Posted on 11/28/2014 2:33:31 PM PST by NYer
=================================================
They are listed above. What's wrong with the truth? It shouldn't bother you one iota. I never said anything negative about there being 40,000 different Protestant denominations...and I won't ever. Why should I? We all find our paths to Jesus.
As for people disagreeing with each other, well, that has been happening since Cain killed Abel. No one disputes that. I sure don't.
As for being "conciliatory to any protestant" -- is that wrong or evil?
Are YOU telling me how I am supposed to behave toward "any protestant"?
Please, be reasonable. This IS the FR, a site made for discussion.
God bless you and yours.
Well put.
Again, its “your” interpretation of Scripture of what Nicodemus meant versus Petrine authority. Catholics accept ONLY authoritative interpretation.
"On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight."
2nd-century writers such as Justin Martyr (ca 150 AD) describe the usual practice of Sunday worship (LINK) (First Apology, chapter 67). We know they gathered in House Churches such as at the mid-200's AD church a Duro-Europos, the earliest such house church of which we have any archaeological traces. By 361 AD gathering on Sundays for the Eucharis had become a mandated weekly occurrence.
Do you have a source for your thought that they simply met "whenever they could" with no particular reference to Sunday?
Glad to know that. It gives us something in common.
I will certainly respect your wishes -— and I offer you still my good will, and my prayers, however unworthy.
no they haven't.
The removed post had nothing to do with any of your posts.
On open threads in the Religion Forum other peoples beliefs can be attacked, but not individual Freepers.
Calling members idiots or other inflammatory names is not allowed in the RF.
That is mindreading and personal.
Discuss the issues, don’t make it personal.
I must say I agree with you there. I find crimes very difficult to understand --- "distressing" doesn't begin to describe it, heart-crushing comes closer to the truth ---and tha means crimes by anybody, but particularly by declared followers of Jesus Christ.
The history of the Church is like the history of the Jews in the OT in this way: always in need of prophets crying out against those who disgrace their anointed calling.
Well -— speaking as a Catholic and an RCIA teacher-— we do need to be born again. That’s what the Sacrament of Baptism is all about, is it not?
Ping.
I quit reading at that point.
The one untruth early was enough for me to ignore the rest. And, by the way, I know of several that have left the Catholic faith.
I don’t care to bash the Catholic faith. I believe those that do are wrong. I also believe it is wrong to bash Protestants.
I am Christian. I believe many Protestants and Catholics are. I prefer to leave it at that.
Remember Bible Christians don’t go beyond the “literal” word. Words and phrases are examined in the culture in which they have been uttered, how the early disciples understood them, and their particular meaning in the language and tradition in which they were uttered. One can take the literal script to forgive 70x7 and stop forgiveness after 490 times. Or, conclude that Christ had “blood brothers and sisters. This is why we need Petrine authority.
Catholics and Protestants attach different meanings to be “born again.”
Here’s a more comprehensive answer to your question:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/are-catholics-born-again
“...Waldensians, Cathars and Albigensians. The Papacy decided they were heretics for reading the Bible...”
Completely false. The Waldenses were a heretical sect/group that splintered off from Catholicism. Their sect appeared at the end of the 12th century. This group did not have a continuous tradition handed down from apostolic times. Furthermore, they continued to administer and receive the sacraments; they did not adhere to sola scriptura.
The Cathars and the Albigensians were neo Manichists, having a distorted concept of good and evil. The Cathars believed in reincarnation and celibacy. These heresies were not about “reading the Bible”, but rather involved made up distorted doctrines they came up with themselves. Modern day protestant sola scriptura adherents would most defintely not have agreed with their theology. They were not a proto type or precurser to modern protestants.
Do not forget!
Most people could not read at the time; we are discussing time periods in the 1100-1200’s. Illiteracy was the norm(!), and paper was not widely used or available. The entire premise that somehow “they were heretics for reading the bible” is absurd and based upon a distortion of actual history.
Non Catholics have no authority to judge and criticize Catholic doctrine. They do not understand Catholicism because they have no experience with or understanding of sacred tradition. They falsely state that Catholics do not read Sacred Scripture, which is truly absurd. Non Catholics have to resort to falsifying history in order to justify their errors.
I’ve read that very line-— “Catholics don’t read the Bible” -—
I don’t believe that I have ever posted that. I am not saying others haven’t.
I believe there are many that will be in Heaven that haven’t read the Bible. Some believers are possibly illiterate. Some don’t have Bibles.
Many of these people believe Jesus is Lord and have asked forgiveness and have repent. Are they doomed to hell if they’re not Catholic?
I had the same reaction.
Catholics believe that through Baptism, we are indeed "born again".
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.