Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
“Two words: Newt Gingrich.”
Couldn’t agree with you more.
“Couldn’t agree with you more.”
Newt took advantage of Catholics, bought an annulment (or two) and then used the church as a shield when the moral issues came up.
He’s a neither a religious, nor a cultural Catholic, he’s a political Catholic.
You RC boys should never trust a Protestant politician showing up on your doorstep requesting an annulment, Then again, you ought not trust Catholic politicians requesting annulments either.......but you always do for some reason.
That probably sends plenty of Catholics the rest of the way to becoming Protestants.
If somebody has legitimate grounds for an annulment then they are entitled to it; serious Catholics can usually determine whether an annulment that is granted is valid or simply a “Catholic divorce”.
I have more confidence in some Protestant politicians than Catholic ones when it comes to matters of life & family; Bush was more “Catholic” than Kerry.
“I have more confidence in some Protestant politicians than Catholic ones when it comes to matters of life & family; Bush was more “Catholic” than Kerry.”
This isn’t really about Protestant or Catholic politicians, though Catholic politicians for national usually have to make it clear one way or another that Rome won’t have a voice in things beyond basic religious underpinnings. I guess we’ll find out soon if Mormon candidates for national office have to do the same thing. Protestant religions are generally more decentralized and the independence is implied in politicians - fair or not. I’m guessing that a Jewish national candidate would be more-or-less treated like a Protestant in that regard.
Personally, I’m happy for folks when they find their own religious home, no matter which direction they are swimming the Tiber.
But divorce shenanigans are not the exclusive domain of Protestants.
“But divorce shenanigans are not the exclusive domain of Protestants.”
It doesn’t even exist in the Catholic Church (it isn’t recognized).
Hi metmom,
The two links you gave me are Protestant links. I am going
to go by the English translation of the 1st Bible, I cannot read Latin, the common language of the 4th century.
Here is a falsehood at your http://bible.cc/john/6-66.htm
They listed the various versions of John 6:66. They falsely
put the Douay-Rheims John 6:66 to be the same verse as
found in Protestant bibles. It’s NOT. In the Douay-Rheims,
it is verse 6:67. The Douay came before all these translations, a word for word translation the first Bible, the Latin Vulgate.
Here’s part of the Bible.com list...check the last one for the Douay-Rheims Bible:
New International Version (©1984)
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
New Living Translation (©2007)
At this point many of his disciples turned away and deserted him.
English Standard Version (©2001)
After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
International Standard Version (©2008)
As a result, many of his disciples turned back and no longer associated with him.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Because of this saying, many of his disciples went back and were not walking with him.
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus’ speech made many of his disciples go back to the lives they had led before they followed Jesus.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
American King James Version
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
American Standard Version
Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Douay-Rheims Bible
After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.
_ _ _
John 6:66-67
And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. [67] After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.
The reason for the difference ~
Catholics BELIEVE in the Holy Eucharist. Maybe God is trying to get your attention. Those who walked away rejected Our Lord’s words...JOHN 6:66. 666 is a famous number.
Then and now, you all reject the Real Presence.
The Holy Eucharist is the summit. If you would come to believe in the Real Presence, all your misunderstandings about the faith will fall away.
“It doesn’t even exist in the Catholic Church (it isn’t recognized).”
True, but that requires the marriages in which they didn’t get divorced from be pretended into non-existence.
We should just use the non-denominational term “getting unmarried”, and call it even.
So, Unmarriage shenanigans are not the exclusive domain of Protestants.
The oldest manuscripts used for translating the Bible are in Greek.
The Latin Vulgate is a translation from the Greek. If you are using it for the English translation, the English version you’re using is a translation of a translation, greatly increasing the likelihood of error.
The bread and cup of the Last Supper, the first communion service, could NOT have been literal flesh and blood. The commands against eating blood, ever, for any reason, are strong and clear. The blood in the sacrifices offered by the Jews was NEVER to be eaten, always poured out because without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.
Jesus could not have and did not change anything in regard to eating blood at the last supper, as many Catholics have claimed. If He had and they did drink His blood in the cup, He did not fulfill the Law, which forbade such an activity, which would have made Jesus a liar. In order for the Law to be fulfilled, the bread and cup must have remained bread and wine, only symbolic in its representation of His broken body and spilled blood.
I have no evidence that the human being quoted has integrity.
there’s no way to trust them to interpret Scripture with integrity
If I had to chose between interpretation of Scripture from you, from Hobart's Glory Barn, or from the Church I will stick with the Church every time, as does the overwhelming majority of Christianity.
My huband and his four RCC college roommates are all "bitter" against what they were taught by Rome. In fact, it's more than bitterness. They feel lied to regarding something important. Three of them are now Protestants and two are nothings. They are bitter because they wasted so much time and learned errors instead of the truth.
My two best friends from high school are no longer RC. One is Protestant and one is nothing.
People want the truth and are angry when they don't get it
“The oldest manuscripts used for translating the Bible are in Greek.
The Latin Vulgate is a translation from the Greek. If you are using it for the English translation, the English version you’re using is a translation of a translation, greatly increasing the likelihood of error.”
~ ~ ~
The first Bible was translated from the Greek and the Hebrew
into Latin.
Are you saying you can read Greek and Hebrew or the first
translation, Latin? Someone decided the Canon and someone translated the Greek and the Hebrew original manuscripts into the first Bible.
Pope Damasus chose the Canon in 382 A.D. and St. Jerome was the translator metmom. I can’t go with the KJV, the King’s translator’s made thousands of changes.
How come you don’t comment on John 6:66 in the Protestant Bible? I am teasing you. Seriously though, there are no coincidences.
_ _ _
The Douay-Rheims Bible is a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St. Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Vulgate quickly became the Bible universally used in the Latin Rite (by far the largest rite of the Catholic Church).
St. Jerome, who was one of the four great Western Fathers of the Church, was a man raised up by God to translate the Holy Bible into the common Latin tongue of his day. He knew Latin and Greek perfectly. He was 1500 years closer to the original languages than any scholar today, which would make him a better judge of the exact meaning of any Greek or Hebrew word in the Scriptures. Besides being a towering linguistic genius, he was also a great saint, and he had access to ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the 2nd and 3rd centuries which have since perished and are no longer available to scholars today. St. Jerome’s translation, moreover, was a careful, word-for-word rendering of the original texts into Latin.
Nearly every Protestant prays the Lord's Prayer to one degree or another, yet regardless of their dedication to accurate interpretation, many skip right over the actual meaning of "our daily bread". The actual Greek words are "τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον" (ton arton hēmōn ton epiousion). The actual meaning isn't "daily bread" in that we are praying for our next sandwich, it is "supersubstantial" bread, meaning the higher substance brought about by transubstantiation. In other words, the Eucharist. From His lips to our ears.
Peace be with you.
“In every case I can recall, I found that if you took a devout Catholic and put them in an ecumenical setting of bible studies, they’ll become a Protestant.”
~ ~ ~
I disagree. To be kind to my beloved Methodist neighbor,
when I was first converted...reverted to the faith. I went
with her to a ladies’ Protestant weekly Bible study.
The speaker was a woman..not a good idea. I lasted three
weeks. I was convicted, she shared in that short time,
man is COMPLETELY depraved. That’s not true.
God the Holy Spirit put on my heart, do not return. The problem is you have no authority to interpret Scripture. Private interpretation of Scripture...you see it’s fruits, division and error. All of Scripture has to line up. Old and New Testament. God gave the authority to interpret
Scripture to the Church.
Read a Catholic Bible...it will be help, especially the footnotes for difficult verses. http://www.drbo.org/
Actually, St Jerome relied heavily on the Hexapla which was had significant Hebrew and Aramaic content. The reason St. Jerome moved to Palestine for much of the time of his work translating the Scriptures into Latin was to learn Hebrew from the Rabbinic scholars.
Peace be with you.
“...it is “supersubstantial” bread, meaning the higher substance brought about by transubstantiation...”
It is not about ‘transubstantiation’ or ‘transliteration’. Jesus said, ‘This is my body...’ and ‘This is my blood...’
It is...IT IS...it does not become, nor does it represent...it is My Body...it is My Blood...
When Catholics and Protestants and all Christians who are neither, fully understand that, the walls come down, and then it is time to rebuild the ‘walls’ according to God’s Plan, not any of our man-made plans.
And the peace of the Lord be also with you...
“God gave the authority to interpret
Scripture to the Church. Read a Catholic Bible...it will be help, especially the footnotes for difficult verses. http://www.drbo.org/ “
Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible is far and away the last desirable Catholic Translation...the best one is the Jerusalem Bible (Not the ‘New Jerusalem Bible).
I have been using the Jerusalem Bible for nearly the last 40 years as my favorite translation...and I am not ‘Catholic’, but I am catholic...one holy catholic church...
God gave each of us who know and love His Son, Jesus, as personal friend and savior, the Holy Spirit to ‘interpret’ Scripture...to understand what Scripture says. There are NO misteries in the Word of God...except those created by theologians, both Catholic and Protestant.
We do not need men to interpret for us...Jesus said, when I go I give you another Comforter...the Holy Spirit. The Church is not some hierarchy, it is the body of those who are a part of the bride of Christ. The Holy Spirit will make it clear, if we are not already quick enough to understand what God wrote in the Word.
If you ask God, and it is not made plain to you, then ask yourself...who did you ask...the Real God will make it plain to you.
It IS God's plan and when the disciples held the bread that Jesus had broken at that Last Supper, it was BREAD. When they put it in their mouths, it was STILL bread. When they chewed and swallowed it, it NEVER changed from being bread. The same thing with the cup of wine. It is so obvious that these "elements" represented Christ's broken body and shed blood and that partaking of these elements in the like manner was to be done...what did Jesus say? IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. It was an object lesson for those there. It's that simple. Jesus used such lessons and stories and parables all the time to teach them.
How do we receive the sacrifice Christ made for us so that we HAVE eternal life? By faith. We believe on HIM. We RECEIVE Him by faith. A person can attend Mass twice a day and take "Holy Communion" every single time he's there, but without faith in the Savior Jesus Christ, he is as lost as one who never heard of Christ. It is NOT the taking of communion that saves, it is done in commemoration of the fact that we HAVE received him already by faith.
We are saved by grace through faith and NOT by works, not by righteous deeds we have done, not by our own merit or works, but ONLY through faith in Christ - in what HE did for us. Those religions that try to demand and insist that no other Christian churches have "legitimate" communion services BUT them are sadly mistaken. What it usually means is that those who state that are the ones who are missing out on the true intention and meaning behind the observance. Like the Apostle Paul said, as often as you do this, you do show the Lord's death until he comes. You do it in remembrance, to remind you, of what our precious savior has done for us. It is to remind us that we HAVE been given eternal life when we trusted in and received Christ. It is not a doling out of parcels of grace that together with all the other things we do gains us eternal life. We HAVE BEEN redeemed, by HIS blood, and we ARE SAVED right now! He did it ALL because of His great love and mercy.
“It IS God’s plan and when the disciples held the bread that Jesus had broken at that Last Supper, it was BREAD. When they put it in their mouths, it was STILL bread. When they chewed and swallowed it, it NEVER changed from being bread. The same thing with the cup of wine. It is so obvious that these “elements” represented Christ’s broken body and shed blood and that partaking of these elements in the like manner was to be done...what did Jesus say? IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.”
So, you do not accept what Jesus said. And that is the problem we continue to have between Christians. I understand both of the ‘arguments’...yours and ‘theirs’. Think how much easier it is if we just take what God says, what Jesus says, at face value. It is only in your mind if you do not believe that it is still ‘bread’ or still ‘wine’.
It does not ‘become’ it does not ‘represent’...it is...Jesus said so. Is that a lie?
.P
Lord Jesus,
.P
You said, “I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”
.P
Touch the hearts of all Christians—and everyone that the Father draws unto Himself—that we may always and everywhere love one another. And in love, humbly seek to fulfill Your prayer to the Father, “That they all may be one.”
.P
Amen.
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.