Posted on 07/05/2016 1:04:18 AM PDT by OrthodoxIndianCatholic
Dear Friends in Jesus and Mary,
The Holy Rosary has a very special place in my "Spiritual Life".
Recitation of the Holy Rosary has helped me to cope with the ups and downs of life.
My Mother used to often tell me, that if you are troubled in any way ---- "Go to Jesus and Mary" by reciting the Holy Rosary. They will never let you down.
When I recite the Holy Rosary, I often think of the unique and special relationship between Jesus Christ and Mother Mary during their life on earth.
I have never stopped reciting the Holy Rosary when I learnt it at the age of 10.
I believe that the Holy Rosary is a Miraculous Prayer in itself and if said with faith and devotion it is a great help on a daily basis.
Here are two beautiful articles on the Holy Rosary.
1) The Seven Dolour Rosary.
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-632.shtml#_Toc349936297
2) Suggestions on saying the Holy Rosary
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-469.shtml#_Toc349936134
You should review the rules for the religion forum. This statement could be construed as a violation of several of them. What you have presented is not a refutation of Daniel1212's position but instead a thinly-veiled personal attack.
Oh?
Mormonism
|
Catholicism
|
Oh; I wasn't.
At least we have the doctrinal underpinnings to do so.
When Protestants see something in Scripture that contravenes their man-made doctrines they just pull out the word games to make it fit; never mind none of those word games are sanctioned, or even appear, in Scripture.
Why are Catholics cut off from the truth for listening to one guy, but Protestants have no problem listening to thirty that don't agree with each other?
The "nasty contrived accusations" are actually accurate warranted rebukes, while instead of dealing with the argument, you resort to asserting i was backed into a theological corner, which you can only imagine to have done!
For you not only attempted to justify a doctrine construe the argument as prohibiting a practice simply based on lack of any example, the fact is that there is not only zero examples for prayer to created beings in Heaven - despite providing approx. 200 prayers - but Scripture only teaches that God is the addressed in prayer, and only teaches that God has the power and privilege to hear all prayer from Heaven. And sets forth Christ as the only Heavenly intercessor bwtn God and man, by whom believers have direct access into the holy of holies to present their supplications to God. (1Tim. 2:5; Heb. 4:19; 7:25; 10:16) And while prayer to created beings in Heaven is only condemned wherever it occurs, as is the manner of adulation and supplication given to such.
Thus only God is set forth as the immediate proper object of prayer, and while you to try to justify your doctrine by arguing that lack of any example is no basis for prohibition, the reality is the argument is not simply based on a negative, while what is being really prohibited is doctrine that is essentially based on what is surmised to be possible, despite what is shown to the contrary. Even prohibiting a prohibition if simply on the basis of lack of any support where it should be still will not justify a doctrine that lacks such support. Unless one want to claim to be providing new public revelation as doctrine. But I do not think the Holy Spirit would be negligent so as to not include at least one positive example of what Catholics hold to be a common basic practice.
And that's the problem with you people. It's one of the reasons I crossed the Tiber after more than twenty years as a fundamentalist/evangelical
Yes, searching the scriptures to ascertain whether what is taught is so was/is a problem for false teachers and apostates, but not for the apostles and early church.
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. (1 John 2:19)
What manner of absurdity is this? You think prayer is anything less than a "common fundamental practice?" Are you that desperate to argue otherwise?
And BTW, redoubling those attacks while repeating your casus belli for those attacks does not change the fact those attacks are rooted in Biblical silence.
Wrong again, as it is not simply the inexplicable silence for what is manifestly held to be a common fundamental practice, but what is said and shown to be Biblical prayer, and the immediate object of it.
I know you know the Catholic justification, but you have chosen to set that aside, ignore the fact that God did not choose to prohibit what you want prohibited, and declare your thesis authoritative in contravention of the Commandment against taking the Name of the Lord in vain.
Which is so much bombast, as i have not set Catholic justification for prayer to created beings aside, which I have abundantly refuted before by the grace of God, but which arguments you set aside, never (wisely) attempting to provide any, and instead resorted to construing the argument as prohibiting a practice simply based on lack of any example. And in refutation i never declared my argument as authoritative in the name of the Lord as if i were a pope which presumed ensured infallibility, but instead the veracity of my argument rests upon the weight of evidence for it, both negative and positive.
The Mormons came out of YOU, not us.
Yes, as you did, as in apostates, and thus the Mormons basically became like Rome, with their Prophet/popes presuming ensured veracity of office, and requiring belief in another inspired source of Divine revelation, and with a distinctive class of believers distinctively called "priests," and with more than two places in the afterlife, and even a heavenly Mother, etc
Let me refer you to your first two paragraphs from the post this one answers.
Unless you are confessing that you responded to what you did not comprehend, then you still are the only lacking coherence. As is fitting.
Then i would agree with you that not all of what is Scripture is necessary, but your argument is that Trinitarian theology predates the codification of Scripture, which means that codification of Scripture is necessary, which would mean that the major writings (most of the NT) which received general acceptance before 325AD would not be enough, while if a complete infallible canon is essential in order to ascertain the veracity of a doctrine then RCs had to wait until after the death of Luther.
I don't need to try to make the Bible say things it only alludes to,
That would be refreshing in the light of Cath attempts to make the Bible say what they can only wish it did. Including prayer to created beings in Heaven.
because I accept Holy Tradition as authoritative along with the Bible.
Meaning because you accept Rome as possessing ensured veracity, and thus oral T and Scripture only consist of and assuredly mean what she says they do. Which includes the claim that she uniquely possess ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
You mean Scripture, and history, and testimony?
I can't help but worry about you and others who seem to know so much more than I do, yet make what seems to me to be a fundamental error of going to war believer against believer.
As your premise is false, so is your conclusion. This is not a matter of going to war believer against believer, but of going to war against false teachers, which believers are called to do.
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 3)
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Ephesians 5:11)
I see no violation of any such rules, but what is worse is the premise that a basic common practice can be justified despite the inexplicable utter absence of any record of such in the totality of Scripture, and teaching to the contrary of created beings being the object of prayer to Heaven. Might as well argue that anything can be justified as a common basic practice unless it is explicitly condemned.
Which is part of the "etc." i mentioned before i saw your post. Thanks.
Yeah.
I really hate it when stuff like that happens...
Call no man Father
Matthew 23:9
Check your mailbox.
From on of your own: 12 Ways For a Catholic to Stay Calm & Not Freak Out Every Time Pope Francis Speaks Besides the definition of "Protestant" being so broad as to essentially be meaningless, the reality is that, beyond the limited and largely paper unity of Catholicism, it is a amalgamation of variant beliefs, as RCs can and do engage in interpretation of their supreme source, including what magisterial level teachings, or aspects them, fall under, and thus what level of assent is required, as well as the meaning of them to varying degrees.
Moreover, what one effects and does is what constitutes the evidence of what one believes, (Ja. 2:18) and liberalism predominates where Catholicism does in contrast to evangelicals, which are yet the most unified (in conservative beliefs) significant religious group, much in contrast to those Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death.
So what's your opinion about how Protestants *practice* being saved?
Really....
Who granted it?
When?
Where?
How?
Why?
Could you point to posts where AMPU has despised Mary?
He apparently thinks the world of her, Himself.
Apparently?
You're not sure?
And what leads you to that conclusion about God in the first place? Did He tell you Himself?
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.
Evil is always easy, eh?
So the simplicity of Christ is evil?
So is the noob.
IATZ......
Cradle Catholics don't bother with the Bible because they're told from the cradle that it's not their business to read it and they can't understand it.
The priests and the nuns, who are *trained* in the things of God, are supposed to do that job for you and all you have to do is trust them that they are telling you the truth, which you can't know unless you know the Bible yourself.
Nice little racket they have going there.
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.