Interesting that the image is STILL used:
Posted on 07/17/2017 8:08:32 AM PDT by ebb tide
“Francis is more interested in leftwing politics than in Catholic theology”, George Neumayr, contributing editor of The American Spectator, states talking to Tom Woods on July 14th on tomwoods.com. Woods describes Francis as a result of John Paul II who - as he puts it - appointed "absolutely terrible people" as bishops: "Catholics have suffered under Bergoglios for decades now”.
Neumayr agrees that a lot of the liberal bishops were appointed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He sees Francis as the “culmination of a century” of liberalism and modernism in the Church.
For him it is "highly unlikely" that Francis, who in his theology is “more a Protestant than a Catholic” will convert to Catholicism. Instead, the realistic scenario is that Francis will produce division and chaos, "Catholics will have to decide whether they guard the faith over papolatry.”
And: “The Cardinals have to declare that Francis is a bad pope who must be resisted.”
Re: sacramentals: A sacramental is simply an aid, it does not produce an effect.
Consider a wedding ring. A man wears it and is reminded of his wife when he sees it. What does a man do when he wants to commit adultery? Takes off the wedding ring, takes off the reminder that what he is about to do is very wrong.
Oddly enough, a wedding ring is also a sacramental.
The promises attached to the brown scapular are not actually taught by the Church.
Re: Purgatory: next post
If you EVER get a answer to that one, please ping me to it!
Purgatory: 1 Cor 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. 14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
As I mentioned before, the promises attached to the brown scapular are not taught by the Church.
_________________
Interestingly, I went through Protestantism for a few years on my way to Catholicism, so there’s no little voice or somnabulism about me :)
The Bible, or what most Christians of any denomination consider Scripture, consists of both the Old and New Testaments. Without an organization with sufficient authority to rule on the canon of the NT, we would have only the OT now.
Only the Catholic Church existed at the time, and just as the Apostles went through a process of discernment of issues, which some might call FIGHTing, so was there discussion about which books should be included in the NT. The Apostles, and by definition their spiritual descendants, were given the authority by Christ to bind and loose to make decisions such as this.
I probably should have said the Didache was updated to reflect Christ’s teachings, much the way a manual will be updated when a system is computerized.
I’m sorry, since the Didache is not a part of the Bible, I don’t understand your comment.
Says the church given the authority to teach and to bind and loose, yes.
No, I wasn’t dragging Hitler into it; I was trying to give an example of a comment a Protestant might deem offensive, in reply to the poster’s very offensive description of the Catholic Church.
Right, bad guys everywhere, among both Protestants and Catholics.
It takes a priest in Confession to remit the effects of mortal sin, but Confession is not necessary to remit venial sin.
However, confessing venial sins is a good idea, since the graces conferred in Confession help fight against those sins which were confessed.
The passage you posted speaks of the Bema Seat of Christ IN HEAVEN, not in some imagined ‘purgatory’ where additional cleansing supposedly takes place, as if The Blood of Christ was not sufficient to cleanse us from ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. You have selected the passage which refutes your power structure associated to the little placard indulgence supposedly issue from Mary.
There has been an Ekklesia from the Day of Pentecost onward to today. That Ekklesia will be 'sorted' when the Rapture removes the Ekklesia. Many religious Christian wannabees will remain here on earth for the increasing hellish life of the seven years of Tribulation who were institutional Christians but not members of the Actual Church, the Ekklesia, the Body of Christ.
In the clouds meeting Jesus in the air (see 1 Thess 4:13-18) will be folks from many denominations, including catholiciism, but only members of the Body of Christ, The Body of believers, the Ekklesia establish the day of Pentecost, will be there in the clouds, then returning with Jesus to The Father's House.
Oh, dear, I confused the promises of the Carmelite scapular with something else, so the privileges of the brown scapular *are* given by the Church, on certain conditions (wearing of the scapular, maintaining chastity according to one’s state, and either praying a certain set of prayers or with permission, substituting another act).
I think you don’t really understand that a scapular is simply an aid to a goal, as exercise equipment is an aid to becoming stronger. The scapular comes from the habits those dedicated to the religious life used to wear as a sign of their dedication, just as a wedding ring is a sign of dedication to one’s spouse. It is not at all magic, any more than exercise equipment is.
This part seems to indicate that something difficult happens: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Nothing unclean shall enter the gates of Heaven: can I say I will die without having committed some small act which dirties my soul, or is an act of “straw” rather than an act of “gold”? This passage indicates that these problematic acts will be removed as impurities are removed from gold, by fire.
And the necessity for Purgatory will most certainly be the result of Christ’s judgement.
Unfortunately, history refutes this Protestant point.
Where did you get the idea about "there is no private interpretation"? Perhaps when Peter was talking about the origin and authority of Scripture? Here's what he said, see if you can guess what was meant by "no prophecy of Scripture comes from the prophet's own interpretation":
He wasn't talking about people reading the word and understanding its meaning. Rather, he said what the prophets spoke didn't come from their own words or their own interpretation of what the Holy Spirit revealed to them but they spoke as the Holy Spirit moved/carried them along. We have the more sure word of prophecy. The Scriptures we have IS the very word of God, not the musings of mere men. So, naturally the Holy Spirit has gifted to the body of Christ those who are empowered by Him to teach, to lead, to disciple others and to evangelize. But NONE of these people have authority OVER God's word. It says what it says. It's not written in some foreign code but the Holy Spirit enables believers to know the truth Scripture is putting forth. He will teach us ALL things, Jesus said. The early church defended the rule of faith BY the Scriptures and the teachings handed down to them by the Apostles (they were the same).
I am clear on the fact that Luther’s original actions were in accord with this long-standing way of doing things. Where Luther went wrong was to refuse to give up his ideas when presented with Church teachings, which contradicted his own, and then refuse to discuss his ideas further with academics of the Church.
Luther's actions were based on his fidelity to the Scriptures and the abuses he saw first hand within the Roman Catholic hierarchy up to and including the Pope. He wasn't wrong especially at the early stage when he questioned the use of indulgences and the rampant simony around it. As a side, the Pope DID stop the buying and selling of indulgences - so he acknowledged the church was wrong. Luther defended his beliefs by appealing to Scripture as well as the Early Church fathers against the novel doctrines that had been brought in over the centuries that were not taught by the Apostles and could not be defended by the rule of faith of Scripture OR tradition. Tradition became whatever Rome said it was.
You apparently don't know that Luther went back and forth with the "academics" of the Catholic church and there are hundreds of letters and papers attesting to that which are even available online and translated into English.
Thus, Lutheranism itself was based on private interpretation. In order to promote his idea of Sola Fide, he changed the Bible when he translated it.
Your initial premise was wrong so your conclusion fares no better. Luther's GERMAN translation, specifically the passage in Romans 3:28 that you presume he wrongly changed, has also been shown to be a bogus claim (this thread even gives a link that speaks to this). That use of the term "faith alone" was used by earlier translations including Catholic ones and was defended by numerous Catholic "academics". Here's the link if you don't want to go through this thread to find it: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html.
And the further changes in Protestant theological thought were also based on private interpretation.
Again, false premise, false conclusion. Besides, Catholicism has changed and added theological thought based on nothing more than "we say it's true, so it's true", they don't even pretend to go to Scripture to defend it.
Hopefully, this helps you understand a little more why non-Cath Freepers participate on these threads.
Interesting that the image is STILL used:
This truth is crystal clear in Scripture. Those who continue to oppose it and insist that their good works plus their faith is what saves them are those "boasters" Paul seemed to be addressing in that passage. That NO ONE should boast, he said, is how we know that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone (and that not of ourselves) because of Christ alone to the glory of God ALONE.
“Speak for yourself!”
I was. Happily.
” Daniel1212 is not playing games...”
I bet you keyboard theologians have a secret handshake & a decoder ring in your enrollment packet when you join that “Tear Down Catholics” club, eh?
And yes, I am speaking for myself in this post too., ROFLMAO!
1) Who agrees with the following partial quote/extract;
"...Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14..."2) What world-renowned theologian said it?
Can any Roman Catholic answer that one without looking at other thread comments, and/or using a search engine to find the source?
On note related to Luther's theological application of "faith alone", it must be understood that "sola fide" is not, and never was "alone".
Grace, Christ, Scripture, and for the Glory of God, and "faith" alone -- those five all together, thus never "alone".
Criticisms of any of those five must take into account how any of those are interrelated to all the rest, or esles it just so much misunderstanding, and repetitive murdering of strawman.
..had already been posted on this thread at comment #310, but I'll repeat it here for purpose of comparison with the quote from the above, unnamed source.
To repeat the information, borrowing from James Swan, who was himself borrowing from
From the Beggars All page @ above provided link;
4. Previous translations of the word “alone” in Romans 3:28
Luther offers another line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current Cyber-Roman Catholics ignore (and most Protestants are not aware of):“Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”
Now here comes the fun part in this discussion.
The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] with the word “alone.”
At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.
Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):
Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).
Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).
Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).
Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).
John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).
Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ]).
Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.
Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).
To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):
Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).
Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).
See further:
Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.
Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).
Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.
Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.
Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”
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.