Posted on 04/18/2008 11:33:27 AM PDT by annalex
Amen. Christ not only said that, but He was correcting the woman when He did so, as you noted.
So says you...one of multitudes of self-appointed popes of heresy.
Christ is the only head of His church on earth and in heaven.
Gratuitous. I don't have a dog in this fight.
Certainly stalking.
Possibly mind-reading, though the "seems" phrasing might disqualify it, since the sentence is not about me but about the writer.
Now see, there you go limiting what we can find. Seems pointless to me to continue if you get to stack the deck. It also seems intellectually dishonest to me, but hey, that is me.
Are you telling me that a Church that elected a Borgia as Pope, who had orgies in the Vatican, is infallible and always inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Yup. I can't think of anything the Kings of Israel did that made the kingdom they ruled over anything other than Israel.
In fact, I believe strongly that Martin Luther was God's judgment upon the Church for all of the evils, corruption, greed, and arrogance the Church descended into by the 1500's.
Of what value is the "fact" of your strong belief?
The Church lost its way, and Martin Luther began the Reformation which returned Christ front and center, and punished the Church for its abandonment of its original mission. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
And if you were, how could someone prove it to your satisfaction?
The primary argument is that this woman is not Mary but is Israel.
It doesn't take a handful of degrees to know that if you claim the child that's brought forth is Christ, the woman MUST be the Blessed Virgin Mary. To find otherwise is to engage in more "Peter is not the rock" eisegesis. You don't get one without the other, particularly since the text does not identify the woman as Israel.
I have read various things: the Catechism, the web pages on this issue from "Catholic Answers" (a good on-line Catholic apologetics resource), and various other items from Catholic web resources, as well as having listened to various Catholic apologists on EWTN radio, and such.
So would it be safe to say, judging from your recommendations, that you will pay for scholarly commentaries that support your original belief, but you are satisfied by open source materials for the opposing viewpoint?
Enough to get a detailed understanding of the doctrine and where and how they derived it
Would you be good enough to cite the Catholic source of your detailed understanding for "where and how" "they" derived it?
This is an illogical argument. There's nothing in scripture to preclude me believing in elves or trolls, either, but I don't feel the need to make things up or try to derive arguments for things, when it comes to Jesus or my faith, simply because scripture doesn't preclude them. It's silly, to say the least, and a silly argument.
Not at all. The authoritative institution that declares the Marian dogmas is not asking anyone to believe in elves or trolls. There is only one source of authority we both agree on, and that is the Scripture. If you can not cite something in Scripture that specifically precludes the Marian dogmas, it is simply a matter of opinion. Incredulity is not prima facie proof of illogic.
The principle that I believe in the First Commandment.
Please explain how the Church's exercise of ecclesiastical authority given to it by Jesus Christ, is incompatible with the First Commandment, particularly since no flesh will be saved by works of the law, anyway. Do you not know that Christ is of no value to you if you expect to be justified by the law?
What does it matter? Are you serious? How can you even ask such a question? Go to Exodus, find the Ten Commandments, read #1.
I am completely serious. If indeed Sola Fide is true, which accepting 1 Cor 15: 1-4 would satisfy, then no matter what a Christian does, under the doctrine of "eternal security," that person would be "saved," would they not?
As for the "democrat tactic," no it is more of a "mote in your brother's eye" tactic. The parent that boasts of never spanking their child while substituting emotional arm-twisting and blackmail to achieve the same results is nothing less than a monster.
He didn't; the leadership He put in charge of His Church did. It is my belief He will not be sympathetic to those who reject that order.
Furthermore, blessed IS he that hears/follows the Word...but if you are defining the Bible as the only expression of God's Word, you've missed the mark.
I thought it was by the preaching of God's Word?
Honestly, God does seem mercurial.
“Furthermore, blessed IS he that hears/follows the Word...”
The Word was made FLESH, it’s Jesus, the WORD we should only adhere to not the doctrines/dogma of supposed “revelations” 1900 years later. Are those who questioned the assumption (Includes your Church “fathers”) before 1950 “incurring the wrath of God”?
I would think God through Peter/John/Paul would have a say in the matter if your eternal soul might be in the balance if you even questioned who Jesus assumed into Heaven around circa 50-90AD not 1950AD.
I think the point is academic for those who throw stones from glass houses.
Veneration of Mary is recorded right in the gospel (Luke 11); Justin Martyr expresses the cornerstone Marian dogma of Mary as Eve in reverse in 2c.
The mystical identification of Mary with Christian discipleship is in John 19, and with the Catholic Church in Acts 2.
To tell if someone is worshiping Mary or a saint it is not enough to observe that person kneeling or prostrating. You need to look into his heart to find such sin. I am sure you are familiar with the advice Christ gave us not to presume upon ourself the judgement that is not ours to mete. I meet people deeply devoted to Mary and various saints often and I never met an idolater or a polytheist among them. As a community we sure do not worship the saints: to do so would command us to offer the sacrifice of the Mass to them. We don't do that.
Long article, and pointless. If there were two Protestant denominations, that would be one too many, if Protestantism were the True Church of Jesus Christ that He founded.
Yes, it is possible to read Matthew 16 in this way, that the Petrine Office is built not on the person of Peter but rather on the confession of Peter. As Catholic I have no problem with that reading. No one suggests that the elevation of Peter was due to anything other than his faith.
Regarding the Keys, what you offer is sheer speculation. No connection with the Gospel is made in the text, -- you just made it up. The connection is with entering heaven, and with binding and loosing on earth that will, on the promise of Christ, obtain in heaven. That power is also given the Apostles in Chapter 18, where, again, it is linked with legislative power, and not with the scripture.
The "womb" is referred to explicitly in John 3. There would have been no need to invent the figure of water in order to refer to the womb, especially since water is firstly related to baptism. This is simply a counterscriptural myth about John 3.
The author's point, however, is that children baptism is compatible with scripture because baptism is an act of birth. What you think of John 3:5 has no bearing on that one way or another.
If His flesh Jesus promised for us to eat were a figure of something, why did He not explain so? John 6 is not a riddle you make it out to be.
I haven't logged on in a few days. Please forgive my delay in acknowledging your response.
By all means, if I may be of any service, nothing would please me more.
I am most pleased to have another FReeper in my former-fundamentalist shoes. Frankly, I believe we are a distinct but emergent Cathlic subculture, growing as more and more biblically devoted Christians recognize the futility of professing to live by a "constitution" while rejecting the need for a "supreme court."
So that explains it! You're a convert!
I'm afraid most of your co-religionists will attribute your continued beliefs about the Bible to cultural "jet lag." Some may even assume you "aren't really Catholic." Has anyone told you to leave the Church yet?
I don't know why you consider yourself a "former" fundamentalist if you still accept total Biblical inerrancy. Your rejection of sola scriptura makes you a former Protestant, not a former fundamentalist--unless you suddenly become a liberal or something.
Absolutely not. In fact, I asked my pastor "if there was a place for someone like me in the Catholic Church."
His response was not just "yes," but "of course!"
I don't know why you consider yourself a "former" fundamentalist if you still accept total Biblical inerrancy.
I suppose it's just a difference of definitions.
Personally, I don't see much wiggle in the catechism:
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."
Well . . . you’ve chosen a hard road. May G-d lead you to where He wants you.
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.