Oh?
Then this little do-dad may as well say, "Drink more Ovaltine"
For a low; LOW! price of ONLY $11.95...
Posted on 06/04/2017 12:29:15 PM PDT by ealgeone
I know he and his brother wrote many hymns we still sing today and were circuit riders in the early days.
Whatever Scriptures they stressed over any others I cannot tell you.
Oh?
Then this little do-dad may as well say, "Drink more Ovaltine"
Seems like 'Our Lady of Mt. Carmel' is pushing some snakeoil promises here!
LOL. You are right, of course. I know it was part of LBN's long post to me. I didn't have time to address it. I am glad you did. Yes, I agree, LBN is EXTREMELY confused. Since I am a married dude, I can't possibly take a vow of celibacy, but I DO vow, that the next time she comes at me, out of the maelstrom of Catholicism, without a magisterium, I can't deal with it. I will not abide by the rules of a Catholic who won't abide by her own rules.
By the way, a few years ago, I asked another catholic, why he was interpreting scripture to me, without a priest to interpret for him. He said he wasn't interpreting scripture. He was just reading it, and telling me what it said. I could hear the laughter and derision, without an Internet feed, all the way from New York, 8,908 miles from here. It was utterly hilarious.
Oh, you don't even want to go there.......
First off, many priests leave the priesthood to get married. I know a priest who met a nun and they both left their orders to get married.
Are you blanket condemning them all?
Also, what about these popes and their vows of celibacy? You do realize, don't you, that sex outside of marriage is also breaking those vows?
Top 10 Most Wicked Popes
http://listverse.com/2007/08/17/top-10-most-wicked-popes/
1. Liberius, reigned 352-66 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
2. Honorius I, reigned 625-638 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
3. Stephen VI, reigned 896-89 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
4. John XII, reigned 955-964 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
5. Benedict IX, reigned 1032-1048 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
6. Boniface VIII, reigned 1294-1303 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
7. Urban VI, reigned 1378-1389 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
8. Alexander VI, reigned 1492-1503 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
9. Leo X, reigned 1513-1521 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
10. Clement VII, reigned 1523-1524 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
Top 10 Worst Popes in History
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php
1. Pope Alexander VI (1431 – 1503)
2. Pope John XII (c. 937 – 964)
3. Pope Benedict IX (c. 1012 – 1065/85)
4. Pope Sergius III (? – 911)
5. Pope Stephen VI (? – 897)
6. Pope Julius III (1487 – 1555)
7. Pope Urban II (ca. 1035 – 1099)
8. Pope Clement VI (1291 – 1352)
9. Pope Leo X (1475 – 1521)
10. Pope Boniface VIII (c. 1235 – 1303)
And what about the vows of celibacy that all those homosexual priests who molested children broke and were protected by the Catholic church hierarchy? And who are and were still allowed to perform and mass and administer the sacraments as long as *their intent was pure*?
And the popes who passed the papacy on to their illegitimate heirs?
And then you Catholics have the NERVE to try to condemn Luther for getting MARRIED?!
You do realize that a married clergy was the norm for a long time and that PETER himself was married?
And while Luther did take those vows AS A PRIEST, I don't see why those vows would still have been binding on him when he was no longer a priest. And I will remind you that it was the Catholic church that EX-COMMUNICATED him. He did not want to leave it. They kicked him out.
And then the RCC has the nerve to demand to have enough control over him yet to insist that he still adhere to those vows, after THEY kicked him out?
What chutzpah!!!!
The hypocrisy of the condemnation of Luther by the Catholic church is mind-boggling.
THAT’S A REAL THING?!
Oh, who am I kidding; of course that’s a real thing.
Selling indulgences never stopped; they just started taking on different forms.
Yeah, I was laughing about that, too, when I read it. Isn’t it funny how many, MANY times Catholic lies about Luther and the Reformation have to be refuted over and over here??? Sometimes by the SAME people! Here we have a newbie, who no doubt, isn’t aware that most of us are wise to them and know the truth.
And just where can we find this official interpretation of Scripture by your magisterium?
And if people are incapable of interpreting Scripture on their own, they are not going to be able to interpret the magisterium on their own.
Where's the interpretation of the interpretation of Scripture so that they know they read the interpretation correctly?
And we who hold that faith unchanged pre-Vatican II, keep and hold that same Gospel and that same interpretation.
So what gives you the right to sit in judgment of the magisterium that came up with Vatican 2 and deem it unacceptable?
If you are trusting your magisterium to correctly interpret Scripture, then why are you rejecting Vatican 2? And if you don't trust them to have done Vatican 2 correctly, then how can you trust them to interpret Scripture correctly?
After all, every one can interprets the Bible in his/her own way so says Martin Luther and so say ye all. It is now at a point where the focus of debate is no longer on what Christ said but each individual interpretation. Smooth move!
You've been told plenty of times that we don't follow Luther, but I guess that won't stop you from believing that.
Now there's very little chance of bringing you back to the truth, because it's impossible to have a legitament set of apologetics for each 'new gospel' established on each NEW interpretation.
First off, we have the Truth and it's God's word, not the Catholic church.
Secondly, we don't have *new* interpretations all the time.
For that matter, we don't *interpret* Scripture all that much. Because we believe that it means what it says. The only reason people interpret it is to change the meaning of what was said to make it mean something it didn't say.
So we just read the Scripture and post it and tell you what it means.
Right, Mark? ;)
If you can't believe it because you've never heard it before, how did you move away from a two thousand year old truth to all these new gospels based on new interpretations and new versions?!
The 2,000 year old truth we adhere to is the gospel as found in the NT, NOT the teachings of Catholicism that change like shifting sands until there's who knows how many versions of Catholicism, each claiming to be the ORIGINAL church as founded by the apostles.
Also, new versions of Scripture are useful as the language changes.
The Catholic church now has 19 versions of Scripture if the information here is correct.
By the way bro, where is Mt. Carmel? Is that where Clint Eastwood used to be the mayor? I know where Mt Apo is. I can see it from my second floor bedroom, but I don't know where Mt Carmel is. 😇😱
LOL!!!
Oh the horror of horrors. Peter was married too? 😱 😁 😊 😂 Actually, I knew he was. So, since we know Peter was a married man, I can only assume that he, being the alleged first pope, actually did the "evil deed" with his wife, and had children too. Well, I guess it's ok, since so many popes broke their vows of celibacy, and married nuns, and had children too.
In my catholic high school, many of us used to wonder if the priests we knew, had any relationships with the nuns in the convent. We never knew for sure, but we wondered. 😂
Must be a pretty common speculation.
We wondered too.
Where was your "church" in....say....1426A.D....????Mine was going strong!!!
If you confessed to a priest that you were the one police were looking for who murdered the two little girls on the hiking trail, he would probably advise that you need to make it right with the authorities before he would grant absolution....
Yeah, but Rome's teachings are Christ's teachings and are 2,017 years old....
well, the Our Father is, of course the lord's prayer which Jesus himself gave us...and the Hail Mary is directly from the Bible....we just add a request that she pray for us sinners at the end....
We wondered too.
Yes, we never knew for sure. This was back in the 60s. At the time, I didn't wonder too much, since I trusted the priests, and we did not know about all the homosexual stuff going on. I was so naive, that when my 11th grade nun teacher, mentioned homosexuality, I didn't believe anyone actually did that. Was I ever wrong.
Two of the 4 priests in my catholic high school, ended up getting married. That's OK, except one of them married the school secretary, but she had to divorce her husband first. There was a huge scandal over that. I still remember their names.
Her daughter was a classmate of mine. I never knew what she thought of her mother, cuz this was after we graduated, and I never saw her again. She was not one of the girls I flirted with in catechism class, which was the main reason I was so poorly catechised. 😆 I think Elsie can identify with being a poorly catechised, as he is a catholic wanna be dude. 😂
Where was your “church” in....say....1426A.D....????Mine was going strong!!!
***
HA. Yeah, your ‘church’ was perverting the Gospel with selling indulgences, throwing wild parties, and running brothels specifically for priests.
And yet the TRUE Church still existed among those who believed in Christ alone as the source of salvation, despite all the efforts of your ‘church’ to snuff it out.
Dr. Luther just provided a place for the true Church to come out of the shadows of Rome’s heresy.
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.