Posted on 05/01/2008 5:07:35 PM PDT by annalex
***The Revelations 12 woman had pain in child birth - something Mary didn’t have according to the RCC.***
Can you show us where the Catholic Church says this?
“What I am saying is that former Protestants who convert to Catholicism do not, typically, deny their former faith altogether, they just wish more converted with them.”
I admit, you would be in a much better position to know this than I. Outside of FR, I can’t really say I know too many protestant converts to Catholicism.
The Eucharist is not a new sacrifice of Christ, but rather the same sacrifice of the Cross given us to partake of. The Catholic Church does not teach multiple sacrifices.
The woman in Apocalypse 12 is identified expressly as mother of Christ, and her motherhood is described in graphic, even physiological terms. It is of course true that Israel is a type of Mary, — or if you wish, that Mary is the high point and consummation of Judaism, so the connection to Israel can be made typologically. Likewise, given the hightened symbolism of the book, it is possible that the labor pains symbolize the groaning of the creation in Christ’s Advent.
The Catholic Church does not teach dogmatically that Mary was spared labor pains. It is a popular opinion, but it is not dogmatic, perhaps precisely because of the counterindication in Apocalypse 12.
Scripture, please. I present the first few paragraphs of John 3 that define rebirth in terms of water and spirit, and not in terms of "hearing the Gospel" or anything like what you describe.
Well, I certainly know that there are many people who, though culturally Catholic, lacked spiritual formation, and eventually converted to Protestantism. But I do believe it’s noteworthy that so many leading Protestant theologians and scholars end up going Catholic, very few Catholics have ever “learned so much about their faith” that they became Protestant.
Of course, I could certainly clarify that I was referring to modern times; Hus, Luther and Calvin were formerly Catholics
“Can you show where St. Paul advances the notion of sola scriptura?”
Can we first define “Sola Scriptura” as that the Scripture, by itself contains all that a person needs to know in order to be saved and to live a life of good works.
Actually, I looked up that passage about St. Stephen. I found in the KJV that he was filled with FAITH, not grace. Further, the underlying Greek word is that translated as “faith,” not grace... it has nothing to do with “charito.”
What makes the Church fathers interpretation better than anyone else who studies it? Answer: it’s not.
So how do they know if they're coming or going?
I would submit his calling to preach was not through faith but a selfish desire to please his parents and look pious.
Ah, right, I remember now: “pleres pisteos” or something like that. I was going from memory, sorry.
The Church fathers’ interpretation is from a similar cultural and linguistic background. Further, they had access to oral tradition that we only know if it was written down — by them. St. Polycarp, for example, mentioned in the article, was a direct student of Apostle John.
If they want to be in the Church that Jesus Christ founded, they are coming, and if they want to please themselves, they are going.
The author’s call to preach is not the issue here, his conversion to Catholicism is.
Church fathers ARE the Catholic Church fathers. They wrote the Bible.
I say his weak constitution about his calling was also manifest on his weak faith and thus he went on a “search” to make him feel better and found all the trappings and traditions of Catholicism made him feel sanctified.
Which is still open to their personal interpretation when writing down said background. I know of many students who once away from their teacher demonstrate opposite beliefs and qualities.
I’ll stick with writings from people who actually were directly influence by my Lord when they transcribed what He said and His message for salvation is. I don’t seem to recall Jesus saying anything about endless saint worship, recitations, and traditions. He said He was the only way to the Father and whomever believed in Him would be saved. Period. That leads me to believe, based on His words, that He and He alone is my mediator to God and not a Vicar appointed by other men via a vote or accession or any other person. My salvation resides in my relationship with Jesus Christ and not anything else.
Based on what do you say that? He describes his academic gifts with he employed to study the Church history and which brought him to the Catholic reading of John 6 and the account of the Last Supper. Where do you see weakness of faith?
Wrong. Bible ( NT anyways ) was written by disciples. They started the early church which was nothing like the RCC. There was no robes, confessionals, statues, talismans ( rosary ) and a hierarchy longer than the Presidential ascension list.
The stuff mentioned were thought of by infallible men who thought it would endear them to God instead of focusing on His Son.
God’s own Word says all you need is to believe in His Son and ask for forgiveness of your Sins to Him not any man.
If it makes you feel better to admit your sin to a man then power to you as long as you make it a point to talk to the Lord directly as He commands.
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.