Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
They seem to forget that it was Eusebius who linked the 25 year venture of Simon Peter in Rome to Simon Magus who also had a 25 year religious episcopacy there which was more of an established certainty than Peter's, particularly as we peruse the writings of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus who have more to say about Simon Magus and the religion that he left behind than anything about Peter.
And Faith is a work, IMHO!
It, like all other works, is a gift of Grace.
I think you, Iscool, MAY be misunderstanding what we intend when we cite sheep and goats and James and such. (Or it could be me doing the misunderstanding. It HAS been known to happen.)
As you say, Faith leads to good works.
(As to Baptism and salvation, yes, we hold that the proper response to being touched by Jesus' love is to get baptized. But in the classic casuistic example, if you get run over by a bus on the way to your baptism you aren't rejected at the pearly gates. It's the same if you get martyred before you can be baptized. And once that's agreed upon, then the expresison has to be something like Baptism is normally required for Salvation -- on the grounds that IF you think the Church is what we say it is and IF you think Jesus has come into your life, then you'd get baptized as a matter of course.
But if you don't think the first thing, you are saved anyway, but deprived of some of the vast array of benefits secondary to a full sacramental life (but we can't say what other gifts God might bestow. He's notoriously generous ...)
Catholics! Inquisition here please! I'm not sure m saying this properly
Okay, I'm off for a while. As to the "tried by fire" Corinthians passage, as far as I can tell it's not conclusive either way. I don't see it as inconsistent with Purgatory. But I still have the problem I raised a gazillion posts ago. About the sinner who receives saving grace a few seconds before he dies. In heaven is he just transformed into a person of good inclination and works and everything? Would he recognize himself?
*************
LOL! Oh, my!
Sounds like quite a Disneyland. I understand why people would give up the rigours of Christianity and adopt such a position. It's easier, it's less demanding, and, in the end, you're not responsible for anything that you do. In amongst all this fairly revealing prose, you appeared to say that you are not bound to follow the Commandments. Is that correct? If so, that really drives home my conclusion, doesn't it?
Sounds like you're making the case for works, to me.
:-)
Hence my problems with the how the HRCC and the papacy have handled this problem. There is in fact a cult of Mary.
To say that most Catholics have a proper perspective of the Godhead, and to say that there is no cult of Mary are two entirely different things.
As someone who would likely be categorized as 'evangelical' I can state that most of us have a reasonable perspective of our faith based on the Scriptures. However, in saying that I cannot deny that there are some within the movement who have perverted the Word to mean that financial prosperity is part of the promise, or that somehow they can heal hundreds every week at travelling ministries (donations gladly accepted, P.O. Box Malibu Ca), or that handling snakes is a reasonable test of one's faith.
Such abominations of the Word do exist. They exist within my faith group, and similarly there are groups within the HRCC that rely on extra-scriptural 'traditions' and deify Mary. I have not used it a general accusation against Catholics (as individuals) - I do not claim that the HRCC is in general a cult of Mary (as a body) - but I do feel that the church has not done enough to squelch such movements. Denial of their existance is denial of fact - it is not an accusation against you as a Catholic, rather it is a point of concern and something that I wish more Catholics would be willing to address openly.
I have read several commentaries, most from the HRCC mind you, about the meaning of the term coredemptrix and the petition of 1997 to confer such a title dogmatically. My point is this - what gain is it to focus one's energy on such an endeavor? If Mary is not equal to her divine son and has no place in our salvation, then why do we need to recognize, with a title, her position? What gain is it to the Kingdom to confer such a title upon another mortal? How does this action fit into our commission to go forth and spread the gospel, our obligation to follow the law, and our responsibility to one another? It seems to me a wasted effort - energy spent without gain for either the public at large or the Kingdom.
Part of the perception problem that the HRCC faces is that they have for years 'cleaned their own house from within' - however as has been seen over the last several years there is more often surface dusting and re-arrangement than actual cleaning. I put this issue squarely into that category.
To my knowledge no one has a document which is as comprehensive as the CCC. It is my belief that this is the most important document produced by the RCC. It, and it alone, contains the true teachings of the RCC and when one wishes to know these teachings this is the place to go.
You may or may not know my first post on this thread debunked the entire premise of the article as full of half-truths and distortions.
One can learn the teachings of the RCC not from Catholic laypersons, many Priests or Bishops, but from the CCC.
Frankly, I think I may refer to the CCC more than the average "Catholic" and know more about Catholic teaching than this self-same "Catholic".
I still stand firmly behind my claim that very, very few Catholics, especially on a relative basis, have read the Catechism.
(FWIW, the middle school attached to our parish won the "Catholic Bowl", which is a statewide quiz sort of like a spelling or geography bee, only on the Catechism . . . )
Another point is that there are a lot of people < Nancy ahem ahem ahem Pelosi -- John ahem ahem ahem Kerry > who CALL themselves Catholics but are no more Catholic than my cat (who is Siamese hence probably a Buddhist) except as a vote-buying exercise. I don't think we should count them.
How are your legs? Did you have an accident?
My personal experiences and your personal experiences are essentially meaningless as proof of what we say.
My UU brother tells the old joke about what happens when the Klan and the UU cooperate: They go around at night burning question marks in people's front yards ...
I had both bunions (Paul and Pauline) removed. This mean a big old laceration on each foot, saw through the inner foot bone, slide that puppy over, screw it back together; do the corresponding thing to the first bone of the big toe; loosen a tendon ('cause the toe is used to being hiked over in a lateral direction), eow that puppy back together. Give the patient LOTS of drugs.
I did this because I (a) signed up for this year's MS challenge walk - fund-raiser thing; (b) went out that very afternoon for a walk/run/walk, and suddenly my left foot said, "You will fix me NOW!" and drove the point home by making me limp all the way home.
So "Now" was Monday, 3/5. I still have to spend as much time as possible with my feet higher than my heart.
The dope was making me stupid stupider even than usual, so I'm backing off on it, so it's beginning to smart right much (throb, ache, incline me to say words I gave up for Lent, etc.) and I'm not allowed to take a bath or shower.
EEEEEEEW!
I'm going to do a sponge bath when I'm done writing this and checking the thread, contacting the Vatican Delta heresy extirpation tactical force, giving them the coordinates, sharpening stakes, checking marshmallow supplies, etc.
But the worst should be over in another week. The deal is no tension or torsion on those bones/joints/ tendons. I'm supposed to be really good by Mid April and 95-99% by 5/5.
It's a Lent thing -- heh heh heh. Okay, I'm not laughing either.
Well then --- it sounds like you will be good to go for that Memorial Day 10K run, right?
You conveniently left out verses 18 and 20:
"And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:18-20
Jesus told us to Baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Are you arguing with Him?
The end of next week I'm supposedly going to this place where they can seal the wound to keep it from getting wet and then I can run in the water. (It's my whole St. Peter thing, y'know? Run IN the water next week, then a few weeks later, try running ON the water.)
But that's intended to help me keep my aerobic thing going. But I'd be really astonished if I could run 10k. I'm tickled if I can run .25 miles. And "they" say that running is just not good for the knees when one is, as I am, approaching the twentieth anniversary of his 39th birthday
What I usually do is carry 20-40 lbs, because I'm usually thinking in terms of a big SAR search, and I'd never have to carry that much if we were really looking for someone, so a real search would be easier than a practice. I carried 30-35 lbs last year (weight change because a lot of it was water) in the 50k MS walk.
Zuriel is not alone in those beliefs. There are a lot of people who have this mistaken idea that a person should be baptized only in the name of Jesus.
The vast majority of Protestants, from my knowledge, practice the Trinitarian baptism, even if they simply do so as an ordinance and do not believe it to be a sacrament. But there are groups who do otherwise...
*************
LOL! Maybe not, but your sense of humour has survived intact. :)
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.