Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
What right does Baldwin have to identify himself when a website is doing it for him??? If Baldwin needs information about himself, he knows where to find it!!!
The cheek of that man!!!
“In cases where there are only a few churches of a particular denomination in a city or area, knowing the particular denomination and a FReeper’s general geographic area...”
We will believe then that the various “denominations” are comprised of a few individuals in a geographic area if it comes down to such a discrete identification.
ArmChair, indeed.
“No matter what the denomination of the church, seminary the pastor attended, ordination process, levels of accountability, doctrinal position and fidelity to it that a church has...”
But there are so many! The doctrinal positions vary from one to another: Trinitarian, Anti-Trinitarian, Montanism, Neo-Montanism, and so forth.
“Knowing specific denominations and doctrines is pretty much irrelevant because the fact that it’s not Catholic is enough to condemn it and all in it.”
That’s the cry of “don’t put my doctrine under the microscope for all to see.” Yeah, yeah. It is easier to attack Catholics than expose what one believes and hold THAT up to a mirror.
“It’s set us free from the condemnation that is so pervasive in Catholicism. It’s set us free from obeying all kinds of rules and regulations. It’s set us free from forever striving to be good enough to try to earn our salvation and always being afraid that we’re not good enough and not going to make it.”
People who think this don’t have a clue about Christ’s own church, the Catholic Church. Obligation? To Worship God with all one’s Heart, Mind, Strength.
Done.
I have hope of my salvation in Christ.
The only thing I can do is just have faith that He will give me the Grace to walk daily.
The concept of “Once Saved Always Saved” is a doctrine that is just plain wrong.
Oh, and BTW, not all Protestant denominations believe the Once Saved doctrine. Some baptise in just the name of Christ, among other things.
There are doctrinal differences and certainly more aberrations in the Church-of-the-Arm-Chair variety, but it’s ok.
I will acknowledge the Protestants’ inability to identify their doctrines because it would identify the street on which the discrete church is located.
A typical response that is void of substance. When i do not give 100% credence to polling data, your objection is to the sources, but they are far more than two, and everyone i have every seen on this subject conflates with the others, and reputable Catholic agencies sometimes invoke these. If you disagree you must provide like surveys showing the contrary, which i honestly have not found.
PS. As for bandwidth, there are far more articles posted regularly on FR weekly promoting Rome than opposing it.
I myself would not charge Rome with saying Muslims are saved, as that nuanced statement is not exactly saying this, but to anathematize a person goes beyond simply stating her/she is wrong, while there is disagreement whether this is in effect.
Noted RC apologist James Akin states that “the Church is free to abolish any penalty of ecclesiastical law it wants to, and it did abolish this one”.
But another notable lay apologist, Robert Sugenis states,
“The Mass, confession, indulgences and purgatory are all part and parcel with Catholic justification. According to Church dogma, those who knowingly refuse to accept them are still under anathema.” http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/sungenisjointdeclaration.html
The RC Peter and Paul Ministries also disagree:
“there is not the slightest hint in the documents of Vatican II that the proclamations of the Council of Trent have been abrogated. Second, prior to the 1983 Code, those who were excommunicated from the Church were divided into two categories; i.e. vitandi and tolerati. The 1983 Code of Cannon law eliminated these distinctions which has given rise to the false impression that the condemnations of Trent were repealed, but this is not the case. Catholics must remember that canon law deals primarily with internal discipline. While there is always some relation between canon law and dogmatic theology, as a rule the law does not make doctrinal pronouncements. Mr. Charles M. Wilson, an associate member of the Canon Law Society of America and president of the St. Joseph Foundation stated, “I can find nothing in the Code now in force that explicitly or implicitly removes any anathemas of Trent.”
Evang. apologist Mike Gendron responds here: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/roman-catholicism/RC1W0303.pdf
New Advent states
“Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity.”
“Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive (Name) himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.
Whereupon all the assistants respond: “Fiat, fiat, fiat.” (Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. iii.)
Multitudes of notable practicing immoral Catholics escape such, while even if Akin is right,the condemnations are still the issue, and it is notable that such an articulate clarification must come from a lay apologist.
It's NOT "over the scriptures." It's along side the scriptures. A reading of the documents makes that obvious.
That’s working under the false assumption that if someone “really” knew what the Catholic church teaches, of course they’d understand it and be Catholic, that they couldn’t help themselves.
And that only those who choose to remain Catholic “really” understand Catholic doctrine.
That’s not true. Someone can be thoroughly knowledgeable about a subject and choose to reject it. Someone can be thoroughly knowledgeable about Catholic doctrine and choose to reject the parts of it that they don’t see lining up with Scripture.
The part that is the most ironic is that the Catholic church claims to be responsible for the Bible’s existence, and certainly appeals to it for authority to establish itself as supreme authority over everyone on the planet, and then dismisses anyone else’s positions when they try to use Scripture to support their position.
Sola scriptural is just fine to establish the papacy and transubstantiation, but not fine to contest it. How inconsistent of them.
First thing about the numbers, no they don’t come from members who have left, unless those numbers came from the parishs’ baptismal rol1s and it would not take long to figure out the rol1s include the names of many dead. The numbers probably come from the number of people who are active in the parishes but the Church does not swell her numbers to give a false impression of the number of faithful. How secular sources count members I don’t know. They may very well count anyone who claims to be Catholic no matter their practice and that would indeed swell the number.
And I’ll let the person who made the claim of once Catholic always Catholic expound on the reasoning behind it but I have a feeling it is about the fact that Being Baptized Catholic leaves a indelible mark on the soul that unites us with the Body of Christ (The Church) whether we keep to the faith or leave for a Protestant denomination or leave Christianity all together. It does not mean we are automatically faithful Catholics. To be a faithful Catholic takes more than being Baptized.
And if you are in outright disobedience to Church teachings yet still claim to be Catholic you are very simply an apostate and heretic. You should leave and stop saying you are what you are not.
And I have no idea how Pelosi’s Bishop views her. But there is unfortunately no guarantee or charism that an individual Bishop will not be a spineless fool who plays havoc with the souls of those entrusted to him and who disobeys the clear teachings of the magesterium. So yeah there have always been bad Bishops. How else do you think so many heresies and liturgical abuses ever get off the ground? So a Bishop can be wrong, wrong, wrong and that is to their great shame and to their own judgment.
Tell me where in the Bible do the words Bible Alone appear?
And using only the Bible can you defend the teaching that Jesus Christ is God? What if somebody can do the same to show that Jesus Christ is not God? What does that mean? How do you know who is right?
Also since you are so against Catholics you must be able to trace your beliefs to the beginings of Christianity. And give me the example of one early Christian writer (I’ll make it easy pick somebody before the Council of Nicea so you can’t spout that nonsense that the Constantine corrupted the Church) who teaches anything that can be clearly said to be uniquely Protestant in nature.
Exactly. And anytime somebody uses the words Bound to Rome and The Pope I know they believe we are mindless automans who can not think for ourselves. So much for the rich tradition of Catholic thought.
The very concept of joyful obedience is foreign to them.
Don’t you tire of your lies?
This is often used as justification, but which places the infallible words of men above the infallible words of God, which commends common men for examining the very apostle’s preaching by the then-existing Scriptures. (Acts 17:11)
This reliance upon post-apostolic (Biblically speaking) sources also infers there was unanimous consent among the fathers on RC doctrine, which there was not, (http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf) and that none support the primacy of Scripture (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html) and that terms such a “tradition” did not evolve in their meaning . (http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/livingtradition.html)
As God has affirmed the Scriptures as the only objective authority which is 100% inspired of Him, that is what must be the supreme doctrinal authority, versus holding an office to be infallible, based upon its infallible declaration that it is infallible when speaking according to its infallibly defined formula.
And plenty of pray before becoming Mormons or the like, and then there are the contrary testimonies from Rome to evangelical faith. (http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Testimony.html)
You are wrong, one man spouts outright lies and distortions and the know nothings on this board claim he is telling the truth because he is anti-Catholic and we defend our faith. Does the commandment about false witness not make it into your Bible?
If he spoke the truth and simply said that in good faith he could no longer stay in the Church we would respect that but that is not enough he has to lie. Lying is a sin in case you have forgotten.
There are any number of former Catholics who left because they truly could not believe Catholic doctrine but one never reads their testimony on here. Instead you always parade out the same tired cliches and fear mongering and ignorance. You should be ashamed.
I have seen various forms of this on the Religion Forum quite a bit recently, but it is something of a non sequitur.
Our Lord DID NOT say that He is the gate and the true vine and then proceed to break apart a gate and a vine and distribute them to His Disciples. He said He is the gate and the vine and then He EXPLAINED what He meant.
But this is not what happened with the Eucharist. He gave His discourse on the Bread of Life, explained it, clarified it and even watched some leave AFTER the clarification. And then later, He broke the Bread and said, "This is My Body," and took the Cup and said, "This is My Blood." His explanation was followed by a definitive action and the action was so definitive that the Apostles started doing it after His Ascension.
If the Eucharist was purely symbolic, the words of Saint Paul would make NO SENSE:
[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
-- 1 Corinthians 11:26-29
How can a person be "unworthy" of something that means nothing? This passage only makes sense if our Lord is really and truly present in the Eucharist.
Does that mean he is green and leafy? Or made of wood? Or soft and crusty and puffy?
I think there is some misunderstanding of what the Real Presence actually means. Catholics DO NOT believe that Jesus Christ becomes bread and wine, we believe on faith that the Bread and Wine becomes the Body and Blood of our Lord -- there is a huge difference between the two.
I know you say you were raised Catholic, but what are you NOW? Far too many people on here seem to have adopted anti-Catholicism as their religion and they are unwilling to say what they really believe. This is important because many Protestant denominations still believe in the Real Presence to varying degrees, they know it is more than just simple bread and wine. So, what are you? Are you a Baptist, a Methodist, a Presbyterian? Some on here seem totally incapable of confessing what they DO believe, they can only deny what they don't believe.
Excellent, thoughtful post, wagglebee.
HMMMMMMMM
That kind of hubris is why Rome is bleeding membership.
It’s like telling an ex-democrat, now Republican, that he is really still a democrat.
No, he’s not. Men change. Often for the better, God willing.
INDEWED.
However, monopolistic, exclusivist, !!!!CONTROLLING!!!! RELIGIOUS tyranny . . . is addictive . . . and the elites in it don’t handle well the notion of loosing sheeple and serfs.
Well put.
Yeah. Quite a lot of in-depth understanding and perceptiveness in his narrative.
Interesting . . . I'd have thought there would have been more
“poorly catechized” wails by now. LOL. Oh, right. Wouldn't fit! ROTFLOL.
The issue is not Protestantism as defined as any “Christian” group outside Rome, but those who hold to its historical foundational distinctives, that being the supremacy of Scripture and salvation by grace thru faith, not salvation by grace thru merit (that believers, by their very works sake, may be accounted works of eternal life, ala Rome). And concomitant with this evangelical gospel are the other foundational salvific truths, which are stated in the Nicene Creed.
Virtually all denominations (Southern and Fundamental Baptists, Assembles of God, Calvary Chapels, etc.) hold to the above.And on the pew-level where it counts, they show more unity here and in moral views than Catholics, though both are manifesting declension.
This unity can also be seen by way of contrast with cults and groups they reject, which err in these fundamentals, which is usually due to formally or effectively holding men as a higher authority than the Scriptures. In addition these evangelicals manifest a remarkable transdenominational unity of the Spirit in worship, prayer, and other ministries and gatherings, because they were born again.
And if uniformity of doctrine itself is the key to authenticity, then Rome is no better than single Protestant denominations. And as very little of the Bible has been infallible defined, Catholics themselves have great liberty in interpreting the Bible, and even can disagree somewhat with teachings of the Ordinary and General magisteriums, while a significant both priests and laity disagree with some infallible teachings. They they usually just do not leave Rome neither do they need to, and by this Rome effectually teaches memberships with her what really counts.
Thus Rome’s claim to unity is largely restricted to official statements, and while there sadly is some serious disagreement among evangelicals, so is there such in Rome, even among priests, and which it much tolerates,
Finally, unity based upon salvific truth and its fruits - even with some disagreements - is of a higher quality than unity based on error and its fruits, which Rome overall demonstrably manifests.
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.