Posted on 01/14/2011 5:57:52 PM PST by topcat54
Evangelical book catalogs promote books such as Planet Earth: The Final Chapter, The Great Escape, and the Left Behind series. Bumper stickers warn us that the vehicle’s occupants may disappear at any moment. It is clear that there is a preoccupation with the idea of a secret rapture. Perhaps this has become more pronounced recently due to the expectation of a new millennium and the fears regarding potential Y2K problems. Perhaps psychologically people are especially receptive to the idea of an imminent, secret rapture at the present time. Additionally, many Christians are not aware that any other position relative to the second coming of Jesus Christ exists. Even in Reformed circles there are numerous people reading these books. Many of these people are unaware that this viewpoint conflicts with Scripture and Reformed Theology.
(Excerpt) Read more at reformed.org ...
If Scripture says what it is meant to mean, it is inerrant. If it is interpreted correctly, the interpretation is infallible. What is correct? We believe that the Catholic Church (not just the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome) was given the Holy Spirit to watch over the Church and to guide it through its responsibilities which include interpretation.
Moreover, if you only simply rely on infallible declarations for certainty, then you are very very restricted, and uncertain about much, as no one knows for sure how many infallible teaching there are, or all of what parts of encyclicals are binding, and both need some degree of interpretation by non-infallible magisterium at some level. Like Scripture, the source could be pure but that does not necessarily prevent misconstruance. Meanwhile, the sedevacantists teach error (according to Rome) using nothing than writings of Rome, and can do so simply using infallible statements.
To them was not given the authority. Therefore they can only post opinions without weight. The sedevacantists do teach error, as do the Jansenites, as did the Cathars, as did the Marcionists et al. The fact that they can teach error from correct Scripture demonstrates that while Scripture is written as intended (inerrant), it cannot be infallible which refers to outcomes of interpretation.
As said, misuse of authority does not negate it. The Pharisees misused Scripture and their authority derived from it and Jesus reproved them by Scripture. But you validate an entity using Scripture and other sources to validate itself as infallible.
The authority of the Church is well documented in Scripture and can stand by itself. It also happens to be documented elsewhere.
You mean which ones tell us that the RCC is the one true Church? And that we need to submit to her? Surely you know which ones do not is the question.
Well, there are chauvinists of every stripe. The fact is that the Church is the Church, made up of the five original sees.
Surely you know the the word “Rome” is used because it is representative of the RCC, and “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled” (Augustine) is often quoted by Roman Catholics.
Often? I don't recall ever reading it on FR; and had to look it up on Google.
That the assuredly infallible magisterium (“AIM” for future use) does not prevent the need for fallible interpretation is what should see agreement.
Not sure what you mean here.
It is, but Rome's claim is based upon her infallible declaration that she is who she says she is, according to her AIM, which is infallibly declared to be infallible when speaking in accordance with her infallibly declared formula. And which presumes that she is worthy of the implicit trust that she requires.
We have the Faith that she is, handed down for 2000 years and supported by Scripture and other documentation. That is what I, as well as all Catholics, believe.
It is not enough attribution for me. I see that excerpt at Catholic.com which requires attribution. If you didn’t pull it from there, the source will help the mods enforce copyright restrictions which might apply elsewhere.
I am. I am demonstrating that Scripture can be used to support heresy from historical examples, not just by failed Catholics on FR.
Dr. Eckleburg, if you see another post which looks like an unsourced excerpt, let me know by Freepmail.
You cannot find in any of the 3 Synoptic Gospels where Jesus tells the 70 that if they are not received, to shake the dust from their feet? Odd. I thought that you were a Bahble Bleever (tm) and knew it a whole lot better than a Catholic.
Semantics. Explain the practical difference.
Paul instructed us to turn away those who do not act Christian. To declare somebody to be damned is the province of Christ, not any man. Many antiCatholics, however, presume to take it upon themselves to make that declaration upon others. You hang out with bunch right here.
Unnecessarily stirring up discord amongst the bretheren is not
wise
. . . . is actually very hazardous spiritually.
Regarding the perpetuation of the Reformation (nor “reformatters,” which would be a clean install) being men like Charles Taze Russel, Ellen G White, Joseph Smith Jr etc.,
As you know, no. Such cults like cannot be said to be operating according to the primary tenet (SS) which defined historic Protestantism, as rather than actually practicing the supremacy of Scripture (which requires a more difficult quality of unity, by “manifestation of the truth” - 2Cor. 4:2), they are following Rome in effectively making a person or office elite superior doctrinal authority over the Scriptures, and like Rome, they require implicit trust in them (and boast of that manner of cultic unity).
While they hold to some Scripturally substantiated truths, they deny others, and like Rome, they add teachings which they wrest out of a few texts but which really depend upon their elitist claim to be uniquely correct interpreters.
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God.
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God’s Church on matters of faith and morals-——this is what all must give..”
This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.”
“He willingly submits his judgment on questions the most momentous that can occupy the mind of man-——questions of religion-——to an authority located in Rome.”
“So if God [via Rome] declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, “I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?”
— Henry G. Graham, “What Faith Really Means”, (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )
“The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question.” “The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: - John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter xxiii. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )
We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii: [considered abrogated by later canon law]
More relevant: http://www.barna.org/faith-spirituality/435-diversity-of-faith-in-various-us-cities
http://www.barna.org/faith-spirituality/100-catholics-have-become-mainstream-america
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Statistical_Correlations.html
I'll go along with that. Does that extend to Protestant murders of Catholics and other Protestants? Some would say that the only reason that Protestants did not murder on the scale of the Catholics is because they lacked the opportunity. However; we must consider that the current American (Protestant) policy in the Balkans and in the Middle East is directly resulting in the extermination of the native Catholics such as the Chaldeans in Iraq and the Copts in Egypt. Remember that for 500 years or better, the entire Middle East was Catholic, until the Muslims came. Also remember that Suleiman the Great was invited by the Hungarian Calvinists to invade Europe; all the Protestant nations sat by and watched the Battles of Vienna, where the Catholic armies twice only barely held back the Muslims. They were hoping that the Muslims would sweep through and the Protestants could divide the spoils with them.
As Jesus said to the Pharisees at Luke 11:48,’You are witnesses of the deeds of your forefathers and you give consent to them, these killed the prophets and you build tombs to them’.
Not justification, just pointing out that the Protestants were hardly sweetness and light. Cotton Mather was a case in point.
Anyone can go to the Catholic Encyclopedia and read the specious reasoning justifying and excusing and blame shifting ad nauseum.
The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a bad source, but not authoritative. Try the Vatican.va website instead.
The Secret History of the Jesuits http://arcticbeacon.com/books/Paris-The_Secret_History_of_Jesuits%281975%29.pdf
Written by a former Jesuit Priest
It reads similar to metmom telling us about the true practices of the Catholic Church. I love the cover with a picture of the Crucified Jesus over a Nazi swastika. And the immediate attack on Ignatius of Loyola is priceless.
I am looking forward to finding one under the windshield wiper of my car one of these days.
mm: Where? Book, chapter, and verse, please.
mb: You cannot find in any of the 3 Synoptic Gospels where Jesus tells the 70 that if they are not received, to shake the dust from their feet? Odd. I thought that you were a Bahble Bleever (tm) and knew it a whole lot better than a Catholic.
Except for the pesky detail that those verses don't support killing someone for disagreeing with them. They are no justification for the Roman Catholic church to engage in such behavior.
You'll have to try again for Scriptural support for the answer to c-y-c's question because that reply of yours was an
| Gamecock: "This goes to what the Reformers taught; that is the "enthusiasts" or what we call today Pentecostals, are really no different from the Roman Catholics." |
Of course the Catholic church never engages in that sort of thing, right?
For one thing, they don’t expel the immoral brother.
They continue to eat with those who practice immorality.
The even take communion from those priests, for goodness sake.
And all the *anathemas* pronounced on those who disagree with Catholic pronouncements, well, that doesn’t really count I suppose.
IOW...
Catholics, You are hereby prohibited from thinking for yourself.
Signed, the AIM.
Well so I did.
And so am still wondering why you think Jesus Christ had any problem at all resisting Satan's temptations. In the first place, Jesus didn't want any of the things Satan offered him (not that any of them were in Satan's gift in the first place).
In the first place, Jesus had been fasting for 40 days and 40 nights, and he was hungry. Have you ever fasted for 40 days and 40 nights? You are very weak. Wait a minute, you say, He is God. True, but He was also a man. If He were only God, then He had no need of food and Scripture would not have said He was hungry. Therefore we have to presume that His state paralleled that of a man - else why would it say that He fasted?
Second, satan was able to take Him and tempt Him and fly Him around the world. Does satan fly God the Father around the world and tempt Him? Scripture says tempt and Scripture means it. A parallel is in the Garden. Reread the account of His Passion and see His distress and His second great temptation. His sweat was as blood. Does that sound like these events were easily dismissed?
| Gamecock: "This goes to what the Reformers taught; that is the "enthusiasts" or what we call today Pentecostals, are really no different from the Roman Catholics." |
But Catholics claim that THEY have the one true and apostolic church and must be viewed from the standpoint of their claims about themselves. If there are Protestants justifying similar acts I would respond in the same way. Why didn't you address these as well?
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.