Posted on 01/18/2015 8:33:58 AM PST by ADSUM
Sorry that you don’t understand. Take to a priest and I am sure that he can explain it to you. Somehow, I don’t feel that you really want to understand.
Perhaps, the problem is that you have no understanding of Petrine authority and of the received oral tradition of the Church. There is nothing for example in the New Testament to say that Christ fell three times or that Veronica wiped the face of jesus. But these were received oral traditions. Unless one buries his head in the sand and refuses to accept that there were many things that were said and done both by Christ and his apostles that were not written.
From your point of view, all the theologians both Catholic, and those former eminent Protestant scholars, theologians, pastors, professors and preachers, who converted to Catholicism are all a set of fools. blindly accepting the sacred traditions and rituals of the Church.
Your handle really encapsulates the rcc position.....Jesus and "ad sum" to what He has taught......just like Mormons.
Then, you send me to some "catholic tract" after repeating your initial claims -- which I just showed you were not quite as true as you often make these various claims out out be?
What is this -- a one way conversation?
It seems like you don't hear (and understand) anything much other than your own opinions.
Why should I be impressed with those people? What of the majority of those same classes of theologians who historically did not, and still to this day do not convert?
Besides, as for some of these so-called "leading...theologians", when they become apologists for 'Rome' it is often that their distinctly Romish (adopted) viewpoints are shown to be seriously flawed, just the same as those views have long been seriously flawed, for they most usually are nothing but the same errors, though often dressed up in new-ish appearing clothing...
One could say that "several articles" have been written establishing that the activities of mankind are a significant factor in so-called "climate change", and which the present (partially dopey?) Catholic "pope" himself mistakes as being among that which is "truth".
I should be impressed at the same time I am being insulted? Snake handlers?
Just WHERE do you get off talking to ME like that? huh?
I "seriously study" just about every_single_day.
I'm sure that could be informative. But where does he get his own information? From sources I can access more directly than going through Belloc' -- and ALREADY HAVE.
Yet as for heresies -- if the man is a papist -- he obviously must have missed at least one of those...
The only real truth to that includes aspects which betray the Church of Rome as being foremost, or chief, or highest place of this so-called "Petrine authority", for the Scriptures as they are, are not (and never were) reliant upon the word of any "pope" to be considered Scripture (unless a person is a brainwashed/programmed Roman Catholic, perhaps. which then leaves it to be a thing more of imagination than truth itself)
What is referred to as capital "C" Catechism was chiefly a product of later centuries. There goes significant portions of "for all ages". Wave bye-bye to that portion of your claim...
And here follows yet another version of one of your oft-repeated accusations. I suppose saying such provides some sense of security for yourself? That's how it comes across;
That's a quite a grab-bag assortment you have there. Rev. Wright, Moonies and Mormons have nothing much to do with "Four Square Gospel" preachers.
I know one of the latter. The man is capable of hearing (and acting upon) guidance of the Holy Spirit, myself having noticed that in my own interactions which I had with him, some years ago now. Perhaps the same could not be said for not all Four Square Gospel 'pastors', but for at least that one, he's real enough -- although a more humble man is difficult to find, perhaps...while no one that I know of pretends that man to be "perfect", himself included...
The so-called "mainline" are not all that much mainstream (by the numbers of adherents) within U.S. Christian setting.
There far more (collectively) of various flavored non-denominationals than there are the badly shrunken Episcopalian Church (which itself splinted some time ago, to a larger extent over the very issue). The Methodists may soon experience something of the same...while the nation as a whole does appear to be distancing itself, backsliding away from Godliness. Catholicism is not entirely immune to that, generally speaking -- having had within their own ranks for many years -- known homosexuals as "priests" (even if those who were known to be inclined that way were claiming themselves "celibate").
The Baptists (particularly the Southern Baptists) are not known for doing this sort of ordaining you speak of -- and if they did -- would be dis-invited, cast out from the Southern Baptist Conference. Each of the SB's are independent Churches -- which send representatives to the Conference -- who are sent to follow the Spirit and what they themselves as individuals know of the Lord, the best they can, rather than being representative of the sentiments or viewpoints arrived at by way of majority vote, or something along lines of being "representative" in that way.
You just threw large swaths of various "Orthodox" under the bus --- as "heretics".
Singular papacy -- one bishop of bishops, one "bishop" outranking all others -- was not the order-of-the-day for many long centuries of the Christian Church.
Take the "heretic" talk -- and talk it into your own bathroom mirror.
I have already learned that belief on and trust in Jesus Christ alone is the “right gate to heaven” as you put it. No reliance on pagan rituals or man made sacraments such as Catholicism teaches. My eternal future has been guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. I pray that God draws more Catholics out of that apostate religion and that they too can be assured in knowing the freedom that is in Christ.
The Catholic Church teaches “another gospel”. The apostles told they should be considered accursed.
If you claim to have read the great essayist Hillaire Belloc’s “The Great Heresies” you would not repeat questions that have been previously raised and interminably refuted. So you don’t want to be “impressed” by such preeminent American Lutherans such as Richard Neuhaus who authored books, taught, preached, and extensively debated for decades the subject of Christianity and who converted to Catholicism.
How about Francis Beckwith who became a philosophy professor at Baylor University and president of the Evangelical Theological Society (E.T.S.) a national body of Evangelical theologians who converted to Catholicism?
Or try Sweden’s megachurch pastor Ulf Elkman?
Not enough? Try Wheaton College’s Prof. Joshua Hochschild.
OK, I get it “impressed,” until their conversions.
You refer to a one-way conversation. That’s because it essentially boils down to an acknowledgement of Petrine Authority (for which there are libraries of books and scriptural references in support thereof) or not.
In the latter case its a freewheeling exercise that allows for the Moonies, the corrupted Black churches (Los Angeles First AME that gave OJ a rousing welcome following his acquittal on double murder charges); the Mormons, the Billy Grahams, the Jim Jones;, and David Koresh’s and the list goes goes on right down to the born-again gobbledegook. And yes, snake handlers included.
They all have one thing in common they do not believe in Petrine authority and propound the heretical denial of the Eucharist.
Enough said.
Yep, as proven by scripture.
This kind of neophyte nonsense is unworthy of a reply.
So they all contradicted scripture as “you” interpret it. Fantastic!
Blindly following the teachings of men that were not taught by the apostles will lead to a tragic end.
Baloney. I never claimed to have read his writings in any detail. Don't put words into my mouth which I did not say.
Yet what is there of Belloc's writings which are not covered elsewhere (if but piecemeal) and even from before that man was born?
That I have examined the arguments (generally speaking) for many years now, reading and searching, comparing and testing things - and remain unconvinced of what was referred to by many in the 16th thru 19th centuries as Romanism, does not equate with my own contentions to having been "refuted" as you so blithely claim -- for yourself and others may accept the story-line, but many others have sound reasons for not accepting Romish "story".
there you go again, damning all the Orthodox who never looked upon the bishop of Rome as their own "pope".
'There was no singular "pope" presiding over the entire Church, from the beginning of the Church. There was no one who got away with making such a claim for many long centuries.
Sorry mister, but I am capable of reading history on my own, which includes examining things from perspective other than of preconceived acceptance for whatever it is that the Church of Rome claims as it's own singular & sole prerogatives.
That doesn't make me a "heretic" in the eyes of God, which are the only eyes as it were, which truly matter.
Spoken like a man who has no conception of what is to have been "born again" having been baptized with the Holy Spirit.
It matters not one whit that many claim to have been "born again" -- but have not been.
That some, or even many are wrong about certain things -- does not make everyone who mouths the same, or similar words to be equally in error.
If you were acquainted with the Holy Spirit -- personally -- yourself -- and if you understood more completely what it is that even the RCC says about such visitation/indwelling of the right and Holy Spirit among those outside of the visible confines of their own ekklesia, I believe you would not so casually say things such as you frequently on these pages do.
What about Enoch?
Who knows? I'll tell you : No one. It isn't disclosed.
The Catholic Church as an organization is protected from errors in teaching God's Word.
And yet the angel did NOT refer to 'individuals', but to CHURCHES.
Try to wave it away a wee bit better...
Others get to be pope and CONTINUE their sins...
Why is your PRESENT pope upsetting SO many of your FR brethren?
When you’ve a bucket of various, random talking points; does it REALLY matter in which order one selects and posts them?
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.