Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
The wounds of Saint Pio and others are special forms of Grace from Christ that REVEAL extraordinary love expressed through the life of Saint Pio and others.
To say pio did not "seek " it is silly for he certainly wanted the publicity from it..
Showing you're ignorance on a topic you know little about again? Padre Pio was horrified by the attention,the Church did everything to keep what was happening with him quit as well until they could investigate,including keeping him in chambers.
He was a fake
I have seen all the stuff against Saint Pio(acid and all) and everything about his life is in Christ.
You're free to believe whatever you want
with him quit = with him quiet
The "proof text" has been dead as a tool of debate since the 18th century. I suspect you still don't understand how I'm using the term.
and I have actually corrected Catholics here by presenting the verse they used by giving the context..
Can you link to an example or give the post number?
You apparently don't care about context with your "filthy rags" cite from Isaiah -- compare: Filthy Rags. Not a Catholic source, but the author actually reads the verse in the context of Isaiah.
The statement, "All our righteousness is like filthy rags", is found in the middle of a Biblical poem in Isaiah (Isa 64:4-9). The saying has caused a deep struggle in many hearts. Does the statement mean that it's pointless us trying to do righteous deeds? Does it mean our righteousness has no value in God's eyes? No, it doesn’t.
Remembering the gospels are pre New Testament, and still point to the law
This remains one of the most utterly bizarre contentions I have ever seen. I have no idea just what the Mennonite pastor you cite was getting at, but my impression was that Protestants in general insist that the OT canon was closed with Ezra around 400 BC, and they thus argue that the Deuterocanonicals (Apocrypha to you) cannot be canonical. It would seem to follow that to place the Gospels with the OT would logically eliminate them from any place in the canon at all.
You argue that the New Covenant was not established until the Last Supper. I (and others) maintain that it's truer to say that Christ Himself is the New Covenant, even if He only fully revealed Himself as such at the Last Supper.
I've heard criticism of those who would have Christianity "without the Cross" -- this is the first time I've heard a "Christianity without Christ" proposed.
can any man love his neighbor as himself? or like the law it summarizes does it point us to our need for a Savior?
Do you mean -- as you seem to -- that there's no point in trying to keep the commandments of Christ or even to understand what they mean? He also commands us to believe in Him. Why do you take the one as valid and the other as nothing -- do you imagine it's possible to have such faith without believing His words and taking them seriously? Anyone can say he believes anything -- maybe even fool himself into thinking he does.
No, there are many and they are deceivers
Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
And that my friend is the problem, they do not know the "real thing" from the spiritual impostors
The object of mysticism is a direct line to God.. for personal relationship or for revelation.
Catholicism stands together with Buddhism and Hinduism, Catholic mystics William Johnston says this "Self-realization lies at the very heart of BuddhismIn self-realization I become one with God ...just as Jesus is one with his Father."
The Mirror Mind
This is pantheism not Christianity
Catholic and Eastern mysticism say they discover God in the depths of their being.
A saved Christian Christian looks not at himself, but to Jesus Christ and His righteousness
...or to disbelieve, but anti-Catholics are not free to make authoritative pronouncements over what others choose to believe or disbelieve. They can express their opinions as opinions, but are in no way qualified to do anything else.
Belief is largely faith based and few have any any tangible proof. Those who criticize Catholics for trusting and accepting the opinions of the Pope and Church elders display incredible hubris when they then insist that we accept their unqualified opinions as the basis of belief.
You really shouldn't feed us straight lines like that! ;-)
Wrong again.
It’s a pretty shameful website you’re using(http://www.miraclesceptic.com) to try and dig up dirt on Saint Pio
Here is what your research site has to say about Jesus..
http://www.miraclesceptic.com/conjurerjesus.html#_JESUS_THE_CONJURER
“The miracle of the loaves and fishes could have been done in the dark which makes trickery easier. In Luke 9 we read that the five thousand were fed in a desert or waste area and significantly near the city of Bethsaida. Jesus could have performed an illusion and had wealthy friends to pay for the food. “
http://www.miraclesceptic.com/sinlessnessmiracle.html
excert...Anyone could claim to be sinless and availing of the doctrine that God’s ways are strange, could say that her or his sins were not sins but were done for a good purpose. We all know people who seem impeccable and if Jesus’ goodness is evidence that he was of God then it means that they are of God as well and telling the truth if they say they are divine. Jesus did things that look evil like pulling his death on the cross on himself, risking the apostles lives by taking them around with him when he was a wanted man, insulting the woman whose daughter was possessed and I could go on for a year.
Well stated!
Did Christ "show his real love for His Mother or Peter with them? How about John? Can you cite me a scripture that says bearing the wounds of Christ means God especially Loves you
There is none, the true is IF they were real (and there is evidence to the contrary) there is no evidence that they were a "love gift" from God and not Satan or a discipline of God to a worldly sinful man
Showing you're ignorance on a topic you know little about again? Padre Pio was horrified by the attention,the Church did everything to keep what was happening with him quit as well until they could investigate,including keeping him in chambers.
Lets look at that HE SAID he did not want the attention, and yet he always managed to show them in pictures, he would yell in his cell at night to get the other monks to come saying he was being attacked by the devil , He smelled of Tobacco and claimed that was a part of the "miracle"and he did noting to hide that
In 1923, Rome declared that nothing supernatural had been proven about the wounds. The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office decreed in Acta Apostolicae Sedis that “after due investigation” that nothing supernatural had been determined in relation to Pio and that the faithful must accept this (page 99, The Physical Phenomena of Mysticism).
I have seen all the stuff against Saint Pio(acid and all) and everything about his life is in Christ.
Faith in faith ..Protestants are mocked for believing we are saved by faith alone..yet many Catholics accept frauds like pio based on nothing but faith alone
I choose to place my faith solely in the one who was really pierced for my transgressions ..Jesus the Christ
How about the second generation romantic Mysticism of Fichte (1762-1814), Novalis (1772-1801), and Schelling (1775-1854)? How about Lessing (1728-81), Schleiermacher (1768-1834), Ritschl (1822-1889) or even Aimee McPherson? What about the trance like states and the jabbering in tongues so common in Protestantism?
Seems to me you have your own house to clean before you offer any criticisms of Catholic “mystics”.
“Catholicism stands together with Buddhism and Hinduism...”
This is so lacking in credibility.
Um, you're the sola Scriptura person here -- show us a scriptural text that says it's not.
Wow
From Merton
"If only they could or see themselves as they really are… I suppose the big problem would be that we would fall down and worship each other."
Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander
Pantheistic idolatry.
This is where Calvinists diverge from actual Christianity. The Gospels are the foundation of the New Testament and the Letters of Paul, which the Calvinists base their entire dogma play only a supporting role.
Thanks very much for this excellent post.
Mysticism is a poorly defined aspect of faith, but it is hardly absent from Protestantism. Where does Protestant Mysticism fit into your criticism? I am referring to Sebastian Frank (1499-1542), Valentine Weiler (1533-88), and especially by Jakob Böhme (1575-1624). Where does Johann Reuchlin (1455-1522) who developed a system of cabalistic mysticism fin into your criticism?
How about the second generation romantic Mysticism of Fichte (1762-1814), Novalis (1772-1801), and Schelling (1775-1854)? How about Lessing (1728-81), Schleiermacher (1768-1834), Ritschl (1822-1889) or even Aimee McPherson? What about the trance like states and the jabbering in tongues so common in Protestantism?
Seems to me you have your own house to clean before you offer any criticisms of Catholic “mystics”.
It is not wise to attribute works to God that are works of men or satan ...
Why then do Calvinists reject and relegate the actual words and Revelation of Christ found in the Gospels in deference to St. Paul?
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.