Intended Catholic Dictatorship

Independent Individualist ^ | 8/27/10 | Reginald Firehammer

[Cronos]

The Former Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) ruling elder Paul M. Elliott has written it in his books and it's outlined in the pdf doc --> he sees the OPC view on justification as heretical and has openly called on OPCers to leave the OPC. That's why he says
Satan has won his war of attrition against the one true Gospel in the OPC (113).
and
The OPC long ago ceased to proclaim the one true Gospel to the exclusion of all false gospels (115). and The Orthodox Presbyterian Church has abandoned the marks of a true church of Jesus Christ (118).

It's up to you to check it -- just like all your links, I won't do the homework on the OPC for you to see that (as the author Former Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) ruling elder Paul M. Elliott says) The OPC has abondoned the marks of a true church of JEsus Christ

[Cronos]

The New Testament writers regarded Christ's sayings about the Mosaic law as permanently binding. In Mark 7:19, the evangelist explains Christ's statement concerning eating with unwashed hands to mean all foods were henceforth clean--a statement Seventh-Day Adventists need to take to heart since they are vegetarians. We can verify that the apostles understood Christ's coming as having made a permanent change in the sabbath by looking at Paul's epistles. In Galatians 4:10, in the middle of his letter urging the Galatians not to subject themselves to the Law of Moses, Paul states, "[Y]ou have come to know God . . . how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elements, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days, and months, and seasons, and years! I am afraid I have labored over you in vain." Paul thus worries about the Galatians keeping the Jewish festal calendar (including the sabbath), which would render his labor to save them vain (see Gal. 5:2-5).

In Colossians 2:14-16, Paul mentions the sabbath by name, stating that Christ has "canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands . . . Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." Festivals, new moons, and sabbaths were the three kinds of feast days of the Mosaic calendar (see Neh. 10:33, Lev. 23, Num. 29:6). Paul thus states that the whole Jewish festal calendar, sabbath days included, is not binding on Christians.

Please do remember that CHurch teaching is that the Sabbath is not Sunday. It remains on Saturday since it is a part of the Old Law. Sunday is the day of Worship and celebrating the Lord's Feast for Christians. It is the day of the Resurrection and is the Lord’s Day. But it is not literally the Sabbath! In the liturgical calendar, used by Catholics and major Protestant churches, Saturday is still the Sabbath. Sunday is the "Lord’s Day."

Colossians 2:16.

16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in ChristPaul was specifically dealing with the Judaizers who were claiming that Gentiles had to keep the old law that has passed away. This text has nothing to do with the Church establishing the New Covenant "law of Christ

the Church does not dismiss the significance of the Jewish Sabbath. "Sunday is expressly distinguished from the Sabbath, which it follows chronologically every week" (CCC 2175).

1 Corinthians 16:1–2:

Now concerning the contribution for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come.

[roamer_1]

Well then, you are wrong, sir, The Church did not change Sabbath to Sunday

Oh, BALONEY. I gave plenty of reference to dispute that nonsense back in #2576, and there is PLENTY more where that comes from.

Perhaps you would care to peruse Rome's Challenge once again, to seal it perfectly in your mind that the Roman church claims it's authority from the very act of changing the Sabbath day. In the article, any notion that the Early Church observed Sunday, or that there is ANY basis for a Sunday sabbath in the Bible is firmly denied.

Rome's purported power stands upon it's presumed ability to change the Laws of God:

Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

The Church celebrates on Sunday as Christ did.

Christ observed the Sabbath day.

Around the years 80–90, Christians were thrown out of the synagogues. This may have provided further stimulus for Christians to change their worship from Sabbath to Sunday.

DEM JOOOOOS! More baloney. Rome and Alexandria are the only places that observed a Sunday sabbath for many, many years.

One implication of this is that with the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ one eternity had ended and another had begun. God could therefore abrogate an everlasting law and still not contradict himself.

Implication does not trump declaration.

In Paul’s letter to the Romans,[...](Rom. 14:5–6). The apostle is speaking here about the day which is being observed to the Lord, i.e., the day of worship.

Romans 14 is talking about fasting / days for fasting, and how to handle the disparities thereof. No Sabbath there.

The Didache [...[ Justin Martyr [...]

You may quote any early work outside of Scripture that has extant copies dating before 300. The rest (basically all) are suspect, and I will reject them outright. The Roman church has proved itself immune to conscience when it comes to forging documents.

And even those few I might consider do not trump the Word, as John warned that the spirit of antichrist was working in his day, and that the false religion sprung forth from the Early Church... Historicity means nothing in the face of that.

Seventh-Day Adventist prophetess Ellen White [...]

Ellen White is a false prophetess. I set no store by her (though I consider 7th Day Adventists brothers).

[Las Vegas Dave]

Las Vegas Dave can also vouch for his authenticity.

True.

[Legatus]

Communication is of course a two way street. Obviously, written communication has been undergoing a revolution for the past 20 years. The two of you are, I think, in your 60s, I’m in my 40s. Everything we were taught that concerns written communication has gone out the window. We no longer write letters that take one week to arrive and another week for an answer to return. The “old” usenet, web forums, blogs and texting have forever changed how we correspond.

We have to find effective ways to pack more meaning into what we write, to convey a sense of the writer’s intent in ways that are more engaging than traditional writing styles. Emoticons, other creative punctuations, the use of caps, colors and other formatting styles, these are all useful in meeting that goal. Nevertheless we can’t get too far out in front of the people we’re trying to engage.

I’m again reminded of the journalist who spent some months “undercover” with car salesmen, observing and attempting to understand their sub-culture (”Confessions of a Car Salesman” I think). Indeed it turns out they are a sub-culture with styles of dress, speech and social conventions that are entirely their own which severely hinders their ability to function and communicate with society at large. We watch their locally produced commercials that are almost identical nationwide and wonder how in the world they think they are communicating any message other than “I’m as crazy as a loon”.

Catholics have a similar, growing and still unaddressed problem within the community of our priests. These men are educated and socialize with each other and to the extent that they are isolated from the population at large they are becoming inept at socializing and communicating with the people. When rectories were full and there was always a new guy and every family had a priest and there were cooks and housekeepers and constant social functions this wasn’t the same kind of problem. This needs to be recognized, addressed and corrected immediately.

Academia has always had this problem, it’s well known and hardly needs to be considered. They’re nuts, they know they’re nuts and they don’t care.

Even as we develop these new ways of using old tools we have to resist the tendency of balkanization. Our communication still has to meet other people where they are, it is cross-generational and cross-cultural. Not only must care be given to the way we decorate words but the words themselves must be chosen with some reference to the target audience.

So yes, I support experimenting, but the goal of an experiment is to determine if something works. If it doesn’t it has to be at least adjusted.

“I want to be me” is probably more “I want to be known” and it’s fundamental in our relationship with God but it’s just as real in our relationships with His creatures. God “wants to be known”, the revelation of the Trinity was entirely gratuitous in the purest sense of that word. This glimpse into the inner life of God expands our ability to know and love God almost endlessly, certainly to the very limit of our finite abilities. There will never come a time when we will plumb the depths of that great mystery. So too we, His creatures, seek among ourselves also to be known, incompletely and fallibly but constantly trying. God communicates perfectly to imperfect creatures, we communicate imperfectly. When the method becomes an obstacle we have to make adjustments.

And so that is my point, the problem is not always with “the other”. I don’t speak to my wife the way I speak to my children, I don’t speak to God the way I speak to anyone else. We always tailor the message to the intended recipient even while keeping the same goal of making ourselves known to another.

It is a neverending shock to my ten year old daughter when I remind her that she is no better than her three year old brother. When I point out that her mother and I have the same age difference as they do she freaks out a little. At the ripe old age of ten she thinks herself so worldly wise and sophisticated, from where I’m sitting she just barely got out of diapers so she can just climb down off that high horse and play UNO with him and it doesn’t have to be a family crisis every time he decides to play by his own rules. (How’s that for a run on sentence?) He still needs to learn the rules though. I hope I’m not being too subtle. :)

[Quix]

GWARSH. THANKS TONS.

BLESS YOU, TOO.

[Quix]

I doubt it.

I don’t think they believe anything unless it’s sealed in red wax on white hankys from the magicsterical or from the fantasized “Mary.”

Don’t they have a history of eating their own . . . Spain & the Middle Ages etc?

[Quix]

Besides, he’s a wonderfully decent man who puts God first. That’s not the script of the rabid clique types hereon.

[Quix]

TRUE. TRUE.

[Quix]

I wouldn’t expect that before Jesus returns.

[Quix]

The joke is that Rome fancies itself founded upon “reason” when, in fact, it is riddled with superstition and fallacy because it departs so drastically from the word of God.

---

ABSOLUTELY, INDEED.

[Quix]

Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin from the first moment of her conception (RC catechism 490-492.) Mary lived a sinless life (RC catechism 411, 493.)

Mary is the mother of God (RC catechism 963, 971, 2677.)

Mary is the mother of the church (RC catechism 963, 975.)

Mary is the co-redeemer because she participated with Christ in the redeeming the entire world (RC catechism 618, 964, 968, 970.)

Mary was assumed bodily into heaven at her death (RC catechism 966, 974.)

Mary is the mediator to whom we can entrust all our worries and prayers (RC catechism 968-970, 2677.)

We should surrender ourselves wholly to Mary "at the hour of our death." (RC catechism 2677.)

Mary is Queen of heaven and earth (RC catechism 966, 971, 2675.)

.

These things a Roman Catholic MUST believe and some of them are complete idolatry. We're all sinners and we all grieve God daily. But this kind of blindness is almost incomprehensible to anyone with a Bible and the ability to read.

-----------------
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

[Quix]

THANKS FOR ANOTHER VOICE OF SANITY AND CHRISTIANITY on a thread so shy of both.

[Quix]

That’s not what he said, although it makes for some colorful squeals on your part.

You keep right on fighting those straw men. One of these days you’re bound to knock one over.

---

THANKS. INDEED. Though I thought they were black shrieks dripping red.

[Quix]

IT’S THE DIVIDE AND CONQUER DANCE OF THE DWEEBS

[Quix]

A fantasy of premeditated construction?

[Quix]

A fantasy of premeditated construction?

[Quix]

When the goal seems to be merely to shred everything not on one’s personal white hankys . . . I wouldn’t think any of it would be worth bothering with.

[Quix]

THANKS THANKS.

AREN’T YOU TECHNICALLY a currently mass attending RC, too?

[sitetest]

I’m thinking you’re right.