I hate that monkey!
Posted on 01/05/2015 3:27:43 AM PST by NYer
But Catholic Tradition was included in the assertion - the very thing that needs support for us, but not for Rome, as its veracity rests upon the premise of the insured infallibility of Rome.
When in condescension to evangelicals Caths attempt to support such with Scripture, then we see the irreverence toward Scripture in the egregious extrapolation employed in compelling Scripture to support Rome as her servant.
If Scripture really was a product of the church of Rome, then RC use of it too often constitutes child abuse.
I understood you perfectly-- when I was saying "faith 'in works'" I was referring to this idea of "faith in what Christ stands for" or "right principles," as you might be thinking. This stands refuted with the scriptures I have provided. Repent of it. You mislead infidels into thinking they will be saved provided they have a trust in "virtue" and give to charity. In hell they will burn the hottest because of you.
Is it not written that in the last days He shall pour out His Spirit upon all flesh?
When some encounter Him in that way -- yet not knowing of "Jesus" but what they have been wrongly told of Him -- but submitting themselves to Him nonetheless -- those are the kind of things I was speaking towards.
It is still salvation by Him.
As far as my previous speaking of "stemming the tide of evil" -- I know of evils done to this or that person, that the Spirit led me to consider were like THE significant factor which helped induce a person who had themselves been victimized in some way, to then become a victimizer themselves of the innocent & powerless.
If instead of one or a few persons doing dirt, so to speak --- if but a few of those had not --- and others instead allowed themselves to be led of the Spirit and be able to draw the person whom themselves had suffered mistreatment ---back, or out and away from evil that they had yet to do, then in that way further evils can be headed off, in that way it can help "stem the tide".
I had missed most of that, and had failed to make the connection, but had caught the eye-patch mention out of the corner of my own eye (which one, I'm not sure).
I see the humor now.
and we laughed until we stopped
The meaning is "all kinds of flesh," women, children, the aged, Kings, slaves, Gentiles and Jews, of all those who convert. The scripture immediately adds "and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams," thus demonstrating his meaning. Peter was also speaking in reference to all the people speaking in foreign languages after being filled by the Holy Spirit. Thus the direct application of this is the giving of the Spirit and the accompanying spiritual gifts. If "all" are given, as in every single human being, then all would be speaking in tongues or praising God. The Spirit is not given to all, and there is a profound difference between those who believe and those who are damned who do not receive the Spirit.
It is still salvation by Him.
Only if they believe in Christ and Him crucified. Otherwise you contradict the verses I have already provided, which you should deal with rather than repeating these claims. And I don't mean the ones just given in the last post-- but from every reply I've given. There is no room for debate after reading them unless one ignores them.
I know of evils done to this or that person, that the Spirit led me to consider were like THE significant factor which helped induce a person who had themselves been victimized in some way, to then become a victimizer themselves of the innocent & powerless.
The significant factor in every case is the human heart. People are not made evil-doers. They already have a heart that contains all of it:
Mat_15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
If instead of one or a few persons doing dirt, so to speak --- if but a few of those had not --- and others instead allowed themselves to be led of the Spirit and be able to draw the person whom themselves had suffered mistreatment ---back, or out and away from evil that they had yet to do, then in that way further evils can be headed off, in that way it can help "stem the tide".
But it is not in the power of man to reform himself or for another to persuade him with words or works. When a man preaches, the Holy Spirit takes the external preaching of man (which He Himself inspired) and applies it internally. And if the Holy Spirit is doing that, then they are going to confess Christ as Lord and Savior not in some abstract way, but in full knowledge that Christ is the only begotten Son of God who died for our sins and rose again, facts which no infidel ever holds to.
1Co_12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
1Co_3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
This was about Ted, the one the pope wrote back to before his impenitent death, thanking him for his prayers. Rome's honored treatment of him, a proabortion, proodomite public figure, as member in life and in death is an example of what Rome really believes and fosters, (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:18) and which continues (Chavez, Menino, etc.), and extends to their supporters.
They have developed that because Non-Catholics have demanded that we not be public servants and Catholics. Try reading a history book as it pertains to John F. Kennedy and the pledge he had to made in order to be deemed acceptable by the Protestant elites in this country.
That is absurd. In the light of his sexual prowess, Kennedy was hardly a fervent RC, and unwilling but forced to compromise. And if there is fault to be found beyond him it is autocratic Rome with its past and with the Vatican then for not publicly rebuking, but allowing such compromises as he expressed in an interview with Look magazine:.
"Whatever one's religion in private life may be, for the office-holder, nothing takes precedence over his oath to uphold the Constitution and all its parts — including the First Amendment and the strict separation of church and state."
And later in a speech,
I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. - http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7572
But which assurance was warranted due to Rome's past, which exampled the type of compulsion which the wise founders sought to prevent.
Yet despite the somber warnings of such, America sanctioned Cath. immigration, which itself required compromise as they had to swear to uphold the Constitution with its separation of church and state, which Rome then had condemned.
See post 149 .
Which type of teaching also required Catholic rulers to exterminate the heretics, which, while referring to Catholic theocracies, certainly warranted assurances that a Catholic ruler would not be a pawn for the pope, and work to implement a Catholic monarchy. And, which some favor, even here, and support in the Inquisitions, and i am sure they would today is possible, to deal with us.
..Constitutions can be changed, and non-Catholic sects may decline to such a point that the political proscription [ban] of them may become feasible and expedient. What protection would they have against a Catholic state? What protection would they then have against a Catholic State? The latter could logically tolerate only such religious activities as were confined to the members of the dissenting group. It could not permit them to carry on general propaganda nor accord their organization certain privileges that had formerly been extended to all religious corporations, for example, exemption from taxation. [But] the danger of religious intolerance toward non-Catholics in the United States is so improbable and so far in the future that it should not occupy their time or attention." — The State and the Church (1922), pp.38,39, by Monsignor (and professor) John Augustine Ryan (1869–1945), imprimatur of Cardinal Hayes (http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/sac002.htm).
Meanwhile what is advocated in the ENCYCLICAL LETTER CARITAS IN VERITATE also sounds naive, or that Rome is seeking to be that world power.
67. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. ..
Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties,...
The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.”
So true!
And in doing so; have morphed the warm blooded Mary of the bible, undoubtedly a NORMAL Jewish wife to her husband Joseph; into a COLD, asexual creature that has NO basis in FACT!
Post all the prayers of Christ you want; they will NOT erase the FACT that MARY reigns supreme in the RCC!
When the Ethiopian eunuch was READING SCRIPTURE; Philip didn't launch into...
I have decided to make a Novena for each of you.
Have a blessed day.
Not sure I understand why you are referencing an encyclopedia when the better resource is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Let's go to the book:
BTW...I did go to the Book....guess what? No immaculate conception in the Bible.
However, I did find this from catholic apologists. His name is Nick Hardesty. You may remember this. You posted the article entitled: In Defense of the Immaculate Conception: Part 2.
First, I must acknowledge that there is no explicit verse that directly settles this issue. At the same time, I don’t think that an explicit verse is necessary to prove that something is scriptural. I think that if a doctrine is implied in Scripture or logically follows from what we find in Scripture, and if there is nothing in Scripture that directly refutes it, then that belief can be considered scriptural. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3236273/posts
Wow...the logic here is, well, something I've never encountered before. Well, except maybe by a four year old.
I reckon it's ok to make stuff up if it "seems" logical. Amazing way to build a religion.
So we have two official catholic sources admitting there is no Scriptural support for this "belief".
If this is an example of the best in catholic apologetics, then there is a lot lacking.
BTW...the CEO bills itself as:
Designed to present its readers with the full body of Catholic teaching, the Encyclopedia contains not only precise statements of what the Church has defined, but also an impartial record of different views of acknowledged authority on all disputed questions, national, political or factional. In the determination of the truth the most recent and acknowledged scientific methods are employed, and the results of the latest research in theology, philosophy, history, apologetics, archaeology, and other sciences are given careful consideration.
I know what I posted to you. Here was your comment from post 31 in this thread.
>>Only one religion leads to God and that is the Catholic religion; all others are absolutely false––including every other “Christian” religion.<<
Now you expect that statement on a public forum to not be contested? Really? Now you try to say you have nothing against our religion?
How about this comment you made.
>>But if you ever see me hit up on some post that expresses some Protestant belief that I disagree with, then come back at me and tell me how stupid I am for telling someone from another religion how wrong their religion is.<<
Say WHAT? You say all other Christian religions are wrong and don't lead to God and think that's not disagreeing with a Protestant belief? What world do you live in?
"May 14, 1999 - John Paul II kisses the Koran (Qu'ran) at the Vatican."
"To the objectors who claim that this book was not the Koran, we present an excerpt from an interview with FIDES News Service (June 1, 1999). In it, Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Raphael I affirmed that he was present when John Paul II kissed the Muslim "holy" book:"
"At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu'ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam." Picture and information here.
And another.
Here is a photo of the Pope at the end of an audience with Patriarch Raphael I of Iraq where "the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book the Qu'ran presented to him by the delegation and kissed it as a sign of respect".
Here's another just for giggles.
Bowed to the Muslim holy book? At least he won't be thrown in the fiery furnace right?
>>If this has been argued so many times the poster should be able to find the info easily.<<
Yes she could have and so could you as I did. It's not difficult really. Just do a search on "pope kisses Koran". Perhaps we have mistakenly assumed that Catholics understand what is happening in their own church. The popes entertaining all other religions and praying with them in the Vatican is rather well documented.
Riiight, and by what authority do you believe you can make this claim? Your own word?
Or wait, let me guess you're going to say something like "Not by my own authority but the Word of God as Scripture says...", in other words a circular argument.
Of course you will. Come in here and make a spurious comment that "all other Christian religions are false" and think you will not be challenged?
And why do you think that the Catholic church’s claims to authority are valid?
Is there any other basis besides your own personal preference?
If it weren't for circular arguments and double standards the protestants wouldn't have any.
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.