Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
I don't recall agreeing to let you give me orders.
I say that it is speaking falsely to say an explanation is wanted when what is really wanted is a debate.
I say, further, that I do not need to prove to you or to anyone here that I am not afraid. If someone on your side wants to think I am fearful, I will have to bear up under the incredible burden of knowing I have lost the respect of people who speak falsehoods to me and about me to one another while trying to treat me as one 8 year old boy treats another. Wow, I'll just have to do the best I can with that knowledge.
I'd be happy to deal with one of the grownups on your side.
No, not at all,...my conclusion is based on what catholics have written and what they referenced to support their beliefs.
You stated.. ”it is the custom of the law”
I do not base my decisions based on ‘customs’ of any law outside that of Christ. But if I did many sides of the case were clearly stated and heard.
Additionally, any enquiries I felt were needed were made at the source of all truth, of which I need not the approval of any man. Though it is certainly affirmimg to see others in agreement. However, I did not seek that here. Neither was this about understanding one anothers views, yet that can occur, but of attaining the truth of what catholics believe and practice.
I did not receive nor seek “an invitation”...as you stated...by anyone here on FR, “to make up my mind what catholics are taught.” I might expect that would come from a caucus thread, this was open to all faiths.
It is not hard for me to see now why the “separation for almost 500 years” occurred then, and remains to this day. I can only hope the separation between catholic doctrine/beliefs/rites. as long as they hold to them, and that which otherwise I believe, will continue until that day when all truth will be revealed as it is.
I took a look...it was not appealing nor did it stand the test of truth.
While OTHER texts might be useful to show that Mary sinned, the text originally proposed IS A TOTAL BUST as an argument BY ITSELF in the attempt to refute the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It does not, it cannot do what you brought it forward to do.
In my opinion the dogma of the IC is very damaged by that verse. Catholics believe that all scripture is God's word, so one reasonable approach to a simple statement like "all have sinned" might be that it applies to everyone, UNLESS, there is other of God's equally true word that grants any specific exceptions to any persons or groups. (Or in the alternative, we could say that all means all unless there is another Biblical principle that carries greater weight and shows that all doesn't mean all in a particular case.)
In any event, here we have explicit scripture that exempts Christ by name from "all". I don't think that means we need to throw out "all" as therefore not having clear meaning. In essence we can say that the totality of scripture reveals that in this verse all means all, except for Christ. We could modify that if we could show any other scripture purporting to exempt any other individual or purporting an overriding principle. I am unaware of any in this case. I don't think that "all" is "destroyed" because of one named and explicit exception.
Now, of course to be fair I have to admit that as a Reformer there are many places in the Bible where I claim the equivalent of "all" doesn't mean "all" in a particular verse, e.g., sometimes "the world" doesn't mean all men, etc. My answer to those would be an attempt at scriptural evidence of an overriding principle, with those attempts being very debatable of course. But here in the case of the IC, I am unaware of any possible such attempts from the Bible. It would seem that Catholicism would be forced to claim there is an override from extra-Biblical Tradition, but not from scripture.
With regard to other texts that might show Mary sinning, I can only think of:
One might say that Mary really had no excuse for not understanding and so therefore rebuking Christ was sinful. Frankly, I am not one who calls "slam dunk" here, but I do think it worthy of consideration. So, I think the Rom. 3:23 argument is much stronger.
Your posts are not God's words. They are largely or surpassingly in error, as our recent exchanges have shown. Care to talk to about Antioch further?
Paul is one of the two greatest Apostles of the Church. He saved the Church when it was headed for oblivion by bringing it to the pagans and Gentiles. He was a great bishop of the Church and provided a great guide on how to be a bishop and handle difficult individual churches who were bent on heresy and apostacy. We venerate Paul.
I believe wmfights narrative is much truer to history.
My children (except for the oldest two) belive in Santa Claus.
TULIP. Throughout his writings. He doesn't - I merely separate the identification of the Reformed Holy Spirit with the Christian one so that there is a smaller chance of error in Christian versus Calvinist beliefs.
Interesting.
Open up your phone book, pick a Bible Believer (tm) church at random and attend a service tomorrow. I would be interested in your experience.
Every place in the OT where it speaks of statues being made, they are refered to as idols and gods...That is how God defines statues...Of any thing in heaven or on earth...There's no way around it...God defined it...
The fact that you make your gods and call them Mary and Saints doesn't change a thing...God is still just as jealous as he was in the OT...
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
And God clearly says in the Commandments, do not make any gods...
And no, Jesus is not an image...Jesus is real...
That is true. We should not make gods out of saints. This is why we don’t do that, — that is God’s commandment which we obey.
Regarding Jesus being an icon of God, see Colossians 1:15, among several other similar passages.
The scriptures...The Holy words of God...
It is not consistent with sanctity to require a purgatory. Maybe some saints did go through it, who knows— but it is not what we commonly think of saints.
Oh, you're talking about your x-tra biblical exceptionally holy people; not just the every day normal saint that God speaks of...
No payment for sins is occurring in Purgatory though, — Christ fully and completely atoned for any sin anyone has committed or will commit. In purgatory, cleansing in preparation to enter Heaven is happening. Most of us are not ready as we are.
You guys are all over the map on this...Some of you say the full cleansing come at baptism...Now you says it happens for most of you at purgatory...
And other Catholics say purgatory is payment for unforgiven sins on earth...
Doesn't matter...Pauls tells us that when we are absent from the body, we are present with the Lord...No purgatory...
In many ways I am grateful for not having been exposed much to catholicism, so that in seeing these posts, references etc. I could draw conclusions based on those who actually practice their faith seriously. But I could not, nor would I recommend the catholic faith based on my observations here, and the references and authors given to support their beliefs. No matter what initials, names or c’s are used.
Amen. Thanks for your thoughtful post.
Here's a nifty link that shows what men of principle were thinking the papacy during the Reformation...and the reasons for this opinion haven't changed in 500 years...
Oh it offends Him alright...How many other commands from God do you figure you can break without offending Him???
Lucky for all of us that we are under Grace and not the Law...But we still offend God when we go against His commands...
In the first place, he does not have that authority. In the second place, there were no abuse reports filed on that post.
I pulled your post for "making it personal" after a previous warning to stop doing that; and again, with this post, you are "making it personal."
The Admin Moderagtor and I both also warned you not to make references to sexual behavior which you repeat again.
Leave the thread.
Sounds like the mentality hasn’t changed much in 500 years . . . witness:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2420096/posts?q=1&;page=401
The “leave the thread” obviously applied to the other poster, not you.
Baptism...purgatory...
And we can't forget partaking in the eucharist which the RCC teaches is the exclusive conduit for God's grace, and without that "consecrated" bread there is no salvation.
And confession. Mustn't forget confession.
And penance.
All in all, a lot of hoops, each one the "real" one.
And yet Christ's instructions were so much clearer...
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
And by the grace of God alone men do believe in Jesus Christ and thus are saved.
And there is the implication that Mary and Joseph may not have fully understood the ramifications of the conception...And later, it's pretty clear that Mary understood she needed a Saviour...
That's hilarious. The papacy has no defense of its faith and so it resorts to blaming theological errors on...wait for it...wait for it...
WOODROW WILSON!
(Are you sure you don't mean Rita Wilson? Or perhaps Flip?)
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.