Posted on 08/31/2013 3:38:44 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
Full interview (roughly one hour) with former Roman Catholic priests Richard Bennett (website: http://www.BEREANBEACON.ORG) & Bartholomew Brewer, Ph.D, author of "Pilgrimage from Rome - A Testimony" (website: http://www.MTC.COM) and former nun Rocio Zwirner give glory to God for their exodus from the Roman Catholic Church & into the glorious grace of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. (Description from youtube)
See, I was persuaded by almighty God that the gospel is as the Church always taught it in Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. I was saved from a life in Protestantism. Deo gratias! And whereas I have met dozens of former Protestant ministers who really knew their former faith and have become Catholic, I have yet to meet a single former Catholic turned Protestant who actually knew the Catholic faith. I just can’t take Protestant testimony about their counterfeit 16th century gospel seriously because it was not taught in Scripture, Tradition or the Church. It’s a novelty. ...
Sorry, I don't believe you! There are too many false claims against Christians who do not hold Rome as the arbiter of truth. Too many times I have heard told herein that all Protestants are liars, and that only Rome holds the truth. Scripture tells an entirely different story. It is one of GRACE and LOVE, not of a judgmental group of haughty knaves claiming to be successors to some role in the establishment of Christ's church. God did not change men in robes into Christ's role as the author and finisher of our salvation.. Peter was just another one of the Apostles, and his ministry was to the Jews. Paul preached to those outside God's chosen ones. It was Paul that taught us about being "grafted" into the true vine.
Yet, there is little Scripture used to support the premise of the roman Catholic cult. Instead we hear words like "I knew a black guy, and he was my best friend" or some snarky picture of a cereal box or such other nonsensical deflections. Of course, we are not talking about racism, nor General Mills, but it carries the same tone.
Paul rightly rebuked Peter for trying to make the new Christians follow the Judaic rules and customs. He used Scripture to deny Peter any role with the Gentiles... but of course, Peter was just a guy that denied Christ!
Galatians 211 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
Ephesians 3" 8 Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ, 9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11 according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12 In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence.
Colossians 3: 12 Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.
15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16 Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. 17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
Does Manning know that it is GOD and the Spirit of GOD, not GROD?
Amen! Reading the words of Scripture and grasping what truly is the wondrous grace of God - the GOOD NEWS (gospel) - confirms the Holy Spirit’s presence and glorifies the author and finisher of our faith. Thanks for that!
Manning does. My typing fingers? Not so much.
No it does not, but it affirms my contention. Your argument presumes what it attempts to prove, that because the church is ancient then it is the only correct interpretive authority on what is ancient, by which circularity all contrary claims, based on examination of the evidence, are dismissed. This is truth by decree, not by persuading souls by appealing to the judgment of seekers with evidence, seen in Scripture. (Jn.5:36,39; 2Cor. 4:2)
What we know of the history of Christianity we know from the Catholic Church. There essentially is no other history of the earliest ages of the Church.
No other understanding you mean. You are again presuming what needs to be proved, asserting the Catholic Church today is the NT church based upon the premise that according to your interpretation of history, only your interpretation is correct in any conflict.
Even if Rome is the NT church, despite its contrary contrasts , you are also committing the fallacy that holds that the corporate entity that was the instrument of Divine revelation and steward of it, and inheritor of Divine promises of God's presence and preservation, and having historical descent, is necessarily the infallible interpreter of it. But which is not the case.
What the Holy Spirit led the Apostles to know cannot be known outside of the body of the Christ, the Church.
Which is not restricted to Rome.
What the Church has, and no Protestant can, is the tradition of the Apostles from Christ.
According to her interpretation that she alone rightly holds amorphous tradition, objections from Scripture notwithstanding, while even substantially differing with the EO interpretation of Tradition, Scripture and history, both claiming to be the one true church in particular, though largely in "communion" with each other..
Manning makes it clear that the Church is ancient, its teachings are the original, the “primitive” teachings of the Apostles.
Thus no one can argue that her teachings do not sometimes correspond with that which was ancient. For according to her interpretation, only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict.
And, thus, the Church has a supernatural aspect as a teacher and guide
The church in Ephesians 3:10 is referring to the entire household of faith, but church means Rome most supremely, according to her, who has infallibly defined herself as being infallible (when speaking according to her scope and subject-based criteria), thus her declaration of her infallibility is infallible, as is her claim to be the NT church.
The Church essentially is timeless - as it must be as the Body of Christ.
But which includes the entire household of faith., in it various (Rv. 2;3) visible manifestations.
Only the Church was there, guided by the Holy Spirit, and sent to teach for all ages until the end of the world. Without those opening and closing sentences, the edit you posted makes no sense and in no way expresses Manning’s clear meaning. .p> That is absurd and superficial! My portion makes full sense in expressing Manning’s clear meaning, which remains what i invoked as supporting, that history is whatever Rome says it is, being ancient thus what she says is ancient is so, disallowing and dissent based on contrary claims. And which your edited version only confirms.
NO, they don't.
Just like they don't say Mary is alive in Heaven.
I'd get a NEW seeing eye dog!
HE said NO such thing!
As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'
NIV Matthew 4:18-19
18. As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.
19. "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."NIV Matthew 8:14
When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.NIV Matthew 10:1-2
1. He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
2. These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;NIV Matthew 14:28-31
28. "Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."
29. "Come," he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
30. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
31. Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"NIV Matthew 15:13-16
13. He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.
14. Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
15. Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."
16. "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
I can't stand the smell of a red herring dragged across the trail.
That doesn’t change the fact that Simon is Peter in Matthew 4.
You wish...
Why don't you darned PROTESTants run off on a wild goose chase?
"
I feel like I've been to a Latin Mass today!!
"He knew history and knew the Papacy did not exist for many hundreds of years." I think he would disagree with you. Dollinger: Let us now approach somewhat nearer to the institution of the Papacy, which is comparable with no other; and let us cast a glance at its history. Like to all living things, like to the Church itself of which it is the crown and the corner-stone, the Papacy has passed through an historical development full of the most manifold and surprising vicissitudes. But in this its history is the law which lies at the foundation of the Church—the law of continual development—of a growth from within outwards. The Papacy had to pass through all the changes and circumstances of the Church, and to enter with it into every process of construction. Its birth begins with two mighty, significant, and far extending words of the Lord. He to whom these words were addressed, realised them in his own person and actions, and planted the institution of the infant Church in the central point—at Rome. There it silently grew, occulta relut arbor aevo; and in the oldest time it only showed itself forth on peculiar occasions; but the outlines of the power and the ecclesiastical authority of the Roman Bishops were ever constantly becoming more evident, and more prominent. The Popes were, even in the time of the Roman Emperor.-, the guardians of the whole Church, exhorting and warning in all directions, disposing and judging, "binding and loosing." Complaints were not seldom expressed of the use which, in particular cases, Rome had made of its power. Resistance was offered, because the Pope was supposed to have been deceived; an appeal was preferred to him, when it was believed he had been better informed; but there was no refusal to obey his commands. In general, his interference in Church affairs was less necessary; and the reins of Church discipline needed less to be drawn tightly, so long as the general Church, with few exceptions, was found within the limits of the Roman Empire, when it was so firmly kept together by the strong bands of the civil order, that there could neither be occasion nor prospect of success to any reaction on the part of various nationalities, which, on the whole, were broken and kept down by Roman domination. Out of the chaos of the great Northern migrations, and the ruins of the Roman Empire, there gradually arose a new order of states, whose central point was the Papal See. Therefrom inevitably resulted a position not only new, but very different from the former. The new Christian Empire of the West was created and upheld by the Pope. The Pope became constantly more and more (by the state of affairs, with the will of the princes and of the people, and through the power of public opinion) the Chief Moderator at the head of the European commonwealth—and, as such, he had to proclaim and defend the Christian law of nations, to settle international disputes, to mediate between princes and people, and to make peace between belligerent states. The Curia became a great spiritual and temporal tribunal. In short, the whole of Western Christendom, formed, in a certain sense, a kingdom, at whose head stood the Pope and the Emperor—the former, however, with continually increasing and far preponderating authority. The efforts of the Hohenstaufen Emperors to subject Italy, and with Italy also the Papal See, led to a prolonged conflict, from which both powers, the imperial and the papal, come forth weakened and wounded; for ever since then the position of the Papacy, in its political relations, has been more difficult and unfavourable. The Papacy saw itself compelled to lean more and more upon France, and, when the aspiring plans of Boniface VIII. were frustrated, it naturally passed into French hands, and upon French soil; and a resistance on the part of other nations was then inevitable; its high position over peoples and princes could no longer be successfully maintained. The authority of the Papal See sank still lower through the Franco-Italian schism. Then followed the reformatory efforts of the Councils, in the fifteenth century, which were mainly directed against the oppression of the Curia; and, subsequently, the Popes became entangled in the devious path of Italian politics. The former social-political, universal power led, when it was attempted to be realised, to troubles and disputes, and then it went utterly to wreck in the storms of the age of the Reformation. From that time forth the whole of Europe assumed a new form. Powerful and internally united political bodies, each having a special interest, and pursuing a fixed policy of its own, came into the foreground, and a new system of "a balance of power" was formed amidst severe struggles. The Papal See could no longer be the regulator of a European Commonwealth, and the centre of a general polity. It could not be so, amid the confusion of merely political interests, and changes of Catholic and Protestant states—sometimes in alliance, and sometimes hostilely opposed to each other. The popes withdrew themselves more and more to their purely ecclesiastical domain. They could stand in no other relation to the new principles (the Territorial system, and such like), which had found their way, through Protestantism, into the laws of European states and peoples. Thus has the matter stood to the present time. On ecclesiastical grounds the Papal See is, at present, as strong and powerful as ever, and as free in its action as it ever had been. Dangers and perplexities await it in temporal affairs—in the position of Italy, and in the possession of the States of the Church. What is now, and in point of fact, the actual function and vocation of the Papacy, and why is the whole existence of the Church at this time, and in future, so inseparably bound up with the existence of the papal authority, and with its free exercise? The Catholic Church is a most opulent, and, at the same time, a most multifarious organism. Its mission is nothing less than to be the teacher and moulder of all nations; and however much it may find itself hampered in this task; however limited may be the sphere of action allowed to it, by this or that government, its task always remains the same, and the Church requires and possesses an abundance of power to attain its purpose: it has a great number of various institutions, all directed to the same end; and with these it is continually creating new. All these powers, these institutions, these spiritual communities, stand in need of a supreme guidance, with a firm and strong hand, in order that they may work harmoniously together; that they may not degenerate, and may not lose sight of their destination; that they may not suicidally turn their capabilities, one against the other, or against the unity and welfare of the Church. It is only an ecclesiastical primacy can fulfil this mission—it is the Papacy alone that is in a position to keep every member in its own sphere, and to pacify every disturbance that may Besides this, there is another task, just as difficult as it is important, which it lies upon the Papal See to fulfil. It is the duty, namely, of the Pope to represent and to defend the rights of individual Churches against the domination of states and monarchs; to watch that the Church be not altered in its character, nor crippled in its power, by becoming interwoven with the State. For this purpose, with the voice and action of the church immediately concerned, the intervention of the Supreme Church authority becomes indispensable; since this stands above and outside of the conflicts, which may possibly arise between any one church and the state; and it solely is capable, in its high and inaccessible position, and in possession of the richest experiences, won in centuries of ecclesiastical government, to specify accurately the claims of both parties, and to serve as a stay and support to the weaker—to the one which otherwise must inevitably succumb before the manifold means of compulsion and seduction which lie at the command of modern states. It is, moreover, a beautiful, sublime, but certainly difficult mission of the Papal See—a mission only to be fulfilled by the strength of an enlightened wisdom and a comprehensive knowledge of mankind—and that is, to be just to the claims of individual nations in the Church; to comprehend their necessities, and restrain their desires within the limits required by the unity of the Church. End paste. So, Dollinger clearly believed in the papacy as being brought into existence by the words of Christ. He just believed it developed over time after that. Dollinger, The church and the churches: or, The papacy and the temporal power : an historical and political review, 1862, 41-43.
Not even after she's rented the billboard out on Main Street?
With a BIG list of all your SINS listed on it?
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.