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 ...
Nicea did no such thing. Maybe in Dan Brown books.
It’s flabbergasting that Catholics don’t see what the RCC has done. Do a search on Catholic paganism if you haven’t already. It will stun you. From the rituals to the symbols to the vestments. As an example, that pointy hat that looks like an open mouthed fish the priests where is exactly like the hat the priests to the fish god Dagon whore.
I was just pointing out a bizarre theology which asserts Eve and the serpent populated a separate race of people. You have to admit that is odd given not even one verse suggests this. I think they call the race the Kenites or something similar.
Is it a hard question to answer because you probably know that if you say yes, you will have to concede that genuine Christian faith is found outside of Roman Catholicism, and if you say no, you will be labeled a bigot and prejudiced? The middle of the fence can get uncomfortable, can't it?
Your answer makes assertions that are simply not true. First of all, not "ALL" the church fathers were Roman Catholics. You can use the word "catholic" to describe those who held to the universal Christian faith as taught by the Apostles of Jesus Christ, but that would not be the same faith that is taught in Roman Catholicism today. It's just not - no matter how much Catholics want to believe it. Many Church fathers were Greek, some were African, not all were Roman. If you read the writings of these early leaders in Christianity, you would see that they often disagreed over details of the faith - though they were unified in the main tenets as Scripture taught them.
The Roman Catholic Church selectively and over time took various teachings of some, rejected other teachings of the same and gradually developed what is accepted as "Catholic" doctrine today. Some fathers' views were later rejected as heresy when in their lifetime they were acceptable. Many dogmas Catholics believe today were either not heard of by these leaders, held at one time but then rejected or changed by subsequent leaders. There was plenty of "new material" that came up over the centuries.
A good example of that is the doctrine of transubstantiation. William Webster, an evangelical who pays a great deal of attention to Church history, points out (in The Church of Rome at the Bar of History) that early church history presents not just the Catholic view, but most of the views we find today: "There is the literal view of transubstantiation which could be that expressed by Chrysostom; the Lutheran view of consubstantiation, which could be taught by Irenaeus or Justin Martyr; the spiritual view of Calvin, which is closely aligned with Augustine; and the strictly symbolic view of Zwingli, which is similar to that expressed by Eusebius" (p. 122). To the "symbolic view" list, Webster adds Theodoret, Serapion, Jerome, Athanasius, Ambrosiaster, Macarius of Egypt, and Eustathius of Antioch. While they are not exactly household names for many of us, we do know how highly Augustine is esteemed among Catholics. Yet he was not a fan of literal transubstantiation: "'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,'says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure , enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24) (from http://www.thebereancall.org/content/home-rome)
Another site, if you are interested, that goes into detail on various early church fathers and their writings about the Real Presence can be seen at http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/.
You may think Newman is the greatest theologian of the 19th century, but that is an opinion. It doesn't mean that everything he said was true. He did, as a matter of fact, come up with the explanation of doctrinal development to try to rationalize the truth that Rome did indeed change doctrine, create new doctrines not held by the early church fathers and which repudiated the previous assertion that the Catholic Church only taught what had been believed everywhere, always and by all (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est). You can read more about that here.
Especially when said "police" make their OWN spelling mistakes in a post criticizing someone else for spelling mistakes. Like:
And they in now way negate the truth.
This was the some total of your argument:
Oops. Gets you every time! ;o)
Well, you could just post the same inane cartoons over and over and over again along with out-of-context Scripture quotes, canned prayers and partial quotations like some here so often do in lieu of any real thoughts. But I, for one, appreciate the efforts you go to to defend the gospel and the faith once delivered unto the saints. Thank you.
I see the resident spammer hard at work tonight.
This seems to be referring to my post , thus i challenge you to demonstrate how i was "clueless" about what Scripture says? By God's grace may He grant you repentance unto the truth.
Try to use words this time.
And then we had dueling cartoons!
I know you are.
I think you just answered the question of why Newman was considered so great a theologian by the Catholics.
It allows them to maintain the facade of constancy of belief.
Well, it has been a bit duller since Quix was invited to leave. That does kind of pick up the slack.
LOL Bless her heart.
LOL Nice enough at times but I’d be lying if I said I missed him.
dumb - stupid
“You didn’t mention the 23 versions that include it.”
There was no reason to. You were focused on it not being there, correct? Did you even know that there were many translations - PROTESTANT TRANSLATIONS - which use another word other than “church”? If so, you didn’t mention that. So?
“In any case, I asked why the Catholics removed it?”
And I showed you that many PROTESTANT translations use other words than “church”. And?
“The 1899 Douay Rheims included it.”
And I listed many PROTESTANT translations that used other words. So?
“I have known for a long time that the modern evangelical (RSV, ESV, HCSB) translations, along with the NWT (Jehovah Witness translation,) fit together quite nicely with the catholic versions.”
Again, and?
“I also realize that a lot of so-called “scholars” have been trying to push the Alexandrian MSS on us for a long time.”
So is that your belief as to why there are differences? So?
“I am just as tough on them as I am on Catholics.”
I doubt you are. And they probably find your views just as irrelevant.
“So, when did the Catholic Bible eliminate it?”
It was not “eliminated” in “the Catholic Bible”. I just checked. It’s there. You really didn’t do any research on this, did you? It’s just not translated as you want it in the NAB. It might be translated that way in the new revision due to come out in about 7 years. Why don’t you write the revisers a letter since this apparently is a huge issue for you?
“Vlad it is all there in the link. You have to read it. It is the same discourse. Look at all the bolded areas and you will see all are LW304.”
Then go ahead and post it as such. That should be easily done, no?
“Oops. Gets you every time!”
Didn’t get me. If I emphasize a word I’m using to describe someone’s post TWICE in the same sentence it will be spelled correctly. There is a difference.
Um ... no. You said 3 reasons the RCC is wrong is pelosi, biden, and one other ... can’t remember the name ... as if blaming the Church for the actions of the 3. My response to was in no way a defense of them but of the Church. You can not fault the Church for the actions of some of their members. People are sinners ... no matter what religion they are ... unless their religion teaches that sinful behavior. The RCC has not taught them to behave the way they do. They blatantly ignore Church teachings and are in error. Period. That is not a defense of them ... no matter how you try to twist it.
“Try to use words this time.”
Why? You seem to think your opinions, opinions clearly at odds with what the One True Church teaches, are of consequence. You are as meaningless as a squalling child. Your flawed and obscure opinions, your out of context cut-n-paste and your own misspelled and illiterate additions impress me not.
You are entitled to pity and prayer, when you peel the film from your eyes and put yourself away and embrace the totality of the Scripture and of the Apostles Our Lord gave us, then you may get respect. (But then you will have no need of human respect, as you will be consumed by Him.)
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.