Posted on 06/24/2003 3:49:56 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
I have to admit - this one has me scratching my head in befuddlement......please illustrate for all (with links) where I laced the dialogue with ad homs and name calling. I made no mention of Mary's veneration or the plausability of the co-redemptrix notion, nor did I address the papacy.
Your assertion is baseless - teetering closely to a lie
Perhaps you are confusing me with RobbyS, who had a post deleted for same.
____________________
Posted by RobbyS to Revelation 911
On Religion 06/25/2003 9:50 PM EDT #89 of 101
Catholics are the only true Christians. All others who claim to be Christian are schismatics and heretics :-).
_______________
........Charming
Psalm 12:
3 May the LORD cut off all flattering lips and every boastful tongue
Now, while Im responding to you for the last time, please note it is impolite to speak of another freeper with whom you agree or otherwise without including the freeper in the post mentioning him, her.
enjoy your day Pat
Oh, I just looked them up. One of their websites states that they were formed in 1457. That's a pretty long time after Christ.
so numbers denote success?
Catholics - ....meet the LDS Mormons
....and solidifying doctrine in 1854 regarding Marys perpetual virginity isn't?
By that token - anyone who held that position beforhand was a heretic
So - taking it to another extension - Calvin - Wesley and Luther were "heretics" then for affirming Marys perpetual virginity and "ok" now, as it suits the argument and Pope Pius IX says its "kosher" (he he)
(quotation marks used figuratively)
....can you honestly grasp how nonsensical it looks from the outside
Yes, everything looks different from the outside. Can you imagine how Christianity looks to an outsider? To understand, you must shed your prejudice and be as a child: trust completely, be curious and have faith. Come inside, again, it can be done. That’s what happened to me.
no salvation outside the church? - specifically what case?
My opinion is the Bible will never steer me wrong -
spend a minute and look at what your saying - youve totally excluded Christ and faith
No, but they say something about a church, "which the gates of hell will not prevail against."
I don't know where you get this idea. The church always believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and restated it in 1854, because heretics were refuting it. Not because it wasn't true before.
...can you honestly grasp how nonsensical it looks from the outside
To be honest, I think your bias against the Church has blinded you from the truth. Your argument is nonsensical. The Church has remained constant in its belief about Mary for more than 2000 years, and if you can't see that as proof of the truth, then I can't help you. God chose a human woman to bear His son and carry Him in her womb and give birth to Him and raise Him. The bible, 2000 years of faithful Christians and common sense all hold that Mary remained a virgin for life.
I believe that God wants us to honor and respect His Holy Mother.
I disagree - they say nothing more than theres a lot of people attending. It speaks nothing to thier spiritual condition, thier faith or thier assurance of salvation.
Like I said - by that measure - Mormons are doing something right, when you and I know that not to be the case
Matthew 18:20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
silly me relying solely on Scripture again
I did ..... and I appreciate those prayers - I'd also appreciate them for my Catholic lesbian sister, my now dead Uncle who was excommunicated for marrying a Presbyterian (he was incidentally the finest Christian I have ever met) and my now deceased Grandparents who left the faith in the 40's after a priest made a pass at my Grandmother (They found a home in the Pentecostal movement).
Likewise, I will pray for you
No argument there - I think the fly in the ointment is the extreme to which it is carried in Catholicism (excepting of course the subject of our present chat)
For preists, no - for devoutly faithful family - yes
just how many aspects of romanism are extrabiblical in origin -
man will steer you wrong
- Gods Word is the truth
I'll stick with truth
There are a zillion different interpretations by Protestants, and you've already granted that every believer may simply look at the Bible and come away from it with whatever he will.
Almost all of those "protestant" interpretations are also held within the RCC. Is a charismatic Catholic acceptable, but a Catholoic traditionalist not? Is a liberation theologian acceptable as long as he's under Rome? We can draw Venn diagrams to show how different teachings have crossed the Romanist-protestant boundaries -- which is why I think you're comparing apples, oranges, bananas, kiwi, berries, and grapes in trying to contrast Rome from any other church.
Where is the Holy Ghost confirming the Church in all truth (John 14) in this scheme you propose?
With so much diversity and so many conflicting teachings within Roman Catholicism, I know He's not limited to serving in the Vatican.
There is not a great diversity of beliefs among the hierarchy, and it is their beliefs that count for defining the Church. A Catholic who does not share the faith of His Bishop and the Pope is not really formally a Catholic, although materially he may remain within the Church.
Unlike Protestantism, the Catholic Faith is not subjectively defined by individual believers, but objectively defined by the Pope and Episcopal heirarchies Magisterium. The conformance of believers to these teachings shows their conformance to the Church.
Are you lumping confessional Protestant churches in with ad hoc American neo-evangelicalism? I object to someone calling my faith "subjective" since my faith is hardly a relative matter. It's based on the same historical creeds yours is.
Please tell me how my church's confessions are "subjective"? Even Eck and other papal envoys didn't use that particular word.
You also didn't explain how you account for charismania/renewal within the Roman See. Is it any different than that which is present in certain American neo-evangelical sects?
The Catholic Church alone was founded by Christ. You cannot with the Catholic Church point to a date and say, as with the Lutheran Church, for example, ahh 1517 - Luther nailed the theses up at Wittenberg - that's the start of the Lutheran Church. There was no Lutheran Church or Faith for the 1500 years prior!
Since your Church was admittedly founded by a fallible man, even an objective confession is really simply their subjective reading of that part of divine revelation that they accept.
Yes, you can accept the authority of creeds produced at early Church Councils. But will you also accept the Canons of those same Councils that support numerous Catholic doctrines? Will you accept their endorsements of the work of local plenary councils that laid down rules on celibacy, appeals to Rome, the canon of the Bible (including the Deuterocanon or Apocrypha), the perpetual virginity of Mary, relics and the veneration of saints and icons, etc., etc.? I doubt it! You'd have to become Catholic to do so. Your Church's objective confession is a subjective selection of historic teachings, just as the Protestant Bible is a subjective selection of the Old Testament that excises the Deuterocanon contained in the Septuagint that the whole early Church used (you know, Wisdom of Solomon, Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, etc.).
I await your reply to my view of things.
I await your reply to my view of things.
I started to respond point-by-point, but I'm going to let it rest. I'll only say that Luther did not found any church, Christ did and that church is one. The church is not based upon succession alone, but on certain teachings -- teachings which, with Luther, I agree Rome departed. On matters where your denomination is still correct, I fight vehemently against those who'd throw the baby out with the bath water. It's too bad you cannot rise above your spite and do the same in return. After all, various Catholic scholars over the years have pointed out that Luther's confession at Augsburg was well within Catholic tradition.
Take it easy, separated brother.
Of course much of what Luther wrote was Catholic. He certainly had a devout belief in the Real Presence and the privileges of Mary, for example.
The premise of all non-Catholic Christian denominations ultimately has to be that there is no authority in the Church heirarchy. For if you admit that there is an authority which must be heeded, then you immediately call into question the founding of that denomination against the authority that then existed. I can't see it another way.
The only possible escape is claiming there is authority, but that it is not without error. But an authority in matters of belief that can err is no authority at all, but simply an opinion with power behind it. I suppose what I would view as a cynical view of the Church could maintain this, and thus claim a continuity from the Apostles to Luther. But I have a difficult time squaring this idea with Christ's promise to be with us always, and to send the Holy Spirit to guide us in all truth.
Yes, Luther preached a doctrine from the Church Councils. But it is different from the Catholic Faith. Either he's right and I'm wrong, or I'm right and he's wrong, or we are both wrong. We can't be both right. Regardless of what you want to select, there is a need to seek out the truth in prayer, since where discord of belief exists, it cannot be the will of Christ.
I disagree with only two things you write - the idea that Rome departed from the Faith...
Please don't misrepresent me like that. I said Rome departed from certain teachings. Specifically and most importantly, that would include the efficacy of Christ's suffering and death.
...and that the Faith upon which it is based is not handed on by Apostolic Succession in the Episcopate.
I'm saved by Christ alone, not saved by apostolic succession. Episcopacy is addressed adequately in our confessions.
Of course much of what Luther wrote was Catholic. He certainly had a devout belief in the Real Presence and the privileges of Mary, for example.
Nice of you to remind me. Luther got in as much trouble for his views on real presence as he did for his views on faith alone (didn't you know that?).
The premise of all non-Catholic Christian denominations ultimately has to be that there is no authority in the Church heirarchy. For if you admit that there is an authority which must be heeded, then you immediately call into question the founding of that denomination against the authority that then existed. I can't see it another way.
I won't correct you since the use of a strawman helps you justify your beliefs (per 1 Cor 8:13).
Yes, Luther preached a doctrine from the Church Councils. But it is different from the Catholic Faith.
How is it different? What you've ignored in your sophistry is that no early church council would have issued anathema against anyone who preached Faith Alone -- particularly since that's precisely what they believed, taught, and confessed.
Luther's teachings were very much catholic (small c), yet Leo X issued a bull (including a death warrant -- where is that acceptable in Scripture or tradition?) on Luther. Leo's teachings, and those of his envoys, weren't catholic (small c) despite their positions in the church. Go figure.
We are saved by faith through grace for Christ's sake ALONE, not by other men regardless of their office or efforts.
Just curious as to why?
First of all his death was on a stake, not a cross. So if anything is flippant, its the way his death has been erronious been portrayed for the past hundreds of years.
The Catholic church as far as I know believes that Joseph was a very old man and married her to take care of her as a ministry from God. They believe that he already had a grown family. He stayed in a platonic relationship with Mary as she stayed a virgin.
The most serious flaw with this belief I believe is that Jesus as Joseph's eldest son recieved the birthright from his father. He recieved his right to the Davidic throne through his position as the eldest (though adopted) son of Joseph. He recieved his Davidic blood line through Mary but his Kingship through his father Joseph. Do you have any thoughts on this subject?
The name Mary was extremely common. The Bible does not say that the Mary in Matthew was the same as the Mary in John. Two common named Marys can have sons with the same popular names. I say this because you sound like you are stating that it is an assured fact that these two Marys are the same person.
1:22 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
The Bible clearly says that he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son.
It seems that Catholics have the mistaken belief that knowing each other even in marriage is sinful. Adam and Eve were instructed to be fruitful and multiply before sin ever came into the world. The very definition of marriage involves two becoming one flesh. Joseph and Mary were married. The marriage bed is set apart and holy.
Mr. Madrid:
My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I occasionally take a... hmm... "sabbatical" from FR. The relentless din of Political Cheer-Leading saps my interest, I'm afraid.
I tried "Christian Forums" as a respite; and I found there... pretty much what I had expected to find. A morass of Anti-Creedal Hyper-Individualists ("scratch an American Christian, and you'll find a Pelagian Heretic underneath"). Sighhhh....
All that said...
Without meaning to sound patronizing, sir...
....if the Ecclesial Contributions of the BLOOD-BROTHERS of Our Lord Jesus Christ (The DESPOSYNOI or "Sons of the House", first James the Righteous and then Jude as related by Eusebius) to the Administration and Ruling Judgment of the Early Christian Church is not "relevant"...
Then what in the samhill IS "relevant"?
Look, here's the scoop:
Rather, the President of the Apostles was James, the Blood-Brother of Jesus Christ. "Peter, James (bar Zebedee) and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.... James, the Lord's brother, who had been elected by the apostles to the Episcopal Throne at Jerusalem." (ref. Clement of Alexandria, cf. Eusebius Historia Ecclesia)
And this is directly confirmed in Scripture. Peter reported to James (Acts 12:17) and Peter answered to James (Acts 15:13) and Peter was subordinate to James (Acts 21:18) and Peter feared James (Galatians 2:12).
Respectfully, Mr. Madrid, I appreciate your offer of the book. You're welcome to send it to me if you would like, and I am grateful for the offer. IF you want to send me a copy at:
Then I'll be happy to accept.
But I admit I am put off a bit by the Title: "Pope Fiction: Answers to 30 Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy." It sounds to me like recycled Roman responses to recycled Dave Hunt-style "protestant" argumentation.
"Protestant" so falsely-called.
At the moment, I am not interested in "30 answers". I am just interested in ONE.
Who was James?
Peter reported to James (Acts 12:17) and Peter answered to James (Acts 15:13) and Peter was subordinate to James (Acts 21:18) and Peter feared James (Galatians 2:12).
You are invited to send me the book if you like, Mr. Madrid. My address is posted (rather publicly) above.
But as I said before, my interest is particular to James.
If Ya'akov Ha Tsedek is exactly the Person he is declared to be by both Scripture and Tradition...
Then, well....
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.