| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.
Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.
I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!
Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!
Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!
What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?
Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!
Very awesome, considering this is NT verse. I stated that there was no OT verse to support the position. Really awesome.
Those who are Christian ARE the church, the body of Christ. There is no such thing as someone who is not a Christian being excommunicated from the church because they aren't part of the church to begin with.
Not being permitted to be part of fellowship is not equivalent to not being part of the church, the actual body of Christ, or the equivalent to not having salvation.
Salvation is through CHRIST alone, not an organization. Jesus said that HE was the way, the truth and the life and that no man comes to the Father but through Him. He never said it was through the church or a church.
False. There are many Christians who became unChristian and then were excommunicated. Montanus comes to mind. A great bishop and theologian, he adopted heresy and was eventually excommunicated.
Not being permitted to be part of fellowship is not equivalent to not being part of the church, the actual body of Christ, or the equivalent to not having salvation.
Are you hanging your hat on the possibility that creating your own theology outside of the Church will be somehow pleasing to God?
Salvation is through CHRIST alone, not an organization. Jesus said that HE was the way, the truth and the life and that no man comes to the Father but through Him. He never said it was through the church or a church.
Really? He spent three painstaking years creating the Church. Peter was instructed to feed the sheep, and to have the power to forgive sins.
What Church? Scripture reveals this Church to be the one Jesus Christ built upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18). By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).
By virtue of this divinely-appointed authority, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible) at the end of the fourth century. We therefore believe in the Scriptures on the authority of the Catholic Church. After all, nothing in Scripture tells us what Scriptures are inspired, what books belong in the Bible, or that Scripture is the final authority on questions concerning the Christian faith. Instead, the Bible says that the Church, not the Scriptures, is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17). It is through the teaching authority and Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2) of this Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16,26; 16:13), that we know of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the manifold wisdom of God. (cf. Ephesians 3:10).
from http://www.scripturecatholic.com/
IOW, the Catholic church teaches that anyone outside the Catholic church is going to hell.
No matter how you dress it up, that's essentially what it boils down to and in spite of the fact that the RCC tried to weasel out of directly saying that with its pronouncements in Vatican II, it never really ever directly denied it. And the Catholics on this forum keep reinforcing what we keep saying, that the Catholic church teaches that those outside the church, who are not Roman Catholic, are going to hell.
Well, I don't expect a Jewish source to concede what Trinitarian Christians believe about Jehovah. Their scriptures, and ours' of course, say otherwise. Take, for example, the "Shamah" of Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear O Israel: The LORD our God is one Lord.
shama` Yisra'el Yĕhovah 'elohiym 'echad Yĕhovah
The word "echad" has the meaning of joined in one, together, as a fist is composed of fingers drawn together.
There are also many verses where Jehovah proclaims that apart from him there is no savior, he alone is the savior and, also, that he is the alpha and omega, the first and last - terms used by and for Jesus in the New Testament. Who you gonna believe???
No matter how you dress it up, that's essentially what it boils down to and in spite of the fact that the RCC tried to weasel out of directly saying that with its pronouncements in Vatican II, it never really ever directly denied it. And the Catholics on this forum keep reinforcing what we keep saying, that the Catholic church teaches that those outside the church, who are not Roman Catholic, are going to hell.
Outside of the teachings of Jesus and the Church, we have no authority. You wanna take it up with Jesus, do so. It is outside of the realm of Christianity and you do so in unmapped territory. Who knows? You may find the Reformed limousines lined up ready to shuttle you in comfort to Heaven. But if you wish to stay true to sola scriptura, then you cannot, nay dare not for the sake of your soul, go beyond what is written on the pages of Scripture. You wish to stay sola, then do so. But at least be true to it.
Well, Quix can name his icon ‘He is risen’!
Point taken. But remember that these verses were written a thousand and a half years before Christ and the Jews thought that they had the meaning down pat.
Pious Jews think that we are crazy with this three in one thing.
Mark 12:28-29
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.'
Jesus spent three years teaching His disciples.
Peter was instructed to be a shepherd as all the apostles were and there is nothing in Scripture where Peter makes any special claims about himself nor does he leave any instructions about who is to be his successor.
Only Jesus has the power to forgive sins.
I Timothy 2:5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.
Four hundred years between Christ and the establishment of the RD church is a long time to be without anything but word of mouth. No wonder the church relies so heavily on its tradition to justify its claims.
Considering the history of the church and the corruption of the popes for so many centuries, I’d say that is a pretty strong argument against any claims of special dispensation.
What’s interesting is that when Protestants have moral failure the Catholics are quick to point out why that is a reason they shouldn’t rely on just Scripture but need church authority to correct it, but it doesn’t seem like the Catholic church did a very good job of correcting its own moral shortcomings nor has their claims to special authority kept it from anything that nay other church has had to deal with.
I don't. That's why I don't accept the traditions of men and don't accept any church teaching that elevates such traditions to the level of Scripture as the Catholic church does.
The Catholic church teaches many things that are NOT supported by Scripture and considers its traditions to be on equal footing with Scripture itself.
The Catholic Church also teaches that if someone has not had the opportunity to know about the Catholic Church, but has been a good person, God will allow them into Heaven, too. So, I guess the answer to your question is "both", as long as you're a "good" person who "does their best".
Matthew 18: 11 "If your brother 12 sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. 16 13 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. 18 15 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
John 20: 19 11 12 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. 13 The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 14 (Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." 22 15 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. 23 16 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."
The Apostles, as the clergy of the new Church were given to power to forgive sins.
Four hundred years between Christ and the establishment of the RD church is a long time to be without anything but word of mouth. No wonder the church relies so heavily on its tradition to justify its claims.
I don't know what an RD church is, but Matthew was written ca. AD 60 and John was written ca. AD 90. Hardly 400 years.
But I've illustrated a handful of examples here of those Catholic practices that are completely Scriptural and not followed by Protestants.
Negative. The correct answer is - we don't know. That is outside our teaching and our authority. We do not speak for God, unlike many even here. We only attempt to follow His instructions as given to us, and His teaching authority - the Church.
That wouldn't be anything like building the whole papacy on one [VERY ARGUABLE] verse in Matthew?
Or building the whole perpetual virginity of Mary which has ZERO verses in Scripture to support it[--AND A FAIR NUMBER OF VERSES PLAINLY AGAINST IT]?
Or the concept of the Immaculate Conception on who knows what? [. . . based on the magicsterical's need, cleverness in concocting yet another entrapment and exclusivist flavored theme with which to pull more money from the sheeple.]
Or the ascension of Mary?
You want to start on church doctrine with weak Scriptural support? Sure, have at it.
[AFTER ALL, IT'S !!!!TRADITION!!!! . . . The FARCE must go on!]
QX: Ain't the !!!!TRADITIONAL!!!! Vatican DOUBLE STANDARD grand!
I read some of the finger frothers’ replies to some of your excellent posts . . . and it’s obvious . . . no matter how vainly and earnestly they try, some of them don’t begin to reach the bottom of your league.
Sometimes I wonder if they even comprehend English or logic better than a Border Collie.
Sigh....did you even read my post #1243? And I went to ALL that trouble copying and pasting yet!
Sometimes, it seems like some of the rabid clique variety of Papists just throw out farcicle falsehoods out kind of automatically . . . like burping.
I think for most folks who understand English well . . . your assertion would have been unnecessary because the other blokes would have KNOWN that full well already. Sigh.
Therein lies the reason for the value attached to tradition as found in the Gospel of Thomas and Infancy Gospel of James and other such tripe.
WELL PUT.
THX.
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.