Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
INDEED.
But we don’t have to get that dramatic . . .
Merely asserting that some RC’s worship Mary drags droves out of the woodwork screaming that we are
“TELLING THEM WHAT THEIR EXPERIENCE OF WORSHIP IS!!!!”
SHAME, SHAME.
UNLESS, OF COURSE, THE PRADA SLIPPER IS ON THE OTHER FOOT!
Sheesh what vast warehouses of double standards the Vatican must maintain.
And I can’t recall a single RC in more than 10 years hereon even acknowledging the CHRONIC, RELENTLESS, OUTRAGOUES DEGREES OF AND OUTRAGEOUS AMOUNTS OF
DOUBLE STANDARD ABSURDITIES.
So much for their insight!
Not that THAT’S any surprise!
PRAISE GOD!
THX.
You may “know” what the Catholic Church teaches, just as a divorced man may claim to know his ex-wife. Maybe not as well as you think ;-). I am just that being an ex- Catholic is sort of like being an ex-Protestant. It doesn’t mean that one has a thorough knowledge of the institution one has left behind. Indeed, we are probably disinclined to give full credit to to its teachings.
Contempt? Don't flatter yourself. Disapproval is a description.
Unlike Protestants I am not called to proselytize and appeal to the vanity of the non-believers and you what you want to hear to get you to follow my particular version of the Word. I am only called to speak the truth which I have done.
1. There are no examples at all in Scripture, among the multitude of prayers in the Bible, where any believer prayed to (petitioned to pray) anyone else in heaven but the Lord.
2. There exists no place where exhortations, commands or instruction on prayer directed believers to pray to the departed. “i.e. “Our mother, who art in heaven...”)..
3. In no place is it shown that believers do not have direct access to Christ, or where any insufficiency exists in Christ that would require or advantage another intercessor in heaven between Christ and man.
4. In no place are departed souls in heaven evidenced as hearing prayers and interceding for the supplicants.
5. Supplications to beings in heaven besides God are instead condemned.
5. Communication that took place between earthlings and heavenly beings besides God were in the context of personal visitation, on earth or as in a vision.
7. Believers are not crowned in heaven yet, (2Tim. 4:8; 1Pt. 5:4) and no one is called “Queen of heaven” other than Jer 44:17, (But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven) and who was a heavenly object of devotion and prayer.
Instead, not only is God set forth as the direct object prayer, but Christ alone is declared to be the heavenly intercessor, as He is uniquely qualified to be so, having been the only one who “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin,” to whom saints can come directly to, and who can help them that are tempted, who alone it declares He “ever liveth to make intercession for them”, (Hebrews 2:18; 4:15,16; 7:25)
Therefore the argument for praying to saints in heaven is derived from analogy, that just as believers ask each other to pray for them on earth, so this must spiritually take place btwn saints in the heavenly and earthly realm. However, besides the utter lack of evidence as referred to in #4, and which is in contrast to God being abundantly affirmed as being so, this analogy would also sanction anything that human interdependence on earth requires, which assumes much.
Multitude of arguments are offered for praying for saints, seeking to extrapolate this out of texts, based upon the aforementioned analogy and premise, without one being able to show that the departed do hear and answer prayer, or any believer praying to them, yet the Bible refers to this as a practice among the pagan, which implicitly charges the Holy Spirit with neglect for not exampling/instruction that for believers. The closest they get is Mat 27:47, when some Judaizers say that Jesus was calling for for Elias, which would be most typically to discredit him, or a reflecting of superstition. Incredibly, in another attempt, 1Tim. 2:1 is actually interpreted to be a request for the departed to to pray! Rev. 5:8 is invoked, even though (for the fallible value it is worth), early patristic commentators on Revelation 5:8 refer to the prayers as being offered to God, not to the elders, (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:17:6-4:18:1;, Origen, Against Celsus, 8:17;, Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, 5:8), and even this is not showing them being objects for intercession, even if they were departed saints, which itself is speculation. Meanwhile, Irenaeus wrote:
“Nor does she [the church] perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ..(Against Heresies, 2:32:5, 4:18:60
A further note on this, as regarding that God alone is evidenced to be the heavenly recipient of prayer, and able to be so, and that sanctioned communication between mortals on earth and beings in heaven (besides God) did not take place, is the example of Saul, who wanted to contact Samuel after he died. Rather than praying, he, as others, required a personal encounter, even if he did it thru the occult. However, it is not certain that he actually did see Samuel, though the prophecy came true.
As praying to saints lacks Scriptural evidence or warrant, so the argument for it looks to tradition, though this nor the Assumption enjoyed unanimous consent or assent of the fathers, but its real basis is Rome’s declaration of its supreme authority to teach such, and which effectively rests on itself, not upon the premise that her authority is dependent on demonstrable Scriptural warrant and concurring testimony (as that is held to be untenable, as relying on private interpretation and finite human reasoning). That is, according to our infallible interpenetration (of Scripture, history and tradition) we declare that we are infallible (within a certain infallibly stated formula) and so such an interpretation can be the only right one in any conflict.
What again is the point of discussing this with you?
A man went with his wife to mass for the first time. It was sit, stand, greet others, sit, stand, kneel, walk, kneel... he was sitting there and got his handkerchief out to wipe his sweaty face, and then laid it across his lap to dry out. His wife looked over and, "Is your fly open?", to which he replied, "No, is it supposed to be?" :o)
It’s not true. There is no fear. Your gullibility is astounding.
You’ll need more reputable sources than Pew and Barna to convince me of anything. You wasted your time, my time and a huge amount of bandwidth. *YAWN*
Of course Truth can be revealed apart from evidence...”the just shall live by faith” as scripture states. Also ‘we walk by faith’ believing that Christ will calibrate our walk according to His pleasure and will. And we can trust Him to do so as He promised. And yes I believe this man's testimony, that what he was practicing as a Priest was not conforming to God's written word...which is the final authority we test truth by. He did so and thus turned away from.. and to the Living Christ..just as he stated.
The fact that he states this revealed truth led Him to committing His life to Christ would be enough “evidence” for most as that is after all the very work of the Holy Spirit... To reveal Christ and lead people to Him.... Not hard to conclude therefore that He was led by the Holy Spirit....the end result being His salvation just as he stated.
I do think it is important we understand that this is this man's testimony of how He came to Christ. Though catholics may not agree and question how he came to His decision it is not an unremarkable story, but is often the case as people seek God and His truth thru the scriptures and find the revelation of Christ. Additionally.... How would we know what sin is apart from scripture? How would we know forgiveness and all the many other things of the Christian faith apart from the scriptures which does reveal 'the truth in Christ Jesus who sets men free.'.....
Yet how we apply any given scripture may differ....but private interpretation and perception of Gods word generally comes from unregenerate men who cannot see scripture in the light of Christ. There is no private interpretation as we know...as it is written.
I don't think Bennett is actually speaking to Catholics, but to a Protestant audience, and is simply confirming them in their prejudices. Knowledgeable Catholics wouldn't fall for these assertions, and, as you say, it's surprising that any priest would.
Charles Chiniquy was a Catholic priest who went over to Protestantism. He did it for the money. Maybe that's the motivation here? I'd hate to think so.
I can't agree with you that the Church is in ruins, though. Things are actually improving in many ways. Mass attendance is increasing. Some of the sillier ideas that were put forth in the wake of the last Council are in decline. Only a small percentage of priest were involved in the scandals. And I know a number of young Catholics, strong in the faith, who give me hope.
I've seen some people dismiss hope as Panglosian optimism or Pollyanna nonsense, but it's the second theological virtue after charity. So chin up, friend. The Church always does well under persecution, and we've been through much worse than this. It's when times are "fat" that she tends to fall into corruption.
Oh, and welcome home!
But if it was a "Catholic" source, it would be acceptable?
I don't think it was a waste at all. It was informative and helpful. A common knee-jerk reaction when we don't like results of polls is to disparage the pollster or the ways questions were asked. No poll will ever be okay with everyone. Thanks for posting it anyway.
Excellant...thank you.
You are fee to leave the discussion at any time since you seem to have concluded it is pointless. Perhaps it is as indeed I have stated where I stand on the matter.
Odd you would say Bennett is not speaking to catholics...did you really read the whole article? His Ministry is TO Catholics...and aside from that denial of thought that he is doing just that, I would imagine if Catholics weren't listening and there weren't changed lifes for that, he likely would not be doing so.
That's exactly the point, when he's talking about what Catholics believe he's saying things that would make a Catholic say "what's he talking about" but would make a Protestant say "I knew they believed that".
More to the point: WHY is he doing it? By that I mean why is he apparently deliberately confirming Protestants in inaccurate representations of Catholic belief? Who could possibly benefit from that?
By way of example: If I said "When I was a Protestant I was taught that the Bible dropped gold-leafed, in KJV form, from the sky and if you read every 3rd letter you can use it as a TV Guide" you'd rightly say I was 1) nuts and 2) making things up to appeal to a particular sort of person who already wants to believe that Protestants are crazy. But it would be manifestly obvious to everyone that I was not attempting to influence members of my previous communion.
Something very much like that is happening in this testimony. There are after all many Protestants who believe that the KJV in its translation was Divinely inspired and could be said to be given from God, I don't think there are any who believe it actually dropped from Heaven prebound and shrinkwrapped. Nobody would try to use Sacred Scripture to find out what's on NBC Thursdays this fall. Obfuscation through simplification, followed with a strawman, completed with a confirmation that the other side is brain dead.
To recap, Catholics do not believe it is possible to "earn" Salvation. It is a free gift from God. Holiness on the other hand...
No, I don,t think you have this right at all...your post is not making any sense whatsoever to me.
His mission is to Catholics...those still bound to Rome and the Pope...so that they might find the Freddom from Rome and from the rules and regulations which the catholic memberships are required to believe because Rome says you have to believe it.
It's who you commit your soul to that matters. To Christ or to "another Christ."
OK, I’ll try again.
He is misrepresenting what Catholics believe, rather blatantly. A Catholic would notice that, I noticed it.
I do not believe I can earn salvation, the Catholic Church does not teach that it is possible to earn salvation.
We can not merit salvation, a priest would acknowledge that fact every day when saying Mass, depending on which missal he used he would explicitly acknowledge that he can not merit salvation every single day.
Surely Bennett can not be ignorant of that, he knows the Church doesn’t teach it but he knows a lot of Protestants believe that the Catholic Church does teach it.
That’s why people are saying he’s not talking to Catholics, he’s confirming what Protestants erroneously believe the Catholic Church teaches. He’s not talking to us, he’s talking to you, and he’s saying things about us that he knows aren’t true. So the question is: For what purpose?
AMEN!
May God's grace increase so that more and more can know the perfect peace of trusting in Jesus Christ alone.
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.