Posted on 12/08/2012 2:24:39 PM PST by NYer
Everyone has faith. It's merely a matter of where it's placed.
Salvation is by grace through faith. It's activated when we put our faith in the right person.
Do you think it important that Catholics fully accept your interpretation of Scripture to be saved or is it sufficient that we love the Triune God with all of our hearts, all of our minds and all of our souls?
Neither.
John 1:12-13 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Ouch.
Yes, the church has definite issues about sex. Why they despise it so much is beyond me but to treat something God created, called good, and sanctioned, unclean and sinful is beyond comprehension.
Do you believe that I did not receive Him, do not believe in His name? Do you think there is anything in Catholic doctrine or dogma that would negate that?
Peace be with you.
The Roman Catholic Church allows "annulments", do they not? For just such vows entered into, your church has frequently "declare(d) the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed. In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.". Not really life-long is it? In fact, if a person takes a vow to be a priest, his ordination CAN be annulled.
In the case of Martin Luther as well as his wife, they BOTH chose to annul their ordination vows and they have every right to do so - they are not slaves. They legally married in the eyes of God after leaving the Roman church and committed their lives to the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Regardless if some people think they can't do that, apparently they CAN - even today Catholic priests do.
Rather than play judge and jury of a man who died five hundred years ago, why not just be honest and say what you really want to prove by your condemnation of him. Let God judge Martin Luther. Take care of your own soul.
First off, that's an English word, not the word out of the Greek, so it renders that whole argument moot before it even gets off the ground.
The other problem is, you are not a mind reader and don't know who *us guys* are and whether or not we have bishops.
Additionally, the words *Catholic church* are not found in Scripture and your interpretation of *Church of God* as meaning the Roman Catholic church is nothing more than your interpretation, or as is commonly, disparagingly referred to (by Catholics) as YOPIOS.
the rest of the world comes to faith in Christ by hearing the Word of Christ.
Anytime, anywhere the word is spoken. It can be in church, it can be on a street corner.
Don't forget, these days the word of Christ, the Bible, is freely available to anyone who wants one, much to some Catholic's chagrin, I do realize.
What is just skipped over is WHY would someone have to be hidden in a pickled fish barrel in order to escape a place they no longer wanted to be??? Obviously these nuns were in fear for their lives to resort to such an elaborate plot to win their freedom. Odd that the onus is placed on the person helping these desperate women instead of the system that forced them to plot an escape.
The RCC has no authority over anyone. Nobody gave it to them, they claim it for themselves with the caveat that God gave it to them so as to try to put the claim beyond dispute.
You know, though, this is a stunningly fine example of the level of control that the Catholic church seeks to impose on the lives of everyone every where. It’s been that way historically, and is obviously still that way today.
Thank you for giving a beautiful example of it for all to see so that anyone who may have been considering Catholicism can see what they’re getting in to before hand.
“The Roman Catholic Church allows “annulments”, do they not?”
A non sequiter. Your attempts to worship Luther are laughable.
"No replies."
His XX mother?
If you get an answer, do let me know.....
Some Protestants are incapable of seeing God through anything other than a Protestant lens. They insist that Luther's premise of Scriptural sufficiency means Scriptural exclusivity and reject the Sacred Tradition from the Sacred Deposit of Faith on nothing more than their own authority. They are left to attempt to formulate a belief system through a bizarre addition through subtraction. Hold fast to the entire Revealed Word. Don't play the game.
Peace be with you
You should try the Jesus of the Bible instead of the Catholic Jesus.
The Jesus of the Bible is with us even when we do sin. He doesn't abandon us every time we slip up.
He promised here.....
Matthew 28:18-20 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
To say that Jesus leaves us for any reason, is to call Him a liar.
And Paul, yeah the guy Catholics love to hate, says in Romans 8
Romans 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?
Those are some definitions all right.
John Hardon is simply defining terms to support Rome and its theology, in contradiction of how Scripture uses the term.
The Holy Spirit knows how to apply the formal term of “priest,” but He never refers to the NT clergy as such, except as part of the general priesthood of all believers, and all are engaged in sacrifice.
And again, elders and bishops (episkopos) refer to the same office, a mature believer superintending the church/
Elders preceded the Jewish priesthood, and while a Jewish priest can be an elder, being an elder does not make one a priest, and the words for the New Testament pastoral office are never that of hiereus, but presbuteros and “episkoposnor” (an overseer), as befits the nature of their ministry in which Christ has fulfilled the law and has become the high priest.
Nor is there any separate class of sacerdotal priests in the church, rather all are priests in the general sense, (1Pt. 2:5) and all offer up sacrifices to God. (Rm. 12:1) And among other things, by changing bishops/elders (same office) into a formal class of sacerdotal priests, you testify that you are not the New Testament church.
So here, annalex, bb's excellent commentary on your comments about Luther and his wife not being free to marry. You can't pick and choose when vows are allowed to be broken or not allowed to be broken based on who the people involved are. It's either OK for all or not OK for all.
The Roman Catholic Church allows "annulments", do they not? For just such vows entered into, your church has frequently "declare(d) the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed. In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.". Not really life-long is it? In fact, if a person takes a vow to be a priest, his ordination CAN be annulled.
In the case of Martin Luther as well as his wife, they BOTH chose to annul their ordination vows and they have every right to do so - they are not slaves. They legally married in the eyes of God after leaving the Roman church and committed their lives to the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Regardless if some people think they can't do that, apparently they CAN - even today Catholic priests do.
Rather than play judge and jury of a man who died five hundred years ago, why not just be honest and say what you really want to prove by your condemnation of him. Let God judge Martin Luther. Take care of your own soul.
If someone is going to condemn Luther and his wife for fornication because they weren't allowed to break their vows and they got married anyway, they will find themselves condemning a vast number of people over the centuries.
Your cartoons are cute.
Did you learn cartoon posting in kindergarten?
We both know that charitable discussion stems from objective statements of facts not subtle or overt insults. (Understand please that I'm speaking of the article NOT the person who posted it.)
I notice a distinct avoidance by any to address those points
These things have been discussed previously on this forum, although perhaps not on this thread. If I corrected every misstatement made about the Church on this site I'd get nothing else done! Former Catholics here contend that they know the Church's position. If that's so then they are responsible to God (not me) for what they write about the Church's teaching (accurate or otherwise) and what they select as fittingly representing her teaching. I'm preparing to leave town and don't feel the slightest obligation to spend my limited time addressing that type of article. Others may feel differently.
When did He promise that specifically to her? What gives? Where, oh where does that sort of idea come from?
I will address this one quickly before I sign off for the night though :) First, if you look through your scriptures, you will see that the idea of Christians reigning with Christ in heaven is all through scripture. While we Catholics envision Mary with the highest position in heaven that any of God's creatures can have, we believe we will all reign in heaven. Not of our own merit, of course. But as a free gift of Christ who shares his victory with us. Christ in us and we in Christ. Complete unimpeded union.
Second, remember when I told you on another thread that often the key to understanding something Catholic is to look at Jewish history and practices? We see Jesus as the Son of David (Mt 1:1) who reigns forever (Lk 1:32-33, Dn 2:44, 2 Sm 7:12-13, Ps 89:26-29, Ps 132:11, Is 9:6-7) and elevating his mother to the role of queen mother as other davidic kings did. If you look at 1 Kg 2:19, Solomon rises and bows when his mother, Bathsheba, enters. He has a seat brought for her to sit to the right of him on the throne. Contrast this with 1 Kg 1:16, 31 when Bathsheba bows and does obeisance to her husband the king. In 1:28 she stands before her husband the king but in the next chapter her son the king rises for her and seats her beside him. We (Catholics) see Jesus enthroned as our eternal King in heaven and his mother at his right as his queen mother. It's the King and his most perfect creation. It's NOT God and goddess.
A couple other passages that quickly come to mind that mention the queen mother are King Lemuel's mother in Prv 31. The king considers his mother's counsel sufficiently wise to record it. Jer 13:18 contains a message not to the king and queen but to the king and queen mother. I share these verses to show biblical support for the concept of the Jewish queen mother.
I know you disagree with our interpretation of scripture, but since you asked where this comes from, you can look at Rev 11:19 and the "ark of his covenant".(You know from following these threads that we see Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant.) In the next verse we find the mother of the saviour, who also represents the church, crowned with stars.
So there you have a bit of where it comes from. I didn't say you'd agree with it :) Sorry but I don't have time to address it more thoroughly and will be traveling so probably can't make a timely followup if you reply.
When we otherwise hear of Mary being trumpeted as being "Queen of Heaven" perhaps one might see where others would object to the sound of it?
Absolutely! I'm a former protestant, remember?
Peace be with you. If we don't meet again before Christmas, may you have a joy-filled celebration of the Lord's birth :)
With all due respect, holding a position as catechist doesn't insure adherence to the magisterium's teaching. Unfortunately. I know firsthand of a catechist who's taught things directly opposed to the catechism to RCIA classes. I'm not suggesting, BTW, that any exCatholics here did anything like that. I'm saying that position doesn't equal correct understanding or willingness to impart teaching in accord with official church doctrine.
The problem isn’t the Catholics posting a response to actual lies about the Catholic church.
This is precisely what I was referring to. I prefer to say someone misstates something because a lie means intent to deceive. I cannot see into a commenter's heart to know if it's misstatement or deception. That said, if someone says the church teaches X but the catechism or other church document clearly shows that it teaches Y not X, then the commenter is either misunderstanding or intentionally misleading. Because some catechists misuse their position to teach error, how is a Catholic here to know if the commenter has been taught error or is intentionally mistating official Church teaching? This is why I said the poor catechesis angle is more charitable than the other option of intentional misrepresentation of the Church's position on a particular matter.
Peace be with you. And have a very blessed Christmas :)
Oops! Should have been “position doesn’t AUTOMATICALLY equal correct ...”
So, couldn't Mary have died for us, then, saved Jesus the trouble? She lived a "perfect" human life without ever sinning - meets the qualification. Oh, no, we'll hear, Mary was only sinless because Christ applied it retroactively to her account. Before He died on the cross to make propitiation for all sin - past, present and future - He created her sinless with a retroactive forgiveness for sins she would never commit anyway. Of course, this was only because God already knew she would say, "yes". Kinda makes us wonder, if He did that for her, why not make us ALL sinless and the whole thing could have been averted? We'd be happy, He'd be happy, Satan would be bummed.
I'm not trying to be disrespecful towards Mary, just asking the questions you would have thought the "powers that be" would have considered before they made such an unbiblical decree mandating everyone HAS TO believe it or be damned!
NOT a non sequitur, in fact, QUITE relevant to the point. Vows CAN be annulled - even those of ordination. Look it up. Also, I don't WORSHIP anyone but the Lord God and your vain attempts at mind reading are laughable.
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.