Posted on 09/29/2013 6:34:45 PM PDT by ebb tide
No The last word run ups are just amazing on these threads.
BTW-IMHO, if there ever was an example of pagan writing in the Christian church, it is this one. It is tragic for people to defend this nonsensical dribble.
A very well written, thought out and logical response. I applaud that you took the time to lay it out in detail. May it be read with that much attention.
Read Christian texts in other languages. In Latin a saint is called “Sanctus”, in Greek “Agios”, in German “Heilige”, —every single of them means “holy”.
The distinction between being holy and being a saint is an chance artifact of English. In many languages—including the ones which had thriving Christian communities when the English were poking berries up their noses—there is no distinction made.
Too many Sister Bertha Better-than-yous here. One thing that really sticks out to me (raised Baptist but now attending Catholic Mass with my RC husband and kids) is that Protestants will always pass judgement and say something like, “Don’t get me wrong, I’ve sinned too!” Catholics will say something like, “Hey, I’m a sinner.” Our church’s softball team always jokes that after the game we go play a few innings at St. Twines, the dive across the street from the fields. All the kids and wives come over and we have a blast. The Prostestant teams are mortified that we openly drink on the patio after a church league game. We suspect they thoroughly imbibe behind closed doors.
“The Prostestant teams are mortified that we openly drink on the patio after a church league game. We suspect they thoroughly imbibe behind closed doors.”
Some drink some don’t. Some do it publicly, some privately, some not at all.
Let each “be fully convinced” in his own heart.
I have no problem if someone drinks or not. The Holy Scriptures only condemn drunkenness.
Truth doesn’t depend on whether or not you consume alcohol.
Nobody is mocking. It is when someone declares it is what they say it is by their own words only then to use it to their own means like.
All I did was reveal your perverting of scripture and then I posted the real scripture which incidentally, corrected your perversions...
Indeed.
I just came onto the thread and was reading down through the posts. It is remarkable that we see these Roman Catholics singing the praises of an angel, yet refuse to accept God's word when confronted. It displays a willful ignorance. Their standard response is their YOPIOS knee-jerk, when all that we do is quote directly from Scripture.
I thank God for his Holy Spirit indwelling us and helping to illuminate the written record. I thank God for you, my brothers and sisters in Christ, who are willing to follow the Spirit and present the word of God. We don't know where God's Spirit is moving in whose heart. We don't know where God's Spirit is opening blind eyes. But we do know that we have assurance that His Word will not fall on deaf ears. It is our joy to follow the example we see with Paul, and preach God's word to the people.
I was raised an Episcopalian, and at 22 years old found Jesus Christ as my Savior. I had looked at all sorts of religions seeking the peace that I could not find. As an Episcopalian, we also had a catechism where we learned the doctrines of the church. Our Sunday services follow the same routine as the Roman Catholic style, and some Episcopal churches even use the smells and bells.
My dad spent 20 years in the U.S. Navy, retired and went to work for various colleges for the next 20 years. All during that time, he served as a lay minister in various churches when a priest was not available. My grandfather was an Episcopal priest, as were three of his four brothers. My grandfather was also secretary of the diocese of East Carolina for many years. He died the year before I was born, so I did not know him, but hundreds if not thousands knew him well. He traveled along the coast in boats, when he wasn't traversing the countryside in a car. He established dozens of churches among the black people, though we are Scotch, Irish, and Brits in heritage.
So, I had a great foundation in a classic church closely related to Roman Catholicism. But, though I attended services regularly, and learned the teachings in Sunday schools, I did not know God, I only knew church. I can see how easy it is to follow, when all you've learned comes from that source. With Catholics, the requirement to raise up your children with that background, fearing for your salvation by the church, is strong in their lives. Their faith depends on their membership in the organization they call church. They hear the Scriptures each Sunday, but the emphasis is on tradition. The Scriptures they hear are bent and twisted to fit what the church says is true. They are taught they must believe it is absolute. It's the same in the Episcopal church.
Christ found me at 22, and has led me by the hand since that time. He gave me his Holy Spirit to lead me. I can't thank him enough, and I know there is nothing that we can do to repay him. But, by the fruits of the Spirit, we can reveal him in our lives. So, you'll never see me bowing to Mary, or asking dead people to bend God's ear. I don't wear a crucifix or have any statues in my house. God's word tells me they are of no avail. Our goal is to be like Jesus. Our burden is light. Even, when I see the ignorance on display here, I know that it is our chosen work to spread His Word.
So again, thank you brothers and sisters, for doing the work of God through his Holy Spirit. Not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but only through His saving grace and mercy can we walk together. Amen.
Luther's translation, as you should know by now, contained the apocrypha, but following Jerome and other ancient precedent , they were placed separately from Scripture proper. And indeed, dissent among RCs continued over certain books right into Trent.
In any case, it is the middle, or the the Catholic Bibles , as there are more than 2, without the extra books, for in contrast to the relative obscurity of them (which would be even more obscure if the reading of them were not mandated via the Mass), the superior and enduring love for the 66 books of the Protestant Bible testifies to their Divine qualities.
However, if complete conformity to the RC canon is such a primary issue, and those that differ are to be maligned, then Catholics who provided precedent for not holding to the canon of Trent before it was defines are also maligned, as are other Catholic churches whose canon differs, even if slightly. But this is hardly even mentioned in RC relations with them.
The answer to this question requires an infallible extra-biblical authority. Otherwise you're left with, as R.C. Sproul once said, "a fallible collection of infallible books."
If the answer requires an infallible extra-biblical authority - and i affirm that Rome is an extra-biblical authority and thus not infallible - then Scripture is not that important to differ over .
However, your conclusion is based on a false premise, for writings were recognized as Scripture, versus those that are not, without any infallible extra-biblical authority. And that there were, as shown , is abundantly evidenced. And if writings were recognized as Scripture, versus those that are not, then in principle this leads to a canon by the same basis and means that other ones were recognized as Scripture.
And beyond that, your premise must also argue that an infallible extra-biblical authority is necessary for assurance of truth, and that this authority is the one that is the steward of Scripture, inheritor of promises, and has historical decent.
Yet as said, under this model souls should have submitted to those who sat in Moses seat (Mt. 23:2) in rejecting the itinerant Preacher they rejected. (Mk. 11:27-33)
Instead, as said, it was by Scriptural substantiation in word and in power that the church began by, not under the premise of an perpetually infallible magisterium.
The point is that sharing a common aspect of being holy, which God also is, does not make angels part of the body of Christ, much less provide warrant for addressing prayer to them in Heaven.
That was not the spirit of Rome that reminded you of that. Oh, but he was really only venerating the angel, you know, doula not latria. Or hyperdulia, reserved for the almost almighty Mary of Rome. "We must never adore her; that is for God alone. But otherwise we cannot honor her to excess."
Catholic Encyclopedia: Although (technically) Mary is not to be worshipped in the same sense that God is worshipped, she is to be granted devotion and worship in a lesser sense. And if the fine distinctions made by Catholic theologians "are usually not reflected in the practice of the faithful," idolatry would seem to be a distinct possibility in the lives of the faithful. Thus, "By the sixteenth century, as evidenced by the spiritual struggles of the Reformers, the image of Mary had largely eclipsed the centrality of Jesus Christ in the life of believers." (Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, revised and updated; NY: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987pp.32,33),
BTW-IMHO, if there ever was an example of pagan writing in the Christian church, it is this one. It is tragic for people to defend this nonsensical dribble.
Catholic Encyclopedia: A further reinforcement, of the same idea, was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking, and while on the one hand the faith of Christians no doubt took shape from above downwards (i.e. the Apostles and teachers of the Church delivered a message which the laity accepted from them with all docility)” — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15459a.htm
Glory to God, and for you not having your mind behind the RC firewall.
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
So where are the angels in the Scripture. They are all over the place....not just Michael, Gabriel and Raphael, the mentioned Archangels in the Bible.
“So where are the angels in the Scripture. They are all over the place....not just Michael, Gabriel and Raphael, the mentioned Archangels in the Bible.”
Well, all the angels in scripture are in one place at one time, and are not omniscient or omnipresent. Like the angel Gabriel in Daniel, he was stuck dealing with the Demonic prince over Persia for a few weeks, till Michael came to break the deadlock.
Since angels aren’t omnipresent or omniscient, they can’t possibly hear your prayers, no matter how hard you pray and worship them.
Sorry.
Angels are not in one place at one time.
Gabriel brought the message to Mary in Luke.
Raphael healed in the book of Tobit.
Michael slew the dragon in the Book of Revelation.
Abraham met three men — one was God, the other two who continued on were angels.
I know many of you say that we Catholics manufacture some of this. No, it is interpeted by the Church — no interpretation by individuals at all.
What about “hosts” of angels?
What abou5t the angels that appeared at the Birth of Christ?
What about the principlaities, powers, cheubim, seraphim that are described (many not all of them) in Revelation?
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.