Posted on 01/23/2014 9:29:40 PM PST by NKP_Vet
1. Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the history of Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy.
2. Alternate: I am a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, that Catholicism is true, and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church divinely-established by our Lord Jesus, against which the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail (Mt 16:18), thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to submit.
3. 2nd Alternate: I left Protestantism because it was seriously deficient in its interpretation of the Bible (e.g., "faith alone" and many other "Catholic" doctrines - see evidences below), inconsistently selective in its espousal of various Catholic Traditions (e.g., the Canon of the Bible), inadequate in its ecclesiology, lacking a sensible view of Christian history (e.g., "Scripture alone"), compromised morally (e.g., contraception, divorce), and unbiblically schismatic, anarchical, and relativistic. I don't therefore believe that Protestantism is all bad (not by a long shot), but these are some of the major deficiencies I eventually saw as fatal to the "theory" of Protestantism, over against Catholicism. All Catholics must regard baptized, Nicene, Chalcedonian Protestants as Christians.
4. Catholicism isn't formally divided and sectarian (Jn 17:20-23; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10-13).
5. Catholic unity makes Christianity and Jesus more believable to the world (Jn 17:23).
6. Catholicism, because of its unified, complete, fully supernatural Christian vision, mitigates against secularization and humanism.
7. Catholicism avoids an unbiblical individualism which undermines Christian community (e.g., 1 Cor 12:25-26).
8. Catholicism avoids theological relativism, by means of dogmatic certainty and the centrality of the papacy.
(Excerpt) Read more at ourcatholicfaith.org ...
Hey Tonto, the Holy Spirit is neither man or woman. Now let that one sink in for awhile.
I always chuckle when a Catholic who views scripture as secondary to the magesterium claim Protestants who view scripture as their only source don’t know scripture.
What authority to Protestants recognize outside of Scripture? Luther?
Protestants believe many things. Not all Protestants adhere even to Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura, i.e, The Church of England.
Not all Protestants even adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity, i.e., Oneness Pentecostals.
What single doctrine do they ALL adhere to?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
They reject the authority of the Catholic Church.
This is a very serious thing, since St. Paul calls the church, "the pillar and foundation of truth," and Jesus said, "if he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector."
>> They reject the authority of the Catholic Church.<<
LOL First and foremost the RCC has so polluted the meaning of the Greek word “ecclesia” that it’s virtually unrecognizable. It’s a tactic straight from Satan to obscure the true meaning. The pagan origins of most of the Catholic beliefs is pervasive in much of “religion” because of it.
>> This is a very serious thing, since St. Paul calls the church, "the pillar and foundation of truth," and Jesus said, "if he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector."<<
Catholics fail to grasp the meaning of “pillar and foundation”. Pillars and foundations don’t determine the structure of a building. Nor does the Catholic Church uphold what was originally taught by the apostles but have polluted it and added to it. Most all of what they have changed and added has it’s roots in paganism.
Wow! I’m sure Catholics will proudly proclaim Hahn to be “one of them” having “crossed the Tiber”! Why am I not surprised that Hahn has some odd views about scripture? Thanks for finding and posting that.
To the contrary.
"We believe in the communion of all the faithful of Christ, those who are pilgrims on earth, the dead who are being purified, and the blessed in heaven, all together forming one Church; and we believe that in this communion, the merciful love of God and his saints is always [attentive] to our prayers" (CCC 962)
We don't pray to saints as if they are God. That would be ridiculous. We ask those already in Heaven to pray for us in the same way we ask our friends here on earth to pray for us. We are all one body in Christ.
this is not what the scriptures teaches nor is it what the early fathers believed.
What is the point of repeatedly posting conflicting quotes from early Church Fathers? Doctrinal development did not cease with their interpretations. By what standard does one decide that it should have? And if one relies on Sola Scriptura, why should their various writings be held as anything more than opinions?
What the "new" Catholic Church is teaching is the heresy Socinianism, denying the Atonement.
This is documented not only in the writings of the early fathers but also in the Nicene Creed and many other writings of the Church.
Are you aware that recitation of the Nicene Creed is included in the Mass?
The Mass:
The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory." (CCC 1367)
But then, all of a sudden it became clear as to what was REALLY being talked about. Hey, Christ didn't have to die for our sins but He just redeemed mankind from their sins. The rest is up to them.
This sums up the Catholic belief: "For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God". Was St. Paul proclaiming "works-based salvation theory" here?
Once again you are adding to your record and being an argument against being a Catholic, like Rome, making assertions as truth because she said so.
Did you ever engage in research before making such statements? Granted you are not supposed to objectively seek to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by such, but this is not RC doctrine.
But then again, anything that contradicts the cherished fantasy RCs hold of their idol is impugned as biased and unreliable.
In any case, rather than the reality being that "all those hispanics that voted for Obama are not pro-abortion," what 2013 polling showa is that only 51% of adult Hispanics say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases" even while being family oriented (i am sure there are differences btwn nat.origins though). Other survey have prochoice hispanics even higher, and none were lower.
In addition, only a slight majority of 53% of Hispanic Catholics say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, similar to white Catholics at 54%, which only matches the general public.
Moreover, Latino/Hispanics make up an 32% of Catholics, and 47% of Catholics btwn 18-29, thus foretelling its future voting
In contrast, Latinos make up 15% of evangelicals, and 70% of Latino evangelicals say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases
And as shown before,
Among all Catholics and evangelicals (racial stats not given) who attend services weekly or more, 58% of Catholics and 73% of evangelicals say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
Overall , white Evangelicals (23% of the electorate) voted 79%/20% Romney/Obama; Protestants overall (53% of the electorate) voted 57%/42%; black Protestants (9% of the electorate) and other Christian voted 5%/95%; Catholics overall (25% of the electorate) voted 48%/50%; white Catholics (18% of the electorate) voted 59%/40%; and Hispanic Catholics (5% of the electorate) voted 21%/75% Romney/Obama.
Furthermore ,
Among registered voters in 2007, 50% of white Evangelicals and 36% of Latino Evangelicals were Republican, 25% of the former and 36% of the latter were Democrats. 23% white Evangelical and 19% of Latino Evangelicals were Independents http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Demographics/hispanics-religion-07-final-mar08.pdf
70% of Latino registered voters in 2012 identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, while 22% identify with or lean toward the Republican Party. 81 percent of Latinos with no religious affiliation were Democrats or Democratic leaning. http://www.pewforum.org/Race/Latinos-Religion-and-Campaign-2012.aspx#president
73% of Latino Catholics surveyed said they favored Obama, versus 19% for Romney, while 50% of Latino evangelical Protestants (who accounted for 16% of all Latino registered voters) favored Obama, and 39% were for Romney. http://www.pewforum.org/Race/Latinos-Religion-and-Campaign-2012.aspx
Latino Catholics made up 57% of the Latino electorate in 2012, and 71% are Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party, while 21% identify with or lean toward the Republican Party. Among Latino evangelical voters, about half are Democrats or lean Democratic, while about a third are Republicans or lean toward the Republican Party. http://www.pewforum.org/Race/Latinos-Religion-and-Campaign-2012.aspx
Also, just 19% of White Catholics, 30% of Latino Catholics, 58% of White evangelicals, 52% of Black Protestants and 29% of White Mainline Protestants oppose any legal recognition of homosexual marriage
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.)
This 2010 survey of more than 3,000 adults found that 41% of White American Catholics, 45% of Latino Catholics (versus 16 percent of White evangelical Christians, and 23% of Black Protestants) supported the rights of same-sex couples to marry, and 36% (22% of Latino Catholics) supported civil unions (versus 24% of White evangelicals, and 25% of Black Protestants). Among the general public the rates were 37 and 27 percent.
69% of Catholics disagree that homosexual orientation can be changed, versus 23% who believe that they can change. ^
19% of White Catholics, 30% of Latino Catholics, 58% of White evangelicals, 52% of Black Protestants and 29% of White Mainline Protestants oppose any legal recognition of homosexual marriage. ^
60% of Catholics overall, and 53% of the general public favor allowing homosexual couples to adopt children. ^
73% of Catholics favor laws that would protect gay and lesbian people against discrimination in the workplace, and 63% favor allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. For the general public the figures are 68% and 58% respectively. ^
49% of Catholics and 45% of the general public agree that homosexuals should be eligible for ordination with no special requirements. ^
Among Catholics who attend services regularly (weekly or more), 31% say there should be no legal recognition for homosexual relationships (marriage or civil unions), with 26% favoring allowing gay and lesbian people to marry, versus 43% of Catholics who attend once or twice a month, and 59% of Catholics who attend a few times a year or less favoring allowance of homosexual marriage. ^
27% of Catholics who attend church services regularly say their clergy speak about the issue of homosexuality, with 63% of this group saying the messages they hear are negative. ^
48% of white evangelical Protestants oppose letting homosexuals serve openly in the military, with 34% supporting this proposal, versus 63% of Catholics (66% of white) supporting and 23% opposing. Pew forum, November 29, 2010, http://pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Issues/Gay_Marriage_and_Homosexuality/gays%20in%20military%20full%20report.pdf
Thus Catholics overall voted liberal as a majority, and can be expected to do so.
He has repeatedly been shown this, but desperately resorts to such sophistry as arguing more (not percentage) Catholics voted for the conservative Romney in 2012 than any single Prot church (not combined), or that more prolife RCs voted conservative than evangelicals (refuted here ), or that WHITE Catholics voted Romney as a 9% majority. Or that liberal RC are to be counted, despite Rome treating them as members.
All of which spin avoids the manifest facts of what you posted.
Note that i am not disputing that every single of those hispanics that voted for Obama were pro-abortion, or pro-homo “marriage,” which is a desperate irrelevant argument, but that the reality is that the Latinos vote liberal, and only a slight majority are prolife, and only 30% oppose legal recognition of homosexual "marriage." Sorry for not making that clear.
Their lie is further exposed by the fact that, although they claim the right to refuse to “apply” Canon 915 in the case of pro-abortion politicians, none of them DARES to claim the same right when it comes to giving Communion to the divorced-and-illicitly-remarried.
Can. 1078 §1 The local Ordinary can dispense his own subjects wherever they are residing, and all who are actually present in his territory, from all impediments of ecclesiastical law, except for those whose dispensation is reserved to the Apostolic See.
Its your church, the one RCs are always promoting as the alternative to interpretative judgments on individual and lower levels, but that is a problem in Rome as well. The NT church was not found upon the premise of an assuredly infallible magisterium, but on Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. The more manifest that was, the greater the unity. Lacking the apostles and their signs and attestation, we have less unity, but the principle is operative.
I have yet to meet a modern Catholic or many other Christians of any division that takes this warning literally. IF Christ had already foretold all things, before the so called new testament got placed upon plant fibers or animal skins and even Peter taught, then few will escape that first tribulation of deception.
The majority of Christians completely ignore the key of David, but, again God did say He would send a famine of hearing the words of the LORD GOD.
Some in more recent days twisted Paul's instruction on where those that have already passed through this flesh age journey are, into meaning a security blanket of gonna be gone before the bad stuff happens. I cannot get the rapturites to correlate the idea that Christ is coming here, to God's green earth to set up His Kingdom. The only Christians of whatever divisions/sects to escape the tribulation of deception are those Christ and Paul describe were elected ‘before the foundation of this world’ (age), that are still walking in the flesh body when the sugar daddy gets dumped out of heaven playing Jesus. Nobody in a flesh body can claim they will still be here in the flesh when that specific event takes place.
Rome's doctrine has it own security blanket named Mary. It was not Mary weeping for her children, it was Rachel, Matthew 2:18. But according to Catholic doctrine Rachel is not important enough to even be acknowledged, let alone studied to understand why she would have so been particularly mentioned in the so called New Testament. Just plain strange.
There is but one Creator and His intent was that all His children be saved. Salvation is a constant subject throughout the old testament, but, modern Christians too are so wrapped up in which church mantle is closer to Jesus. Was not that question even asked of Jesus?
Now to be absolutely clear nothing I wrote above is about my judgment of any soul to any future. Rather an admonition that it is a total waste of Christian time to be arguing over who sits closest to Jesus.
They are more developed and detailed. For instance, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus develops the teachings on the Ten Commandments. Another example can be found here:
John 8 (New American Standard Bible)
The Adulterous Woman
8 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees *brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4 they *said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” 6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She said, “No one, [a]Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”]
Why do Catholics try to use that line when there is so much evidence against it? One needs simply to go to [Prayers to Saints] to see that Catholics routinely ask their saints to do things for them rather than just ask them to “pray for them”. Here’s an example.
[THE PRAYER SAINT ANNE, BLESS MY FAMILY]
“My family is the heart of my life.
It is my little Church.
Saint Anne, guard the members of my family
against all physical and spiritual danger.
That by any definition is praying to that saint. To claim that Catholics don’t pray to saints is laughable given the evidence to the contrary.
Of course Maradiaga is calling for more flexibility in that regard. The lie may soon be expanded upon.
Which affirms every book in it is infallible, and thus the list would be without error, but not under the premise of assured conciliar infallibility. And yet the canon could mean it could potentially include additions to it. Note both the OT writings as well as men of God as were recognized and established as being such without a perpetual infallible magisterium, contrary to RC polemics which make the latter necessary for the former.
And which were essentially est. due to their Divine qualities and attestation. It was closed because there were none that matched these qualities and became spiritual classics.
And while Trent provided the first indisputable canon after Luther died, it is argued among Catholics whether this est. those books as Divine but did not exclude any others, as the EO's generally hold to a bit larger canon. http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=9070869&postcount=14 Meaning no one possesses
The number was significant, but the RCC does not essentially change she tells us, and tells us she cannot be wrong when she says she is assuredly right, so what they tell us means that what we see as change really does not mean she really has changed.
Saints have no more power than you or I or the prophets or anyone else. “Yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” This is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and anyone who believes otherwise is mistaken. “Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you” applies to those in heaven in the same way it does to the rest of us, and thus it is perfectly reasonable to ask the faithful departed for intercessory prayer in the same way we ask our friends here on earth to pray for us.
It is an attempt, and i suspect it was written when he was somewhat a novice before he was sobered up by reproof. Although sometime they just go on a somewhat like Bagdad Bob did.
Then why do Catholics ask them for things, as the prayer CB posted clearly shows.
And that's certainly not the only one. I can provide lots more with a quick 5 minute google search.
Links don’t work.
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.