Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation??
Ask Father Murray Watson ^ | Father Murray

Posted on 01/02/2002 1:15:38 PM PST by Theresa

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-412 next last
To: SoothingDave
The lack of caps was unintentional - my carpal is agonizing today, and my hands get lazy at times - while I dont agree wholeheartedly with many things within the Catholic denom, I dont think I can be tagged as a Catholic basher - Ive posted favorable things here. Im ex myself, but still consider the encyclicals and other writings excellent doctrine & my kids have attended Cath schools for years
101 posted on 01/03/2002 6:28:44 AM PST by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
The lack of caps was unintentional - my carpal is agonizing today, and my hands get lazy at times - while I dont agree wholeheartedly with many things within the Catholic denom, I dont think I can be tagged as a Catholic basher

My apologies for jumping the gun.

SD

102 posted on 01/03/2002 6:43:25 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
We understand Protestants don't follow the Pope, nor do you follow the Queen of England. Or would you needlessly offend the British by writing that "queen of england?"

- I dont hear you disputing the whole Latin mass, Vicar of Christ, Mother Mary / co-redeemer thing.

Would you at least acknowledge some doctrinal insufficiencies in Catholicism?

I think thats what agitates Protestants the most, there are some glaring deficiencies, yet the whole thing is still held up as 100% perfection - sorry, but Hillary didnt stand in our pulpit like she did in a Catholic pulpit here in Rochester.

No slight meant.

103 posted on 01/03/2002 6:50:24 AM PST by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Humidston ; Theresa ; My2Cents
There is a really unfortunate tendency among some self-styled stalwart Catholics - (keep in mind, I am a Catholic conservative) - to talk about things as if all that is involved in matters of the spirit is lining up all the rules in neat, tidy hierarchical order with plenty of quotations from papal encyclicals. The serious spiritual matters of "the Church" are spiritual realities, deep phenomena of human nature and consciousness, and really have very little to do with the shenanigans, political jockeying, and silliness of the bureaucratic administrative structure of the earthly institutional Church, the "bingo" BS, the buffet dining of national bishops' conferences, and the vacationing habits and fashionwear of Jesuit university professors, Richard McBrien's wardrobe, and so forth. This is all part of "the show" but has very little to do with serious spiritual realities.

There is a very sad and pathetic side to AmChurch which revolves around what Fr. Tom ate at the five-star restaurant during the conference in Philadelphia or what kinds of golf clubs the bishop has, which layman won the golf outing tournament, how many Tootsie Rolls the KofCs sold during their drive,why Notre Dame selected this guy as their football coach, and which priest got to lead the vacation group to Cape May or on the Caribbean Cruise. The dysfunctional nature of much of AmChurch Catholicism really ought to be an unacceptable outrage for everyone. Liberal dissenting Catholics can be very annoying, but among the self-claimed ultra-orthodox conservatives, there are plenty of kooks - people who can't stop talking about their disgust with sex, etc. Just because someone claims to be Catholic, to support the pope, and shows up in the proper uniform does not necessarily mean that they are a great spiritual Christian. We have a lot of work to do in this country in the way of ecclesiastical reform. There was a priest I heard speak at a conference once who couldn't stop talking about masturbation. This was a guy who was clearly too unbalanced to be hearing confessions regularly. There are BIG problems in AmChurch. The Catholic college nearby is run like a zoo and our bishop does nothing about it. None of these goofy, ridiculous, absurd sociological phenomena have anything to do with the Holy Spirit!!!

Then you have these nutty self-righteous converts who appear out of nowhere, from the fundamentalist underworld, and start trying to boss everyone around with their own pay-as-you-go/buy-my-book NFP conferences & seminars, the absolutely loony Pre-Cana Marriage Prep programs, Enneagrams still buzzing around among the wacky liberal set, the NewAgey "charismatics" lifting their arms up in the middle of Mass like they are about to establish contact with the Mother Ship, adding revivalist "clapping" etc., etc.!BIG problems. There is a Laurel and Hardy, Three Stooges, or Marx Brothers aspect to AmChurch which is quite...disturbing. At the English-language V II-approved Novus Ordo Mass I most recently attended there was a 300-pound woman with a speech impediment hovering around in the sanctuary who served as "lector." I wasn't sure whether this was Mass or a Shriners' circus.

104 posted on 01/03/2002 7:07:21 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
- I dont hear you disputing the whole Latin mass, Vicar of Christ, Mother Mary / co-redeemer thing.

I thought I'd start with the spelling/respect thing, but that was a mistake. Are you sure you want to do this?

Baptists don't have to have their services in Latin, nor do Catholics. We have been having Masses in the vernacular since 1970 or so. But strictly speaking, the language used to praise God is not nearly as important as the desire to do so. Education is and was always done in the vernacular.

What is it about the Church having a leader who can "declare bound what is bound in Heaven" bothers you?

Mary is not worshipped. We worship God the Father when we offer the only perfect sacrifice of Christ to Him. Singing and teaching about a saint does not mean we worship her.

And, before we even start, please identify what "co-redeemer" means and what your objection to it is.

Would you at least acknowledge some doctrinal insufficiencies in Catholicism? I think thats what agitates Protestants the most, there are some glaring deficiencies, yet the whole thing is still held up as 100% perfection

Nope, sorry. There are no "doctrinal" deficiencies. Why would I follow a faith that didn't have the answers?

- sorry, but Hillary didnt stand in our pulpit like she did in a Catholic pulpit here in Rochester. No slight meant.

If no slight was meant, why even bring it up? You will find man, many more examples of liberal politicians using Protestant pulpits than Catholic ones. Not that any of it is proper, but I fail to see what other than a slight could have been intended by mentioning this fact.

SD

105 posted on 01/03/2002 7:13:31 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
Bump
106 posted on 01/03/2002 7:16:49 AM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Theresa
Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 9, Paragraph 1, SubSection 3, Heading 3
776 As sacrament, the Church is Christ's instrument. "She is taken up by him also as the instrument for the salvation of all," "the universal sacrament of salvation," by which Christ is "at once manifesting and actualizing the mystery of God's love for men." (199) The Church "is the visible plan of God's love for humanity," because God desires "that the whole human race may become one People of God, form one Body of Christ, and be built up into one temple of the Holy Spirit." (200)
107 posted on 01/03/2002 7:20:20 AM PST by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iowegian
This "teaching" makes Christ a liar..He didnt say "I am the way the truth and the life for those that have an inner conscience and live godly lives did He?

Otherwise, it would imply that all of humanity was excluded from salvation before Christ came, and that much of humanity (which has not had the opportunity to hear the Christian message until recently) was doomed to be eternally separated from God

Most of the world has heard the gospel so this is moot..

108 posted on 01/03/2002 7:23:27 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 9, Paragraph 1, SubSection 3, Heading 3

ROFLOL...Good Heavens, God's Word isn't this complicated. This speaks volume's about the catholic church. How about just giving Book, Chapter, and Verse, it would be alot more reliable:)

Becky

109 posted on 01/03/2002 7:41:52 AM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
Like all the desert hygiene rules in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy?
BTW, do you know who divided and organized "the Bible" into all those numerical chapters and verses?
110 posted on 01/03/2002 8:02:43 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
Yes I realize the chapters, and verses, were added years later. But give me a break. How could anyone keep up and learn what the catholics believe with all that. By the time you got through one part, section, chapter, subtitle, heading, etc:) :) you will have forgotten the other part, section, etc... No wonder there is so much confusion about what the catholicss are suppose to believe. From my discussion on anoter thread with catholics it seems to me that the catholic church is ALL THINGS to ALL PEOPLE. Just what ever you want they can find it in their parts, headings, sections, so on and so forth.

Becky

111 posted on 01/03/2002 8:16:09 AM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
You have a point. There is actually a complicated side to theology though. Things like why the Israelites were not supposed to pronounce the Hebrew name of God, circumcision, the dimensions of the Ark of the Covenant, dietary rules, laws regulating marriage, on purification and uncleanness, the nature of angels and so forth - these have to be discussed in some sort of context which is not necessarily simple or immediately obvious just based on scriptural citations. Jewish law, for instance, is rather elaborate, shall we say.

On the chapters and verses, they were added, I believe, by the Catholic biblical scholar St. Jerome (A.D. 340-420).

112 posted on 01/03/2002 8:23:22 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Nope, sorry. There are no "doctrinal" deficiencies

C'mon Dave - Galileo might have argued the point. I guess we have little to share then.

Baptists don't have to have their services in Latin, nor do Catholics. We have been having Masses in the vernacular since 1970 or so

Yeah I got the Baptist part - duh - I disagree though as to the latin masses - they can still be found today - How does that enrich the poor Christ sought?

But strictly speaking, the language used to praise God is not nearly as important as the desire to do so.

Say wha ? - I'd be more inclined to agree with my congregation by understanding the language, lest the chance of heretical teachings is reduced. ...like bumps on a pickle

Education is and was always done in the vernacular.

Yeah - I got that part - Im ex Cath remember ?

What is it about the Church having a leader who can "declare bound what is bound in Heaven" bothers you?

I have problems with a system that venerates a mortal man to a point where he is termed "infallible". Read the books Dave - there were plenty o nasty Popes.

Mary is not worshipped. We worship God the Father when we offer the only perfect sacrifice of Christ to Him. Singing and teaching about a saint does not mean we worship her.

- we differ here

And, before we even start, please identify what "co-redeemer" means and what your objection to it is.

There is one redeemer - Christ

My objection is anything else is blasphemy & undermines the trinity (or "trilogy" as my college roomate called it).

Too often its the Father, Son, Holy Ghost and Mary.

And if thats the case, the divinity of Christ is being consciously undermined.

Why would I follow a faith that didn't have the answers?

- Uh -'cause you equate the ritualism to faithfulness?

as for the whole co-redeemer thing - Attend any Sunday and you will hear intercessory prayers to her -

why her and not Jesus?

113 posted on 01/03/2002 8:25:48 AM PST by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
There is actually a complicated side to theology though.

Because theology is man thinking, which can be dangerous:) I am not saying you don't have to think and study, (2 Tim. 2:15), but theology is from man, the bible is from God. You don't need an 8 foot thick theology book to understnd God. 1 Cor. 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion as in all churches of the saints.

You could say this verse implies that Satan IS the author of confusion.

Becky

114 posted on 01/03/2002 8:32:42 AM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
Good for you!

Becky

115 posted on 01/03/2002 8:35:05 AM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
Not quite. A theological proposition is merely a verbal statement about the meaning of some aspect of Christianity or Judaism. The early Christians, the direct sucessors to the Apostles, engaged in "theologizing" (as did Jesus himself), the product of which we find in their writings and in such things as the summations of Christian belief in the "Creed." "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth." That's a theological statement. If you toss out theology, you toss out the Church and if you toss out the Church you are going against the words of Christ. That's not a good position for a serious Christian to take.
116 posted on 01/03/2002 8:39:41 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain

You don't need an 8 foot thick theology book to understnd God.

Becky,

If it was that simple, why are their millions of books explaining the bible. plus thousands of bible studies (many with different interpretation of scriptures), thousands of denominations etc.

P.S. I also do not think it is as complicated as some people make it

117 posted on 01/03/2002 8:42:04 AM PST by Joyful Wisdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Joyful Wisdom
If it was that simple,

It IS that simple:)

why are their millions of books explaining the bible. plus thousands of bible studies (many with different interpretation of scriptures), thousands of denominations etc.

That's easy, as I said in the other post, SATAN. He likes to keep things muddled.

Becky

118 posted on 01/03/2002 8:49:21 AM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
But the theologizing was completed for all by the authors of the Bible under the inspiriation of God.

Becky

119 posted on 01/03/2002 8:54:32 AM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
Nope, sorry. There are no "doctrinal" deficiencies

C'mon Dave - Galileo might have argued the point. I guess we have little to share then.

Most people have a very superficial understanding of the Galileo situation. He was not incarcerated because he disagreed with a Church dogma about the Sun. Astronomy is not an area covered by infallibility regardless.

Baptists don't have to have their services in Latin, nor do Catholics. We have been having Masses in the vernacular since 1970 or so

Yeah I got the Baptist part - duh - I disagree though as to the latin masses - they can still be found today - How does that enrich the poor Christ sought?

How does celebrating Mass in Latin de-rich the poor? For that matter how does a Baptist service in English enrich the poor?

But strictly speaking, the language used to praise God is not nearly as important as the desire to do so.

Say wha ? - I'd be more inclined to agree with my congregation by understanding the language, lest the chance of heretical teachings is reduced. ...like bumps on a pickle

So, it is the chance of heretical teaching that bothers you? You do realize that priests do not ad lib during the Mass? Do you also realize that the Mass is an offering to God, a time to worship? Those attending Mass are there to worship God, not necessarily to sit and listen to a preacher.

You act as if those attending Latin Mass have no idea of what is being said and sung. This is insulting. First of all, educated Catholics understand what the parts of the Mass are all about. Secondly, the Missal contains a side-by-side translation into English, so even the newecomer can follow along.

What is it that makes you believe that my singing "O come let us adore Him" is good but singing "Venite Adoremus" is bad?

Education is and was always done in the vernacular.

Yeah - I got that part - Im ex Cath remember ?

Then let it sink in. Your biggest objection to a Latin Mass is that heretical teaching may seep in, in a language you don't understand. Well, you just admitted that you understand that teaching is done in the vernacular. This includes the Scripture readings and the sermon during Mass, as well as outside instruction given to children and converts.

Honestly, some Protestants act like they think that schoolchildren were lectured to in Latin by a priest and they had no idea what was being said. I see that you know better, but many don't.

What is it about the Church having a leader who can "declare bound what is bound in Heaven" bothers you?

I have problems with a system that venerates a mortal man to a point where he is termed "infallible". Read the books Dave - there were plenty o nasty Popes.

Define "infallible." Contrast that with "impeccible." We do not teach that Popes are without sin. This is a common misconception and I would think you would know better.

And, before we even start, please identify what "co-redeemer" means and what your objection to it is.

There is one redeemer - Christ

I asked you to define "co-redeemer." You have failed. Shall I rail about some teaching of yours without even having the faintest idea of how to define it? Wouldn't that make me ignorant?

SD

120 posted on 01/03/2002 8:57:21 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
The "deposit of faith," the content of revealed truth relating to salvation is in the Bible, yes, but if "theologizing" were over, none of us would be having this conversation or any other conversations from the time of St. Paul, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus,Augustine and St. Jerome (who gave the chapters and verses you cite) to Anselm, Aquinas, Martin Luther, Cranmer, Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham. You are actually "theologizing" now, by the way. THEOLOGY: from the Greek (theos, God and logos,study), the "study of God" or of divine things and matters, i.e., all reflective discussion about the ways of God and man's place in the drama of salvation. You are almost saying that our mind should play no role in discussions of the meaning of the Bible and salvation.
121 posted on 01/03/2002 9:04:13 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Theresa
Here is my response to that:

Acts 4:10-12 (NIV), "then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is '"the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone."' Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (KJV)

122 posted on 01/03/2002 9:06:26 AM PST by Sophie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iowegian
Why do you spend so much energy and effort persecuting Christians?

Of your last 50 posts, more than 40 of them have been attacking Christians.

What is your relationship with "sirgawain"?

Are you entered here under two names, or are you just one of the members of the "Hit Squad"?

Ashland, Missouri

123 posted on 01/03/2002 9:07:33 AM PST by rface
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: rface
as a follow up:

Father Feeney was an American priest who, back in the 1940s, taught that if a person was not a Roman Catholic, they were condemned to hell. This has never been the accepted teaching of Catholicism, and Father Feeney was reprimanded by the Vatican for his mistaken understanding.

124 posted on 01/03/2002 9:13:30 AM PST by rface
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
"But the theologizing was completed for all by the authors of the Bible under the inspiration of God."

One might be tempted to respond apparently not because the early Christians had to argue amongst themselves and with the Arian and Gnostic heretics about what the Bible meant and even which texts should be included in the final version (not decided until a church council)with various reformulated statements of Christian beliefs in the "Creed" and the pronouncements of church councils.

Your statement above, from the prior post, is a "theological" proposition itself subject to reflective analysis. In analytical form: Divine Revelation is of such a nature that the "theologizing" which carries official doctrinal truth "was completed for all by the authors of the Bible under the inspiration of God." By "inspired" we mean that God, acting through the Holy Spirit, illumined the minds of the Gospel writers. The conceptual categories of your theological claim are - Divine Revelation, the Holy Spirit, Sacred Scripture, and Divine Inspiration. The reference to "the Bible" assumes some accepted form of canonical texts of sacred scripture arrived at in church council through deliberation with "the Church" understood as also under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Welcome to the Catholic Church, my friend!

125 posted on 01/03/2002 9:16:43 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
You are almost saying that our mind should play no role in discussions of the meaning of the Bible and salvation.

LOL, I told my husband back a few post with you that this is what you would come back with, that is why in that one post I said "not that we don't think and study." We need to pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance, read His word, and trust that the HS will reveal what we need to know. Some things may be unclear, but it is funny how the next time you will get it.

1 Cor. 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of th world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Becky

126 posted on 01/03/2002 9:25:14 AM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
Attend any Sunday and you will hear intercessory prayers to her. Why her and not Jesus?

Disagree with the CC if you want, but don't tell lies about it.

127 posted on 01/03/2002 9:35:53 AM PST by al_c
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
#126

:o)

Anyway...There is a slightly complicated side to theological and scriptural matters. It's great to see you using all of those concepts and doctrines from the early Catholic (i.e., universal) Church - Divine Revelation, the action of the Holy Spirit in evangelization, divine purpose, inspiration, a canonical conception of the texts of sacred scripture, and St. Jerome's chapters and verses format. You seem to believe most of what he(and they) believed. :)

God Bless!

128 posted on 01/03/2002 9:38:24 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
My statement was not theologizing.

2 Tim. 3:16-17

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

1 John 2:27

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Becky

129 posted on 01/03/2002 9:38:35 AM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
You seem to believe most of what he(and they) believed. :)

I have in the last few months on another thread learned what (supposedly) the catholic church (supposedly) official teachings are. Alot of it comes from scripture which gives the illusion that, yes, they are "Christian," and I do agree with all that. But sometimes such as when discussing salvation they claim that it comes from grace through Jesus Christ only, which is correct, but they fail to add that the RCC teaches that grace comes from participation in the sacraments which is NOT scriptural. I want no part of the catholic church.

Becky

130 posted on 01/03/2002 9:46:37 AM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
"...not theologizing."

OK. So you deny making a claim about the nature of Divine Revelation in propositional discourse, a clear theological proposition, in the above post which presupposes the early Christian "Catholic" concept and reality of a set of canonically approved texts notarized as the official "Bible" by a church council, understood as also acting under the Holy Spirit?

You need to read some basic encyclopedia articles on Christian Church history. Some basic facts on the Bible and Divine Revelation, etc. That's about as much imput as I am going to be able to offer today. Busy schedule.

God Bless!

131 posted on 01/03/2002 9:49:38 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Theresa
You Protestants have to face the fact that the Bible you consider the infallible Word of God was a product of the RCC. See Constantine. And you are, of course, all wayward heretics. lol
132 posted on 01/03/2002 9:56:42 AM PST by JmyBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Cuba Libre

SD

133 posted on 01/03/2002 9:57:07 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Most people have a very superficial understanding of the Galileo situation. He was not incarcerated because he disagreed with a Church dogma about the Sun. Astronomy is not an area covered by infallibility regardless.

I realize that - however doctrinal issues exist just like Calvinism, & Arminianism. To deny that is to open your eyes within your bowels.

How does celebrating Mass in Latin de-rich the poor? For that matter how does a Baptist service in English enrich the poor?

Christ took Salvation from the Synagogue and gave it to the poor. A Latin Mass will be only understood by those intelligent enough to comprehend latin, something you wont find among the demographics of todays inner city. Is it trying to reach people and spread the Word or is it merely spooning Christ out in a controlled manner to those so educated? As for Baptist /English services, it takes the predominant language of the region and makes it accessible to anyone who comes in the door, not just the pew filler Sunday Christian / Holiday types.

So, it is the chance of heretical teaching that bothers you? You do realize that priests do not ad lib during the Mass?

Oh please child - Ive got the whole liturgical thing down - & yes Ive heard plenty of ad-libs (Cath and Pro)

Do you also realize that the Mass is an offering to God, a time to worship? Those attending Mass are there to worship God, not necessarily to sit and listen to a preacher.

Im glad the worship works for you. Personally though, the liturgical constancy is boring, predictable and Spirit lacking. You are entitled though.

You act as if those attending Latin Mass have no idea of what is being said and sung. This is insulting. First of all, educated Catholics understand what the parts of the Mass are all about. Secondly, the Missal contains a side-by-side translation into English, so even the newecomer can follow along.

I disagree, approach a large cross section of Catholic youth and I will all but guarantee they are ignorant of Latin until they reach the age of 15 or so.

What is it that makes you believe that my singing "O come let us adore Him" is good but singing "Venite Adoremus" is bad? Ive got no problem with singing in Latin.

Then let it sink in. Your biggest objection to a Latin Mass is that heretical teaching may seep in, in a language you don't understand. Well, you just admitted that you understand that teaching is done in the vernacular. This includes the Scripture readings and the sermon during Mass, as well as outside instruction given to children and converts.

No thats not my biggest objection - My biggest objection (like it matters a hoot in hell) is that it is not ministering to the poor effectively. Bob Bluecollar showing up for the first time is not going to get a thing out of it, and if he gets nothing from it, how can he expected to go forth and spread the gospel effectively. Though now that ive said that I realize just how few Catholics spread the gospel at all - so I guess he'd fit in.

Define "infallible."

Infallible = Jesus/God/Holy Spirit

Contrast that with "impeccible."

Impeccible = Pope John Paul, Billy Graham

We do not teach that Popes are without sin. This is a common misconception and I would think you would know better.

Ya huh - certainly wasnt that way in our Diocese 30 years ago.

I asked you to define "co-redeemer." You have failed. Shall I rail about some teaching of yours without even having the faintest idea of how to define it? Wouldn't that make me ignorant?

co-redeemer = someone elevated to the level of Christ - spare me your slavish need for these simple definitions.

It all comes down to this again - the fact you ignore the doctrinal lapses in Catholicism while holding it up as pure and unadulterated. Its inhabited by men - fallible men

134 posted on 01/03/2002 10:01:02 AM PST by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: JmyBryan
And you are, of course, all wayward heretics. lol

And youve done just what to herd us in ? - pull the sticks from your eye

135 posted on 01/03/2002 10:03:16 AM PST by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
:) I have in the last few months on another thread learned what (supposedly) the catholic church (supposedly) official teachings are. Alot of it comes from scripture which gives the illusion that, yes, they are "Christian," and I do agree with all that. But sometimes such as when discussing salvation they claim that it comes from grace through Jesus Christ only, which is correct, but they fail to add that the RCC teaches that grace comes from participation in the sacraments which is NOT scriptural. I want no part of the catholic church. Becky

well put sister

136 posted on 01/03/2002 10:05:30 AM PST by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity ; Theresa ; all

Just for the record...

Catholicism for Beginners:Theology and Revelation

Theology for Beginners II

Not necessarily the best, but they'll have to do for now...

It does get complicated sometimes. God Bless!

137 posted on 01/03/2002 10:10:53 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: al_c
but don't tell lies about it.

How charmingly Christian

Funny how everything I experienced as a young man 30 years ago is now completely opposite of the way it is now - The Pope is no longer infallible, Latin Masses no longer exist (yeah right) and Mary isnt a co-redeemer.(sarcasm)

138 posted on 01/03/2002 10:24:52 AM PST by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity ; Theresa ; All

Divine Inspiration of the Bible for Beginners

139 posted on 01/03/2002 10:46:28 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: JmyBryan

Early Catholic Origins of the Christian "Bible": The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament

140 posted on 01/03/2002 10:56:52 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
What happens to pagan idol worshippers who do follow their conscience?

When their conscience makes them fly airplanes into tall buildings, what do you think happens to them?

Hank

141 posted on 01/03/2002 11:17:33 AM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
Thank you for the informative link. I recommend it to all.

From what teaching of Jesus do you derive a canon or need for canonical sanction? Or do you assume a church is not a church unless it has official literature which can no longer be changed or questioned because it has canonicity?

Personally, I am fascinated by the lack of understanding evidenced by many stalwart Christians of Biblical origins. The largest majority in a recent poll on MSNBC believe the Bible to be inerrant. IMHO a strange conclusion for such an educated culture. Contradictions cannot be rationalized into inerrancy without an unwillingness to think critically.

142 posted on 01/03/2002 11:38:42 AM PST by JmyBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: JmyBryan
Apologies already - the poll was not whether the Bible was inerrant, a view I can see the rationality behind, but whether the Bible was 100% literally true.
143 posted on 01/03/2002 11:40:16 AM PST by JmyBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Theresa
God is able to save anyone he chooses.

This is the doctrine of my faith - it is arrogant to think otherwise.

144 posted on 01/03/2002 11:48:03 AM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
Most people have a very superficial understanding of the Galileo situation. He was not incarcerated because he disagreed with a Church dogma about the Sun. Astronomy is not an area covered by infallibility regardless.

I realize that - however doctrinal issues exist just like Calvinism, & Arminianism. To deny that is to open your eyes within your bowels.

Very clever. Do you have an example? Since they "exist" I thought you might?

How does celebrating Mass in Latin de-rich the poor? For that matter how does a Baptist service in English enrich the poor?

Christ took Salvation from the Synagogue and gave it to the poor. A Latin Mass will be only understood by those intelligent enough to comprehend latin, something you wont find among the demographics of todays inner city. Is it trying to reach people and spread the Word or is it merely spooning Christ out in a controlled manner to those so educated?

As I said, the primary, if not sole purpose of a Mass is to worship God. I also said that the Bible readings and sermon would be in the vernacular. So what part of "reaching people" and "spreading the Word" would be missing?

As for not understanding the ordinary parts of the Mass in Latin, there are, as I already said, Missals with English translations. So that isn't an excuse either. You haven't addressed what I said at all, just listed your prejudice again.

As for Baptist /English services, it takes the predominant language of the region and makes it accessible to anyone who comes in the door, not just the pew filler Sunday Christian / Holiday types.

As would a Catholic Mass in Latin with Missals and the readings and sermon in the vernacular. Shall we tailor everything we do to the ignorant folks who may stumble across the doorway? Or should we honor God the best way we know how and provide teaching to elevate even an inner city youth to know how to say "Et cum spiritu tuo" and know what it means? Must everything be remedial?

So, it is the chance of heretical teaching that bothers you? You do realize that priests do not ad lib during the Mass?

Oh please child - Ive got the whole liturgical thing down - & yes Ive heard plenty of ad-libs (Cath and Pro)

LOL. You got me there. I should have said priests are not supposed to ad lib during Mass. You will find little of this in the Latin Mass, as few can ad lib in Latin.

Do you also realize that the Mass is an offering to God, a time to worship? Those attending Mass are there to worship God, not necessarily to sit and listen to a preacher.

Im glad the worship works for you. Personally though, the liturgical constancy is boring, predictable and Spirit lacking. You are entitled though.

Liturgical constancy and even the use of a special language serves to make the liturgy different from the other activities we partake in. It is a special time and place to spend with God in worship to Him. That it is different from a normal assembly of human beings is good. That it follows a pattern is a symbol of the constancy of God.

What is it that makes you believe that my singing "O come let us adore Him" is good but singing "Venite Adoremus" is bad?

Ive got no problem with singing in Latin.

The entire Mass is designed to be sung! So what do you make of that?

Define "infallible."

Infallible = Jesus/God/Holy Spirit

Contrast that with "impeccible."

Impeccible = Pope John Paul, Billy Graham

Neither of those are definitions, rather they are examples. And neither the Pope nor Billy Graham are impeccible. Try dictionary.com.

We do not teach that Popes are without sin. This is a common misconception and I would think you would know better.

Ya huh - certainly wasnt that way in our Diocese 30 years ago.

I can assure you that no Diocese taught that the Pope was without sin.

I asked you to define "co-redeemer." You have failed. Shall I rail about some teaching of yours without even having the faintest idea of how to define it? Wouldn't that make me ignorant?

co-redeemer = someone elevated to the level of Christ - spare me your slavish need for these simple definitions.

My "slavish need" to have you define your terms reveals that you don't know what you are talking about. The furthest stretch of the Catholic imagination of Mary as "Co-Redeemer" does not elevate her to the level of Christ. It is called "ignorance" when you talk about things you don't understand and it is called a "strawman" to attack ideas of your opponent which he does not hold.

Do I do that to your faith?

SD

145 posted on 01/03/2002 12:11:21 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: JmyBryan
I'm certainly not an expert on the theoretical question of the NT canon, a very fascinating topic in the history of ideas of early Catholic Christianity. My main point was to highlight the historical fact that "the Bible" indeed is based on such an official canon, the product of deliberations on the meaning of Divine Revelation by church councils. Jesus does preach in the NT with some concept of a Judaic canon. He quotes Isaiah and refers to "the Law and the Prophets." The Pharisees and Sadducees, of course, reject Jesus' interpretations of the Hebrew prophets, as everyone else is free to do.

There isn't a "book" in the Bible, NT or OT, which, says, "OK, folks, here's the list of the official books!" The index is added later, of course.

Funniest conversation I ever had with a fundamentalist ended up with him saying everything in the Bible was to be taken literally EXCEPT when Jesus says, "This is my body" at the Last Supper. "That's just symbolic," he said. Along with the eating and drinking part, etc. Contrary to some posters here and elsewhere, I don't think that a person has to understand every word of the ancient Hebrew and Greek scriptures to be a valid Christian. That's an impossibility anyway. Most interesting book on sacred scripture I have seen is Henri de Lubac's book on Medieval Exegesis.

As for the earlier nonsensically absurd bugaboo about "theology" being banned by the Bible or something, there are some who seem not to have a clue and apparently refuse to read the ABCs of Christian history. All that really means (Grk:theos, God, logos, study) is "the study of" God, religion, sacred texts, religious teachings, etc. Any scholarly or intellectual discussion about the meaning of divine revelation and the drama of salvation - which, of course, is what everyone has been doing (more or less, less in some cases) on this thread. There is a wide and broad tent for critical and theoretical discussions of religion and affairs of the spirit within the Christian community.

146 posted on 01/03/2002 12:28:05 PM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Theresa
Bump to read later
147 posted on 01/03/2002 1:01:46 PM PST by TX Bluebonnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
AMEN
148 posted on 01/03/2002 1:06:52 PM PST by agenda_express
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
I can assure you that no Diocese taught that the Pope was without sin.

You Sir are blessed with a conservative diocese

Rochester is not so fortunate

Look - can we agree to disagree - I still see it as a solid faith -its just not for me. I see faults in yours, you see faults in mine. Im tired, my hands hurt and its been a long day - I'll meet you in the sandbox tomorrow, my daughter orientation at Catholic school is tonight.

149 posted on 01/03/2002 2:04:10 PM PST by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Thanks for the clarification. Now if I may ask a few more Q's... :-)

There is only one Church, the Catholic one. All other Chrstians have at some point deviated from Her.

Please tell me where the Bible says specifically that the Catholic church is the "only" Church?
I have never seen God's Word yield such a statement.

All Christians, by virtue of their Baptism, are joined together to the one Church. Your culpability for remaining outside of the Church's official boundaries and teachings is for God to determine.

Then I praise the Lord, because unlike man, He is Faithful & Just.

"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst."
- 1 Timothy 1:15 -

150 posted on 01/03/2002 2:17:42 PM PST by k2blader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-412 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson