Posted on 09/06/2009 3:50:15 PM PDT by NYer
I'm awake now, and I STILL don't understand it ....
I don't think it's just me.
What thrills me though, is that JUST BECAUSE 0'Bummers the ONE we have gone down from 46 million to 30 million uninsured. If we can just grit our teeth for 2 more years maybe there will be 0 uninsured without any laws being changed.
You gotta look on the light side here ...
He's not ON the Cross. We do have statues depicting His Sacrifice on Calvary, so that we remember all that He did to redeem us.
But He is not on the Cross anymore.
Such is your own personal interpretation of Scripture.
Of course it would. It would be more inclusive and it would point out how many of those translations are dumbing-down Luke 1:28 to suit anti-Mary vendettas.
What a confused, inherently-contradictory statement. Bizarre.
The Catholic Church consists of the Body of Christ and nothing will prevail against her.
Correct!
You need to read what catholic really means, UNIVERSAL church, not the Catholic church. There IS a difference that you consistently ignore. The Body of Christ is the catholic, meaning universal, church. The CATHOLIC church has members within the Body but it is not the entire body. I hope someday that will sink into your head. Allow the Holy Spirit in to teach you, Petronski. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.
Nope, it’s God’s interpretation of scripture. Try reading it sometime.
People don’t need to continually see a dead body on a cross to be reminded of His sacrifice, but whatever floats your boat.
The Crucifix does not depict Christ dead. You've been told a lie.
The Crucifix depicts Christ dying.
They are one and the same.
There IS a difference that you consistently ignore.
The fact that they is no difference is what you consistently deny.
The Body of Christ is the Catholic, meaning universal, Church.
Yes.
The CATHOLIC Church has members within the Body but it is not the entire body.
Nope. The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ and you yourself--as a believer--are within it.
Sorry, but you keep getting it wrong. I am within the Body of Christ, not the Catholic (big C) church.
How do you know that? Looks dead to us.
You have made a distinction without a difference.
It is common knowledge among Catholics. It is the entire point of the Crucifix.
Looks dead to us.
I don't care.
“Of course it would. It would be more inclusive and it would point out how many of those translations are dumbing-down Luke 1:28 to suit anti-Mary vendettas.”
Maybe you can find a quote on Catholic Answers that will show that statement to be true. Until then, it is just your own personal interpretation of Greek words and grammar...except that Greek exists outside of your interpretation or mine.
“Moreover, the same holy council considering that not a little advantage will accrue to the Church of God if it be made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be regarded as authentic, ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.
Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions,[5] presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation,[6] has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.” - The Council of Trent
If the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, then the translations of the Greek and Hebrew may well be wrong, since they differ, not from what the Apostles wrote, but from what the Catholic Church taught.
Sola Ecclesia - if need be, ignore what the Apostles wrote and rely on what the Catholic Church says.
“When you post from CARM, don’t expect me to pretend CARM is just some kind of innocent case of “us v. them.”
I had never paid attention to their website - just the one article I had found.
I’ve read a bit more on their website. Here is what the say about Catholics:
“Are Roman Catholics Christians? They are if they have trusted in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of their sins. However, if they believe that the are saved by God’s grace and their works, then they are not saved — even if they believe their works are done by God’s grace — since they then deny the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice...
...CARM’s position is simple. If a Roman Catholic believes in the official Roman Catholic teaching on salvation, then he is not a Christian since the official RCC position is contrary to scripture....They need to hear the true Gospel. They need to hear that they are not made right before God by being in a church, or by being baptized, but by receiving Christ (John 1:12), believing that Jesus has risen from the dead (Rom. 10:9), and that justification is by faith (Rom. 5:1) and not by our deeds (Rom. 4:5). It is only true faith that results in true works (James 2), not the other way around. Roman Catholics, like anyone else, need to trust in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of their sins...
Finally, I believe that there are truly regenerate Christians in the Roman Catholic church. But, they are truly Christians in spite of official RCC theology and in spite of the ritualistic offerings of this ancient church which has had too many hands meddling in it through the centuries, gradually moving it away from orthodoxy and into apostasy. Yes apostasy. The Roman Catholic Church is no longer representing true Christianity.”
Sounds like you are unhappy with CARM for being Protestant.
BTW - the subject came up at our Wednesday night service at the Baptist Church I attend. The Pastor asked if anyone personally knew a Catholic who was a sincere believer in Jesus, who was trusting Him for salvation, and who stayed with the Catholic Church because of family ties, tradition, etc.
About half the of people raised their hands, including the Pastor, who was raised Catholic and whose family was entirely Catholic at one time. I wasn’t sure if I should raise my hand or not - my brother-in-law was a Catholic for 3-4 years after his conversion. He eventually became too uncomfortable with some of the doctrine and left - but he was saved for years prior to leaving.
I have no doubt many Catholics are Christians, just as many Baptists are not. But the DOCTRINE of the Catholic Church has strayed so far that it no longer is Christian Church - IMHO, and in the opinion of many Protestants.
I know you disagree, and I have no business judging your soul. You know who you trust for salvation, and you may well be a more devout follower of Christ than one of my fellow Baptists or myself. It is the DOCTRINE the Catholic Church teaches that I oppose.
But prior to Vatican 2, the Catholic Church rejected all of us Protestants as Christian, and even now barely tolerates the idea that some Protestants might be followers of Christ. I don’t resent Catholics for believing they are right, nor should Catholics be surprised or angry that Protestants disagree.
Your faith is not, however, the Roman Catholic Faith. You are, in a broad sense, a member of the Mystical Body of Christ (the Catholic Church) in that you are baptized and love and serve our Lord but many of your beliefs are not consistent with Catholicism. You do not pretend and never have pretended otherwise. You are honest as to the terms of your faith. So am I.
If one were to say that one Christian theology is as good as any other, one would be wrong. There is Truth and there is that which is not true (however sincerely held and lived).
The Roman Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ on Simon bar Jonah as Peter will not fall because Jesus Christ promised that He would be with it all days until the end of the world. He can be depended upon not to lie. All Christian believers (however imperfect their respective beliefs) ARE, in a significant and sufficient sense, part of the Mystical Body of Christ and that Roman Catholic Church will last forever, as promised.
Not to argue but to explain one reason why I will NEVER change my mind (any more than you are likely to change yours), I was a history major as an undergraduate after having the advantage of a Jesuit prep school education so long ago that the Jebbies were still militantly Catholic rather than worshiping at the altar of Karl Marx/Vlad Lenin/Mao/Ho as they do today.
I am not likely to believe ever that Jesus Christ, though saying He was establishing Hos Church on Peter, somehow intended it to be dormant for about 1500 years until a previously obscure and seriously malcontent Augustinian monk would suddenly "enlighten" the world of Christianity with his impertinent "theses" tacked to the door of the cathedral at Wittenberg, thereby trumping Jesus Christ Himself in the founding of what passes in non-Catholic circles as the "Christian church(es)."
This was accompanied by a complete absence of apostolic succession among them, an end to actual Masses among them, the beginning of a notion that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are not present in the sacrament of the altar (despite Christ's admonition that eating His Flesh and Drinking His Blood is necessary to see God/assent to salvation, with exceptions applied in judgment with mercy). Oh, it is said by those without apostolic succession (and therefore without the sacrament of Holy Orders), there are other passages justifying receiving "in the spirit" and some believe that Christ could not have meant the Real Presence in the Eucharist (because the reformed disagreed with Him). Other sacraments and even some books of Old Testament Scripture (despite the notion of "sola Scriptura") have been generally jettisoned by the reformed to fit reformed theology. Even Luther did not pretend to have the authority to remove the Epistle of James (which he denigrated as an "epistle of straw" while saying "sola Scriptura"). Of course, if God Himself inspired each and every book of Scripture and wrote that one through James as His Scribe, Luther was criticizing a far more reliable Author than James.
The reform will be 500 years old in about 8 years and has not prevailed yet nor will it, regardless of the thousands of disagreeing sects that grew out of the unpleasantness at Wittenberg which seem not to prevail over one another much less over Rome. Outside of Catholicism, only Orthodoxy and a handful of truly tiny schismatic sects have valid apostolic succession, valid Masses, a full schedule of valid sacraments (more than Baptism and Marriage).
With those exceptions, the rest of Christianity labors without the Mass, without Apostolic Succession, without the sacraments of Penance, the Holy Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders or Extreme Unction and without the guidance of a central hierarchy and papacy established at the outset by the Savior.
There is an apparent notion that Luther merely crystallized for moderns beliefs held from the beginning by some ill-defined and less specifically recorded shadowy Christian dissenters from Rome who were the "real church" but suppressed by Roman treachery and forced underground. This theory is, practically speaking, not likely to be proven sufficiently to attract any well-catechized Catholics. Luther was a Martin come far too lately.
The best Christian I have ever known (and ever hope to know),was my mother's best friend Hilda, a very old-fashioned Methodist of the no coffee-drinking, no caffeine, no alcohol, no dancing, no card-playing sort. And yet, Hilda was great fun and a wonderful hostess and a truly wonderful person. She accomplished a wonderful and holy life in service to the Lord in the absence of the Mass and most sacraments and the graces emanating therefrom. Her love and personal generosity were legend and justifiably so. I suspect much of the same could be said of Marysecretary although I would disagree with your theology as I did with Hilda's.
1. Did the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father and the Son or from the Father alone?
2. Is the pope the earthly head of the Church on Earth, with the universal power of the keys inherited from Peter, or is he merely "primus inter pares?"
3. Is the pope entitled by virtue of his office to "interfere" in the doings of diocesan ordinaries? If not, why not?
Vivat Jesus!
Removing oneself from the presence of Christ, in my opinion, would be quite painful. Several years ago, I contemplated leaving the Catholic Church but that would have entailed turning my back on my Lord and Savior and shutting Him out of my life. I could not do that.
After 0bama’s latest and Joe Wilson’s humane loss of cool, my enthusiasm for this is on the wane — especially since we’ve gone from some good questions to how wrong it is of us to favor crucifixes. Oh Lord!
I thought I’d actually answered this last night, but I was falling asleep at my key board, so maybe not.
Anyway, for me my enthusiasm for the whole “intercession of the saints” thing arises more from experience than doctrine.
My MIL is a strong woman of prayer. It’s amazing. If my perception is accurate it can only be a matter of vocation. Anyway, if something is on your heart, by all means take it to the Lord. But it’s also good to ask Carolyn to pray ...
Similarly, my subjective impression of my Marian devotional attitude and practices is that they goose up my intimacy with IHS. No I do not understand this. I DO enjoy it, along with what I subjectively take to be the assistance of Dominic, Gabriel (my patrons) Anthony, Dymphna and a crowd of others, all of whom I experience as helpful, “consoling” (in the technical sense), and encouraging.
Utterly irritating anecdote. A chunk of us are returning from the Dominican House of Studies in DC - 4 car caravan, and we’ve agreed to stop at an IHOP on the way. Suddenly it’s raining. I’m in our pastor’s car with him and two ladies. We let them off at the door and go to look in the PACKED parking lot for a parking space.
Fr. Brian, who has a lively devotion to Therese of Lisieux says, “Little Flower, show your power.”
INSTANTLY, three cars pull out of their spaces. Seconds later I bruise my lower mandible on my knees.
(I hope I don’t have to go into a lengthy apology about the “power” of the Little Flower being powerful intercession ...)
As to the problem of “the weak” falling into a kind of polytheism, I think it’s real, though possibly overstated.
If I get over my current dazedness about the Dear Leader’s weirdness (And McCain’s incredibly foolish response) I may be able to come up with a something reasonable to say about it.
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.