Posted on 05/17/2007 10:08:04 AM PDT by Gamecock
Reading Francis Beckwith's interview with David Neff in Christianity Today, reminded me of how idyllic the Roman church can seem in the minds of those who embrace it (Click here: Q&A: Francis Beckwith | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction).
But then this news report appeared today which gives a much different picture of the supposed glories of Romanism (Click here: Pope to canonize first Brazilian saint - Yahoo! News).
All discussion of justification, the authority of Scripture, and reciting the Creed aside, the Pope is heading to Brazil to canonize Antonio de Sant'Anna Galvao, a Franciscan monk who is credited with 5000 miraculous healings. Over 1 million people are expected to be in attendance. The healings supposedly come as a result of swallowing rice paper pills prepared by the monk over two hundred years ago. According to the AP news report . . .
"The Vatican has officially certified the medical cases of two Brazilian women as divinely inspired miracles that justify the sainthood of Galvao. Both of these women spoke of their faith with The Associated Press, claiming that their children would not be alive today were it not for the tiny rice-paper pills that Friar Galvao handed out two centuries ago.
Although the friar died in 1822, the tradition is carried on by Brazilian nuns who toil in the Sao Paulo monastery where Galvao is buried, preparing thousands of the Tic Tac-sized pills distributed free each day to people seeking cures for all manner of ailments. Each one is inscribed with a prayer in Latin: `After birth, the Virgin remained intact. Mother of God, intercede on our behalf.'
Sandra Grossi de Almeida, 37, is one such believer. She had a uterine malformation that should have made it impossible for her to carry a child for more than four months. But in 1999, after taking the pills, she gave birth to Enzo, now 7. `I have faith," Grossi said, pointing to her son. I believe in God, and the proof is right here.'
Nearly 10 years before that, Daniela Cristina da Silva, then 4 years old, entered a coma and suffered a heart attack after liver and kidney complications from hepatitis A. `The doctors told me to pray because only a miracle could save her,' Daniela's mother Jacyra said recently. `My sister sneaked into the intensive care unit and forced my daughter to swallow Friar Galvao's pills.'"
So, if you "return home" to Rome, you get the whole ball of wax, including the beatification of saints who give out Tic-Tac size rice-paper pills which supposedly heal. And Pope Benedict XVI will be there to bless it all.
By the way, confessional Protestants affirm the historical evangelical doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, and the full authority of Scripture. And yes, we even recite the Creed every Lord's Day and we use a biblical-text based liturgy which is quite similar to that described by Justin Martyr in the second century.
Too bad Dr. Beckwith didn't consider a confessional Protestant church before embracing Romanism. Now he's stuck with Antonio de Sant'Anna Galvao and his rice-paper healing pills.
Remember that the behavior of a poster speaks as much about his confession as whatever he actually says about it. So "turning the other cheek" always wins.
I deal with the non-compliant in my own way based on the poster's personal posting history. Everyone has a bad day now and again so sometimes I cut slack - and sometimes I don't.
Augustine was stating a retraction, correcting a previous misunderstanding, which the correction is in alignment with the overwhelming majority of the Church Fathers, and in alignment with what Scripture clearly teaches.
The "last line" referred to is as opposed to the Roman Catholic position of blind obedience and blind faith it it's proclamations, Augustine does not insist on such tyranny, but rather makes his case, and advises the reader to decide for themselves which is the correct interpretation of the Matthew 16 passage, in opposition to Rome's later condemnation of "private interpretation", and the anti-Biblical claim of being the sole arbiter of truth by the Roman Catholic religion.
Roman Catholics do it all the time.
Older posters usually know how far the envelope can be pushed. In the example given, tiki was asking questions not attributing motives or reading your mind. The best response would have been "I'm not in over my head and I already answered the question at post n."
I get it, you will agree to the request, but not really because your fingers are crossed behind your back.
The question was answered, once again a personal dis-satisfaction with the answer does not negate the fact of it being answered. So, what is seems is that a fictitious liberty to harass, is reserved based on a purely subjective misinterpretation of the facts.
I have no problem at all debating the issues. However, I have serious doubts of particular posters to restrain themselves from making things personal, based on the performance of those who have exhibited a lack of restraint to make things personal, even after being advised by the Religion Mod to cease.
Whose interpretation of Scripture is not authoritative?
But what I originally asked you was:
Whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?
Do you see how those are two different questions? Just because you answered the first one (which I never asked you) does not mean that you answered the second one (which I did ask you).
-A8
What the record shows is that someone had already brought the Rel Mod in before I logged in today, therefore it is a misrepresentation of the facts to falsely accuse me of "running to the Moderator". Since the Moderator had already been brought in, quite naturally I had questions concerning the instructions, what degree they were to be followed, and what recourse there is to having those who cannot follow the instructions to actually comply as I have.
I ping the Mod now so the Mod is aware of my replies.
If the Mods instructions were followed none of this would be happening now would it?
I pray that request will be honored.
Sound advice would be to review the Moderator's instructions and comments on this matter until they are understood.
Why do you keep asserting that Rome makes the Assumption nessecary for Salvation? While it does teach it as official dogma, it never says that it is nessecary for salvation.
Rome officially only says, in truth, that God’s mercy and grace is the ONLY thing nessecary for salvation. God’s grace leads to faith and the works thereof. Rome actually puts less limits on God’s grace than Protestantism.
You don’t get it-—A Saint is a person the Lord worked through. They do not have powers of their own. The Lord chose them as intercessors on His behalf, because of their faith and obediance.
The title of the thread was written by a Roman Catholic???
EXACTLY. If the protestants are so correct, why would a Catholic papist idolator like Padre Pio be so blessed with gifts from The Lord? If even 1/10 of the stories about Padre Pio are true (and I have a book written by a Lutheran Minister who interviewed witnesses), then there is NO other conclusion than Pio was chosen by Almighty God, much like St. Paul, to carry on His witness.
Risky-Riskerdo is no longer among the land of the Freepers. This thread is about a year old.
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.