I've seen disagreements AMONG Roman Catholics over what Purgatory even is.
Posted on 12/10/2014 6:32:20 AM PST by marshmallow
"Christian unity" is one of those terms that stir up a whole spectrum of—sometimes emotional—opinions.
On the one hand, we know that Jesus prayed to the Father concerning future believers "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you" (John 17:21a, NIV).
On the other hand, charismatics know it is almost pointless to discuss the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12, 14) with Baptists or most anyone else from a mainline denomination. And Protestants of just about any stripe get riled up when they hear Catholics talking about papal infallibility or their adoration of the Virgin Mary.
It's on this latter point that Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, and successful author, has waded into a hornet's nest of controversy by telling a Catholic News Service interviewer that Protestants and Catholics "have far more in common than what divides us" and that Catholics do not "worship Mary like she's another god."
Regarding Warren's view that Catholics do not worship Mary, Matt Slick, writing on the website of the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, goes into great detail with material from Roman Catholic sources that say Mary is "the all holy one," is to be prayed to, worshipped, that she "brings us the gifts of eternal life" and she "made atonement for the sins of man."
If that's not putting her in the place of Christ as a god-like figure to be worshipped, then what is it?
"We believe in Trinity, the Bible, the resurrection, and that salvation is through Jesus Christ. These are the big issues," Warren says. "But the most important thing is if you love Jesus, we're on the same team."
To Warren's point about being on the same team, Slick.....
(Excerpt) Read more at charismanews.com ...
I sure expect to be there!
Why ELSE would the Judge even NEED to look in the BoL?
“Playing both ends against the middle.”
Nope. Just pointing that sola scriptura doesn’t work and Protestant anti-Catholics don’t care if it doesn’t as long as they all keep attacking Catholics.
“I can really see now why the Catholic church doesn’t trust its laity to interpret Scripture on their own.”
Do souls sleep until the resurrection? If they don’t, then you can instantly see why Lone Rangers playing God with the scriptures doesn’t work.
There is 'follow' and then there is 'understand'.
“There is ‘follow’ and then there is ‘understand’.”
Okay, so logically - according to your words that is - those who disagree with you DO NOT understand scripture, correct?
So every single Protestant here - even those who join in in attacks on the Catholic Church - do not understand the scriptures if they happen to disagree with you their fellow Protestant, right?
But now -- the Roman Catholic Church desires for itself to be called "The" Catholic Church.
I flatly refuse to extend that sort of title to the RCC. It is a travesty wherein the word which was once an adjective has been converted into a pronoun, stretched to envelope all while applying to only one ecclesiastical community.
I cannot imagine that God actually wanted things to be the way they have turned out...
That ecclesiastical community was not the center of gravity or center of the Church -- and this "being in fellowship with Peter" which you speak of simply does not work after that man's death -- for it assumes that there was hierarchy among bishops from the beginning, which everyone understood was inheritable, with whomever the bishop of Rome was being Peter's foremost heir, etc.
The evidence is clearly against that being true to the degree that Romanists need for it to be...which means that those of Rome have been believing things which were not true, repeating those things, and even incorporating the not true elements into their own theology, as that developed.
I see no reason why I should now kneel down to carefully maintained distortions of truth.
I would sooner be DEAD than submit myself to lies in regards to God himself.
In instance of the RCC those surely did for many centuries, becoming part of the polity and sense of theology itself --- with justifications for having taken on the mechanisms of secular Empire invented along the way, as they went about what they did, and as I said -- blended those things of Empire in with the day-to-day functioning of the church -- including political considerations.
If there were to have been all along some pure and entirely holy church, infallible in it's teachings of faith and morals amidst all of that -- then it be as hidden as the less-than-fully visible fellowship of Spirit which unites any and all whom are (or would be) Christian today.
When error or excess -- lack or listlessness is perceived in any other ecclesia -- that is said by those of Rome to be proof that ---those people over there-- are not rightfully "The Church", but they themselves (those of Rome) still are, regardless of what transpires since portions of the RCC has been built over Peter's dead body, dontcha' know.
And soundly refuted by more than "trifles" and physical evidence, when it comes to the idea of Rome being the only bishopric which inherited what was bestowed upon Peter and the Apostles, by Christ.
Those of Rome were not able to get away with the assertion that their own so-called "See" was the top or headmost over all --- for many long centuries.
The first times bishops of Rome pressed for that -- they were rebuked, not acquiesced to, agreed with for that aspect, even if in course of discussion and decisions, from when Easter should be observed to being among those whom opposed the Donatists -- although those of Rome be in the end agreed with --- they were also reminded again and again that none had to unilaterally submit to demands made by Rome -- if those not have backing from widely in the Church.
Notice too in earliest centuries theological disputes --- never was there a bishop of Rome looked upon as a decider to whom all must defer to, while also noticing that men such as Athanasius was not of Rome, and neither was his bishop.
What these sort of things do equate to --- is that if it was the full intent from the very beginnings of the Church for all to turn and bow towards a bishop of Rome as Supreme (Universal) bishop of bishops --- that concept was was well hidden for HUNDREDS OF YEARS -- and as I mentioned (and can prove!) was opposed when those of Rome asserted that same, the first several times they did so. Was all of the Church both stupid and blind for those first centuries? They would have to have been, for what Rome came to eventually claim as it's own sole prerogatives be actual truth.
When are you and other Romanists going to stop blowing smoke concerning this issue of "papacy" (and plenty others)?
I can read, and study, and see for myself. The gig is up. Ok? And that -- regardless of how well you yourself can word things to avoid what is inconvenient, or redefine things to better fit with later [cough-cough] developments...
No longer can Rome assert and bluff, and oh-so-carefully word things -- in order to continue to maintain false claims towards history (which they long have, and on these pages Romanists still claim to be true) --- and expect those whom truly know better to then feel they need to afford the Church of Rome anything of the type of "respect" she claims is due that ekklesia alone, as if there and chiefly only there is "The Church" as you put it.
From my own perspective -- RC apologetic as it plays out down through the ranks, being not in agreement with even it's own more scholarly and honest historians -- ends up appearing as either falsehood or ignorance. And when not that, then the careful wordings which make that which is otherwise known to be not true, re-accepted as being true. It is fully like --- those of Rome believe their own PR, and then at times get mad at others for not accepting the "spin".
But I'm supposed to treat the promoters of Romanist narrative with kid gloves? And agree that "they" be allowed to control all narrative concerning history and theological "developments" also? Not in this life, not in mine...
You were not openly asking for that from me of course --- but all the soft-soaping in the world will not be enough to convince myself to accept things (and statements) which I know are simply not true!
It doesn't matter that among the RCC that many such things have by now been long believed to have been true, but as it turns out, were not -- not when today's investigative and communication tools are more powerful than ever -- we have near entire libraries at our fingertips --- none need accept the word of those who claim this-or-that, not at those times and places where the contrary has been well enough established otherwise -- and an individual can apprise enough of the written evidence (as that comes through translation into English, as for my own ability to access/analyze).
Being oriented towards the Church of Rome?
And there it is, people.
When those of Rome concede there are Christians elsewhere than in their own religious organization -- at this late date (after it finally sunk in that those persons were never coming back -- gone for 500 years, gone forever from the clutches of Rome) they lay rhetorical claim to those Christians whom they can no longer deny truly exist, even while many of the RCC church rhetorically bash those same so-called "separated brethren" 24/7 as the forum here has long exampled.
I don't know whether I should laugh, cry, or throw up!
Surely NOT!!
I recognize this as a scene from Predator!!
This week at the Vatican; Pope Francis said...
Correct.
Not the way I do.
We are ALL; you included; on a path of learning in this life.
Many things we once thought true have been proven false.
Likewise; many things we thought false, have been proven true.
And, many things we have had NO thoughts at all about; have been brought to light.
Okay, so logically - according to your words that is - those who disagree with you about Pope Francis are WRONG?
Wow ---
But there does appear to be quite a bit of superstition associated with the image.
The image is a pious, religious fraud as for all the various trappings associated with it. Marianism in nutshell? A prime example of just what and how things go wrong -- and since the RCC gained upper, exploitative hand in regards to all the false narrative and superstition which is associated with the image ---- they either cannot or will not pull themselves back from the brink, punishing all those whom would assist themselves in accepting the truth.
Lest you remain in error, and wise in your own conceits, I point to posts 2264 and 2261 by me. The point of my posts was your obvious error concerning your outlandish claim in capital letters about all angels. I listed some of the examples in 2261 which clearly demonstrated your error. You countered with your tradition of Theophanies. I pointed out Catholics also have a tradition of Theophanies, namely the burning bush and pillar of cloud. The next "they" does not refer to the bush and cloud, which are obviously not angels (I really am used to more agile minds and dismissed anyone in their wildest imaginations equating angels with the burning bush or pillar of cloud. I do assume a certain biblical literacy here. That was my mistake.).
The "They" which you called silliness, having so indulged in it, referred to the previous KJV scriptures, now under quarantine as contraband, was about angels; although your reference in the last book by a Jewish Apostle, who insisted John not fall at his feet to worship, self indentified himself as also being a Jewish brother anyway.
" Yes, I understand you have holy tradition. Catholics also believe in Theophanies (manifestations of God) in the Old Testament. For example, the cloud and the burning bush. The scriptures say they were angels. They were God's messengers and sometimes God spoke, or killed, or delivered, through them. You yourself claimed they were created beings. The LORD Jesus Christ is neither an angel, nor a created being. He is the Son of God."
There's a difference between bowing out of respect and bowing in worship, which was the topic of discussion, not manners. Re-read my 'outlandish' refutation to your silliness HERE (2270). As for the rest of your last post, that was also addressed in 2270.
Please know, if I meant "bow" as in a CURTSY in the topic of discussion solely concerning WORSHIP, I certainly would have CLARIFIED I was talking about bowing as in manners & politeness, such as one would 'curtsy', the same as if I used it as the bow of a tree, the bow of a ship, or the bow of an archer.
But I wasn't discussing ships, archery, trees, or manners, was I? I was discussing worship. Once again, re-read my post 2261 as that provided the clarity which you still so obviously require.
Re-read post 2270
Judgment Seat of Christ....where rewards of given, based on our works which are judged as by fire. End times isn’t something I’ve studied in great amounts of time, but I believe the timing of this is around the Marriage Feast and we (the believers) will not even be near those who are being Judged at the Great White Throne Judgment. (One pastor states that Christ won’t be judging unbelievers, obviously, in Heaven, nor will He on Earth...so it’s possible He will be at some planet, or area created for that purpose while we, the believers, will remain in Heaven).
Great White Throne Judgment....leading to eternal damnation. The Book of Life, as you showed, have the names blotted out of those who did not accept Christ as Savior....obviously there are other books Christs uses as His evidence as He judges each person.
BTW have you read The Harbinger?
Check this out:
Check this out:
Bothers heck outta me when Catholics reject Catholic faith and morals. Bothers me when anybody rejects Catholic faith and morals --- but particularly "Catholics."
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.