| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/14/2014 6:31:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Lunar eclipse tonight. |
Posted on 04/05/2014 5:57:23 AM PDT by Gamecock
Only the completely unschooled would claim the Catholic Church existed in the period defined in that Scripture.
AMDG
a symbol from God of freeing the faithful from the limitation of God the Father in the Holy of Holies to the accessibility of Christ to everyone in the Eucharist...
For the Greater Glory of God
hey Cynic
It is not just ‘my understanding’ - it is the belief of every faithful Catholic who meets Christ when receiving the Eucharist, the Flesh of the Son of Man.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56)...
For the Greater Glory of God
I agree. And no where did I say that. I said the Catholic Church has become the center of paganism which is called Babylon.
Catholics really don’t get it do they. The veil was in place to restrict access to God the Father and only the High Priest could enter and that only once per year. When the veil was torn it removed that barrier giving all believers access to God the Father through Jesus Christ. All believers are now priests with Jesus the High Priest. You see, the lie of the Catholic Church says that their so called saints and Mary have greater access to God the Father than we as individual believers do. It’s a lie from Satan to keep people from approaching the very throne of God the Father.
“the Catholic Church has become the center of paganism which is called Babylon”
again unschooled because the Babylon of the Old Testament what Jerusalem which was not the center of paganism it was the center of Judaism.
AMDG
you obviously can’t read I didn’t say Catholics had access to the Father the Eucharist is to provide us direct access to his Son Jesus Christ in and through the Eucharist just as he promised us:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56)
We eat the Body of Christ in the Eucharist because Christ himself told us to....
For the Greater Glory of God
good night all time to play with the kids
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
That “flesh” you think you are eating prophets you nothing. Catholics don’t understand the Spirit and “believe not”.
Oh I understood perfectly. I know full well you didn’t say Catholics had access to the Father. It’s scripture that says we have access to the Father. The Catholic Church lies and says Catholics don’t.
What else? But such a rational you could call them Catholic, since we are told from RCs that they came forth from Catholicism, but rejected it in part, holding to core teachings such as expressed in the Apostles Creed and the plenary Divine inspiration of Scripture, etc. but (invoking CFs) rejecting certain RC distinctives, such as sola ecclesia (the church being the supreme and assuredly infallible authority.
Likewise Unitarians, Mormons and other pseudoChristian heretical churches even more radically departed from Protestantism, rejecting the aforementioned common truths, plus the plenary Divine inspiration of Scripture (Unitarians), while most effectively operate under the RC model of sola ecclesia for determining Truth.
Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares (as in what history, tradition and Scripture teach).
Likewise Mormonism etc, but its conclusions of what history, tradition and Scripture teach are different.
But the RC model was not the basis upon which the NT church began. Why do we absolutely need an assuredly infallible magisterium? And what is the basis for your assurance that Rome is the one true and infallible (if conditionally) church?
Are the Pentecostal, Holiness, Assemblies of God Protestant ? Are the Calvary Chapel churches Protestant ?
Are Sedevacantists Catholic? Are the EOs despite substantial dissident , even rejecting among other things, universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, Roman purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception, because they are untraditional.
If you start your own tax exempt church in a home, office, or public school building, is it Protestant ?
You have not heard? Being 501(3)(c) means you cannot support candidates as a church, etc, unless you are liberal perhaps.
Is Protestant only Anglican, Episcopalian, Lutheran, and Presbyterian ? Can we throw in Methodist ?
RCs here reject liberal RCs are being Catholic, so why must we include Anglicans who are closer to Rome than to evangelicals?
My point in all this is that while you can use generalizations, to be consistent with Scripture, which calls believers who came from Judaism "Christians," then we should not act as atheists do in calling Hitler a Christian. Or a Catholic.
We should respect the core defining distinctives that result in both real unity and core contention, as did Christianity and Judaism, and Protestantism versus Catholic. And in this case ask if the groups mentioned are more critically opposed to core historical Protestant distinctives or more in basic unity with them. Simply not being Catholic while denying the most basic core truths and moral views should not qualify as Protestant.
Pentecostal, Holiness, Assemblies of God, Calvary Chapels, SBC and like evangelical churches all officially hold to historical core truths which cults deny, and historical preached the evangelical gospel of personal repentance and faith that effects manifest regeneration, and uphold conservative moral truths that liberal Prots and the majority of Catholics overall dissent from.
Yet they usually differ on predestination, which issue sees unresolved conflict in Rome (among things), and church government, etc. But because of the concord on key truths, and the common conversion, then among the regenerate there is a spiritual unity that largely transcends external tribalism.
You mean having historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture means such is the assuredly infallible church, dissent from which is rebellion against God. Which premise means Rome cannot solve the problem of legitimacy, but others can.
The churches of Asia in Revelation are the answer to that question and without any doubt, every one of them was a legitimate New Testament apostolic church. Do you believe in one holy catholic apostolic church according to the Scriptures
Indeed, and the churches of Asia in Revelation are evidence against Rome. Not one time are any of these or any other churches written to told to submit to Peter as their supreme infallible head, nor example doing so, not even as a solution to their problems, nor commended for so doing, even among the extensive critiques or commendations. Not once.
Nor did he even give the conclusive decree as to what should be done and how to do it in Acts 15, nor was he listed first or along among those who seemed to be pillars in Gal. 2. Peter was the initial street-level leader of the 11, and can be seen exercising a general pastoral role, yet was not looked to by the churches as the the supreme infallible head, nor is there any evidence for a successor of any apostle after Jude, though James was martyred. (Acts 12:1,2)
And even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against the idea of such in the early church.
But invoking the churches of Asia does not answer the question i asked. Do you mean having historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture means such is the assuredly infallible church, dissent from which is rebellion against God? That seems to basically be the RC argument ("we gave you the Bible...") .
Was Jesus' prayer to the Father rejected ? God forbid.
Indeed not, and is more realized among evangelicals than Catholics, as His prayer did not refer to an organizational unity or comprehensive doctrinal unity which has ever been a goal not realized, but that of an essential spiritual unit, "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee...I in them, and thou in me..." (Jn. 17:21,23) Which is by manifest regeneration of the Spirit, which is rare among Catholics until they become truly born against, thru personal repentance our of a broken and contrite heart. Not infant baptism and ritualism.
Only insofar as that is realized, esp. among leadership,. may the world may believe that "thou hast sent me," and "they may be made perfect in one."
As the basis for the NT church was not that of Rome, its degree of unity was realized under manifest apostles of God,
"in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God...By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,..." (2 Corinthians 6:6-7)
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)
And which is stark contrast overall today, which Rome is not even in the running (not that i think i am an apostle or really something), esp. as the greater the claims then the greater the attestation is required, and Rome claims assured infallibility which even the apostles did not.
And Rome's unity is limited and largely on paper and organizationally, while apart from that she abounds in disunity. Cults actually have the greatest unity using Rome's model. And what Rome really holds to is manifest by what she does and effects. And evangelicals have been and yet are far more unified in basic Biblical views than the overall fruit of Rome.
Then unless you hold that the Fundamentalists are correct in their doctrine of the Church, and that they are the only true New Testament churches
No, i do not.
you have no unbroken chain of apostolic New Testament churches.
Which is premise is why you need to actually answer what i asked you above. Do so forthrightly and we can talk.
Thank you so much for your insights, dear brother in Christ!
you said”It’s scripture that says we have access to the Father. The Catholic Church lies and says Catholics don’t.”
what all Christianity, except you, knows that we can only go to the Father through the Son who has made himself present for us in the Eucharist:
“Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6
IT is unscriptural for a Christian to believe that they can
‘have access to the Father’ just because they are Christian as you stated.
AMDG
I have put that question to Jim directly and await his reply to my email.
AMDG
Once again the ignorance of scripture by Catholics is stunning.
Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
That is going directly to the Father and is what Jesus told us to do.
True. This hysterical opposition to the inspired (at least in this verse) translation by St. Jerome is childish and beside the point.
inspired just like Scripture is.
The Protestants confuse the inspired quality with the canonicity. Just bear that in mind: all these rhetorical "just like" are making reference to two independent attributes of a religious text. The Church teaching is by and large inspired, and so is the Holy Scripture; but the Holy Scripture stands out as the true and direct witness of Christ and the Catholic Faith: it is both inspired and canonical.
your making infallible teaching as being inspired of God
I just got done telling you that infallibility and inspiration are also two different things. If I say that 2+2=4, it would be an infallible statement of mine, because it contains no error; but I did not ask the Holy Ghost to teach me arithmetic: it is not an inspired statement. On the other hand, "Oh my Jesus, lead all souls to heaven" is not an infallible statement for the trivial reason that it is a petition and not a statement of fact. But it surely is inspired, for it originates from the Fatima apparition of Out Lady.
Where are you getting this idea that all the teaching that is expressed in the Catechism of the Church is infallible...?
Any definitive teaching of the Church on the content of our faith is infallible.
...and thus divinely inspired
That does not follow, although it may be. There is no "thus".
and such things as Leo XIII's Prayer to St. Michael [are divinely inspired]
Well, I picked a prayer that originated from a vision that St. Pope Leo XIII had, and so as any vision of a holy person it is precisely that, inspired. Also, my examples are of works that are unusual, -- not like 2+2; that, too leads me to think that they are inspired as written by the Holy Ghost. But there is no definitive list, if that is what you are asking about. Compare "the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you" (John 14:26) -- there is no list there either. As a general rule, whenever the Church speaks in one voice, that is the Holy Ghost speaking.
no other weight than that which they already possess (Ratzinger)
Correct: the Catechism merely summarizes, organizes and lists the doctrines that had been infallible already. It is not a new teaching. As an infallible document it could not be otherwise.
Your description also seems to blur the distinctions made btwn different magisterial levels
But I said nothing about that, so I hardly "blurred" anything. Of course there are levels and degrees of applicability, and one needs to pay attention to those lest he overclaims inspiration or infallibility of any doctrine.
Of what use is infallibility if it is uncertain about what is?
When you are not certain, you can ask, but generally there is a consensus on what is infallible speech and what is not. Further, whether a statement is infallibly defined or not, if the Magisterium proposed something for our salvation, we should obey and seek to understand. Infallibility is primarily a tool in the Pope's possession in case of a severe dissent among the bishops. So far it has not been needed.
No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6
That can multiplied (may be more than shown):
'âmên Total OT KJV Occurrences: 30
27 as amen, Num_5:22 (2), Deu_27:15-26 (12), 1Ch_16:36 (2), Neh_5:13, Neh_8:6 (2), Psa_41:13 (2), Psa_72:19 (2), Psa_89:52 (2), Psa_106:48, Jer_28:6
ἀμήν amēn Total KJV Occurrences: 152
51 as amen, Mat_6:13, Mar_16:20 (2), Luk_24:53, Rom_1:25 (2), Rom_9:5, Rom_11:36, Rom_15:33, Rom_16:20, Rom_16:24, Rom_16:27, 1Co_14:16, 1Co_16:24, 2Co_1:20, 2Co_13:14, Gal_1:5, Gal_6:18, Eph_3:21, Eph_6:24, Phi_4:20, Phi_4:23, Col_4:18, 1Th_5:28, 2Th_3:18, 1Ti_1:17, 1Ti_6:16, 1Ti_6:21, 2Ti_4:18, 2Ti_4:22, Tit_3:15, Phm_1:25, Heb_13:21, Heb_13:25, 1Pe_5:11 (2), 1Pe_5:14, 2Pe_3:18, 1Jo_5:21, 2Jo_1:13, Jud_1:25, Rev_1:6-7 (2), Rev_1:18, Rev_5:14 (2), Rev_7:12 (2), Rev_19:4, Rev_22:20-21 (2)
The Scripture reference for "Amen!" caught my eye the first time LurkingSince'98 raised it because a Protestant Service can become quite full of Amens!
To that end, in the following song - one of my most beloved - there are at least 35 "amens" - and the Gospel story to boot, which would entail Scripture references on end. I'm not asking you to do the parsing and tallying, but I'm certain that the number of Scripture references in just this one song would be huge.
Any hoot, dear brothers and sisters in Christ, and especially you Jim Robinson - here's Amen!
Been busy but will try to finish it.
How did i get in on this argument, and what are you thanking me for?
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.