Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
-“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.” John 15:1
Catholic exegesis:* Jesus has roots and clumps of grapes dangling from His arms.
“I am the gate; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” John 10:9
Catholic exegesis:* Jesus has hinges on his flank.
*If they are consistent in their reading of Scripture anyway.
They aren't messages from heaven.
The only message from heaven that you should be reading and putting any stock in is the Bible.
2 Timothy 4:1-4 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
Because Protestants are so fixated on being "born again," yet by every objective measure Scripture gives more significance to the "Body and Blood," which they dismiss as "ritual,"
In fact, those such as yourself are so antagonistic to the doctrine that they stoop to making allusions to cannibalism.
You don't see us implying "incest," do you?
Because Protestants are so fixated on being "born again," yet by every objective measure Scripture gives more significance to the "Body and Blood," which they dismiss as "ritual,"
In fact, those such as yourself are so antagonistic to the doctrine that they stoop to making allusions to cannibalism.
You don't see us implying "incest," do you?
I think the basic area where we differ is in the relationship between faith (belief) and how it's demonstrated (works, actions).
“What I was trying to explain is simply that it is faith that saves us and not ANY of the works we do”
James said the two could not be separated, did he not? That one without the other is dead? Rather like the head directing the body but separate it from body and it dies.
So to speak of faith is to speak also of the works it produces.
“Living a holy life is evidence of a genuine faith, but it is NOT living a holy life that saves us. Any clearer?”
That's quite clear, thank you. But need I remind you of Rahab, who certainly did not lead a holy life when she showed faith by her works, her actions?
Faith alone is not sufficient as works are required to declare us righteous or justified.
And was that not the point of Paul's listing of those persons of faith AND works?
Funny, I don't see ANY provision for that in the whole Bible....because Jesus didn't make one.
You see, that's what we Catholics call "denial."
I don’t doubt for a minute that you don’t.
No qualifying was done other than to clarify. I curious as to why you don’t address the issue of Catholics making Mary equal to Christ in those areas I pointed out rather than dodge the issue with obfuscation.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ritual?show=1&t=1338646824
ritual: 1 : the established form for a ceremony; specifically : the order of words prescribed for a religious ceremony
2 a : ritual observance; specifically : a system of rites b : a ceremonial act or action c : an act or series of acts regularly repeated in a set precise manner
The mass is the epitome of a ritual.
It's performed the same every where and every time it's practiced. The words and actions of the priest in his performing of the mass to consecrate the eucharist must be the exact every time or it is invalid.
13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
An honest discussion of the issue cannot take place with those who are secure and set in their ignorance.
When discussing transubstantiation with Protestants it is critical to a proper exchange that certain terms and concepts be established as a premise to the discussion. First among those is an understanding of the philosophical terms "Substance" and "Property". Although rarely directly, Protestants will suggest that they have a rudimentary appreciation of the terms when they concede that Jesus, although human, was substantially God. The fact that He had human properties,i.e.; height, weight, gender, ethnicity, age, etc. did not detract from his "God-ness".
They then, however, reject the parallel of the Eucharist being "substantially" God because it has the physical properties of bread and wine. I can only conclude that this denial is the result of doctrinally motivated willful ignorance.
Peace be with you.
Turning to number 655 in the hymnal and singing "Bringing in the Sheaves" and then having the preacher ascend the pulpit and rail against those "Gawd awful Catholics" every Sunday is every bit as much a ritual as the Catholic Liturgy. Ritual itself is not categorically a bad thing. The major difference is that the Catholic Liturgy is itself a prayer of worship of God.
Peace be with you
1 Corinthians 1:11-16 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
You see, that's what we Catholics call "denial."
And they are good at it.
Your argument is with Jesus. If the term *born again* offends you, then take it up with Him. It's His choice of words.
Where are all the Catholics demanding that this be taken literally?
John 3:3, 5-7, 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
John 3:14-21 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
In fact, those such as yourself are so antagonistic to the doctrine that they stoop to making allusions to cannibalism.
That's what humans eating other humans is. Which is why interpreting the passages to mean that humans have to literally eat Jesus physical body is wrong.
Jesus did not come to change the Law but to fulfill it. He told us that the words He spoke about eating His body were Spirit and life because the flesh avails for nothing.
Why don't Catholics take literally His own explanation of what He said instead of making up their own and substituting it for that?
I want to thank you for reintroducing me to that word.
Scrupulosity is a psychological disorder characterized by pathological guilt about moral or religious issues. It is personally distressing, objectively dysfunctional, and often accompanied by significant impairment in social functioning. [wikipedia]
One need look no further than any Catholic topic thread in this forum to find examples of scrupulosity in those anti-Catholics who show up like flies on a hot August dung heap.
Peace be with you.
Who does that? Sources?
In all the churches I've ever attended over the years, I don't recall ONE message where the pastor railed against Catholicism.
For that matter, it's hardly ever mentioned.
The pastors preach out of the Bible. There's more than enough material there to preach out of that they don't need to waste time going after some other denomination.
The best antidote to lies is the truth. When the pastors teach the truth of God's word from God's word, nobody has anything to gain by preaching AGAINST anyone else because the lies will automatically be recognized by those grounded in the truth.
I missed the what or the whom you’re applying this to. And the why.
Faith alone is not sufficient as works are required to declare us righteous or justified.Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousnessAnd was that not the point of Paul's listing of those persons of faith AND works?
Because your making the accusation doesn't make it any more true and in need of addressing than the last thousand times it has been refuted and demonstrated to not be Catholic doctrine.
Pax vobiscum.
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.