Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Asking prayers of the saints comes from the second century, it is Catholic.
We don't worship Mary as God.
Celibacy as a requirement for priesthood is a legitimate complaint.
Transubstantiation is a first century Catholic belief, just not called that until the eleventh century. We also believed in the Trinity, although the term didn't come about until the end of the second century, well after the writing of the NT...
The Pope. Well, that is also a Catholic belief that is at least from the second century. While his powers have certainly developed as God's Spirit required, it is a legitimate Catholic teaching from Scriptures.
Thanks for telling me what you thought. Perhaps if you were to read Church history and the development of doctrine, you might be convinced that these Catholic beliefs are not "Roman Catholic", but were part and parcel of our beliefs from practically the beginning. They all are found in Scriptures, whether implicitly or explicitly.
Regards
Self identification as one of the elect; in opposition to the Catholic / Christian beliefs empowers one to basically consider anything possible. Including permanent salvation.
It doesn’t matter that it makes Biblical sense, all that matters is that a twisted interpretation of relatively recent pronouncement can theoretically be justified. The Church Fathers are swept away. The writings of the first Popes are dismissed. We have a romantically inspired vision of the early Christians which happily coincides with whichever denomination of Protestantism that one happens to belong to.
Therefore I’m right and all those thousands of other Protestants, however well meaning, are wrong. Saint Calvin (Peace Be Upon Him) has much to answer for.
Harley responded: There is a subtle difference between "man's" will and "free" will. Here is an excellent passage by Calvin's on the two. It is rather long but these people sure like to write.
Sorry to say this, Harley, but I was not commenting on free will, but on infused righteousness. In other words, that man is actually changed inside, not just an external righteousness that is not really ours. We have been talking about Harley being righteous because of God's Spirit. I had thought that Calvin approached the Catholic point of view on that subject. Do you have any comment on that?
On free will, I do disagree with Mr. Calvin. I prefer Augustine and Aquinas.
Regards
See, this is where we disagree. Those are Catholic beliefs, but not Christian beliefs. I have read church history, and I understand that some of these beliefs came from the early church. That doesn’t mean they are correct. I have seen writings from the Pope that call for the WORSHIP of Mary. This is an error.
All that said, I know enough of you from your postings that you are a God fearing, God honoring man (person?) who holds fast to the teaching of your church. Most of which I agree with.
Please consider with respect those who hold to the belief and trust of Jesus, but do not agree with some of your churches teachings. If we believe in Jesus, we are all brothers.
***In other words, that man is actually changed inside,...***
Yes, this is what we believe also. A Man saved by God is a NEW creation, eternally changed.
***On free will, I do disagree with Mr. Calvin. I prefer Augustine and Aquinas.***
How do you feel abot Luther :>)
Well, I can understand that they consider themselves "elect". The problem is the incorrect useage of the term to mean "saved for eternal glory". That is not what "elect" means. It means being called to repentance and accepting Christ as our Savior, being called into the People of God and being baptized by water and the Spirit. In that, they may very well be "elect", although in a remote way (as Vatican 2 Lumen Gentium describes our separated brothers, they are part of the Church through a valid baptism and belief in Christ - which goes back to St. Cyprian's time!).
But NONE of that means they will receive eternal glory after the final resurrection - which is their error. It is presumption. While we can have "subjective assurance", that is not a guarantee from God. Many will say "Lord, Lord", and He will say "I never knew you". This is not going to be said to pagans, but to presumptive Christians!
Paul said be careful so that "you" do not falter. Immediately before this (1 Cor 10), Paul talked about many members of the Church, the elect, who had indeed been saved and then fell. We must always be on guard, because satan is prowling like a lion looking for someone to falter, such as the pervert in 1 Cor 5.
Take care, brother
I had thought that Mr. Calvin came close in this area to Catholicism, more so than Mr. Luther.
How do you feel abot Luther :>)
Mr. Luther had a beautiful and well balanced devotion to Mary, believed in the Real Presence of Jesus at the Eucharist, believed in infant baptism (despite it not being a Scriptural warrant - one he readily admitted) and was closer to Catholicism on other issues than Mr. Calvin. His idea on salvation by faith began as a good positive principle until he denied the role of love and repentance as part of that formula. Actually, I kind of feel for Mr. Luther, I think he really did want to reform Catholicism from the inside. Unfortunately, his pride did not allow it and he declared that Church Councils were not infallible while being questioned on his beliefs by Eck. That spelled the end of his possible role as a positive influence upon the Catholic Church. From there, he went downhill and further from the faith of his fathers.
What Mr. Luther DID do for the Church was force it to define what it believed on a number of ambiguous and questioned issues at the Council of Trent.
Regards
Those who God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his own Son... Those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
It’s all so simple, really. God is in control.
I believe that Luther wanted to reform the church, also.
Not sure what you mean by "Catholic but not Christian beliefs", since these beliefs predated Protestantism by over 1000 years. They are just as much part of the faith as the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union of Jesus Christ.
Regarding the word "worship", it had different meanings 100 years ago. If you read the context surrounding the word "worship", you would find out what the Pope meant. Sometimes, we use different words with different definitions, but if we look at the context, we can see what they meant in our terms. It is clear that the Pope did not intend on placing Mary as an equal to God. You will not find any such writings from the Popes.
All that said, I know enough of you from your postings that you are a God fearing, God honoring man (person?) who holds fast to the teaching of your church. Most of which I agree with. Please consider with respect those who hold to the belief and trust of Jesus, but do not agree with some of your churches teachings. If we believe in Jesus, we are all brothers.
You are absolutely correct. What is funny is that the title of that thread is about that very subject! I have no doubt that the majority of Christians here are as you say. If we were to take the time to find where we agree, I think we would find that we are much closer, as you said earlier. However, it is more likely that people will focus on where we disagree - and the arguments continue! The fact that we do this, I think, is an indication of our passion and commitment to the truth as we see it. Which is interesting, because I have found that Protestants who convert to Catholicism often become the most active Catholics...God has placed a passion within these people for Him, and now they see the Truth in the Church.
I think Jesus spent a lot of time with the Pharisees because He saw them to be closest to the truth and thought that His teachings would best effect them (as opposed to the Sadducees and the Essenes).
Brother in Christ, Joe
He would have been a great Catholic saint, no doubt, if he would have been able to stop short of forcing the Church to excommunicate him. Some of the greatest Catholic reformers were able to operate within Catholic teachings but were able to call the leadership to task for some of their failings.
Regards
Amen. There is a dark side to it that is not of Christ, imo.
You are confusing foreknowledge with (double)predestination.
***Not sure what you mean by “Catholic but not Christian beliefs”, since these beliefs predated Protestantism by over 1000 years. ***
Scriptural, instead of tradition.
***It is clear that the Pope did not intend on placing Mary as an equal to God. You will not find any such writings from the Popes.***
JPII said it. Wish I could dredge it up, but no time. (I am at work)
Calling Mary Co-redemptix(sp) puts her equal to Jesus. Another error. She birthed and raised Jesus, that should be honor enough.
No doubt she is honored among man, but to raise her any higher is error.
I am not confusing anything. Answer the question.
***Amen. There is a dark side to it that is not of Christ, imo.***
Your opinion sucks, in my opinion. Talk about dark side, sheesh.
Amazing isn't it?
Super technically, we are a new creation when the Spirit "comes", but before He indwells. First He comes and changes the heart. Then we are equipped to believe. Then we actually believe, and then He indwells. So, the changing of the heart is very real, and not just a symbolic thing. We are changed for real, and have the new ability to do good in God's eyes (for the first time). The legal declaration is much more associated with our justification by Christ on the cross, a completely separate event for this purpose. After regeneration has been accomplished I still say I am a sinner, but I am saved. I will become truly righteous at entry into Heaven (glorification).
IF we are recreated, taking on a different nature as created by God, then is it so far fetched to say that man CAN, with God's Grace, reach out to Him and ask for forgiveness, to pray, and to obey the Lord?
That is exactly what happens. Moreover, since this new nature is SO different and profound (and efficacious) compared to the original, I would replace the word "CAN" with the word "WILL". The person goes from a 0% chance of salvation to a 100% chance.
BECAUSE we are a new creation, the idea that man can do NOTHING must be discarded.
That's right. Now we can do good.
Christ came SPECIFICALLY to perfect us. To divinize us.
Christ came SPECIFICALLY to save His children. He does not finish the good work that we began (if that is what "perfect" means). He will finish the good work that HE began.
[After regeneration:] We CAN love our enemies. We DO help the helpless, the poor. WE become concerned for their welfare. Is this possible without God? No. But is it possible without us? No. Not because God cannot do it, but because God CHOOSES to allow man free will, which is an instrumental part of love.
Helping the helpless and the poor, etc. is not possible without us??? :) Is all the good that happens in the world God working through men? Of course not. Job 38:4-41 answers this pretty clearly. Do you think God has ever used one bad guy to benefit another bad guy, i.e. no believer was involved? Of course. Look at how many of the world's governments have been established, including most in the OT.
Thus, God is ACTIVE in humanism, the perfecting of mankind.
Without intending a shot, is that what "humanism" means in Catholic theology? I have used that word in a very different way in earlier posts to you. :)
Your tone is unacceptable. Please do not post to me ever again.
And the LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses consider themsleves "Christians" and a continuation of the original Church...and Airans think of themsleves as "orthodox" Christians...etc. Every heretic in the world believes his "church" is true contnuation of the original Church, but only one Church has aposotlic authority. The rest are born of men in protest and personal preference.
The Orthodox Church prays and teaches the same thing it taught 1,700 years ago and longer; our liturgy hasn't changed' our teology hasn't changed; our Bible hasn't changed. It's the same Greek Church and Greek theology and Greek Bible.
I am tired of people who invented various denominaions in the 16th century and later telling me that my Church is somehow in "apostasy."
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.