was what he believed, and he clearly stated that yes, that is what he believes. Your post should have been directed to him, not me. In fact, he has clearly stated a lot of what he believes, which has left us all incredulous.
Ye of little faith.
moo
"What's the old gospel then?"
Good question, zn. It is what The Church always and everywhere believed; it is the Faith of The Church of the Seven Councils. I'll give you an example of what I mean.
In the 7th century a terrible heresy, Monothelitism, arose which denied the two natures of Christ, asserting that Christ had only one will, a divine one. This heresy was subscribed to by the Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople and a large number of the other hierarchs, clergy and laity in The Church. One man, +Maximos the Confessor, among all the Christians opposed to this heresy, stood forth and suffered grievously for his adherence to The Faith. When it was pointed out to him that all the Patriarchs of the East maintained communion with the heretical Patriarch of Constantinople, that even the legates of the Pope served with him, he replied:
"Even if the whole universe holds communion with the patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching."
The Monothelite heresy was eventually condemned in 680, 18 years after +Maximos died, at the 6th Ecumenical Council, which, by the way, anathemized that Patriarch as a heretic.
You just keep writing lines like this about God's holy Scripture and I won't have to post anything.
That's, Fronkensteen!
LOL. Never trust a cat, especially with Scripture.
I've tried tying the Gospel of Luke to a string and dangling it in front of our cat, but he just turns his back.
Heathen.
Exactly so: and I ask, has Eckleburg preached another Jesus?
Thanks annalex. Three more KJV errors added to the list. Most appreciated.
LOL. The "shot" was not mine, but yours. I haven't called anyone a "heretic."What's so objectionable? Just check the dictionary:You are entitled to call whomever whatever names you wish. Most likely, you'll still be on this forum after calling all Calvinists "heretics" not once, not twice, but now at least three times.
Others are not allowed such latitude with the language.
Such is life. Nobody said it was fair.
But at least you are on record now as denouncing Bible-believing, Christ-worshipping, God-fearing, Trinitarian Christians as "heretics."
her·e·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hr-tk) n. A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.
big long name, ping to above
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.