Posted on 01/03/2011 10:40:41 AM PST by RnMomof7
2. It is UNimpressive FALSE WITNESS, a brazen FALSEHOOD to assert that I am against "HONORING MARY." . . . or even that I have anything negative to say against truly honoring the authentic Mary, at all.
It is the devilish, demonic Vatican Alice In Wonderland School of Theology and Reality Mangling idolatrous, blasphemous HOGWASH from hell with all this falsified farcical false Mary caricature THAT MOST DISHONORS MARY.
For example:
.
The following post from:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2650903/posts?page=184#184 A) IT IS A GROSS EMBARRASSMENT & DISHONOR to the authentic Mary to Pray TO Mary
She's likely grieved and outraged at such an UNBIBLICAL, Insulting-to-Christ activity.
B)IT IS A GROSS EMBARRASSMENT & DISHONOR to the authentic Mary to Label Mary Mediatrix and the like.
C) IT IS A GROSS EMBARRASSMENT & DISHONOR to the authentic Mary to Label Mary Queen of Heaven.
D) IT IS A GROSS EMBARRASSMENT & DISHONOR to the authentic Mary to label Mary the Dispenser of "all" graces.
E) IT IS A GROSS EMBARRASSMENT & DISHONOR to the authentic Mary to label Mary The Queen of sinners
F) IT IS A GROSS EMBARRASSMENT & DISHONOR to the authentic Mary to label Mary The Ruler of hell
G) IT IS A GROSS EMBARRASSMENT & DISHONOR to the authentic Mary to label Mary "the tree of life."
H) IT IS A hugely GROSS EMBARRASSMENT & DISHONOR to the authentic Mary to label Mary "Spouse of the Holy Spirit,"
I) IT IS A GROSS EMBARRASSMENT & DISHONOR to the authentic Mary to label Mary "Complement of the most august Trinity"
J) IT IS A GROSS EMBARRASSMENT & DISHONOR to the authentic Mary to assert "that SHE might VANQUISH SIN IN EVERY RESPECT"
K) IT IS A GROSS EMBARRASSMENT & DISHONOR to the authentic Mary to label "Mary as the dawn of God"
L) IT IS A GROSS EMBARRASSMENT & DISHONOR to the authentic Mary to assert blasphemously that "No one can go to God without Mary drawing him"
M) IT IS A GROSS EMBARRASSMENT & DISHONOR to the authentic Mary to assert hideously blasphemously that "Mary . . . desroyed sin."
N) IT IS A GROSS blasphemous EMBARRASSMENT & DISHONOR to the authentic Mary to assert that It was also through HER that this salvation was wrought."
O) IT IS A GROSS EMBARRASSMENT & DISHONOR to the authentic Mary to claim that "...so Mary saves all the souls that entrust themselves TO HER CARE."
P) IT IS AN OUTRAGEOUSLY OFFENSIVE AND GROSS EMBARRASSMENT & DISHONOR to the authentic Mary to "...she participates in the INFINITE SANCTITY OF GOD."
-----------------
REF:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2503880/posts?page=1576#1576
It would be somewhat akin to showing up at a Vatican State dinner honoring the Pope on his birthday and with CNN cameras running, assert with great pomp and circumstance how wonderful it was to have that Pope as a blood father and his chamber maid nun as one's mother . . . and to go on and on lavishing all manner of unfitting and unearned titles on the Pope and the chambermaid accordingly.
It's a lie...The Apostles never taught any of these things...The earliest church fathers didn't speak of these things...And the Apostles didn't believe nor teach baptismal regeneration...They taught repentance generation...
These are man made inventions created by your religion, long after the Apostles were gone...
I believe Jesus alone fully knows the exact membership of His bride the eternal Church. This concept is called the invisible Church, and anyone who either,
a)acknowledges that NOT everyone who is baptized and calls themselves a “Christian” really is one... or
b) uses the word “Christian” for believers in Jesus outside of their particular visible/organizational Church denomination, also implicitly acknowledges God alone knows exactly who (and where) His sheep are.
Do I believe in the visible/organizational church too? Yes, but, only as a humanly visible approximation of the true/invisible Church.
Do I believe that Rome is the center of the one true Church, and Peter was delegated its first Pope? No, I really don’t believe scripture or history can back up that assertion—which evidence shows is a tradition made up LONG after the 1st Century.
Did the Roman Church serve well in unifying European Christians and their beliefs well into the Middle Ages? Yes, it did...and I would never call her the “church of satan” or anything stupid like that... I do believe though that the Roman Church’s power and wealth slowly but surely corrupted her, and, by the 15th and 16th Century a thorough Reformation was very well needed.
Oneness in love, trust and belief in Jesus is far more important than being part of one human organization. I also believe such oneness was Jesus’ first priority when praying in John 17.
But your pope says, NO...How do you go against your pope???
Boniface VII
"we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
All salvation is from and thru Christ thrue his body the Church, where the fullness of God’s Grace is present.
There is not one piece of scripture that states that salvation comes thru Jesus' body...Salvation comes only thru the Head...
Bible tells us when we are saved and receive salvation, we are ADDED to the church...The church has nothing to do with any one's salvation...The church is the RESULT of salvation...At least the church of the Bible...
And what about Mary...Now days, every thing we read says salvation comes from Mary...
Also, since you are a Bible expert, please explain 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as it relates to the command by St Paul to keep the traditions taught to them by either letter or word of mouth.
Where does this verse indicate that what was preached is different than what was written?
Is it logical that the writers of scripture would only write some important things and teach only orally other importantthings? Is that How God normally operated in the OT? The ECF's do not seem to rely on scripture for their doctrine, only. Paul's sentiments seem to indicate otherwise.
1 Cor 4:6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.
Major doctrinal issues are found mot just once scripture, but in many different places.
Phil 3:1 Further, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you.
Phil 3:18 For, as I have often told you before and now tell you again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ.
OLOFOB—In the context of posts 378 and 379, the use of the term not impressed was not disrespectful, and actually is a legitimate line in the dialogue, which really begins in 378.
Rarely is all of this done, and usually only a bare minimum is done, some times for good reasons, and sometimes for bad, but it is the ideal that Rome urges the faithful to strive for, and if it were striven for, it would increase respect for the Gospels on the part of Catholics, and lead to charges of idolatry by some non-Catholics. Rome sympathizes with your concern about the lack of attention and reverence paid by Catholics to Scripture—the Pope recently issued a 50,000 word document that addresses this problem, among others.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html
Which section of Ignatius' writings claim that??? The proven forgery section, or the highly suspect section???
We state that the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Orders (rites in which God is uniquely active) are indelible and cannot be effaced, your muddled understanding or inability to process complex thoughts not withstanding.
The discussion at hand was excommunication. Catholic excommunication, is not a penalty, but rather a formal proclamation of a pre-existing condition. It merely recognizes when a person by their own willful acts, has separated themselves from the Church and is no longer to receive the sacraments, with the exception of Reconciliation if they turn from their ways.
Excommunication can be either ferendae sententiae by declaration of an ecclesiastical court or, far more commonly, latae sententiae which is automatically incurred at the moment the offensive act takes place. Excommunication does not in anyway seek to interfere with or judge ones relationship with God because there is only one Judge and Mediator. The excommunicant is still considered Christian as the character imparted by baptism is indelible and cannot be effaced. Their communion and association with the Church, however, is considered gravely impaired.
I believe Irenaeus, a pupil of Ignatius, points this out—though patristics was about 15 years ago, so I could be off. At any rate, if either of you want to google to ascertain where this tidbit is preserved, Irenaeus’ name may prove helpful.
INDEED AND WELL PUT:
When Roman Catholics believe Mary to be men’s “co-redeemer” and “a mediator between God and men” and “sinless” and “queen of the universe,” then it is clear that Roman Catholics “worship Mary,” regardless of their feeble excuses to the contrary.
Words count. And each of us will be justified or condemned according to the words we speak (Matthew 12:37.)
I thank God for His free and merciful gift of eyes to see the deadening idolatry inherent in the superstitions of Rome which blatantly steal the glory of God only to foist it off onto a simple Jewish girl (not to mention all those ersatz “alter Christus.”)
The problem for Rome, however, is that since it denies the Scriptures and distorts the Gospel, the papacy places itself outside orthodox, historic Christianity.
Read your Bible and learn the truth, God willing.
Excuses, excuses.....
You guys really ought to figure out what your religion teaches you...You’re consistently inconsistent...
INDEED. Applicable Stations of adoration/veneration/worship amongst the icons of the STATIONS OF THE WHITE HANKY:
2. Black/white icon of duplicity, double standard dance
5. Icon of obfuscations to the supreme degree
6. Icon of the rubber bible
7. Icon of the rubber history texts
8. Icon of the rubber daffynitionary
9. Icon of the rubber logic text
10. Icon of hubris to the supreme degree
11. Groping for any explanation but the truth
12. Icon to the holy flip-flops in word meanings and arguments
14. Icon to the fantasized divine right, to be correct, pristinely sanctified & perfectly flawless in all respects in all cases all the time, regardless of the REAL TRUTH.
15. Icon to chronic & obsessive inconsistency.
17. Icon to the undivine right of terminal snootiness to the max.
Did you ever ask yourself why that wasn't done much earlier on? But never mind trying to explain it (or instructing me to google this, or google that)...I've had enough boilerplate to tide me over until next "excommunication day".
I don't expect you, an excommunicated Catholic, to understand.
INDEED they do. That is why the Church so painstakingly defines each term. The collective unwillingness or inability of the anti-Catholics to accept or comprehend those definitions and readiness to substitute secular or falsified definitions does not impact or impair the real meanings. It simply appears that some are not smart enough or honest enough to be Catholics.
Get off your high horse. No one who professes the name of Christ is my enemy. However, what the Protestant side of the faith has done to unity is a shame. How much wasted effort is there in cannibalizing believers between us? You spend your effort confusing the world with each man's interpretation of God's Word and founding your own churches. Every other sect is going to eternal perdition because you have finally (after 1800 years) found true Christianity. You are not one Church with one belief, you are a gaggle of believers tugging and pulling in a hundred different directions.
While railing against organized religion and a centralized authority with a Pope as anchor, you set up Archbishops of Canterbury, Billy Graham, John Calvin, or your own pastor to be your pope for you to teach you and strengthen you in the faith. God knew we needed this, so he gave it to us and in the Catholic Church we have unity of worship and faith. We argue about the details (as is proper) but we are one body in Christ.
The Catholic Church understands Christ through Scripture and Tradition. Christ is our focus... it says so right in our very public Catechism. Feel free to Google it, if you care so much about what the Catholic Church believes... we make no secret of it.
Catholics simply have no practical working knowledge of what Protestants really believe.
Actually, I nearly left my Catholic faith due to the failings of many of the members of the Church. In that time, I belonged to a body of Christian Missionary Alliance believers and attended their gatherings regularly. I may not be able to say what you believe personally... but then, that's really the problem with Protestantism in general... there is no unity. I found my way back to the Church given us by Christ through diligent research of the Scripture, the early Church fathers and history.
Protestants appeal to Scripture as the sole point of authority for what they believe, knowing that it points to Christ...
It does point to Christ and It is the Word of God. However, this is where Sola Scriptura jumps the tracks... there is more to our present than just the instruction manual! Another way to see it is that the Bible is a love letter written by the Bridegroom (Christ) to His Bride (the Church). It is best understood through the eyes of the Bride. Protestants have taken the love letter written to their mother and interpreted it for themselves... and the result has been Christian chaos.
Catholicism appeals to tradition, the writings of this, that, and the other *church father*, dictates passed down from elected popes, etc. and exalts all kinds of people and objects to the point where Christ is lost in the shuffle.
First of all, Christ remains our focus in all that we do. Second, that's the pot calling the kettle black! Where would your faith tradition be without the teachings of the Calvins, Grahams, et al? Too funny!
Jewbacca:
The Church teaches that the Church is composed of two components:
1. A visible church, made up of individuals, consisting of the pope, cardinals, bishops, priests, other religious persons, and the laity.
2. The Church’s Spirit, referred to as the “Spotless Bride of Christ.”
Part (1) is human, fallible, and subject to the same corruption as the rest of the world, while Part (2) is not.
Unlike the schismatic (yes, you are schismatic, or at least very close to being) posters on this thread, His Holiness Pope John Paul II recognized this dichotomy, and specifically apologized for the temporal sins committed in the name of the Church against Jews and others during the Inquisition, in a letter called “The Church and Faults of the Past,” dated March 13, 2000, which (among many other things) specifically adopted Pope John Paul’s 1994 Apostolic Letter “Tertio Millennio Adveniente,” quoting it as follows:
“Hence it is appropriate that as the second millennium of Christianity draws to a close the Church should become ever more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and His Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of her faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal. Although she is holy because of her incorporation into Christ, the Church does not tire of doing penance. Before God and man, she always acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters.”
Contrary to the historical-revisionist on this thread who ignorantly seek to minimize the wrongs committed by the Temporal Component of the Church (Component 1 above), His Holiness went on to specifically decry the treatment of our elder brothers, the Jews:
“The hostility and wariness of numerous Christians toward Jews over the course of time is a painful historic fact.”
As further explained by Fr. Brugues, the English spokesman at the Vatican to explain the apology: the apology above “was a reference to the Inquisition, which was marked by the torture and killing of people branded as heretics, and the enforced conversion of non-believers.” (Note the distinct lack of the pathetic attempt to wash our hands of these sins by passing off the Ethnic Cleansing of the Inquisition onto the Spanish Monarch — the Temporal Church and the Political Powers worked hand-in-hand, and to pretend otherwise is a sin.)
In sum, the statements of the schismatics on this thread (who probably consider themselves truer Catholics than John Paul) do not reflect the teaching or beliefs of Christ’s Holy Church, and should be disregarded.
Look in the mirror, Bub. You are a classic case of projection as you look down from your pedestal on the "gaggle".
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.