Posted on 04/16/2014 5:37:55 AM PDT by Salvation
Featured Term (selected at random:
ROSMINIANISM
A system of philosophy formulated by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati (1797-1855), founder of the Institute of Charity. Encouraged by Popes Pius VII, Gregory XVI, and Pius IX, he undertook a renewal of Italian philosophy, ostensibly following St. Thomas Aquinas. But the influence of Descartes, Kant, and Hegel shifted his thinking. He came to hold that the human mind is born with the idea of "being." In time it analyzes this basic idea to discover in it many other ideas, which are identical with those in the mind of God. Rosmini also taught that reason can explain the Trinity and that original sin is only a physical infection of the body. After his death forty of his propositions were condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1887 and 1888.
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
Which is simply an assertion of denial tha ignores or fails to see the evidence supplied against your unScriptural cannibalistic literalism, as well as the contradiction with your own church as a result.
You will do fine converting to Catholicism and holding Vatican II fallible.
And join the likes of your sect it seems.
However, there is no inconsistency: while a valid baptism does save anyone who committed no further sin and dies; and while Protestants may be saved by their works in imitation of and love for Christ; that is while on the road to the saving Eucharist,
This remains inconsistent. If one has the Holy Spirit then he has life within him, and which souls in Scripture obtained by believing the gospel, not when they first partook of the Lord's table. To be consistent with the literalism insisted upon in Jn. 6:53,54, one must be baptized and then believe and partake of the RP. But V2 affirms properly baptized Prots have.
In addition, you are not only reading into Scripture (again) but reading into Lumen Gentium and post V2 teaching, as they do not teach Prots being saved only if they committed no further sin after baptism and died, nor of having to partake of the Eucharist. Instead it teaches men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in ecclesial communities are in communion with the Catholic Church, even though this communion is imperfect, and have a right to be called Christian, and so she correctly embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. ( Unitatis Redintegratio)
And that that Christ's Spirit uses their Churches and ecclesial communities with their many elements of sanctification and of truth as means of salvation, (CCC 819) not as damned souls unless they believe in the Eucharist. It cannot call Prots as being a Christians and brothers if they need the Eucharist to obtain spiritual and eternal life, and thus be Christians and brothers.
Of course, RCs have much liberty to interpret both Scripture and their infallible interpreter.
when an intelligent and educated man spends day after day writing anti-Catholic essays that deny Christ's words, -- no there is no salvation in that case, not till such time these positions are turned away from in horror.
Considering how you wrest Scripture and resort to other tactics in order to defend Rome as one bound to, and how often i have exposed Rome's errors, your opinion here is actually an argument against conversion to Rome, which breeds both liberalism and cultic devotion.
Further, the argument is not whether the connection between the eating of the Eucharist and salvation is allowing exceptions,
Oh yes it does, as Jn. 6:53, 54 was and is always presented as an absolute, and if fact you are the first one who has actually responded to my response pointing out, and which requires an interpretive spin on V2, and now that of basically saying, "Well, we really did not mean John 6:53 they way it sounds, as if it literally means every lost soul," which you would say is like saying the Lord really did not know what He was saying, if we said it.
But the fact is that this "Verily verily" saying is an absolute statement, as are the other 25 Verily verily statements such as "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." (Jn. 6:47)
RCs when pressed, simply do not think "Except" literally means every lost soul must.
other places where elements are called the blood of men
That is no problem; certainly people have employed all kinds of metaphors,
But which is blithely rejected in order to justify consuming human flesh to gain spiritual life.
In the Last Supper blessing, however, taken together with 1 Cor. 11 and John 6, there is no metaphorical speech observable.
Which is like the case of the thief not seeing the police station. As has been showed in the context of Scripture. John uses metaphors abundantly, and faith in Christ words of His Messiahship as giving "living water and presently "passing from death unto life," while nowhere is spiritual life obtained by physical eating anything physical, and eating human flesh and any blood is forbidden, and the apostles remained kosher. Meanwhile,water is refereed to as human blood, humans are figuratively referred to as food, as is the word of God, Jesus lived by the Father by obeying His word, and which was His "meat." But RCs have eyes but they see not.
Likewise, the fact that there is plenty of allegorical speech in the Bible does not mean that everything you don't like in it is allegorical.
Likewise, the fact that there is plenty of literal speech in the Bible does not mean that everything you like in it is literal.
Endocannibalism is most often an expression of veneration of the dead, or the pursuit of consuming some esoteric aspect of the person, like the deceased’s wisdom.
Neither bizarre and dangerous for health practices among some people tell us anything about the content of the Bible.
What it shows is that what is not seen in Scripture but forbidden, that of physically consuming human flesh and blood, and gaining spiritual life thereby, is what is seen in paganism. As is praying to departed souls, and the Queen of Heaven, etc.
All of which is justified under the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, thus arguing Scripture with RC defenders reveals how much they are programed against objective examination and repentance unto acknowledging of the Truth.
Two necessary clarifications:
First, in my last post to you, I spoke as if all your posts to me contained personal attacks. However, after I had cooled down from your latest attack, I went back and found a single early post to me that had no trace of personal attack (though I still maintain the rest do). This was an honest error, made in haste and upset, but an error nonetheless. It was honest because I sincerely believed it at the time, but it was still incorrect, and so I apologize for the error.
Second, I begin to see I could be making more accurate use of the term “ad hominem.” In internet forums it is commonplace to use the term as a simple synonym for “personal attack,” which is not correct, and I have unfortunately fallen into the habit of doing precisely that. Perhaps this offering from Schopenhauer’s “The Art of Controversy” could be used as an alternative:
“A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it. But in becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack to his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. It is an appeal from the virtues of the intellect to the virtues of the body, or to mere animalism. This is a very popular trick, because every one is able to carry it into effect; and so it is of frequent application.”
Available at: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/controversy/complete.html
Caveat: I do not endorse Schopenhauer’s philosophy, as he tended toward Buddhism. But I do think this particular quote expresses the current situation quite accurately, and if I can mend my habits, I will henceforth try to refer to unanchored personal attacks in this form: Argumentum Ad Personam.
Jim Croce was quite the gifted songwriter. A pity he had to leave us early. Thanks for the link. :)
You're asking from my time though. Please don't.
I'll stick with the inerrant Bible and not your dirty fantasies about it, thank you.
To be consistent with the literalism insisted upon in Jn. 6:53,54, one must be baptized and then believe and partake of the RP. But V2 affirms properly baptized Prots have.
But you must be. The point is that Christ explains that He is in the Eucharist and we must eat of Him as "food indeed" to have life eternal. What stages one goes through before he gets to eat Him are another matter; yes, there are people who never get to go the whole way, invincibly. Because of the damage to Christianity wrought by Luther, great many are in that intermediate stage, and may yet be saved.
this "Verily verily" saying is an absolute statement
Right. So take it as such; it is written for you to read.
John uses metaphors abundantly
But not in this passage. Verily.
That is all I see of substance in your post, even though it is much longer than the response. I repeat: read the Holy Scripture honestly, especially now that you had left the Holy Church still intending to somehow get saved.
I don’t see anything meaningful here. Just more cultic examples of resorting to bare assertions needed to support a church-god.
I repeat: doctrinally you cannot read the Holy Scripture honestly, objectively in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, and instead we have trust in an overall dead church still intending to somehow get saved thru it.
Same here i hope, after which i think little more if anything may be warranted.
You invited me on this unrelated to anything thread because you wanted to discuss the statements of mine that expressed the said basis. Remember? So no, I don't think I was evading any questions.
It developed into other aspects, while not seeing or side stepping the main issue, and then goading me for not playing into (using much time) what was at that point not the real issue, that of your real basis for assurance of Truth, and which drives and determines your assertions as to what Scripture means, yet i have engaged in Scripture meanings (again) extensively.
The pillar and ground of all truth is the Catholic Church (1 Timothy 3:15)
Indeed,. That's all it says. Using it to support Rome as being the supreme authority on Truth is reading into the text based on a pior presumption. Again.
If you are puzzled why I listen to the Church but argue from the scripture, -- I believe I answered that as well: The Holy Church produced the inerrant scripture precisely because she wished to provide a set of absolutes from which to argue and understand the doctrine.
Wrong. Most of Scripture was already est. as such before their was a church, and it based it Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, with Scripture being the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as already substantiated.
It was not based upon the premise of assured infallibility of the historical recipients of the divine promises of God's presence and preservation and stewardship of Scripture.
More writings were written and established as Scripture, not as a project of a formal magisterium nor established due to being infallibly defined by it, but individuals wrote them as recording Divine acts and words and providing Divinely inspired exhortation and teaching the saints on the “whole counsel of God,” and revealing the future. These became established as Scripture like as OT writings and men of God did, essentially due to their Divine qualities and attestation, in conformity and complementation to that which was written prior.
The church of Rome is critically different, from its basis for determining Truth, as the weight of Scriptural substantiation is not the basis for the veracity of her teachings, but it is the premise of her assured veracity as the supreme authority over Scripture, and which she reduces to being one of two servants to serve her interests.
So, the texts of John 6, the three synoptic accounts of the Last Supper and 1 Cor. 11
I have already refuted this attempt to employ Scripture to support your tradition, but the issue remains that Scripture cannot be the real basis for your assurance of doctrine, as that sanctions the evangelical use of human reasoning in objectively examining evidence to determine the veracity of Truth claims, versus relying on a supposedly infallible magisterium. Which is why souls followed an itinerant Preacher who reproved the magisterium by Scripture, and which magisterium rejected Him as having no valid authority. (Mk. 11:27-33)
Instead, your interpretation of Scripture is driven by the premise that the Latin church (Rome) is infallible, and thus Scripture (etc.) only authoritatively means what she says it does or what supports her. And thus a RC is not to “consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it,” “All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else” (John H. Stapleton, Henry G. Graham), and so much more as previously supplied.
Thus you go on to say, or confess,
I am right because I learn from the Church who is both infallible and right,.
Therefore you admit your claim to veracity is not really because objective examination of Scripture concludes this, and is the basis for veracity, but instead you assert Scripture supports the Church as both infallible and right because she defines herself as both infallible and right. Based upon this you may try to argue that Scripture provides warrant for deciding (using unreliable fallible human reasoning), to submit to Rome as the infallible magisterium, and who provides your assurance, but the reason you hold Scripture itself as having any weight is because Rome has decreed it does, and determined it supports her. Yet although this is driven by an a priori position, this is why i addressed the reasoning behind it.
For as shown, having promises of Divine presence and preservation, and being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation neither required nor equated to perpetual assured infallibility of office, which is only presumed by Rome, who is a law unto herself. And in fact often God provided and preserved Truth by raising up men from without the formal magisterium to reprove it, and thus the church began in dissent from those who were the recipients and stewards of the above. And thus even arguing from Scripture as a merely reliable historical document means one can see the assuredly infallible magisterium is not needed or promised.
Meanwhile, the principal of Scriptural substantiation requires continued manifestation of the gospel of regeneration, not by self-proclamation propaganda as being the church of the living God, and supposing historical descent supports perpetual assured infallibility, while Rome is more form than resurrection power, being overall like a dead (liberal) lion. “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.' (1 Corinthians 4:20)
• There is absolutely nothing in Jn. 14 about Peter or perpetuated leadership being promised assured infallibility
Read the holy Scripture every once in a while and you will discover amazing things.
Your recourse to this type of “spitball” simply testifies to your lack of actual support as you wrest meanings out of Scripture that simply are not there.
(John 14:17, several similar in the chapter) So the spirit is (1) of truth; (2) is known and received in the Church rather than in the world; (3) abides in the Church. That is not infallibility?
No it is not, as i showed you, and simply repeating it will not provide it. The whole organized church does not have the Spirit abiding in it, as not all are born again, including some of your popes (if any of “succession”), unless we make a mockery of Biblical regeneration. You are continually forcing Scripture to conform with Rome to say what it does not, or more than it provides.
You say no more i see that warrants more refutation till we come to,
(Matthew 16:19) Observe: second person singular, "thou" -- that is to Peter personally. You have to read the scripture and see its authority even in matters you "dissent" about.
It actually never says “thou” in the Greek, but in the beginning it says “thee” and so “thou” is later supplied, yet the power of binding and loosing is given to all the apostles in Mt. 18, and not as coming from Peter thus the unique exaltation in power is simply not there. As someone said, “ You have to read the scripture and see its authority even in matters you "dissent" about.”
The popes are there to protect the Gospel from charlatans and nothing says that popes should act like royalty;
That has not been the Roman translations as shown, and there is nothing to prevent it, but the exalted position (which allows devils to be popes) and autocratic power of the pope itself is after the world, and not after NT Scripture.
ut not for a doctrinal error; it was Peter who initiated baptizing the Gentiles
After their regeneration by faith, not for it.
"The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal" ...
Good quote. So you understand now that this is spiritual authority above all else, and political authority and imperial attitude, when it accompanies the Pope at all, -- all men are different, and all are sinners, -- is secondary to the spiritual authority?
Regardless, Scripture does not teach an autocratic exalted papacy Sovereign Caprice with all rights reigning above all with incalculable power, and can make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith, with the tribunal of God and of the pope being one and the same. All such “Whatsoever ye shall” bind or ask promises are true, but are never restricted to one person nor unconditional.
And authority to rule over those without is not given to the church, which is never seen exercising it, “for Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) “For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?” (1 Corinthians 5:12)
it means for Rome that the office of Peter uniquely posses assured infallibility
Not true, the Church is infallible as a whole as well.
You misunderstand. Peter uniquely possesses assured infallibility as a person, autocratically, without the consent of anyone, and thus is held as not being able to be disposed (without his consent.)
• Mt. 18:15-20 simply is not referring to binding and loosing in doctrinal legislative action
Really? Where is that in the Bible?
In the text, which simply refers dealing with personal offenses as i showed you, though as said, in principal it has a wider application. Don't be insolent.
loosing can refer to being “loosed from thine infirmity”
Or loosing a dog, or a belt. Words are funny that way: they can apply to many different things.
So you understand now that this refers to spiritual authority, or does that need to be explained? Don't be insolent.
This is where you have been heading as you must force all to support Rome, which is a law unto herself, so there is little sense to continue this exchange.
What celebration of Resurrection Sunday would be complete without the neverending C vs P food fight?
Of course not.
Well!! (humph!!!)
I detect bible-thumping genes in your DNA!!
Prove they are not there!
MAry is dead; awaiting the Last Trump.
She is NOT in Heaven being Christ's executive secretary.
Like I've told you previously, in reply to now this again your speaking of your own time ---
My time is valuable also.
Each time you post to me in reply, or even on the 'open' religion forum in general --you do seriously waste my time.
The trouble is that Romanism, though perhaps not exactly "fouled up beyond all repair" is in fact Tangled Up Beyond All Repair, or TUBAR.
So please stop wasting my own time. The tangles are difficult and time consuming to unravel, and you do have a knack for packing densely within brief statements every serious theological error which Romanism boasts of itself, so -- stop doing that. Check with the holy spirit within (if you have any of that) before replying in posture or tone as if you are some sort of "expert", for you are not expert even on what your own church ecclesiastical community teaches.
Do you recall the other thread (now locked due to the whining of whiny papists) where I challenged you at reply #344 ---and it took myself and dan (dan spent a LOT of time) and a few others to finally bring yourself to "a point of flux" in regards to dictated by, "inspired by" or otherwise led to more precisely how the "infallible" is arrived at, somewhere around the 1,300+ replies zone of that thread?<
You have no place to attempt to forbid others "asking" of your own time, not when the TUBAR syndrome is in such display and effect.
If you care not to face challenge on open threads -- then go back to presenting info from behind caucus walls where none can challenge it.
If that would save some of your own, then so be it.
But you will not be allowed to use the rest of the forum as you would use it behind "caucus" designation, or intimidate myself (this time using complaint about "your" time) into silence, for out here, anything that is said is open to challenge & scrutiny.
It should be framed.
Correcting yourself---I went back and found a single early post to me that had no trace of personal attack
LOL.
I had to ping Murphy to this one. Scrolling up-thread --- a guy has to wonder ---
Do some people hear themselves talk -- from one sentence to the next?
Seriesly.
Two things.
This is not a caucus thread.
The title of this thread is NOT Romanism, but rather — Rosmini — the guy’s name —anism.
Rosminianism is a heresy.
LOL! I’m glad you enjoyed it. It’s really something else, isn’t it.
Yes dear, I know those two things.
And I wasn't speaking towards Rosmini...
Meanwhile, there is unfinished business of your own, a subject brought to your attention which stands to be addressed.
If you do not recall what that is, I could by private message point to where the problem lay.
Well, you’ve got me dead to rights there. Guilty as charged. Guess I should just turn myself in, eh? :)
“Don’t be insolent.”
Who do you think you are to call another person “insolent?”
I don’t think you are even Christian. I think you are a false-flag poster seeking to exacerbate discord between Protestants and Catholics.
False-flag Danny.
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.