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 ...
Look around you.
Would God let the human race be vandalized at the genetic level, so that we could depart entirely from His design and be part machine, part animal, part computer?
I have had a deep foreboding about this starting literally when I was a teenager over 40 years ago. It will be "sold" to us under the guise of therapeutic intervention, a humanitarian correction of some diagnosed defect, and later as personal lifestyle choice. Just like "gender"--- what a lying weasel-word --- is now interpreted as a choice. It's so deeply perverse.
It's called a covenant. Research the ancient Jewish wedding contract. Then perhaps the covenant God has with people.
You claim bridesmaids are pagan? I thought Catholics read all of scripture? You obviously missed Matthew 25.
As for the honeymoon. Again I would ask why haven't you read your Bible. The time alone for the bride and groom. It's recorded that Jacob had time alone with both Rebekah and Leah.
As for the best man. Again, you must have missed reading scripture. John 3:29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him
As for the wedding ring? I'll just give you a hint. In a Jewish wedding these words are spoken by the groom. ""Behold, thou art consecrated to me with this ring, according to the law of Moses and Israel."
It would be wise for Catholics to not only read the real scriptures but do some research before simply repeating the propaganda spin of the Catholic Church.
Bigger and better fish to fry!
You are now 53 to 59 years old.
Or more, since you did say OVER 40 years ago...
I can understand Catholics get confused. The “Wedding accoutrements” are not used in worship of God but you may also want to check out my last post. The “mitre” IS used in worship services.
Catholic Catechism claims that Jesus is one person with two natures. A divine nature and a human nature. Tell me, did Jesus get His divine nature from Mary?
Thanks for your acknowledging that. You are the first Catholic on FR I have seen do so.
***We ASK Mary and the saints to pray TO God FOR us.***
We don’t need a middleman/woman. We have priest who speaks directly to the Father. He was nailed to a cross.
The early Church did fine, without recourse to the Old Testament. The dispute which arose at Antioch was about circumcision and was not settled by recourse to a book. The Old Testamant was of no use and the New Testament had not been written. Paul and Barnabas returned to Jerusalem to confer with the "apostles and ancients".
Well?
And the HOLY SPIRIT gave us Scripture, not the Catholic church.
So the two are mutually exclusive? Silly. A true dance with words. As if the Holy Spirit dropped it out of the sky. An imbecile can tell you that Scripture was written, compiled and canonized by men under the influence of the Holy Spirit. There was a defined period in Christian history when there was a Church and no New Testament. In fact, Paul's letters, many of which we now know as Scripture, were written precisely because of this. They were letters of instruction, written from an apostle, to nascent Christian churches, in the absence of any New Testament. The Christians in Ephesus and Corinth read them as such and not as Scripture. That came later when the Church compiled it.
Which makes the following statement of yours, ridiculous........
And no, the church cannot do fine without Scripture. It WILL go into error without it as an anchor.
You have it exactly, backwards. Congratulations! The reality is that Scripture, separated from Apostolic Tradition, will be used to teach error. As indeed it is.
Look around you. Look at what has happened since the Reformation! The cacophony of conflicting voices all using "Scripture" to justify their half-baked theology is overwhelming and can not be ignored. There's going to be a "rapture", the Bible sez so....no it doesn't. We're predestined by God....no we're not, we have free will...God wants you to be prosperous....no he doesn't.....etc, etc, etc.
These are not minor points of theology as you so flippantly claimed in a previous post. They are glaring errors and are a source of scandal!
Neither do we. We pray to God directly.
We also sometimes pray to ask Mary or the saints to pray for us, too, just as people sometimes ask other people to pray for them.
So, we don't need a middleman, either. In addition to asking other people, just as you do, we sometimes ask those in Heaven to pray as well. I get that you don't agree with doing that. And that's OK that you disagree.
It was God who orchestrated that Christ would be "lifted up" on that "pole".
Numbers 21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
But you may also want to check out what happened when the Israelites began using that as an idol.
2 Kings 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.
Do you burn incense in front of that cross?
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Well, then you don't have to do it.
Mighty bold talk for a one-eyed fatman!
26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
That's ok.
Just rely on Rome to lead you the correct way.
I don’t.
Wow, you posted something like 15 posts in response to what I wrote - and none of them effectively refute anything I said. You sure seem desperate to me. I must have hit a serious nerve.
All that work you did - cutting and pasting from sources with no real attribution of course - and none of it proves any contention of yours nor does it refute anything I said. You failed and wasted a lot of time doing it.
What's "old" about it? It's a current and ongoing issue and you won't find an answer in Scripture.
Whenever Catholics are taking a beating, they resort to that.
Translation: I have no answer.
Add in vitro fertilization. Scripture says nothing. Cloning.....nothing.
How could it? These are new technologies.
Beat me some more.
So if Scripture is silent on artificial contraception, then on what basis did the magisterium decide that it was wrong?
On what basis?
On the basis of 1) Divine Revelation and 2) the Natural Law as understood by the teaching authority of the Church.
Here's a quote....
"This kind of question requires from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection on the principles of the moral teaching on marriage—a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation."
"No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation. (3)
In carrying out this mandate, the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses. These documents have been more copious in recent times."
Excerpted from the document Humanae Vitae which explains the whole thing.
ROFL!! Now that there was funny I don’t care who ya are. And rather telling tale I must say.
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.