Posted on 01/18/2012 3:19:15 PM PST by NYer
Per usual, you exhibit knee-jerk selective reading in leaping to defend Rome. You might attack your own professional apologist who reproved the type of minimization by those who cannot allow themselves to see much of anything that impugns Rome, while i limited Protestant opposition to evangelical-types who did not want to uphold that tradition, and included a link to a summation which provides references and gives also credit to Rome for opposing it during the same era.
I also included informative links to the issue of slavery itself in the interest of balance, while it seems your only interest is to protect your image of your church.
They shouldn't be. If they are, it's a matter of upbringing not Scriptural teaching.
Is this the reason why the Catholic church rejected slavery while Protestant churches were perfectly ok with it? ;)
Would you care to provide some documentation to support that?
Maryland was a slave state until it abolished slavery during the Civil War.
The north, primarily Protestant, never endorsed slavery. Not all in the south did either.
And just recently, we have been told that slander is a mortal sin.
I think we need to get Iscool into the conversation. It was he who was slandered in post 500. I goofed and thought it was smvoice but it was Iscool.
****they would also find it within their charity to receive other Christian faith traditions that hold to the basic tenets of what it means to be a Christian****
We do and so does the Church.
What I think you miss is the difference between acceptance/acknowledgement as a Christian and full communion with the Church.
I certainly have never questioned anyone’s Christianity on these forums, that is not my intent and I don’t condemn anyone for what they believe or how they interpret Scripture.
I understand that we all come to faith and our beliefs from different backgrounds and with different influences and I believe that is what the Church holds as well.
From the catechism:
838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.”322 Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”324
It seems to me that it is the Catholic on these boards who is rejected as Christian by those who deny our interpretations of Scripture and our understanding of “church”.
It is my beef, I guess you could say, that so many here insist in the perfection and truth of their own interpretations claiming the guidance of the Holy Spirit, yet repudiate the Church for making the very same claim.
As for the Orthodox and various other rites within the Church, there are differences which do not allow for common communion, though under certain circumstances, I could receive the Eucharist in their church and they could in mine. At least that is my understanding.
Well I don't recall you passing judgment on those who are not Catholic but that can't be said for your compatriots.
As I recall, we've reiterated many times that there are saved and unsaved in any church because it's not the church that saves but Jesus. Anyone who is truly trusting Him for their salvation is saved, no matter where they worship or who they affiliate with, which is why denominational affiliation is such a non-issue with us.
The uniting factor is salvation by grace thorough faith in Christ, as clearly stated in Scripture.
It is my beef, I guess you could say, that so many here insist in the perfection and truth of their own interpretations claiming the guidance of the Holy Spirit, yet repudiate the Church for making the very same claim.
I don't recall anyone saying their interpretation was *perfect*.
The guidelines we use are that Scripture says what it says and means what it says. No reading into it. Therefore *a virgin shall conceive and bear a son* ≠ *Mary was perpetually virgin*. And that any interpretation of Scripture must be internally consistent with other Scripture, IOW it must not contradict the rest of the body of Scripture, That causes a host of problems with much other Catholic doctrine.
We do take exception to interpretation of Scripture the conflicts with other clear abundant teaching of Scripture. Scripture MUST be consistent with and within itself, as God is. The only thing God has changed is His is dealing with our sin. Under the new covenant, we are no longer bound to obey the Law as stipulated in the OT, but since He hasn't changed, any interpretation of Scripture that conflicts with other Scripture, we reject.
We also reject holding anything else up to the level of the authority of Scripture. That includes but is not limited to, the writings of the ECF's, *Holy Tradition*, papal bulls, etc.
What we find disturbing is the downplaying of Scripture in importance as necessary and in comparison to the *Church*.
The other thing that is objectionable, is being told that what we relate as our experience as Catholics, is us lying, presumably just to make the church look bad.
At one time the Catholic church did indeed teach that anyone not Catholic was going to hell. Period. End of story. That's what I was taught and believed and that's what all Catholics I knew were taught and believed. And there are still some Catholics who believe that.
I'm old enough to remember pre-VII.
Yes! Real slander is bearing false witness. I am answering your ping and you deserve my respect when you do. I have read your posts over the years. I believe you were brought up a Catholic.
I do believe we did not get the right exact info at times during our Our Catholic schooling. We were spoon fed too long in a way. I was Catholic parochial school till 6th grade. I was not Catholic sunday school type then public school although my mother taught on sundays for 12(?) years.
One thing I do believe is if we cry out to Jesus for help He will come. We can and are Christians. No matter what affilated denomination as long as a true 1 John 4 Christian.
Psalm 51:17 a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord,"( Lord as Savior) except by the Holy Spirit.
Philippians 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
1 Peter 1:21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
1 John 4:15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.
AMEN
The only reason I do come on these threads lately is because of the outright crazy stereotypes that are stated here about what Catholics believe. But otherwise I believe what I read is there is Christians arguing about particulars. Some think others are lost on both sides. We are only lost if we do not believe 1 John 4 till death are we lost.
I firmly believe in His DIVINE MERCY!
Freeper Regards! Praise Jesus!
****I’m old enough to remember pre-VII.****
Wow, had no idea you are so old! LOL, I remember it too, somewhat but I was about 9 when the changes came to my conservative Church in SE Missouri.
***I don’t recall anyone saying their interpretation was *perfect*.****
When one insists that only their interpretation is true and/or accurate, then one is insisting they have perfectly interpreted Scripture, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
***No reading into it.****
I have seen this happen with protestants, including you when you “read into” the appearance of Moses at the Transfiguration that his soul had been taken up to heaven and he was given a new body which is what appeared with Jesus.
I realize that you were merely offering a possibility and not a truth/doctrine, but Scripture does not even hint at such a possibility. Therefore, to have even thought of this, one would have to “read into” Scripture or as the Church claims, find in the explicit, implicit support for doctrine.
***That causes a host of problems with much other Catholic doctrine.***
I and other Catholics do not see it these problems as protestants. Understanding Scripture differently than the Church is fine, saying that one’s interpretations are right and the Church’s wrong, claiming the Holy Spirit is the same as claiming infallibility for one’s self.
****The only thing God has changed is His is dealing with our sin****
Actually, God has not changed His dealing with sin, He just gave us the perfect and only acceptable Sacrifice in His Son, Jesus.
****Under the new covenant, we are no longer bound to obey the Law as stipulated in the OT,****
There is a difference between The Law and the law and as I read the NT, I see that Jesus still commands us to obey the commandments of God. He encapsulated them all into two, which He called the greatest commandments.
Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength.
Love one another as I have loved you, as you love yourself.
When one looks at the Ten Commandments one thing is clear, there are those which command the worship of God, and the others which command how we are to treat/love each other.
***What we find disturbing is the downplaying of Scripture in importance as necessary and in comparison to the *Church*.***
Then you are needlessly disturbed as that is not what the Church holds about Scripture.
****The other thing that is objectionable, is being told that what we relate as our experience as Catholics, is us lying, presumably just to make the church look bad.****
I do not ascribe motives to anyone nor do I take responsibility for others here. I agree though that many who post calumny about the Church do so in a deliberate attempt to defame the Church and distort her teachings. I also believe that there are those who do not understand her teachings and are easily led away because of it.
I don’t if either holds true for you, just saying.
****At one time the Catholic church did indeed teach that anyone not Catholic was going to hell.****
And, this right here, is a prime example of poor catechism and understanding of what the Church taught, why she held that belief and what caused it to evolve to what the Church holds now, which is what I posted to in the post to which you responded.
When the Church taught this, all Christians belonged to the Church, and then came the protestant break. The first generations following the split were hostile, violent and ugly on both sides. Much of it was politics/national power, but that is no excuse.
Now, the Church, as stated, recognizes that those Christians who are not in full communion with the Church, are Christians, fellow brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ.
You dismiss James in one post, use it for proof text in another.
You use Hebrews in this post, your compradre says it’s not for us in another.
One has his own mix (up) of theology, the other follows a spin off from 19th Century teachers.
Both are at variance with the Church and the Reformers. It’s a jumbled mess that makes sense to you, one hopes, but lacks coherency even between the two of you. Amateur Hour.
Why should anyone take your views seriously?
Seriously. Why?
If you don’t know the history, just remain silent, or study up. “Back then” is unknown to you and to your “church.”
And I should care about this, because...? Let me know when he gives you internet power of attorney.
When heresies arose it's found in the decisions of the councils. Read the ecumenical councils and you'll have a pretty clear view. The liturgy, which we can see as far back as the Roman catacombs is important.
Specific to your question, I'd recommend St. John of Damascus' "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" as the single best source for a organized compilation of teaching of the Church.
Getting back to the discussion of the principle that scripture must be held foremost as a check, or test of practice...
That's different than sola. As we see hourly on here, you can debate quite different theology from scripture. You need an authority to decide.
One thing the Reformers were assuredly battling against, was the idea of papal supremacy itself. It didn't fit well from the Word, when taken in context of all else.
It certainly didn't fit well with Luther. He tried to decide his own canon, wrote his own translation, inserting words where he needed to fit his view.
Luther was not one to promote the "each individual his own authority" that we see today. That's a very recent mostly American development. The rebellion from the authority of the Bishop of Rome has ended up as rebellion from *any* authority, except the individual.
The theory of sola scriptura is not scriptural and in practice, well, we get what we see.
Thanks for your courteous response.
Well said, and bless you for being the voice of reason
It’s very easy! Seriously. Catholics don’t believe that some passages are directed specifically to Israel (Jews) and some even believe that the church has replaced Israel. So we can use those scriptures as evidence to point error in Catholic belief. If they claim a belief and the passages they believe apply to them and we can show that even those passages teach something different than what they believe it applies to them.
When talking to those who actually understand scripture and take it over what the “church” says we may use those passages differently because we know they understand.
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe fairness? Maybe being honest? Just a couple of reasons I thought of.
Why on earth would I look to you for the slightest accuracy on the Church's teaching? That would be quite futile.
those who actually understand scripture
The same "those" who contradict each other, illustrate a massive ignorance of history, theology and scripture, and speak only on their lonesone authority for the church of themself?
There's just no there, there to take seriously.
I don’t consider you qualified to judge me, your opinion here is worthless.
Why indeed!
Why take the odd views of a poster who claims that Catholics are idolaters, that those who celebrate Easter and Christmas are pagans and that claims that the idea of church on Sunday is a man made tradition and apparently not either Christian or Biblical seriously? Given that this is the point of view from which CynicalBear views the world, why should anyone pay attention to his odd, often incomplete and often misread cut-n-pastes?
..because one day you may CARE that what you say matters because all you have is your integrity. That you are not just defending the indefensible at all costs, parroting your church's views for a cracker and a sip of wine. That you're not just another bitter, envious, lost, deceived, desperate lemming, following deceitful workers with doctrines of devils, right over the edge of a cliff.
"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts. Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." 2 Tim. 3:5-7.
One day you may actually want to be taken seriously for YOUR thinking, NOT your church's thinking for you.
"Brrrrrrkkkkkk....and upon this rock....brrrrrkkkkk..."
Catholicism mis-leads people and then entraps them. Most members who’ve been catholic and sought knowledge of catholicism have bought “knowledge” trumps all... a bait and switch game.
If they happen to be arrogant or highminded about themselves then the more they learn about catholicism the more they’re puffed up. It just goes with the territory of any organization where you “work” you’re way up the ladder of acceptance. Similar to FreeMasonary and other groups such as that...in fact many FreeMasons adhere to catholicism....and other groups such as Kights of Columbus and the like.
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.