Posted on 03/25/2014 7:32:08 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
Something I was reminded of when I heard about World Vision deciding to hire those in "gay marriages" is how Catholic Charities has long promoted homosexuality. I know this because when I was living as a lesbian 15 to 20 years ago, I went to Catholic Charities several times for counsleing, and I found that the counseling was purely secular. When I went with a "partner," our lifestyle was embraced by the counselor. When I went to a couple other counselors myself later on, I was beginning to have doubts about this life, but one counselor even tried to encourage me to accept homosexuality. She said she had many homosexual friends, and these gay friends affectionately called their straight friends "breeders," but beyond that difference all relationships are the same.
It's troubled me for a long time that the Catholic Church raises money for Catholic Charities, and it goes for psychological counseling, which only makes one conform to the ways of the world.
“Some time ago another RC asserted “there is not and never has been a scintilla of anti-protestant bigotry on FR.” And when examples were given describing Protestants as vandals who should be eradicated from the face of the earth, absolutely alien to Christianity, as a bizarre and false religion, who completely reject Christ, with no solid foundation, etc., she still denied them.”
I am a he, not a she, and no examples were given. That is a fabrication. Some would call it a lie.
“When was the last time I saw you belittle and putdown the Catholic Church on a thread started by a Catholic? Every time one is posted.”
That is correct.
I have become convinced that Satan is behind this constant denigration of the Church. I think, and this has been proposed many times in the past, that it would be better simply to ignore them.
Even if all but two ignore them, that would greatly reduce the volume of “Two and two is five. No, it’s four. The Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon. No, she’s not. Two and two are five, so the Catholic Church is evil. Two and two are four. You Catholics are always abusing protestants. Show me. There, I just showed you. What, you showed nothing. Yes, I did.” Ad nauseum.
By their fruits you shall know them, and anything that produces this fruit is of Satan. If we Catholics simply stop responding, nothing but their attacks will remain.
Just the other day, a [Roman] Catholic was taking another to task for being a bigot (though that exact word may not have been used).
Would you like for me to look that one up, search for that exchange and provide a link? I could send it by freepmail...if you would prefer.
There could be further examples of those otherwise invisible-to-you 'scintillas' from that person.
What a cheap excuse. That can be on some occasions like blaming all one's own speeding tickets to "speed traps" and it's all the poh-leece's fault, never one's own careless driving habits, such regardless of just blasting along at 45mph in a school zone when the yellow lights are flashing.
By which I mean, there can be legitimate complaint. But those complaints themselves can be subjected to examination and/or rebuttal.
If the defense strategy doesn't work, to use again the above traffic infraction allegory --- like --- the evidence shows it is not a speed trap, the officer has a read-out from a radar gun, plus three civilian witnesses(!), one of those from your own church ecclesiastical community, all saying that so-and-so was driving like a bat out of [deleted], then sorry charlie -- pay the fine, or a judge may take it personal-like, and sign warrant as towards the offender being escorted to the hoose-gow for 'failure to appear'.
“Well mister, you were shown examples of anti-protestant bigotry”
Where are they? Nothing that I was shown came close to bigotry. This constant lying is one thing that convinces me the Father of Lies is behind this.
“if the same or similar had been expressed as to ‘Catholics’ as you have expressed as to those Christians not [Roman] Catholic — it would likely be seen as “bashing”, etc.”
Utter nonsense.
“Just the other day, a [Roman] Catholic was taking another to task for being a bigot (though that exact word may not have been used).”
Rebuking a bigot is not bigotry. Unless you can show how a Catholic displayed anti-Protestant bigotry, I don’t care to see it.
“Would you like for me to look that one up, search for that exchange and provide a link? I could send it by freepmail...if you would prefer.”
And you have the gall to complain about “snarkiness.”
“What a cheap excuse.”
Not half as cheap as making accusations that one cannot substantiate. All of the bad behavior I have seen has come from Protestants—not all Protestants behave badly, but all who do are Protestant.
Go ahead: show me some bad behavior by Catholics, if you can, and I will have to modify that statement to, “99% of the bad behavior I have seen has come from Protestants—not all Protestants behave badly, but all who do are Protestant.”
Finally, to reiterate, I have become convinced that Satan is behind this constant denigration of the Church. I think, and this has been proposed many times in the past, that it would be better simply to ignore them.
I intend to give that a try, starting right now.
Really? so you never looked at the PM i sent you and others, which can attest to it, and was told you on this post Saturday, October 12, 2013 8:17:27 PM, in which i said:
It has been silent since a RC considerately provided some candidates of anti-Protestant bigotry even here, and i offered to provide some others, which broadly describe Protestants as vandals, ignorant, biblically illiterate, typically intellectually dishonest, absolutely alien to Christianity, as a bizarre and false religion, who completely reject Christ, with no solid foundation, and unable to defend it. Which i just sent anyway by PM (check you FRmail].
But you can deny that because, as predicted nothing would qualify as "a scintilla of anti-protestant bigotry? which you denied was ever om FR in your omniscience. But then again, i guess you know for sure that Catholic Bibles don’t even show Jesus’s words in red either. .
When you are given the examples i sent and others that say things like Protestants just have the figments of their own minds rather faith in Christ, and are on a never ending guilt trip, and worse, that is not anti-Protestant bigotry, so give me examples you saw an let's see how fair you judgment is.
Meanwhile you are the one who judged the RM's rule that “Protestants are heretics” is not making it personal, but “You are a heretic” is making it personal” as being "rank hypocrisy."
And you can personally accuse metmom that "hatred clouds your mind" which does violate forum rules.
I just pinged you as a courtesy to my last post, not to carry a dispute to another thread so this will not go on, but your denial was public and so is this. If you want the examples again you can PM me.
Which is no more convincing then when the Mormon's, another elitist group, with equally defend-at-any-cost-to-credibility disciples. It is RCs you post by far the more articles here, including those that bait Prots (do you want names?), and then complain when challenged.
it would be better simply to ignore them. I intend to give that a try, starting right now.
That would be rather convenient.
“When you are given the examples i sent”
Blah, blah, blah.
Where are they? You claim their existence. Demonstrate it.
“And you can personally accuse metmom that “hatred clouds your mind” which does violate forum rules.”
It may be against forum rules, but it is not anti-Protestant bigotry. That is the subject at hand, not personal arguments between posters.
Demonstrate it? I did. Do you know how to click on links and see that what i just referenced is true and the date? you know how to check your FRemail? Or are you saying that i am lying about that? Yes or no.
sent 10/12/2013 5:13:00 PM PDT
And where are your examples of anti-Catholic bigotry?
And many others, with liberal (and losing) Prot.orgs abounding. And look what World Vision just did - then repented at the preaching of many Jonah's. Likewise the Salvation Army years ago.
But under philanthropy ministries, thank God for Franklin Graham - he has been no cracker under pressure, and the Muslims and sodomite armies are opposed to him.
And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves. (Luke 23:12)
May all repent and believe and be born again for sure.
I sometimes get a chuckle out of reading some FRoman Catholics' bombastic praise and celebration over the brilliance of "their" theologians and how Protestantism has nothing with which to compare them. Somehow, it never sinks in that we actually SHARE those early church fathers and God continues to bless His people with deep thinkers, just as intellectually gifted and used by God to edify the body no matter what label one may go by. For those who are known by Him and who know His voice and follow Him, He will always lead unto ALL truth. Its depth, richness, illumination and beauty was not only for past centuries - but continues to be built upon the works of those who loved God and who opened their hearts and minds to HIS revelation. And those who stay intuned to the Holy Spirit will always recognize His voice coming through.
More like a spit wad. Consider the source.
The second is a principle enunciated by the Roman Catholic Councils of Trent (1546-1562) and Vatican I (1870) embodied in the phrase 'the unanimous consent of the fathers.' This is a principle that purportedly looks to the past for validation of its present teachings particularly as they relate to the interpretation of Scripture. Trent initially promulgated this principle as a means of countering the Reformation teachings to make it appear that the Reformers' doctrines were novel and heretical while those of Rome were rooted in historical continuity. It is significant to note that Trent merely affirmed the existence of the principle without providing documentary proof for its validity. Vatican I merely reaffirmed the principle as decreed by Trent. Its historical roots hearken back to Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century who was the first to give it formal definition when he stated that apostolic and catholic doctrine could be identified by a three fold criteria: It was a teaching that had been believed everywhere, always and by all (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est). (2) In other words, the principle of unanimous agreement encompassing universality (believed everywhere), antiquity (believed always) and consent (believed by all). Vincent readily agreed with the principle of sola Scriptura, that is, that Scripture was sufficient as the source of truth. But he was concerned about how one determined what was truly apostolic and catholic doctrine. This was the official position of the Church immediately subsequent to Vincent throughout the Middle Ages and for centuries immediately following Trent. But this principle, while fully embraced by Trent and Vatican I, has all been but abandoned by Rome today in a practical and formal sense. This is due to the fact that so much of Rome's teachings, upon historical examination, fail the test of unanimous consent. Some Roman Catholic historians are refreshingly honest in this assessment. Patrologist Boniface Ramsey, for example, candidly admits that the current Roman Catholic teachings on Mary and the papacy were not taught in the early Church:
At first, this clear lack of patristic consensus led Rome to embrace a new theory in the late nineteenth century to explain its teachings—the theory initiated by John Henry Newman known as the development of doctrine. In light of the historical reality, Newman had come to the conclusion that the Vincentian principle of unanimous consent was unworkable, because, for all practical purposes, it was nonexistent. To quote Newman:
The obvious problem with Newman's analysis and conclusion is that it flies in the face of the decrees of Trent and Vatican I, both of which decreed that the unanimous consent of the fathers does exist. But to circumvent the lack of patristic witness for the distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas, Newman set forth his theory of development, which was embraced by the Roman Catholic Church. Ironically, this is a theory which, like unanimous consent, has its roots in the teaching of Vincent of Lerins, who also promulgated a concept of development. While rejecting Vincent's rule of universality, antiquity and consent, Rome, through Newman, once again turned to Vincent for validation of its new theory of tradition and history. But while Rome and Vincent both use the term development, they are miles apart in their understanding of the meaning of the principle because Rome's definition of development and Vincent's are diametrically opposed to one another. In his teaching, Vincent delineates the following parameters for true development of doctrine:
First of all, Vincent is saying that doctrinal development must be rooted in the principle of unanimous consent. That is, it must be related to doctrines that have been clearly taught throughout the ages of the Church. In other words, true development must demonstrate historical roots. Any teaching which could not demonstrate its authority from Scripture and the universal teaching of the Church was to be repudiated as novel and therefore not truly catholic. It was to be considered heretical. This is the whole point of Vincent's criticism of such heretics as Coelestius and Pelagius. He says, 'Who ever before his (Pelagius) monstrous disciple Coelestius ever denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam's sin?'(6) Their teaching, which was a denial of original sin, was novel. It could not demonstrate historical continuity and therefore it was heretical.
But, with Newman, Rome redefined the theory of development and promoted a new concept of tradition. One that was truly novel. Truly novel in the sense that it was completely foreign to the perspective of Vincent and the theologians of Trent and Vatican I who speak of the unanimous consent of the fathers. These two Councils claim that there is a clear continuity between their teaching and the history of the ancient Church which preceded them (whether this is actually true is another thing altogether). A continuity which can they claimed could be documented by the explicit teaching of the Church fathers in their interpretation of Scripture and in their practice. Vatican I, for example, teaches that the papacy was full blown from the very beginning and was, therefore, not subject to development over time.
In this new theory Rome moved beyond the historical principle of development as articulated by Vincent and, for all practical purposes, eliminated any need for historical validation. She now claimed that it was not necessary that a particular doctrine be taught explicitly by the early Church. In fact, Roman Catholic historians readily admit that doctrines such as the assumption of Mary and papal infallibility were completely unknown in the teaching of the early Church. If Rome now teaches the doctrine we are told that the early Church actually believed and taught it implicitly and only later, after many centuries, did it become explicit.
From this principle it was only a small step in the evolution of Rome's teaching on Tradition to her present position. Rome today has replaced the concept of tradition as development to what is known as 'living tradition.' This is a concept that promotes the Church as an infallible authority, which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who protects her from error. Therefore, whatever Rome's magisterium teaches at any point in time must be true even if it lacks historical or biblical support. The following statement by Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating regarding the teaching of the Assumption of Mary is an illustration of this very point. He says it does not matter that there is no teaching on the Assumption in Scripture, the mere fact that the Roman Church teaches it is proof that it is true. Thus, teachings do not need to be documented from Scripture:
This assertion is a complete repudiation of the patristic principle of proving every doctrine by the criterion of Scripture. Tradition means handing down from the past. Rome has changed the meaning of tradition from demonstrating by patristic consent that a doctrine is truly part of tradition, to the concept of living tradition—whatever I say today is truth, irrespective of the witness of history. This goes back to the claims of Gnosticism to having received the tradition by living voice, viva voce. Only now Rome has reinterpreted viva voce, the living voice as receiving from the past by way of oral tradition, to be a creative and therefore entirely novel aspect of tradition. It creates tradition in its present teaching without appeal to the past. To paraphrase the Gnostic line, it is viva voce-whatever we say.
Orange Tabby cats are the best...next to Yellow Labs:)
What else would you expect on a Friday, from a Catholic, during Lent?
“Demonstrate it? I did.”
No, you didn’t.
“Do you know how to click on links and see that what i just referenced is true and the date?”
What I do or don’t know is irrelevant. I’m not going to bestir one finger chasing after lies.
You never demonstrated Catholic bigotry, and you can’t.
“Or are you saying that i am lying about that? Yes or no.”
You don’t get to interrogate me. If you have anything to show, produce 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.