Posted on 10/20/2015 12:34:51 AM PDT by OrthodoxIndianCatholic
Introduction :
It is my objective and endeavour to bring Ex-Catholics back to the Catholic Church in 2015 as well as in 2016. I intend to achieve this through "Catholic Classics".
What I mean is this -- I want Catholics who have left the Catholic Church to read awesome and amazing "Catholic Books" posted on my Catholic Blog.
Many Catholics in India specially in "Metro Cities" have left the Catholic Church and have joined "Non - Denominational Churches".
Most of them are unaware of "Catholic Classics" which encompass and explain the beautiful Catholic Faith.
In Cities like Mumbai in Maharashtra, Panjim and Margao in Goa, Bangalore in Karnataka, and Chennai in Tamil Nadu Catholics have left the Church for a variety of reasons; mostly for monetary reasons but some have also left because of animosity with Priests, or Nuns, or Bishops.
Let me tell you my personal story with regard to "Catholic Classics" and how they changed my life forever.
In Mid- 2012, 3 years back, I was quite angry with Catholic Priests because of negative experiences I had with them while growing up in Mumbai.
In the latter half of 2012, while surfing the "Net" for Catholic Websites I came across a beautiful, outstanding, and extra-ordinary Catholic Website called "E-Catholic 2000"-- "Catholics for the Third Millenium".
Once, I entered this amazing website I happened to stumble across four Catholic Classics--
1) Calvary and the Mass.
2) True Devotion to Mary.
3) Secret of the Rosary.
4) Secret of Mary.
After reading these 4 Catholic Classics over a number of months - I lost all animosity I may have had against Catholic Priests in Mumbai or anywhere else.
I promise you that when you read these 4 books, you will be changed forever and will fall in love with the Catholic - Christian Faith instantly as I did.
These are 4 Books, that positively changes lives and souls.
Read them and you will never be sorry that you visited my "Catholic Blog" accidentally or purposely.
These "Catholic Classics" proudly promote Jesus Christ as the "Centre of our Faith".
The Catholic Church is more than 2000 years old. Let us never forget that.
These Catholic Classics present to us the vibrant Catholic Faith as it has been through the centuries.
Conclusion :
No one will ever regret reading "Catholic Books" @ my blog. These Catholic Books help to build one up in the faith and help to strengthen one about the truths of the Catholic Faith.
I strongly recommend 4 Catholic Classics to Catholics who have left the Church and who might visit my Catholic Blog in the future.
1) Calvary and the Mass
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/calvary/mass.shtml
2) True Devotion to Mary
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/montfort/true/devotion.shtml
3) Secret of the Rosary
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/montfort/rosary/rosary.shtml
4) Secret of Mary
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/montfort/secret/secret.shtml
Happy and Holy Reading.
Yet you did not use that expression, you wrote "Wrong, as the church of Rome simply did not exist as a visible church in the NT," and what you wrote was false as I proved from the scriptures. There was a church in Rome in the time period of the New Testament. It was catholic in that it had the same faith as the other catholic churches that the Apostle wrote about knowing the faith of the church of Rome.
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
What do catholics and the Clintons have in common?
parsing words.
“Wow....the heart of a catholic on display.”
So was this the heart of a Protestant on display?: “Share your wisdom with the rest of us.”
I think the difference between our statements is that mine was sincere and yours was most likely sarcastic. If your statement was not sarcastic, then you’re actually saying I have wisdom. If you believe I have wisdom, then you should act accordingly. So which is it?
“It’s your catechism...therefore it’s incumbent upon you to share.”
I shared the passage. Now, if I become convinced that you’re sincere, I’ll help you. All you have to do is compare the passages and ask the logical question. I shared already by posting the passage which showed the typical anti-Catholic attack was erroneous. What are you going to give in return now to show your sincerity? So far you’ve done NOTHING. Put up or shut up. The choice is yours.
Oh, and before you go assuming something is incumbent upon me in this regard I suggest you read Matthew 7:6.
“No, stranger can mean complete stranger or relative stranger...”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0
tioga’s been here. You didn’t know that apparently. Deal with it.
This passage does not teach the unbelieving husband is saved in any capacity.
So back to your statement....how can one be holy without God?
The question was about holy, not saved. I assume by your next question that you concede the point, unless you wish to deny the scripture.
So back to your statement....how can one be holy without God?
False, that was not my statement and you misquoted or misparsed the original question.
Three times you have accused me of lying by using derivatives of Clintonian or Clinton. Do you think you do this by the Holy Spirit or the works of the flesh ?
You did the same thing in your reply to Elsie. You accused him of being wrong, of being an anti-Catholic and being bigoted.
I see that same attitude in a lot of your replies.
Well, vlad, as always, it's been a pleasure dealing with you again.
It's one of two things....either you don't understand the CCC in question or you don't want to explain it for obvious reasons.
However, if I were a catholic, and thankfully I am not, I would address the question regardless of if I thought the person was serious or not. It would be an opportunity to explain my faith.
As you are unwilling or unable to do so I guess we have nothing else to say on this one.
Have a good one.
And I gave you an answer on how the word is being used in that context.
>>So back to your statement....how can one be holy without God? <<
False, that was not my statement and you misquoted or misparsed the original question.
Yes, I made a mistake in attributing the statement to you. It originated with another poster based on a comment you made.
The anonymity is a huge factor. The religious view that one is already saved lends itself to a lack of holiness and tolerance as well. If one demonizes the opposition thinks can get out of hand. For example, the Word of Life faith community in New Harford, New York did not really want to beat those teenagers to death. They just wanted them to submit. I suspect there will be more than a few communities changing their name now.
This precipitated a post from MHGinTN as follows:
>>Can you be holy without God's life in you?<<
Yes
I believe it was from there the conversation about being holy without God originated and in the context of being saved and being holy.
The thrust of your statement certainly appears to be linking salvation and holiness.
So yes, it certainly does appear you like to parse words.
“omits” should read “omitted”
If that is insufficient for you I obtained the definition at biblehub.com probably like most of us.
Does that mean you used someone else's analysis as your own without giving him credit, even though you picked the wrong word ?
Try Strong's Greek number 40 instead of 37.
As just stated...it was noted at the end.
Strongs 40, hagia, an adjective, is referencing the children.
In 1 Corinthians 7:14 ἁγιάζεσθαι is used in a peculiar sense of those who, although not Christians themselves, are yet, by marriage with a Christian, withdrawn from the contamination of heathen impiety and brought under the saving influence of the Holy Spirit displaying itself among Christians; cf. Neander at the passage.
The phrase in the question was not "without God," it was "without God's like in you."
The thrust of your statement certainly appears to be linking salvation and holiness.
Are you referring back to post 228 where I wrote:
The anonymity is a huge factor. The religious view that one is already saved lends itself to a lack of holiness and tolerance as well. If one demonizes the opposition thinks can get out of hand. For example, the Word of Life faith community in New Harford, New York did not really want to beat those teenagers to death. They just wanted them to submit. I suspect there will be more than a few communities changing their name now.
So yes, it certainly does appear you like to parse words.
Parsing words is fundamental, and more reliable than mind reading. You still have not addressed whether you were walking in the Spirit of the flesh when you accused me of lying three times.
I'm sorry that doesn't meet your lofty standards. Now if you want to be picky.....
I expect you to use accepted Biblical citation of chapter and verse and not how you currently cite the Word.
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.