Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14
CCDictionary ^ | 04-16-14 | from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary

Posted on 04/16/2014 5:37:55 AM PDT by Salvation

Featured Term (selected at random:

ROSMINIANISM

 

A system of philosophy formulated by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati (1797-1855), founder of the Institute of Charity. Encouraged by Popes Pius VII, Gregory XVI, and Pius IX, he undertook a renewal of Italian philosophy, ostensibly following St. Thomas Aquinas. But the influence of Descartes, Kant, and Hegel shifted his thinking. He came to hold that the human mind is born with the idea of "being." In time it analyzes this basic idea to discover in it many other ideas, which are identical with those in the mind of God. Rosmini also taught that reason can explain the Trinity and that original sin is only a physical infection of the body. After his death forty of his propositions were condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1887 and 1888.

All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.

 



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; heresy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-365 next last
Another heresy
1 posted on 04/16/2014 5:37:55 AM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper; Allegra; Straight Vermonter; Cronos; SumProVita; AnAmericanMother; annalex; dsc; ...

Catholic Word of the Day Ping!

Nostra Aetate

Eubulia

Authority

Patrini

Soteriology

Remission of Sin

Jewish Decalogue

Theocracy

Marriage

Gift of Piety

Lough Derg

Vessel of Honor

Oil of Catechumens

Didache

Urbi et Orbi

Heroic Act

Quiddity

Cubicula

Koine

Beatitudes

Impeccability of Christ

Words of Institution

Fioretti

Zeitgeist

Immuration

Terna

Truth

Dedication

Gift of Counsel

Communion of Saints

Papist

Martyr

Ten Commandments

Epistemology

Catholicity

Nimbus

Rosminianism

If you aren’t on this Catholic Word of the Day Ping list and would like to be, please send me a FReepmail.


2 posted on 04/16/2014 5:42:18 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Another heresy

I doubt that heresies will ever stop emerging. We were warned about false prophets.

3 posted on 04/16/2014 5:53:06 AM PDT by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cloudmountain; annalex; Greetings_Puny_Humans; BlueDragon; Springfield Reformer; Gamecock; ...
I doubt that heresies will ever stop emerging. We were warned about false prophets.

Though i do not agree with such a man as Rosmini, a fundamental issue is that of what the supreme infallible authoritative source by which Truth and error is determined and judged by is.

It has been asserted that the (one true infallible) Catholic Church is that standard, and does not need any external authority to validate it any more than God does.

But this must have a basis, and thus I have asked what the RC basis is for assurance that Rome is the one true and infallible church, to which one answer is that since the promise of Jn. 14:26* (among others i am sure) was made to the entire Church thru Apostolic succession, then therefore it is the Church Catholic (or i presume more precisely, the infallible Roman Catholic church), that is this one true and infallible church (even though the infallible part is conditional).

But this meaning of Jn. 14:26 is an interpretive assertion which itself must have a basis. It seems some RCs argue that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation and Scripture (for the RCC contends it is) means such are the infallible authorities on what it is and means (and thus on what Jn. 14:26 means), therefore dissent to it is necessarily rebellion against God (and so Prots are censured).

What is your take on the above, if you or others care to comment?

* But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)

4 posted on 04/16/2014 10:24:09 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to all believers, not just some elite.

That verse in no way promised infallibility to any church organization. The Catholic church is not mentioned by name in the Bible that it claims it wrote, nor are there any instructions given concerning apostolic succession.

The claims are like that of any group claiming special revelation, that they alone have divine truth, thus making anyone claiming to be the sole repository of truth a cult.


5 posted on 04/16/2014 12:29:23 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: dsc
No one ever claimed that the men who act in the Church’s name are infallible. It would be refreshing to see you criticize the Church for something that is actually true.

It would be surprising for you to have read or understand the ongoing debate on this and the depth of it among some of the pinged, of which you were not.

But you can have your opinion as well. So do you deny that the pope or bishops in union with the pope are infallible when universally defining a matter on faith and morals? Which is what my reference to the conditional infallibility of the church was about, but which your reaction seemed to deny.

And what else that i wrote do you object to? And what is your basis for assurance that Rome is the one true and infallible church?

7 posted on 04/16/2014 6:21:14 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: daniel1212; cloudmountain; Greetings_Puny_Humans; BlueDragon; Springfield Reformer; Gamecock
Hi.

It has been asserted that the (one true infallible) Catholic Church is that standard, and does not need any external authority to validate it any more than God does.

That was me, in a private mail (we had a good thread locked and continued privately).

I only have a few minutes today, it's Ann + Alex's wedding anniversary number twenty.

The brief answer is: it is a matter of faith. Like any faith, it has a basis in history and is conforms with the Holy Scripture. But ultimately, I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by the same mechanism by which I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ eternally begotten from the Father, and the rest of the Creed. That mechanism is the gift of faith that I received at confirmation.

9 posted on 04/16/2014 6:31:45 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Greetings_Puny_Humans; BlueDragon; Springfield Reformer; Gamecock; metmom; boatbums
That was me, in a private mail (we had a good thread locked and continued privately).

Thus you were pinged, though it seems timing was bad.

I only have a few minutes today, it's Ann + Alex's wedding anniversary number twenty.

Now the mystery is solved as to what meaneth ann-alex. Congrats.

The brief answer is: it is a matter of faith. Like any faith, it has a basis in history and is conforms with the Holy Scripture. But ultimately, I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by the same mechanism by which I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ eternally begotten from the Father, and the rest of the Creed. That mechanism is the gift of faith that I received at confirmation.

A sincere reply, thanks, but it is a given that salvific faith, if it salvific, is a gift of God, and a Mormon will claim the same basis for his assurance of the LDS being the OTC. But faith has an instrumental means, for "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17)

Once what the word of God is has been established, then truth claims will be based upon that. But upon what basis is the Word of God established as being so, and it as testifying to Rome being the one true church?

Thus it seems to go back to the premise that even on the basis of historicity and writings merely being reliable historical documents then Rome is shown to be the historical steward of Divine Truth, which renders her to be the assuredly correct authority on it (not merely a church with a history), and thus her interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition is correct in any conflict, and upon that premise of assured veracity then you have assurance of Truth.

10 posted on 04/16/2014 7:51:57 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; Greetings_Puny_Humans; BlueDragon; Springfield Reformer; Gamecock; metmom; boatbums
a Mormon will claim the same basis for his assurance of the LDS being the OTC [what is it?]

I believe that the New Testament is an historically accurate account of life, teaching and resurrection of Christ. I do not think that a testimony of Joseph Smith has any basis in objective reality, certainly not comparable to the testimony of the Catholic Church.

premise that [Rome's] interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition is correct in any conflict

That would be because Christ told us so: in Matthew 16:18, "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" and in John 14, that the Holy Ghost "may abide with you for ever" and "will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you". It is not complicated: I believe the testimony of the Church because I find it credible. I do not find the claims and theological pretenses of Mormonism or Protestantism credible.

11 posted on 04/17/2014 5:50:28 AM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: annalex

“I do not find ...”

Huh? Private judgement?

:)

Peace,

SR


12 posted on 04/17/2014 6:07:53 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: annalex
I believe that the New Testament is an historically accurate account of life, teaching and resurrection of Christ. I do not think that a testimony of Joseph Smith has any basis in objective reality, certainly not comparable to the testimony of the Catholic Church.

Mormonism certainly holds to absurd teachings, from her equating other works to Scripture to, making her ministers priests, to her doctrine of eternal progression, and even a heavenly mother.

Yet she operates out of the same sola ecclesia model as Rome, with the "church" effectively being the supreme infallible authority on what Truth is and means, and with a "living prophet" rather than a pope.

Certainly you can make a case for what Scripture, history and tradition teaches as supporting Rome, versus how Mormonism interprets them, but if objective examination of these evidences is your basis for assurance of the veracity of RC claims and teaching, than this is the same basis as evangelical type Christians have historically held to, and thus contend against both Rome and the LDS.

In doing so we find that both resort to the argument that their church is uniquely qualified to define what the evidences teach, and RCs esp. dismiss conclusions contrary to theirs as being invalid due to being the result of reliance upon fallible human reasoning, and being fallible, thus one needs an infallible magisterium.

Therefore, while you hold that the testimony of the Catholic Church overcomes Mormonism, it seems that the argument is that the testimony of the Catholic Church as being the historical instrument and steward of Scripture renders her to be the infallible authoritative authority on what Scripture and other evidences mean.

That would be because Christ told us so: in Matthew 16:18...and in John 14,

But such texts are interpretive, and (among other teachings) did not even enjoy the "unanimous consent of the fathers," and Scripture and even Catholic scholarship provide evidences against the early church corporately looking to Peter as its exalted supreme infallible head in Rome.

Thus again, unless your assurance rests upon Scriptural substantiation as establishing Rome as the OTC, it would seem your argument is that an infallible interpreter is necessary for assurance of Truth, and that Rome is that interpreter, or declarer, in the light of her historical instrumentality and stewardship of Divine revelation.

It is not complicated: I believe the testimony of the Church because I find it credible. I do not find the claims and theological pretenses of Mormonism or Protestantism credible.

And i do not see the NT as testifying to Peter being the rock, versus the alternative understanding, that "this rock" refers to the rock of this faith confessed by Peter that Christ build his Church, and thus upon Christ Himself, which your catechism allows for, which understanding some of the ancients concurred with.

And that the promise to teach all (Jn. 14:26) and to lead into all Truth is realized thru the Scriptures as being supreme and what is based and established upon it, and culminating in glory. (1Jn. 3:2)

But insofar as interpretations differs with Rome then RCs often assert that "the (Roman) Catholic church gave you the Bible, she knows what it means," and thus my questions as to the real basis for your assurance of Truth, and the reasoning behind it.

13 posted on 04/17/2014 8:31:20 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

“Private” judgement for a RC means they can interpret the Scriptures various ways as long as they do not contradict RC teaching, which they can be seen doing in various ways.

Thus they can both wrest “certain” proof out of Scripture for RC traditions that are not seen officially done, while what constitutes official and even infallible teaching can differ among RCs.


14 posted on 04/17/2014 8:39:02 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

“Thus they can both wrest “certain” proof out of Scripture for RC traditions that are not seen officially done, while what constitutes official and even infallible teaching can differ among RCs.”

You have fallen into Satan’s trap. He has muddied the waters sufficiently to lead you, and presumably many others, into misunderstanding those things.


15 posted on 04/17/2014 12:18:49 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dsc
You have fallen into Satan’s trap. He has muddied the waters sufficiently to lead you, and presumably many others, into misunderstanding those things.

The Lord quoted Scripture to refute the devil, and the latter was silenced. When you have an argument rather than ad hominem, and want to answer my questions, then get back to me.

16 posted on 04/17/2014 4:33:36 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

“Beware of false prophets.”


17 posted on 04/17/2014 5:01:49 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

MATTHEW 7:15

http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-15.htm


18 posted on 04/17/2014 5:09:00 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

It is not in any way private. Protestantism is a late invention without a historical justification; it is simply not the Church Jesus founded. The Protestant heresies are easy to see from the Holy Scripture. For example, your “sola fide” is directly contradicted by the scripture, and your notion that the Eucharist is a symbol rather than the body and blood of Christ necessary for salvation has no basis in scripture. It is simply theological charlatanism, condemned quite publicly and for publicly known reasons by the Holy Church.


19 posted on 04/17/2014 6:12:31 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: annalex; daniel1212

But your decision to believe all of the above, is your private judgment telling you what you believe, is it not? If not, did someone else decide for you? You have no volition? You exercised no judgment whatsoever in becoming Catholic? Extraordinary!


20 posted on 04/17/2014 6:26:59 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Mormonism certainly holds to absurd teachings

Indeed, but Protestantism is only marginally better. For example, instead of seeing in the verses I pointed to the inescapable meaning of continuing inspiration of the Church which "abides for ever" and the promise of victory of the Church over Hell, you sidetrack to the issue of "rock", because that is where you have a template for arguing. Yet on the papacy, too, the scripture is with us: clearly by rejoicing over the confession of Peter, renaming him after Christ's own attribute, and promising the keys to heaven Christ meant to elevate Peter as a person, not some abstract faith. Luke 22:32 clearly gives Peter a role of safeguarding the faith of the other apostles. With all this you can argue around the edges but you cannot un-write the Holy Scripture. It simply doesn't teach what you imagine the teaching of Christ to be. Similarly your interpretation of John 14 verses does not match even formally what the scripture says, because in the scripture Christ promises the leadership of the Holy Spirit in the utterances of the Church "for ever", and not till such time as the New Testament is written and canonized.

21 posted on 04/17/2014 6:29:09 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

When you actually can or want to coherently interact with the argument let me know.


22 posted on 04/17/2014 7:08:26 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer; daniel1212
Any decision at some point becomes internalized and in that sense private; however the reasons for the Catholic faith are very well known and in fact I enumerated the principal ones.

How I converted? I was baptized as an infant into the Russian Orthodox Church; I grew up in an environment interested and sympathetic to Christianity (despite the official hostility to it in the USSR). I however, did not practice my faith and did not study it in depth. When I immigrated I discovered a Catholic Church across the park from where I lived, in Portland, Maine -- the Sacred Heart. I loved coming to Mass. I was especially impressed by how people received the Holy Community: they were not overly reverent, surely not externally so, but they came purposefully, and having eaten they looked like their purpose was accomplished. Not thinking much, I went for it myself. That began to speak to me, but I could not understand clearly what it was. After a year I asked to be converted formally, received some catechism and next Easter I became Catholic. The deeper theological knowledge and the ability to defend the Faith came along later. Peace of Christ and the presence of Christ was the first attraction. I never doubted I was in the Church where God was.

My wife, by the way, was at the time not yet my wife, -- and she was practicing Protestant. I was very curious of the Protestant religion because I expected it to be THE America's religion, and visited with her gladly. But the house was empty; the interest faded away as I listened to a variety of sermons and did not see any point being there, rather than to spend time with Ann. Naturally, she converted to Catholicism as well, -- it took her over ten years of frustration in Protestant houses of worship to do so, but I did not want to pressure her. She now wishes I were more forceful.

So yeah, in that sense, it was the experience of faith first for both of us, and that gave me the desire to know Christ's gospel. But there are many stories of conversion from reason as well. Marcus Grodi, himself a former Presbyterian minister, runs an organization helping converts, chiefly from Protestantism, and their stories tend to begin as intellectual conversions, from reason and scripture. I think the latter is to be expected from the Protestant mentality.

23 posted on 04/17/2014 7:18:23 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
“Beware of false prophets.”

Totally agree. I had a close relative who was involved in one of those cults that really tries to isolate their people from any kind of outside influence. It was a nightmare getting them back into the liberty they had in Christ. There are repercussions to this day.

And of course they had all the marks of a cult:

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Pretty interesting. Many will claim to have spoken for God. Not good enough. Many will claim to have done exorcisms for God. Nor good enough. Wonderful works for God. Not good enough. Then comes that terrifying word, "I never knew you." To people who were totally confident they were God's true representatives.

24 posted on 04/17/2014 7:47:12 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Thanks, I appreciate hearing your story. So don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here. I have nothing but the best wishes for you. But I need to make this clear.

Back in post #19, you said “It is not in any way private.”

Now you’re saying, “Any decision at some point becomes internalized and in that sense private.”

So is it private, or not?

You chose to believe, based on your life experiences and knowledge up to that point. That’s what “private judgment” means to a great many Protestants, and not only is it not wrong, it is an inherent necessity of being human. That’s how we work. It’s how God made us.

Which is why, in Scripture, we are not given over to a model of blind submission to human authority. Instead, God invites us to do what?

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

And of course you remember the Berean model:

Act 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

So try the spirits, search the Scripptures. Nothing there about genuflecting to Rome. It seems the “Protestant mentality” has been an ordinary aspect of the believer’s experience from the beginning.


25 posted on 04/17/2014 9:22:55 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

“The Lord quoted Scripture to refute the devil, and the latter was silenced.”

Did He quote from the New Testament?

“When you have an argument rather than ad hominem”

An ad hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. (Wiki)

It is not simply a statement that one does not like.

I do not reject your arguments on the basis of some irrelevant fact about you, and therefore made no ad hominem argument.

“and want to answer my questions”

Those are not questions; they are attacks pretending to be questions. I have no wish to become, like Brer Rabbit, entangled with the Tar Baby of tendentious sophistry you offer.

I do, however, reserve the right to contradict you.


26 posted on 04/17/2014 10:42:52 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

“genuflecting to Rome”

I’m not sure what you mean by that, but I am quite certain that any such genuflecting went the way of the Borgias some centuries ago, and was in any case political rather than spiritual in nature.

We genuflect to Our Lord, not to a city, nor an institution, nor mortal man.

As Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen famously said, “There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church—but there are millions who hate what they mistakenly think the Catholic Church teaches.”


27 posted on 04/17/2014 10:49:23 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dsc
“genuflecting to Rome”

Metaphorical, of course.

We genuflect to Our Lord, not to a city, nor an institution, nor mortal man

So you say. These pages tell a different story. Give up the late and fanciful inventions of this Rome you now disclaim, and return to the simplicity of God's written word, and I will believe you.

28 posted on 04/17/2014 11:10:38 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dsc; daniel1212
I do not reject your arguments on the basis of some irrelevant fact about you, and therefore made no ad hominem argument.

On the contrary, opening with an unsubstantiated claim that your opponent is under satanic delusion is not argument. It is an ad hominem escape from argument of the first order, a fallacy known as argument from intimidation. It may be what you believe, but it adds nothing to the discourse of ideas, and instead is typically used to discredit one's opponent *personally* before real, objective argument can be engaged. Oh yes, it is ad hominem, and a doozy at that.

29 posted on 04/17/2014 11:20:29 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

“These pages tell a different story.”

Only because a few protestants keep repeating things that aren’t true.


30 posted on 04/17/2014 11:35:06 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

“On the contrary, opening with an unsubstantiated claim that your opponent is under satanic delusion is not argument. It is an ad hominem”

Sigh. I just provided the definition of argumentum ad hominem. You are right that my statement is not argument. It is a simple declarative sentence that conveys a thought.

“a fallacy known as argument from intimidation.”

You can’t have it both ways. Either it is an argument, or it is not. That said, there was no intent to intimidate anyone. I merely conveyed information.

“It may be what you believe, but it adds nothing to the discourse of ideas”

I am well aware of the presumption that dissent “adds nothing to the discourse of ideas.” This statement does add one thing: the only plausible explanation for the behavior of some human beings on planet Earth. Only the father of lies could spawn and fuel such a protracted campaign.

“and instead is typically used to discredit one’s opponent *personally* before real, objective argument can be engaged.”

The father of lies must have gotten a chuckle at that. I have no motivation to discredit anyone personally, because it has been demonstrated that “real, objective argument” is impossible. I seek only to say some true things once in a while.

And now I have become bored. Again.

“You Catholics believe X.”
“No, we don’t.”
“Yes, you do.”
“No, we don’t.”
“Yes, you do.”
“No, we don’t.”
“Yes, you do.”
“No, we don’t.”
“Yes, you do.”

It is as wrong-hearted as it is wrong-headed, and I think that’s the worst part of it.


31 posted on 04/17/2014 11:49:49 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
You chose to believe, based on your life experiences and knowledge up to that point.

No, that is not at all what happened. Finding Christ in the Eucharist and kneeling before Him was a complete surprise that did not match any prior experience.

in Scripture, we are not given over to a model of blind submission to human authority

Correct. If any Protestant read the Holy Scripture for what is written, rather than seeking what part of the faith to amputate, he would come to Christ, too:

"Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me."
This is not a "human authority" speaking; a human authority instead is trying to rationalize this as symbolic. Run from these teachers: they teach death.
32 posted on 04/18/2014 3:51:17 AM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dsc; annalex
“These pages tell a different story.” Only because a few protestants keep repeating things that aren’t true.

It's not what the Protestants say that convince me the RC allegiance is not to the written word of God per se, but to a man and a system and a place affiliated with Rome, which annalex has just demonstrated above by insisting on the late and fanciful Romish approach to the Eucharist, aka transubstantiation, which has no grounding in Scripture, not even John 6, yet is advanced as central to Christian understanding. Which no doubt now that I have dared to question it, will produce even more text that demonstrates the centrality of Rome to your apologetic.

33 posted on 04/18/2014 5:24:59 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dsc
LOL. Double Sigh right back atcha. Any reasonable reader is going to understand the ad hominem aspect of accusing someone directly and personally of satanic delusion. The fact that you are able to ignore it is interesting but nothing I care to pursue, except for this:

“a fallacy known as argument from intimidation.”

You can’t have it both ways. Either it is an argument, or it is not. That said, there was no intent to intimidate anyone. I merely conveyed information.

This is a laff riot. First, you do understand that pretty much ALL the non-arguments described as fallacies take the form of "argument from" something. It's just a standard way of discussing logical fallacies. So I have to take it you are either not familiar with this convention (which would be fine), or if you are, then I have no idea why you are playing it this way.

Second, you "merely conveying information" line is a classic. Gotta love it. Because in the first place, it's not information. It's your belief. Second, it is too easy to say you meant nothing by it, after the damage is done:

Pro 26:18 Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death,
Pro 26:19 Is the man who deceives his neighbor, And says, "I was only joking!"

So if you really want to have serious discussion, you will find it is not only possible but desirable to avoid ad hominem.

34 posted on 04/18/2014 5:47:27 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: annalex

I have a response, but must leave for work. Talk to you later.


35 posted on 04/18/2014 5:48:10 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

Rome is a city in Italy. What we have is not “allegiance to Rome” but authentic Christian faith in which there is no Jew, no Greek, no American and no Roman. You mean to say we obey the Vicar of Christ who currently resides in the Vatican. We do. His role as a successor of Peter is rather clear from the bible. He “converts the brethren” and with the bishop “rules the Church of God”. Your problem is not Rome,but authentic and well informed Catholic Christianity.


36 posted on 04/18/2014 6:52:41 AM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

“Any reasonable reader”

Sorry, but you’re not in a position to be making statements about what reasonable people would or would not do.

“understand the ad hominem aspect of accusing someone directly and personally of satanic delusion”

When people think there is no connection between constant prevarication and the work of Satan, I don’t much care for their opinions.

“First, you do understand that pretty much ALL the non-arguments described as fallacies take the form of “argument from” something.”

Whereas you do not understand that they are not “non-arguments,” but rather invalid arguments, in that they rest on logical fallacies. Invalid, but still arguments.

“Because in the first place, it’s not information. It’s your belief.”

In that it is correct, it is information.

“Second, it is too easy to say you meant nothing by it, after the damage is done”

I never said I meant nothing by it. I meant a lot by it. I meant exactly what I said.

“And says, “I was only joking!”

Never said it; never implied it.

Now, I’m going to have to shine you on. You’re just not up to discussing issues at an intellectually adequate level.


37 posted on 04/18/2014 11:58:06 AM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: annalex
For example, instead of seeing in the verses I pointed to the inescapable meaning of continuing inspiration of the Church which "abides for ever" and the promise of victory of the Church over Hell, you sidetrack to the issue of "rock", because that is where you have a template for arguing.

What manner is absurdity is that? "Inescapable meaning!?" Rather, i see that it is only inescapable according to the Romanized mind that this and other texts must say what you assert, including the Eucharist being the body and blood of Christ and necessary for salvation. And which effectively disallows most all Prots from being saved, as they who do not see Scripture teaching the Catholic Real Presence.

And thus the issue remains that of interpretative authority. We can argue Scripture till the cows come home on the meaning of Scripture texts, and we have , but as Scripture can only support Rome and never contradict her, and as it cannot be the RC basis for assurance (unless evangelicals are right and the infallible magisterium is not what provides that), and as RCs are bond to defend Rome, then the real issue is the logic that sees promises of Divine guidance and presence as meaning a perpetual infallible magisterium.

RCs see texts such as Mt. 16:18 and Jn. 14:16 as promising a perpetual infallible authoritative magisterium, under the premise that such is necessary for determination and preservation of Truth, and which you see being fulfilled in Rome being the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, thus she is that perpetual infallible authoritative magisterium, and infallibly definers herself as being so and worthy of implicit assent of faith. And by this RCs have assurance and all dissenters from Rome are cooked.

But such an ecclesiastical magisterium was not how writings and men of God were established as being so in Scripture, nor is what is promised, while Scripture is not even determinative for an RC.

However, despite the firewall that automatically must reject anything that contradicts Rome (though some RC defenders do so), i did briefly deal with your proffered proof texts, and focusing on the meaning of "the rock" was no sidetrack at all, but one that RCs major on for good reason. For the meaning of "rock," is the critical issue since otherwise you can simply have a promise that the church, as the body of Christ, will overcome the gates of Hell, versus only the Catholic church being the body of Christ, or the only valid visible manifestation of this.

Yet on the papacy, too, the scripture is with us: clearly by rejoicing over the confession of Peter, renaming him after Christ's own attribute, and promising the keys to heaven Christ meant to elevate Peter as a person, not some abstract faith.

The massive and manifest problem is that the extrapolative RC imagination on what this elevation meant simply does not correspond to what Scripture nor even what modern researchers find in early church history.

I can elaborate on this but when a intractable commitment to Rome that compels texts to inescapably defend her, then any and all evidence to contrary must be dismissed.

Luke 22:32 clearly gives Peter a role of safeguarding the faith of the other apostles.

That is just another example of the extrapolative RC imagination. Somehow the prayer that the faith of the street-level leader among brethren would persevere, and strengthen his brethren, means Peter was The exalted infallible head whom all the church looked to as the first of a line of infallible popes ruling from in Rome.

But which is contrary to what a more comprehensive examination of Scripture reveals, which is too much to post here.

Similarly your interpretation of John 14 verses does not match even formally what the scripture says, because in the scripture Christ promises the leadership of the Holy Spirit in the utterances of the Church "for ever", and not till such time as the New Testament is written and canonized.

This again is the RC imagination at work. What Jn. 14 promises, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; (John 14:16) is promised and given to all believers, (Jn. 7:38; Eph. 1:13) and nowhere no way promises or requires a perpetual infallible magisterium. And by reliance upon such presumption error has resulted recalcitrant preservation of errors of tradition, exposed by the assured and established word of God, the Scriptures, in which see fulfillment of the promise of the Lord to lead into all Truth.

38 posted on 04/18/2014 12:57:37 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
which effectively disallows most all Prots from being saved, as they who do not see Scripture teaching the Catholic Real Presence.

We don't know who is and is not saved, for we are saved by our works and the intention of imitating Christ that accompany them. But as a general rule, a direct denial of words of the Gospel destroys your souls, yes.

RCs see texts such as Mt. 16:18 and Jn. 14:16 as promising a perpetual infallible authoritative magisterium

Yes, except it is not "text" that promise but rather Christ has promised exactly that, and I, a Christian, believe Him.

But such an ecclesiastical magisterium was not how writings and men of God were established as being so in Scripture

You mean, Christ did not say what is written, or said it without meaning it, or what?

while Scripture is not even determinative for an RC.

The Holy Scripture records words spoken by Christ, in this case, or otherwise words spoken by the Church and her Builder through her prelates and saints. That is authoritative.

For the meaning of "rock," is the critical issue since otherwise you can simply have a promise that the church, as the body of Christ, will overcome the gates of Hell, versus only the Catholic church being the body of Christ, or the only valid visible manifestation of this.

If the words "Gates of Hell shall not prevail over the Church I shall build" (paraphrasing) were said in some different context you could argue whatever that context would allow. You still would have to explain how anything or anybody could prevail or not prevail over a community of all Christians, or else you are back to "Church" meaning not a collective of people but an institution that survives or doesn't as an institution. Further, you would still have to note that that institution is thought of by Jesus as a single one, not several or many -- because in the latter case He would have to somehow define how His promise would apply to each of them singly.

But we don't have to imagine the scripture that was not written since we have Matthew 16 where the promise comes in a context. The context is not just the naming of Simon Bar Jona "Rock" but also the promise of "keys to heaven", the attestation that God revealed to Peter his confession, and the promise that the infallible, invincible Church will be built on the very "rock" that Peter is being named after; that, lastly, Peter can legislate on earth and his legislation will be binding in heaven.

Now, "rock" is indeed a metaphor for God everywhere in scripture. Your opinion seems to be that Jesus either did not know that, or did not mean that (that Protestant Jesus often has no clue what He is talking about, so that wouldn't be the first or the last incident). This is a good example of Protestant defects of faith. I prefer to think that Jesus knew what he was doing and meant to give Bar-Jona this divinizing name, because the renaming was in the context of other kind of promises, authorizations and praises given Peter. It is a single package and the package describes pretty much an invincible Church with an infallible Pope in it. Nor is it a single episode: in Luke 22:31 Christ predicts that it is Peter whose faith will infallibly convert others during difficult times.

Another way of twisting and ultimately denying scripture is to pretend that somehow the person of Bar-Jona is not really there: that the praise goes to abstract faith, that rock is only the fundament but never a person with that name, that the keys were promised but not delivered, that the legislative authority being also with the Church (in Matthew 18:18) cannot be with Peter (another case of a befuddled Protestant Christ), that none of that can possibly apply to anything or anyone today because the authority of Peter died with Peter. Spare the childishness. Read the Scripture every once in a while like God means what He says. You will feel better.

39 posted on 04/18/2014 2:46:44 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: annalex; daniel1212
Read the Scripture every once in a while like God means what He says. You will feel better.

Embarrassing ad hominem. You woo us with insults? Is that how you came to believe what you do? It astonishes me.

40 posted on 04/18/2014 9:40:04 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dsc
Sorry, but you’re not in a position to be making statements about what reasonable people would or would not do.

Ad hominem again? Is this really all you have?

When people think there is no connection between constant prevarication and the work of Satan, I don’t much care for their opinions.

No doubt there is a connection. What made you think we do not associate Satan with lies? We do, because we believe in the words of Jesus, that Satan is the father of lies. If after hearing this you continue to represent that we make no such connection, you do willfully misrepresent us, and that would be true and provable prevarication, because we have told you the truth about this (and everything else). Yet you do not believe us.

Whereas you do not understand that they are not “non-arguments,” but rather invalid arguments, in that they rest on logical fallacies. Invalid, but still arguments

Oh pfiffle. You are serious? You really think this conversation can bear such trivial, nonsensical sniping? What if "non-argument" were colloquial for "invalid argument"? Indeed, I though to say it, but determined you were too intelligent to miss the synonymous effect, and yet here you use this basketful of nothing to swing at someone who sincerely wishes to take you seriously. Triple sigh ...

Now, I’m going to have to shine you on. You’re just not up to discussing issues at an intellectually adequate level.

Indeed, for by such a device, you avoid actual engagement of ideas, and I fully understand why you wish to bypass that. (Note to reader: Please tally the substantive arguments in this entire thread and who made them, and see if I am not correct.)

My uncle was a brilliant man. He did advanced math modeling for the government, a full blown genius. Yet he was also a man of grace, and any intellect, however humble, could approach him at any level and he was glad to teach them.

This was a reflection of his deep faith in Jesus, and his modeling of the humility of Jesus, who while He dealt harshly with the self-righteous and proud, He rather gave (and still gives) grace and blessing to the humble.

So if you wish to cut me off for my intellectual inadequacies, you do what you think is right. I will still have Jesus to be my Teacher, and that is enough for me.

God bless you and yours,

SR

41 posted on 04/18/2014 10:06:54 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: annalex
No, that is not at all what happened. Finding Christ in the Eucharist and kneeling before Him was a complete surprise that did not match any prior experience.

So now you disclaim volition? You made no decision to become a Christian? You just woke up one day and you *were* one?

rather than seeking what part of the faith to amputate

Here you attribute motive where you have no evidence of the same. As we have discussed before, every Scripture you have presented as an alleged proof text for a uniquely Roman Catholic doctrine is able to be read under normal Protestant interpretation. No amputation is necessary, nor is any such thing desired. You wrong us to say we have such evil intent. I promise you we do not.

For example, regarding the Eucharist, no human authority, other than ordinary God-given reason, is necessary to read a word in its ordinary meaning and context. The passage you cite does not occur in a vacuum. but on the heels of miraculously feeding the multitudes. It is in that setting that Jesus begins to redirect their attention from mere physical food to spiritual food, by the most striking and seemingly impossible language:

John 6:53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

How do we know this is spiritual food and NOT corporeal? Because Jesus, the only authority needed for this question, clearly says so:

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

This teaching, directly from the inspired word of God, is contrary to the bizarre and late-appearing novelty doctrine of transubstantiation. To accept transubstantiation is to amputate the logical exclusion Jesus is creating here, as he not only says he should be understood spiritually, but He specifically excludes corporeality as part of the answer. So there can be no clever synthesis, not part spiritual and part corporeal, no Aristotelian game of accidents and substance, both of which are mere excuses for retaining corporeality where Jesus specifically excluded it.

How then could this be done, this eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, if not in some corporeal way? This is exactly the same point of confusion experienced by His audience in those moments when he first said these words. Yet this confusion is inexcusable, because Jesus had already established how, by spiritual means, we may find life in him:

John 6:47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

Could it really be that simple? Believing in Him? Impossible. There must be something more to it. Yet coming to belief in Jesus is no small thing, for earlier in the same passage, Jesus has said it is not possible to believe in Him without being drawn to Him by God Himself:

John 6:44-45 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT BY GOD.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

But what about when He says, This is my body, this is my blood? (Matthew 26:26,28 et al). Again, no greater authority is needed than the common sense God gave us all:

Joh 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

When Jesus says he is the door, does he invoke Aristotelian categories of accidence and substance? Or would any ordinary reader understand his words as figurative? Wouldn’t throwing transubstantiation in here be ludicrous? Yes, it would. Just as it would be in Matthew 26:26 & 28.

Instead, it now becomes clear that “eime”, the verb of being (“to be”), can have legitimate figurative use, which no less an authority that Jesus Himself has demonstrated by example.

For another excellent example, look at Matthew 13:38:

“The field (’agros’) is (’estin’) the world (’kosmos’); the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;”

Estin is the same word (“to be”) in the same form (“is”) as the passage in Matthew 26:26 & 28.

This is a particularly good case, because it is impossible to take the subject of the analogy as literal; it is a parable, by definition establishing a figurative or symbolic relationship between the analogue and the underlying reality it describes.

To put a finer point on it, Jesus cannot here be teaching that one literal farmer’s field really is the entirety of the world. The farm field can only be a representation because it lacks all the literal the attributes of the kosmos as a whole. It is merely a tool used to teach the disciples about the spiritual dimension to Gospel evangelism. Jesus selected a part of the kosmos to represent the whole, and said part was chosen for its ability to teach, not because it had some Dr. Who Tardis-like capacity to fully contain the reality of the kosmos.

And various key fathers also testify to this figurative sense:

But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.

Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 9.

See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm for full context.

Is Augustine a teacher of death? Should you also run away from him? But what does he say it is to confuse the sign for the thing it signifies? Weakness.

Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure.

Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 40

See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm for full context

Is Tertullian outside the camp as well? I should hope not. And there are many others. But it is late and I have to wrap this up for now.

So I’m asking you, with all sincerity, please reconsider your position. Protestants came by this figurative sense of the Eucharist honestly, from ancient and reliable sources. We didn’t invent it, and we were definitely not the first to have this understanding concerning the Eucharist. Its figurative quality emerges very naturally from the teaching of Jesus Himself, our mutually agreed highest authority, and does not at all diminish what He has done for us, but rather magnifies it to the greatest glory.

It grieves me to think we have so much in common, and yet must part ways on this, all because Trent anathematized dissent from the Aristotelian alchemy of Aquinas, a formulation that has no basis in Scripture, nor in any of the early fathers, but is actually refuted by the same. Real sigh …

42 posted on 04/19/2014 1:23:22 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Springfield Reformer
Any decision at some point becomes internalized and in that sense private; however the reasons for the Catholic faith are very well known and in fact I enumerated the principal ones.

I read your testimony, and i have mine, as one raised devout RC, but who later became manifestly born again thru tearful repentance and faith in Christ to save, and realized the profound difference in heart and life, and btwn what happened to me versus my fellow Catholics.

And yet i remained for 6 years, going weekly and holy days to Mass as a Eucharist-believing RC, and served as a lector and CCD teacher, while also seeking life in RC charismatic meetings (which were better). But who quickly found evangelical radio as feeding my very hungry soul, seeking to know how to please God from the Scriptures.

And finally, and more due to spiritual deadness in the RC church (and i went to more than my own parish sometimes) and desire for evangelical fellowship more than doctrinal differences (though i saw some), i humbly prayed to God if perhaps He would have me go to another church (I knew of none i thought i could trust) then He would make it known. And which He manifestly answered the next day, and which decision He only confirmed in the years since.

Nor do i harbor personal resentment against Rome, but contend against it which i do against other errors, from Swedenborg" to Islam .

And as i can examine Scripture objectively, so i have changed some of my views, if not salvific ones, and likely read more Catholic teaching than most RCs. But this is contrary to the cultic devotion of such RCs i see contending her, and exampled in the incredible things they wrest out of Scripture, which devotion driven extrapolations are actually an argument again being an RC.

43 posted on 04/19/2014 8:59:17 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Springfield Reformer
We don't know who is and is not saved, for we are saved by our works and the intention of imitating Christ that accompany them. But as a general rule, a direct denial of words of the Gospel destroys your souls, yes.

You can invoke the ignorant clause, but basically you do not simply do not hold to salvation by works, but salvation via the Eucharist. And thus there is contradiction btwn your statement that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and necessary for salvation, and the affirmation of V2 that properly baptized Prots have the Holy Spirit who works in and thru them.

For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal.

They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...

They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood... - Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium; solemnly promulgated by Pope Paul VI, November 21, 1964 http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995" "All Christian Communities know that, thanks to the power given by the Spirit, obeying that will and overcoming those obstacles are not beyond their reach. All of them in fact have martyrs for the Christian faith....These Saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation...This universal presence of the Saints is in fact a proof of the transcendent power of the Spirit. It is the sign and proof of God's victory over the forces of evil which divide humanity. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

And insisting Jn. 53,54 compels one to be Catholic is absurd, for as briefly shown here , it requires more eisegesis that is contrary to the figurative use of eating and drinking and the means by which one gains spiritual and eternal life in Scripture.

If they have the Holy Spirit who works in and thru them then they are children of God now, without believing in or consuming the Eucharist. And even this possession of life within them is impossible if Jn. 6:53 is taken literally,

Yes, except it is not "text" that promise but rather Christ has promised exactly that, and I, a Christian, believe Him.

RCs see texts such as Mt. 16:18 and Jn. 14:16 as promising a perpetual infallible authoritative magisterium

Engaging in imaginary semantic distinctions will not gain you any points, and avoids the reasoning (below) behind RCs being driven to interpret this and other Divinely inspired texts as supporting Rome.

But such an ecclesiastical magisterium was not how writings and men of God were established as being so in Scripture

You mean, Christ did not say what is written, or said it without meaning it, or what?

It seems like you are avoiding the "what," that of the reasoning behind interpreting a promise of a persevering church and of God's presence to mean that of a perpetual infallible magisterium, versus the normal corporate meaning of church, that of the body of Christ, founded upon Christ, as seen understood among CFs, and the Lord's presence being that of the giving of the Spirit upon all believers.

That this must necessitate a perpetual infallible magisterium is a premise which simply is not Scriptural. If you think it is, then defend it, rather than just asserting your interpretation must be correct. Which itself is based upon the premise that Rome cannot be wrong, as being the fulfillment of the perpetual infallible magisterium you see promised in Scripture, but which is driven by a the conclusion it seeks to defend, as in fact Scripture is not even determinative for an RC, and his basis for assurance.

while Scripture is not even determinative for an RC.

The Holy Scripture records words spoken by Christ, in this case, or otherwise words spoken by the Church and her Builder through her prelates and saints. That is authoritative.

It seems you are back to your prior assertion the doctors and prelates speak Divinely inspired words on faith and morals, which makes you more Catholic than Catholic scholastic sources.

In any case, it does not deny what i said, Scripture is not even determinative for an RC." despite their attempt to use it to support teachings which are basis upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.

If the words "Gates of Hell shall not prevail over the Church I shall build" (paraphrasing) were said in some different context you could argue whatever that context would allow. You still would have to explain how anything or anybody could prevail or not prevail over a community of all Christians, or else you are back to "Church" meaning not a collective of people but an institution

First, it is a matter of debate even among RCs as to whether "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" means the authority of Hell attacking the church, or that of the church overcoming the powers of Hell to rescue souls whose destination is Hell.

In either case, the church is the body of Christ, consisting of all who possesses His Spirit, and which Rome herself acknowledges others as having beyond the Catholic church. It is the "one new man" fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God," who "have access by one Spirit unto the Father" and are "builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit," and to whom Christ is married. (Eph. 2:18,19,22; 5:25) This is the only body that is only made up of believers, and it is thus attacked by the powers of Hell, thus believes are exhorted, "Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body." (Hebrews 13:3)

For your interpretation to work, the body of Christ must refer to one church in submission to the pope, with it alone being what is engaged in war with the invisible powers of darkness. Yet it is the organized church that has often attacked those who belong to the body of Christ, even using the sword of men, thus being an instrument of the devil. Thus the organized church of Rome alone or any other cannot be the church the Lord refers to her.

While the body of Christ has its visible manifestations, the war btwn the powers of Hell vs the church are not restricted to one organized church, as the body is not restricted to that. Yet the devil can attack one or more organized churches in particular, even using them to do so, but none epresent the whole body.

Moreover, while the early diverse church had a basic if not comprehensive unity under manifestly true apostles, these apostles and the NT church stand in significant and critical contrast to that of Rome, and its limited unity is largely organizational and largely on paper, and exists in divisions. And she overall lacks the essential unity of the Spirit that is the result of a shared conversion and abiding relationship with Christ, which is greater than the differences among those walking therein, and transcends tribal differences. Due to this and a common contention for core truths, evangelicals have been treated as the greatest threats by both Rome and liberals, and are overall more unified in core beliefs than the overall fruit of Rome.

Further, you would still have to note that that institution is thought of by Jesus as a single one, not several or many -- because in the latter case He would have to somehow define how His promise would apply to each of them singly.

What you think must done and what must be done are two different things. The promise that the gates of Hell will not overcome the entity called the church is not a promise to individuals under my definition, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body...For the body is not one member, but many." (1 Corinthians 12:13,14) despite your attempt to make it so, but it is to a corporate body which only consists of true born again believers. That is what the powers of hell wars with, including thru the organized church, though it wars with individual believers and churches as well.

The context is not just the naming of Simon Bar Jona "Rock" but also the promise of "keys to heaven", the attestation that God revealed to Peter his confession, and the promise that the infallible, invincible Church will be built on the very "rock" that Peter is being named after; that, lastly, Peter can legislate on earth and his legislation will be binding in heaven.

I shake my head in amazement of what an RC can wrest out of Scripture as needed to support Rome when it simply is not there, and is why the real basis for your assurance of Truth, which cannot be the weight of Scriptural evidence, was my focus .

Here you a least seem to have church built on "the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter," (CCC 424) but which by extension makes the object of that faith, Christ, the Rock upon which the church is built, which interpretation of the Rock is the only one that the rest of Scripture attests to, abundantly.

Then you have the keys somehow translating into the infallible, invincible Church, and that Peter (uniquely supremely) can legislate on earth and his legislation will be binding in heaven!

Such careless wanton extrapolation renders Scripture to be a servant to support Rome, and is not what it teaches in the light of the rest of it. What is abundantly manifest is that the "keys" to the kingdom is that of the gospel, the power of God unto salvation," as by faith in it believers are translated into the kingdom of Christ, (Col. 1:13) whether they heard of Peter or not. Phillip preached Christ out of Is. 53 for salvation, not Peter, being sent by the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:26-38)

And what the NT revelation shows is never that of Peter reigning over the church corporate as its supreme infallible head, and in fact not once in all the NT is he shown doing so, nor even in the church epistles or in the Lord's critique of the churches in Rv. 2,3 is submission to Peter as this head ever exhorted or made an issue, even as a solution to problems, nor any lack thereof faulted,

While Peter was a Spirit-filled miracle-working preacher and the street-level leader among many apostles, and who exercised a general pastoral role, (1Pt. 1:1) yet he who never claimed to be anything more than "a servant," "an apostle," "an elder," (2Pt. 1:1; 1Pt. 5:1) nor is he described as being more than one of the pillars, with James being listed first. (Gal. 2:9)

It is Peter who provides briefly key testimony and sound counsel in Act 15, affirming the evangelical gospel of justification by faith, "purifying their hearts by faith," before baptism, but an obedient faith first formally expressed in baptism. (Acts 10:43,47; 15:7-9) And briefly urges this counsel to be accepted versus the gospel of the Judaizers. Yet it is James who provides the (approx. 175 word) conclusive decree on what is to be believed and done.

Yet the primary evangelist and church planter is the apostle Paul, who preached Christ as being the Son of God immediately after his conversion and the laying on hands by "a certain disciple, Ananais. (Acts 9:10-20) Yet who theologically received the gospel of grace by direct revelation. (Gal. 1:12)

Only after 3 years does he meet specifically with the eyewitness-leader Peter, and he also sees James, (Gal. 1:18,19) and then goes about preaching for 14 years before presenting his message as a matter of course to "them which were of reputation," "who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person), "who seemed to be pillars." (Galatians 2:2,6.9)

All of which upholds the principle of leadership and accountability to such, yet not as providing apostleship or infallibly determining authenticity, but confirming what was already possessed. Nor does the language there does not supports the status afforded the Roman papacy, directing all souls to look to Peter as its exalted head.

While the Roman pope stands above all other bishops in both actions, dress and ascribed powers, Paul presents Peter as just one of them to appeared to be pillars, and does not even list Peter first among the three, but second, and makes it clear it made no difference to him what they seemed to be, as God looks at the heart and sees what men in position really are. And in proceeding paragraphs Paul is sure to include how otherwise holy Peter acted hypocritically, and was thus rebuked publicly.

Apologist Steve Hays also writes of just a few of the intervening steps of what Rome wrests from Matthew 16:18: a) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to “Peter.” b) The promise of Mt 16:18 has “exclusive” reference to Peter. c) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine “office.” d) This office is “perpetual” e) Peter resided in “Rome” f) Peter was the “bishop” of Rome g) Peter was the “first” bishop of Rome h) There was only “one” bishop at a time i) Peter was not a bishop “anywhere else.” j) Peter “ordained” a successor k) This ceremony “transferred” his official prerogatives to a successor. l) The succession has remained “unbroken” up to the present day. Lets go back and review each of these twelve separate steps: More .

As it is obviously that the RC assertions of what Mt. 16:18 and other texts teach are driven by the premise that the only interpretation of what Scripture is and means is that of Rome, thus the premise that is behind the reasoning that a perpetual infallible magisterium is necessary and that Rome is that magisterium remains the issue.

Now, "rock" is indeed a metaphor for God everywhere in scripture. Your opinion seems to be that Jesus either did not know that, or did not mean that... I prefer to think that Jesus knew what he was doing and meant to give Bar-Jona this divinizing name, because the renaming was in the context of other kind of promises, authorizations and praises given Peter. It is a single package and the package describes pretty much an invincible Church with an infallible Pope in it.

What you prefer does not line up with Scripture and the Christ who knew what he was doing in showing Peter to be radically different than the Roman papacy, thus the RC Jesus is one who did not know what He was doing thru Scripture, and thus needed to make the Roman church has supreme over Scripture, and found forgeries and fables helpful as Scripture manifestly fails to support the infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy and church, which Rome "infallibly" declares herself to be.

Instead of the RC idea, the Lord knew what "rock" conveyed, and who the real Rock was, and made a distinction btwn what the rock-Peter said and the One whom he confessed, which rock name he was act in conformity with, but a distinction which the Lord quickly made in calling Peter a satan. Which type of thing is just one more piece of evidence that Rome did not write the Bible to support her, despite what Islam imagines.

Nor is it a single episode: in Luke 22:31 Christ predicts that it is Peter whose faith will infallibly convert others during difficult times.

Simply in-credible! Somehow the prayer of the Lord that the faith of this poor, married leader among brethren would persevere, and strengthen his brethren, is asserted to mean, via extrapolative RC imagination , that Peter was the exalted infallible head whom all the church looked to as the first of a line of infallible popes ruling from Rome! Which neither Scripture nor history supports.

Another way of twisting and ultimately denying scripture is to...

Is to engage in straw men or read whatever is necessary into Scripture to support Rome as if she were God.

That the legislative authority being also with the Church (in Matthew 18:18) cannot be with Peter

Which is another example wresting texts. This is not referring to doctrinal legislative action but that of settling personal disputes, which is seen in the government and jurisprudence of the Old Testament, (Dt. 1:13-17) which the writers so often hearken back to. And which in NT application was not that of the apostles in Jerusalem, but the apostle Paul writes, “If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.” (1 Corinthians 6:4)

And the principle of binding here goes beyond disfellowship, but also relates to healing. And while elders (not men distinctively titled "priests") normally are the ones called in to intercede, (Ja. 514,15) in Mt. 18:15-20 the principle of binding here is not simply addressed to the apostles, but "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:19-20) Thus the promise, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (James 5:16)

that none of that can possibly apply to anything or anyone today because the authority of Peter died with Peter.

As said, the level of attestation must correspond to the claims made, and Rome esp. utterly fails to manifest the manner of power purity and signs of an apostles, while claiming perpetual assured infallibility, which the apostles did not claim, but persuaded souls by "manifestation of the Truth," "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God," (2Cor. 4:2; 6:4ff) "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. (1 Corinthians 4:20) Rome makes a mockery of this corespondent authority and Scriptural regeneration and the church of the living, not institutionalized God, as per Rome and liberal Prot churches (which tend to be more like Rome).

However, the principle of leadership and the teaching office, remains, but not as possessing perpetual assured infallibility. As Rome claims this of her popes and bishops, while failing of the apostolic qualifications and attestation, she has automatically distinguished herself from that of Scripture.

Spare the childishness. Read the Scripture every once in a while like God means what He says. You will feel better.

Stop engaging in soliloquy, or resorting to spitballs, and dare to take off your Roman glasses and objectively search the Scripture to determine the veracity of Roman teaching. But which you are not to do, and thus why ague Scripture with RCs when the foundational issue is that of implicit assent to Rome based upon the a priori premise of her assured infallibility, the assurance of which really cannot be based upon the weight of Scripture?

44 posted on 04/19/2014 8:59:25 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dsc; Springfield Reformer
Did He quote from the New Testament?

Irrelevant, as these writings were established upon the same basis as OT ones were, which was not via an infallible magisterium.

An ad hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

I do not reject your arguments on the basis of some irrelevant fact about you, and therefore made no ad hominem argument.

The problem with "You have fallen into Satan’s trap. He has muddied the waters sufficiently to lead you, and presumably many others, into misunderstanding those things," as referring to wresting “certain” proof out of Scripture for RC traditions that are not seen officially done, and as regards "what constitutes official and even infallible teaching," is that it is a bare assertion, an unsubstantiated charge presented as fact.

And thus your conclusion is begging the question, and makes a conclusive assertion as a substituted for an actual argument that serves to substantiate the conclusive assertion.

And which amounts to charging that i am in a circumstance that compels my position, which can be warranted, but is unsubstantiated. And my remark was written to a follow evangelical who has seen of what i speak, and which i can substantiate it, if you care to actually debate it.

I was using ad hominem loosely to refer to an unsubstantiated personal attack in lieu of an argument, but it may be helpful to consider the the RM (who must sometimes be a hard judging job) definition of ad hominems (though i did not flag you and rarely do invoke the RM for such)

Ad Hominems

The main guideline to posting on the Religion Forum: ”Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.”

Whereas posters may argue vigorously for and against beliefs on “open” Religion Forum threads it is never tolerable to use ad hominems in religious debate because they invariably lead to flame wars when the subject is one’s deeply held religious beliefs.

For something to be "making it personal" it must be speaking to another Freeper, personally....

Protestants are heretics" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal. "Catholics worship Mary" is not making it personal. "You worship Mary" is making it personal. "Mormons worship many gods" is not making it personal. "You worship many gods" is making it personal....

The words "prevarication" "dishonesty" "slander" "deceit" "calumny" and "subterfuge" are synonymous with "lie" because they entail intent. >

If a post serves no debate purpose (flame bait or 'making it personal' by devious means) - it would be pulled.

Those are not questions; they are attacks pretending to be questions. I have no wish to become, like Brer Rabbit, entangled with the Tar Baby of tendentious sophistry you offer.

That is simply example another sophist tactic that avoids dealing with what refutes Rome, as these questions deal with the foundational premise behind RC claims. You simply are calling things false but do not substantiate them. But it is best for you to avoid dealing with these issues.

45 posted on 04/19/2014 9:14:53 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
On the contrary, opening with an unsubstantiated claim that your opponent is under satanic delusion is not argument.

But when a Roman has spoken, is not the matter settled?:)

46 posted on 04/19/2014 9:16:16 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dsc
Whereas you do not understand that they are not “non-arguments,” but rather invalid arguments, in that they rest on logical fallacies. Invalid, but still arguments.

I know you have moved on, and that's fine, but I thought you would like to know that I researched this issue of non-argument versus invalid argument, and I now agree with you. It was a colloquialism to me, but a formal logician's perspective would necessarily be that the two are distinct, though I have read some who suggest that a non sequitur can occur as either a non-argument or an invalid argument. So the boundaries are not always pristine.

In any event, as one who claims to understand formal logic, you must also recognize it is fallacious to dismiss an argument by shifting the focus to an error of the presenter in an unrelated subject matter. It's just another form of abusive ad hominem.

So if you are ever willing to reopen discussion on the basis of substantive argument rather than an unending stream of personal attack, I would be glad to reengage. We'll leave the light on for ya.

Peace,

SR

47 posted on 04/19/2014 9:31:02 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer; daniel1212
... ad hominem. You woo us with insults?

Nothing personal. It is a common feature of Protestants that they argue for their illusions by bypassing, skipping through and generally ignoring the parts of the Holy Scripture that do not fit their templates. Neither would I describe evangelization as "wooing". I am under an obligation to teach all nations "to observe all things whatsoever" Christ commanded the Church. Note that: "all things". Not some things you indeed observe, but all things that the Catholic Church observes. Therefore, I repeat, read the Holy Scripture because God really, really, means what He says.

48 posted on 04/19/2014 10:02:00 AM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
now you disclaim volition? You made no decision to become a Christian?

Last part first, I became Christian when I received baptism; I was about one year of age. Of course as an adult I took a conscious and considered decision to seek full Communion with the Holy Catholic Church; I spent about a year sitting in church, like a good sheep, and another half a year in various forms and stages of Catechism. Christ once compared faith to a seed becoming a tree, and that is exactly was was happening since baptism and, glory be to God, will continue to happen till God takes me.

you attribute motive where you have no evidence of the same. [...] You wrong us to say we have such evil intent.

Surely, I cannot speak to everyone's intent, and indeed I gave my advice conditionally: "If any Protestant". But the pattern is common to all Protestantism. On fundamentals of faith: the nature of the Eucharist, the structure of the Church, the role of acquired virtue in salvation, -- we take the scripture on its direct face value. Christ said "this is my body" so we believe it is His body. Christ next said "do it", so we have priests who "do it". Christ said: "thou art Rock and I will build my Church on thee" and we have the papacy; the apostle said "you are not saved on faith alone" and we anathemize the view that we are saved by faith alone. Christ said "forgive them their sins" and we have confessions to priests. That is when it is written, we read what is written. It would be good for the Protestants to worry less what the Catholics do that is outside of the scope of the scripture and instead turn to their own errors that are firmly in contradiction to the scripture.

Jesus begins to redirect their attention from mere physical food to spiritual food

First, I am sure we agree that (1) the food of the miracle of the fishes and loaves was physical food; (2) the body of Christ that was on the Cross and ascended is physical body; that (3) the entirety of Christian religion pertains to matters spiritual; faith for example is a spiritual phenomenon; that finally (4) we live in the world that is both spiritual and physical. I say these rather evident things because you say "Christ redirects". That is a false dichotomy. The loaves were physical but built the spirit; Christ was incarnate but built the spirit. So if you mean to tell me that the Eucharist is spiritual and therefore is not the real body of Christ you are building a non-sequitur. The argument is not about that, but about the real presence of Christ with the body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist, which is to our taste and to our laboratory equipment is bread and wine, and is physically eaten and drunken as bread and wine would be, and then has a spiritual effect on us.

In that light, let us examine the Miracle of the Loaves. They ate physical food and were satisfied, and despite the satisfaction gathered up the remnants, because -- I don't see another reason, -- they revered them as miraculous. When there is a miracle, there is spirit working the miracle. Further, a physical object limited to one lunch basket became available to great many people. From that it follows that Christ worked the miracle of the loaves not to teach a contrast to the Eucharist, but rather in order to prepare for this difficult concept of one His body being in the mouths of great many. A contrast is drawn in the discourse, but not with the Loaves and Fishes; the contrast is with the manna from heaven and by extension the non-salvific nature of Jewish faith.

In general, the parables and miracles of Christ were given in order to teach and to prepare; not in order to foster an error and then correct that error. He means what He says. If Christ wanted to teach Protestant concept of Eucharist as a symbol and eating it as a metaphor of ingesting faith he would not give people real loaves and then spend the rest of the chapter speaking of "food indeed", and cause apostasy of some, who "walked no more with Him" over it.

the logical exclusion Jesus is creating here, as he not only says he should be understood spiritually, but He specifically excludes corporeality as part of the answer

This is not an exclusion but a clarification: the food in the baskets was physical food from which your stomach profited; the Eucharist is physical food from which your spirit profits, and the stomach does not profit. Compare in 1 Corinthians 11, "have you not houses to eat and to drink in?". With the emphasis on the physicality of the Eucharist as his physical body ("ο τρωγων μου την σαρκα", -- note the vocabulary), and with the promise of eternal life from the Eucharist alone, Christ did not want people to stop eating any other food whatsoever.

When Jesus says he is the door, does he invoke Aristotelian categories of accidence and substance?

He did not "invoke categories" in John 6 either, he simply said what He also said at the Last Supper, "this is my body". The philosophical superstructure of transubstantiation is there to explain the fact of the real presence, not the fact itself. At any rate, of course the Gospels are filled with allegory. Jesus the Door is obviously an allegory: you cannot enter the Church but through Jesus just as you cannot enter any building but through the door. He also said He is the vine. He did not tell the disciples to do something symbolic with doors and vine in His memory. Everyone understood Him in both cases as being allegorical; no one raised any controversy. But in John 6, Christ's speech was insistent on the Eucharist being "food indeed", and the people that were present understood Him literally. Indeed St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11 speaks of the Eucharist containing the body of Christ that ought to be discerned, shows the death of Christ and is capable of condemnation (1 Cor. 11:26-30); all these things cannot be said of some symbol or allegory.

It does not follow that since in some places the Bible has an allegory, like "door", "vine", "field", "seed" pointing to spiritual realities, then everything you don't like in it is also an allegory. That body on the Cross surely wasn't allegorical, was it?

Tertullian outside the camp as well?

Tertullian as a whole is not to be taken for granted: he fell to heresy, was never sainted by the Church; St. Augustine is not inerrant either. But in these passages nothing heretical is even alleged: any sacrament is a sign and it is possible to speak of the Eucharist as something relative to incarnate Christ. It is only the distorted lens of Protestantism that makes these passages cause a double take.

We didn’t invent it

It is possible that someone somewhere spoke of the Eucharist as a sign, or even as a figure of Christ, even though neither Augustine or Tertullian are good authority. Surely the Early Church already held the modern position. Her, for example, is St. Ignatius of Antioch (2 C.):

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

we have so much in common, and yet must part ways on this, all because Trent anathematized dissent

Protestantism grew out of Catholicism so naturally it inherited much from the Church. However, the "symbolic" view is indeed heretical and the only reason it had not been anathemized earlier is because it was not seriously held earlier.

49 posted on 04/19/2014 11:35:55 AM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; Springfield Reformer
I read your testimony, and i have mine

I think, Daniel, you'll be back. Anyone who reads the holy Scripture and seeks the truth will become Catholic if God gives him enough time.

50 posted on 04/19/2014 11:38:45 AM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-365 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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