Posted on 12/08/2012 2:24:39 PM PST by NYer
God does what He does.
After the Lord Jesus redeemed us on the Cross, we can now say, with St. Paul: “The man who is in Christ Jesus is a new creation”
What the God did for Mary, before our Redemption took place, was his choice. He does what He does.
All that is hidden from us, in mystery now, will be revealed.
Thanks for your reply.
>>>”Source for that?”
Same one I gave earlier, promise you’ll read the whole thing? :)
http://www.equip.org/articles/is-catholicism-a-cult/
>>>”Christ and what the Apostles taught in scripture. “
- According to you. You’re the sole authority for Christ and what the Apostles taught and what scripture means and is interpreted.
>>>”The Holy Spirit just guides me to parts of scripture to interpret other parts of scripture.”
- Holy Spirit according to you, to interpret according to you.
>>”I let God’s word tell me.”
- God’s word according to you. On your authority alone.
>>>:Certainly not some supposed “Church”
- Intolerant of all other authority.
I think I would add that a cult leader sees no distinction between himself and God’s word. If he sees X as God’s word, it *is* God’s word. Cult followers are quite logically following God’s word by following their leader. Their view is his view is God’s view.
I concur that stfassisi would be better to drop his question. I also believe that it would be a “more excellent way” not to accuse him of “stalking” or “playing games”.
That seems to me to be making it personal.
As a poster on this forum myself, I would not like having another poster tell me “stop the games”.
I think that’s better left to the moderator.
Just my way of seeing it as I read and perceive these postings..
What I believe is an idol is of no significance.
It is if you want to be taken seriously when you claim others are idolaters.
What God says is idolatry in scripture certainly is relevant and defines exactly what Catholics do.
How so? According to your interpretation of the same cites? Are you really going back to interpreting idols from statues of bunnies again?
If so, we will circle back to the last question that you quit on before.
Is this what you wish? It's a time waster and does nothing to support your claim.
“...they are simply wrong and smack of that old hyperbolic persecution complex so often expressed on these threads.”
“Simply wrong” is a matter of opinion which can be open to authentic discussion.
As for the “old hyperbolic persecution complex”....once the meaning of that is clarified, that, too, could be open to authentic discussion.
This thread has had many predecessors and has not resolved anything, nor has it changed any committed position.
It will always remain nebulous as to what “effect” it is having on the unknown lurkers.
You’re making good points, well worth considering. If a discussion ever broke out on here, it would be a hopeful sign for Christians.
Anyone is entitled to NOT answer but NOT the right to tell who can post to them on a public board. This is not the catholic church where they CONTROL others, know your place. Pray for those who the Catholic church, the Mormon church and the Islam mosques are leading their flock over the cliff with their man-made secular teachings.
REMEMBER: God's Holy Spirit Inspired Word is The FINAL Authority.
That's the secular RCC teachings.
Now Jesus, who ways and thoughts are HIGHER than man's tell us who his mother is. If you are more interested in secular teachings go to the catechism and IF you are more interested in God and His Ways that have everlasting life and is the One Truth .... HEAR and OBEY this...
Matthew 12:47 Someone told Jesus, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
Matthew 12:48 Jesus replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"
Matthew 12:49 Pointing to His disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers.
Matthew 12:50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother."
Jesus was addressing the 'someone' in versus 47 and as JESUS did throughout His ministry, He was TEACHING those who didn't know His Ways/His Fathers Ways. Are you interested in learning or not?
His brother, sister and mother were all alike, NO ONE is more special to God - for we KNOW GOD is no respector of persons. Which is the opposite of the WORLDLY SECULAR view that Rome teaches and lives.
Why would Jesus have to teach for 3.5 years if HIS WAY was like man's way?
"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts." Issiah 55:9
And those that lived before Jesus became man - HIS WORD was known - to the OT people.
Christians KNOW that Jesus left us with the HOLY SPIRIT as The TEACHER.
And we have GOD'S Word to prove it.
SECULAR, WORLDLY!
SUPERNATURAL.....
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are SPIRITUALLY discerned.
A confident person in their beliefs wants to share them with others.
And that confident person does NOT have to be TRUTHFUL! Cults, religious leaders, used car salesman, politicians are confident and woo the natural man - w/o the Spirit - in with deception.
A Person who is 'in Christ' is confident in GOD ALONE who they serve and as The HOLY SPIRIT guides them.
Difference - one is confident in themselves/man and one is confident in GOD who they serve.
Sure right after you show me in scripture that everything has to be in scripture., Now we both know you can't so let's use just a bit of logic: Go out to the kitchen and fill a glass with water, right to the brim, then drop by drop keep adding till it is just over the brim. The water is God's grace. Now try and stick your finger in.
The problem is not simply that you were not clear enough, though that was a problem, but that you clearly said it was patently false that “the validity of the eucharist depends on the intention of the priest during the consecration”. What ensures proper intent is another issue.
And while proper intention to confect the Eucharist is normally held as expressed by the words of consecration, yet that cannot fully assure it, therefore there is the warning against intent as in pretense, which can have the correct form in words, but in pretense, thus invalidating the sacrament.
And this is also true in sacraments as baptism, in which one can have proper matter, proper form, yet improper intent, and the proper words do not assure the minister intends to do as the church does.
Depending on who "us" is, yes. Certainly I do not think it of all who are not Catholic. But the never ending round-and-round on these threads does not speak particularly well of the spiritual state of any of us.
I have seen enough right here in this thread. I think if you were to do as I have done and give yourself a vacation of several months and then come back you'd be amazed, as I was when Natural Law pinged me to this thread.
I suppose one might say that Natural Law displayed a foolish hope when he referred back to something I posted in mid 2010. But rnmomof7's repeating the lecture on presbyteros and hiereus illustrates the problem: Rightly or wrongly my counter agrees that IHS is, in a way, not only the last but the only hiereus. I try to point out that the disagreement lies in a difference of opinion about "how" a Catholic priest is a hiereus. To oversimplify (and probably to perpetuate the eager misunderstanding which substitutes for doctrinal fidelity and dialogue around here), it is Christ's eternal priesthood which (we think), so to speak, "touches down" in the priesthood of our presbyters.
But in a manner similar to the ludicrous yelling past each other over the question of the "intention" of the celebrant, the effort to nail down the locus of the difference is ignored in favor of repeating the same old lecture again. Misunderstanding is not something that people here try to work through; it's something they celebrate.
You may recall that I have suggested for quite some time that a major aspect of the differences among us is a difference in philosophy. The conversation about hiereus MIGHT have been an opportunity to explore that difference. Actual progress in mutual understanding might have taken place.
But, Natural Law's pinging of me prompted my reviewing a very great many of Rnmomof7's posts until I got back to 6/13/2010. And it became clear that this sort of conversation is nothing I want to have anything to do with.
I've been catching up on the thread the last half hour then came across the above line and breathed a sigh of relief.The air's a little heavy here right now.
Thanks and God bless
my favorite pillar of morality, Luther, how polygamy cannot be denied based on the scripture alone
He is your favorite person to use as if he were a pope and that SS requires we follow such, and which distracts from popes who were known immoral persons even before their election. In any case, Luther's statement about polygamy would not be a valid argument even if Luther was giving broad approval, as the fact that one can teach some error - which Rome allows of itself outside infallible teaching (if you can discern them all) - does not negate the primacy of the source.
RCs also misinterpret both Scripture and Rome, both of which are subject to interpretation, and the can claim no infallible interpreter of the latter. And sola ecclesia enables autocratic propagation and perpetuation of error and required assent to it, in contrast to doctrine being established based upon Scriptural substantiation, which is how the church began in dissent from those who sat in power as the stewards of Holy Write and inheritor of Divine promises, but who presumed they could teach as doctrine the mere "tradition of the elders."
And in regard to polygamy, Luther was wrong when he judged Scripture as not forbidding it, though he was doing so in the explicit NT sense, as the Christian prohibition, in contrast to the OT where God allowed — and even seems to sometimes give — men more than one wife, is a derived one, but valid.
However, while it is your practice to use select quotes of a man whom we do not look to as a pope, and whose theology, like that of CFs, was in a stage of development, the whole of Luther's teaching shows he forbade Christians to engage in polygamy, unless in an extreme case of necessity. Today it is still difficult when tribal polygamist turn to Christ as their wives look to him for support and the children to him as their father.
“Moreover, although the patriarchs had many wives, Christians may not follow their example, because there is no necessity for doing this, no improvement is obtained thereby, and, especially, there is no word of God to justify this practise, while great offense and trouble may come from it. Accordingly, I do not believe that Christians any longer have this liberty. God would have to publish a command that would declare such a liberty." (Letter to Joseph Levin Metzsch of December 9, 1526)
And i consider the formal papal sanction of torture of theological opponents by Rome to be more serious.
Innocent’s Bull [Ad Extirpanda], promulgated on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, prescribes that captured heretics, being “murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith, . . . are to be coerced – as are thieves and bandits – into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb.” — Bull Ad Extirpanda (Bullarium Romanorum Pontificum, vol. 3 [Turin: Franco, Fory & Dalmazzo, 1858], Lex 25, p. 556a.) http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
The fact that Rome now forbids torture, and uphold religious freedom and free access to the Bible, and other things in contrast to the past, simply examples how sola ecclesia allows autocratic authority to do whatever it will.
When Sola Scriptura means "holding Scripture as supreme", that is correct and wholly Catholic doctrine.
Rome does not hold Scripture as the supreme standard, but effectively places herself as this, for she claims to define both what Scripture consists up and its meaning, having defined herself as being assuredly infallible. Her teachings need not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, only that they do not contradict Scripture, but as she is the autocratic judge of that, then she can dismiss all reproof to the contrary. It is quite the system. In contrast, under SS doctrine must be established based upon Scriptural substantiation, thus by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. " (2 Corinthians 4:2)
You do the bare minimum of works that faith requires, which is not surprising since to you, you are all saved anyway.
In post after post you have relied on fallacies, including using liberal Protestants for whom the Scriptures are not the wholly inspired Word of God and are to be basically taken literally (unlike in so many approved notes of Rome) as the supreme transcendent material standard, to link SS and SF to moral laxity. But which is what Rome under sola ecclesia is abundantly evidenced to foster. But which evidence is ignored, thus a few stats will be provided, or it is dismissed . However, again, Rome treats them as members in life and in death, and this treatment manifests what Rome fosters overall and really believes (as it manifests how she interprets her words) And while we can leave liberal churches for better ones, RCs are stuck with their Ted Kennedy's.
73% (highest) of Pentecostal/Foursquare believers strongly affirm that Christ was sinless on earth, with Catholics, Lutherans and Methodists being tied at 33%, and the lowest being among Episcopalians with just 28% http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/53
94.4% of Evangelical Protestants and 84.9% of Catholics believe that Jesus is the son of God. 42.1% of the former and 46.1% of the latter say they pray once a day or more. http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf
47.8% of the Evangelicals and 11.8% of Catholics affirm the Bible is Literally true. 6.5% of the former and 19.8% of the latter see it as an ancient book of history and legends. ^
42.1% of Evangelical Protestants and 7.1% of Catholics Read Scripture weekly or more. ^
Bible Reading: the highest was 75%, by those going to a Pentecostal/Foursquare church who reported they had read the Bible during the past week (besides at church), while the lowest was among Catholics at 23% ^
Volunteer church work (during past 7 days): Assemblies of God were highest at 30%, with the lowest going to Catholics at 12%. ^
Donating Money (during the last month): Church of Christ churches were the highest at 29%, with Catholics being the lowest at 12% ^
American evangelicals gave four times as much money, per person, to churches as did all other church donors in 2001. 88 percent of evangelicals and 73 percent of all Protestants donated to churches. John Ronsvalle and Sylvia Ronsvalle, The State of Church Giving through 2004: Will We Will? 16th ed. (Champaign, Ill.: Empty Tomb, 2006),12. http://www.generousgiving.org/stats#
A Catholic survey reports that 4 percent of US Catholics described themselves as “very” involved in parish or religious activities other than attending Mass, and 11% as “somewhat involved, and 64% as “not involved at all.” Among weekly (or more) attendees (approx 22% of adult Catholics), 13% were very” involved, 29% “somewhat involved and 25% not involved at all.” http://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/FRStats/devotionpractice.pdf
Church attendance [2002-2005]: Evangelicals at approx. 60 percent showed the highest percentage of those who reported they attended services weekly or almost weekly, with 30% going more than once a week. Catholics were at 45 percent (9% more than once a week), and Jews 15 percent. Gallup poll. between 2002 and 2005. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060418/weekly-attendance-highest-among-Evangelical-churches.htm
A Catholic study reported that the percentage of U.S. adult Catholics who say they attended Mass once a week or more (i.e., those attending every week) was 24% in 2012. http://cara.georgetown.edu/caraservices/requestedchurchstats.html
Orthodox (29%), Mainline Churches (28%), and Catholics (27%) led Christian Churches in affirming that the Scriptures were written by men and were not the word of God, versus just and 7% of Evangelical Churches, who instead rightly affirm its full inspiration of God. ^
Catholics broke with their Church's teachings more than most other groups, with just six out of 10 Catholics affirming that God is "a person with whom people can have a relationship", and three in 10 describing God as an "impersonal force." 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#
40% Roman Catholics vs. 41% Non-R.C. see abortion as "morally acceptable"; Sex between unmarried couples: 67% vs. 57%; Baby out of wedlock: 61% vs. 52%; Homosexual relations: 54% vs. 45%; Gambling: 72% vs. 59% http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx
Committed Roman Catholics (church attendance weekly or almost) versus Non-R.C. faithful church goers (see the below as as morally acceptable): Abortion: 24% R.C. vs. 19% Non-R.C.; Sex between unmarried couples: 53% vs. 30%; Baby out of wedlock: 48% vs. 29%; Homosexual relations: 44% vs. 21%; Gambling: 67% vs. 40%; Divorce: 63 vs. 46% ^
50 percent of Protestants affirmed gambling was a sin, versus 15 percent of Catholics; that getting drunk was a sin: 63 percent of Protestants, 28 percent of Catholics; gossip: 70 percent to 45 percent: homosexual activity or sex: 72 percent to 42 percent. Ellison Research, March 11, 2008 http://ellisonresearch.com/releases/20080311.htm http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080312/study-behaviors-americans-consider-sinful.htm
Of never-married adult females, 25% of Evangelicals, 11% of Catholics and 14% of Mainline Protestants professed never to be have had sexual relations. Countering Conventional Wisdom: New Evidence on Religion and Contraceptive Use, Guttmacher Institute, April. 2011
Catholic women have an abortion rate 29 percent higher than Protestants. Alan Guttmacher Institute http://www.catholicleague.org/research/Catholic_women_and_abortion.htm
26 percent of Catholics (2007) polled strongly agree with the Church's unequivocal position on abortion Catholic World Report; 2997 survey of 1,000 Catholic Americans by Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut
46 percent of Catholics who say they attend mass weekly accept Church teaching on abortion; 43 percent accept the all-male priesthood; and 30 percent see contraception as morally wrong. ^
31% of faithful Catholics (those who attend church weekly, 2004) say abortion should be legal either in "many" or in "all" cases. 2004, The Gallup Organization Gallup Survey for Catholics Speak Out: 802 Catholics, May 1992, MOE ± 4%
When ask to choose, three-fourths of all Protestant pastors surveyed said [2009] they are pro-life, and 13 percent said they were pro-choice. LifeWay Research; http://www.lifeway.com/ArticleView?storeId=10054&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&article=LifeWay-Research-protestant-pastors-share-views-on-gay-marriage-abortion
In a 2010 LifeWay Research survey 77 percent of American Protestant pastors (57% of mainline versus 87% evangelical) strongly disagree with same-sex marriage, with 6% percent somewhat disagreeing, and 5% being somewhat in agreement and 10 percent strongly agreeing. (5% of evangelical).
Only 3% of evangelical pastors (versus 11% mainline) somewhat agree that there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage.
11% of evangelical pastors (versus 30% mainline) somewhat agree that homosexual civil unions are acceptable, with 67% of the former and 38% of the latter strongly disagreeing with homosexual civil unions. October 2010 LifeWay Research survey of 1,000 randomly selected Protestant pastors. http://www.lifeway.com/ArticleView?storeId=10054&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&article=LifeWay-Research-protestant-pastors-oppose-homosexual-marriage
A 2002 nationwide poll of 1,854 priests in the United States and Puerto Rico reported that 30% of Roman Catholic priests described themselves as Liberal, 28% as Conservative, and 37% as Moderate in their Religious ideology. 53 percent responded that they thought it always was a sin for unmarried people to have sexual relations; 32 percent that is often was, and 9 percent seldom/never. However, nearly four in 10 younger priests in 2002 described themselves as conservative, and were more likely to regard as "always a sin" such acts as premarital sex, abortion, artificial birth control, homosexual relations, etc., and three-fourths said they were more religiously orthodox than their older counterparts. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_2_39/ai_94129129/pg_2
49 percent of Roman Catholic priests affirmed that it was always a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, often, 25 percent; and never, 19 percent.
15 percent of the Roman Catholic priests polled listed themselves as "gay or on the homosexual side." Among younger priests 23 percent did so.
44 percent of the priests said "definitely" a homosexual subculture'--defined as a `definite group of persons that has its own friendships, social gatherings and vocabulary'--exists in their diocese or religious order. ^
Catholics testify [2010] to showing more support (in numbers) for legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition, and Americans overall. Almost three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry or allowing them to form civil unions (43% and 31% respectively). Only 22% of Catholics said there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship. (PRRI, Pre--election American Values Survey, 9/2010; http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf.)
Evangelical Protestants are the most politically conservative Christian tradition. Within each tradition, those with literal views of the Bible are more politically conservative than is their tradition overall. Catholics that are Biblical literalists (11.8%) hold more conservative political views than the Catholic population in general does. The Biblical literalist Catholic is as politically conservative as the Biblical literalist who is Evangelical (47.8%) or Mainline Protestant. (11.2%) American Piety in the 21st Century, Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf
34% of weekly Mass attending Catholics are Democrats, and an additional 19% are not affiliated with a party but lean toward the Democrats (53% identifying or leaning as Democrats). 28% of weekly attenders are Republicans and an additional 17% lean toward being a Republican (43 percent identifying or leaning as Republicans). Thus Democrats have a 10% point edge among weekly attendees, Catholics who attend Mass less than weekly are even more likely to be a Democrat rather than a Republican. http://cara.georgetown.edu/NewsandPress/PressReleases/pr061808.pdf
Much more: http://peacebyjesus.tripod.com/rc-stats_vs._evang.html
Now i have a headache due to so much reading and wrong glasses.
And it is Rome’s argument that is circular, as she infallibly defines herself as infallible, and thus her statement that she is infallible cannot be contested, nor her support for it, while like as a remnant of believers existed in Israel in its overall declension, so in Catholicism, even today. For,
“The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. “ (Psalms 34:18)
That is one of the most profoundly false things I have seen on this thread. Scripture is easy to quote which refutes it. We have an "imputed" righteousness through faith in Christ (Rom 3:23-24-... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.), but we are sinners for life. We are at war with our own nature. If we could overcome sin, Christ died for naught!
Paul in his writing to that proud bunch at Rome, said in Romans 7: 13 ... Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.
The Greek word for flesh (sarx) refers to the sinful state of human beings, often presented as a power in opposition to the Spirit. We are sinners, FRiend, covered by the Blood. Grace is an imputed state of righteousness, not a lifestyle...
The best we Protestants can come up with is that we consider that Catholics do a lot of extraeous stuff that really has no bearing on a persons salvation.
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
1 John 3:21-24
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
HERETIC!!!
Prepare the Maiden!
Either Scripture shapes your worldview; or your outlook shapes your view of Scripture.
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.