Are you SURE this is the road to Rome??
One more "Are we there yet?" and you'll be gettin' the RACK when we DO get there!
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/14/2014 6:31:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Lunar eclipse tonight. |
Posted on 04/05/2014 5:57:23 AM PDT by Gamecock
Better switch majors; if history causes you so much grief.
Remember when trucks used to have a chain dangling from the chassis to the ground to drain off the static build up that was caused by the rubber compound in the tires?
That’s been years ago.
I guess the newer formulation of rubber has conductive material in it, eliminating that problem.
One more "Are we there yet?" and you'll be gettin' the RACK when we DO get there!
No; he was talking about your little plastic idols icons that your chosen religious organization approves of.
I guess the Muslims get their umbrage honestly when someone disses THEIR Prophet (PBUH).
Some people just like to live in the past...
That's a bit misleading. The "Papacy" wasn't established, but authority was. There were no early Church without authority.
Good Lord! I just got up to feed the baby and scrolled through. The personal attacks I flagged were not deleted by the mod! Gosh, I wonder why? Also, I’m beginning to think that all the anti-Catholics for the last 50 posts are actually the same person with different FReeper handles. That person is also probably the mod.
And need we explore the atrocities of the first Protestant, Henry VIII and his ministers ?
or Oliver Cromwell ?
Which is consistent with others who expect their posts to go unchallenged, and or then place their head in the sands of Roman propaganda rather than considering what exposes the fallacious nature of many RC teachings and or arguments made for them.
Irrelevant to many RCs which, like homosexual activists, if you do not sing the praises of Rome as the One True Church®, and challenge her propaganda, then you are labeled as a bitter exCatholic, and thus any substantiation you provide is biased or false and dismissed.
He also rejects any attempt to restrict Protestantism to the major confessional traditions (Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran) as he argues that such a restriction would create an artificial delimitation of Protestant diversity. Instead, he insists on also including those groups which scholars typically call radical reformers (essentially all other non-Roman Christian sects which have their origins in the turn to scripture of the Reformation).
Of course. While RCs attempt to dismiss as CINOs the majority of her members, which Rome treats as members in life and in death, they insist on including as Prots those who deny both basic Truths we both hold in common, as well as critical Prot. distinctives such as Scripture being wholly inspired of God, and the supremacy of Scripture (the Bible), versus sola ecclesia which Rome and cults effectively operate out of.
..it is true that Protestant interpretive diversity is an empirical fact; but when it comes to selectivity in historical reading as a means of creating a false impression of stability, Roman Catholic approaches to the Papacy provide some excellent examples of such fallacious method.
Indeed, which even RC scholarship among others testifies to .
Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritative institution was not there in the early centuries.
Empirical fact: The Papacy was corrupt in the later Middle Ages, building its power and status on political antics, forged documents and other similar scams.
Empirical fact: The Papacy was in such a mess at the beginning of the fifteenth century that it needed a council to decide who of the multiple claimants to Peter's seat was the legitimate pope.
Empirical fact: The church failed (once again) to put its administrative, pastoral, moral and doctrinal house in order at the Fifth Lateran Council at the start of the sixteenth century.
The problem here is that the context for the Reformation - the failure of the papal system to reform itself, a failure in itself lethal to notions of papal power and authority - seems to have been forgotten in all of the recent aggressive attacks on scriptural perspicuity.
But from a now resigned pope, we had this acknowledgement:
"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.
It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. — Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196 ).
And from the CE:
..."one pope (Gregory XII) had voluntarily abdicated; another (John XXIII) had been suspended and then deposed, but had submitted in canonical form; the third claimant (Benedict XIII) was cut off from the body of the Church, "a pope without a Church, a shepherd without a flock" (Hergenröther-Kirsch). It had come about that, whichever of the three claimants of the papacy was the legitimate successor of Peter, there reigned throughout the Church a universal uncertainty and an intolerable confusion, so that saints and scholars and upright souls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that a doubtful pope is no pope, the Apostolic See appeared really vacant, and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled than by the action of a general council." - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm
What therefore of Roman Catholic theological unity and papal authority today? That is not too rosy either, I am afraid. The Roman Catholic Church's teaching on birth control is routinely ignored by vast swathes of the laity with absolute impunity; Roman Catholic politicians have been in the vanguard of liberalizing abortion laws and yet still been welcome at Mass and at high table with church dignitaries; leading theologians cannot agree on exactly what papal infallibility means; and there is not even consensus on the meaning and significance of Vatican II relative to previous church teaching.
And as what you do and effect constitutes what you actually believe, (Ja. 2:18) so Rome's attitude to the variableness and overall liberal nature of RCs, who are far less unified in basic conservative beliefs than evangelical s, testifies to what she really believes.
Further, if Dr. Gregory wants to include as part of his general concept of Protestantism any and all sixteenth century lunatics who ever claimed the Bible alone as sole authority and thence to draw conclusions about the plausibility of the perspicuity of scripture,
As said, the Cath. broadbrush includes more than those.
Moving on from the issue of authority, we find that Dr. Gregory also argues that religious persecution is a poisonous result of the confessionalisation of Europe into warring religious factions.
A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Early Prots had much to unlearn from Rome, and still do.
When it comes to the empirical facts of Catholic persecution, Dr. Gregory only mentions the Inquisition twice. That is remarkably light coverage given its rather stellar track record in all that embarrassing auto da fe business. Moreover, he mentions it first only in a Reformation/post-Reformation context. Yet Roman Catholic persecution of those considered deviants was not simply or even primarily a response to Reformation Protestantism but a well-established pattern in the Middle Ages.
Typical minimization of RC history that they do not want publicized, while V2 is held in so much disdain by conservative RCs that they would encourage the Inquisitions again and their means.
His thesis - that Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge and paved the way for its secularization - does not take into account the impact of the easy availability of print....The printed book changed everything: it fuelled literacy rates and it expanded the potential for diversity of opinion.
What Dr. Gregory must mean is that Protestantism led the negation of theocracies and to the freedom of religion, as the former is the only way Rome could control what the masses read, and even unsuccesfully after the printing press - made by a Catholic.
In fact, its success was significantly helped by the brisk fifteenth century trade in printed breviaries and missals and the indulgences produced to fund war against the Ottomans.
I well remember being amazed when reading the autobiography of the analytic philosopher and one-time priest, Sir Anthony Kenny, that he had had to obtain special permission from the Church to read David Hume for his doctoral research in the 1950s. At the start of the twenty-first century, Rome may present herself as the friend of engaged religious intellectuals in North America but she took an embarrassingly long time even to allow her people free access to the most basic books of modern Western thought.
I actually would support in principal a list by Godly men of shunned books and movies, but not as enforceable by secular coercive means.
Thanks to the modern world which grew as a response to the failure of Roman Catholicism, he is also free to choose his own solution to the problems of modernity without fear of rack or rope. Yet, having said all that, I for one find it strange indeed that someone would choose as the solution that which was actually the problem in the first place.
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. (John 18:36)
Christ constituted the church so that it could not rely on the power of the sword of men, or rest on historical descent for its authenticity, but by spiritual powers to defeat its foes and discipline its own, and to continually establish itself as being the church of the living, not dead, God.
Due to lack of this, and sometimes lack of restraint, the church has used means of the world to enfoce is church doctrine, which left a negative testimony. Due to lack spiritual
A good read.
Actually, i am sure it results in FR being higher in ranking of sites, and among the top hits searches in Catholic vs Prot issues, while by far the vast majority of "better belief" articles are by Catholics. And as the NT treats the kind of gospel one preaches as most critical, (Gal. 1:6-9) then it is a valid issue here.
That is absurd, and simply testifies to either willful blindness or ignorance of the RF on FR. And some RCS here denioes Prots are saved.
The little secret is that any gain is due to immigration. The RC in the USA is increasingly Latin in more ways than one. http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html#DEMOGRAPHICS
But when an entity is constantly being promoted as the One True Church® to whom all are to submit, which is what is abundantly seen here (and i have thousands of posts regarding this), then it becomes an issue.
We do not discuss it openly especially in this forum,
Rather, they typically live in denial, dismissing those whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death.
Regarding the ‘social justice’, ‘liberal voting Catholics’ and CINOs (Catholics In Name Only like Pelosi, Durbin and others) they are being slowly put surely dealt with. The actual evidence has continually testified otherwise. .
Meanwhile you have RCs here who see it as their job to attack conservative evangelicals as their greatest enemy, including one blog pimp in particular. Of course, the feeling is mutual.
This is a fight that faithful Catholics will win because they have not defected, not rolled over and played dead and are not giving up on - no matter how bad it has gotten.
And the new pope is a cause of alarm to them. Many "defected," including former liberal RCs, to become conservative evangelicals
The RMs are like the cadmium rods in a nuke reactor!
Who did Christ warn that would be in charge of the end time deception? It sure was not Islam. Why it will be the many, in the name of Christ. The 'teaparty' did in fact push back the Democrats and regained control of the peoples house in 2010 and what was our reward? Why saint Boehner, who immediately after using up a couple of cases of tissues, emphatically stated he would not change mommy Pewlouise's healthcare funding scam rules.
And that worthless saint Roberts made himself the raiser of taxes of all time when he approved of the universal healthcare spending.
And now the ungodly bishops are demanding American citizenship be watered down by taking from US our God given rights and elevate a criminal enterprise to have standing over US.
Now having said all the above I think it is telling that only a tiny minority spoke out about government removing the public display of the Ten Commandments. Government as established by the founding 'fathers' was 'we the people'.
We are going to get everything we have coming to US because in majority we the US have turned our backs on the Creator and play the same mindset liberals have ... playing god with other peoples lives.
I do believe in freedom of religion, meaning, my taxes should not be raised to pay for the antics of any organized religion. I do not believe one can take an oath to Rome or any other organized or unorganized religious division and then take a different oath to defend the Constitution. The Constitution keeps every one free and vows to Rome serve Rome certainly not US.
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.