Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
What did Jesus mean when He said, “If you hand offend you cut it off, and if your eye offend you pluck it out.” I don’t see to man Catholics without hands and eyes. Not only that, would be rather difficult for us to literally eat His flesh, since He was resurrected and lives today.
I disagree. The teachings of the Church are out there for anybody to see and read. How individuals of any persuasion twist those teachings is not the fault of the Church. To compare look what so many government officials have done to the Constitution.
And you are wrong in your assertion that “99.9% of the stuff the former priest asserted...” Several posters have already shown you why it is not true. But since it goes against Catholicism it must be true.
Is it o.k. for Catholics to do the same regarding non Catholic denominations?
It is a shame that so many non Catholics can not defend their faith without attacking and lying about the Catholic Church. You think they would have left that stage of rebellion far behind.
For the sake of argument, would you say it is acceptable for a self aware individual to commit his soul to anything in an act of ignorance?
Let’s pretend you weren’t as sure in your beliefs as you currently are, and that the whole thing was relatively new to you. You didn’t understand anything outside of “God created everything, God loves you, and Jesus died for our sins.” You were not familiar with the greater tenets, you were not familiar with the Sacramental practices, and you were operating mostly from a position of ignorance.
Would it then be right to commit your soul to ANYTHING, not fully understanding what you were doing?
At this point, I am of the firm belief that God wanted me to commit myself, but to do so knowingly and without doubt. It took more than the “you should be baptized” speeches given by so many at those churches. Unlike some of my friends, and so many of the folks I saw at those churches, I didn’t want to do it just to “be one of the cool kids.” No joke, when I went to my friend’s Baptism, there were a number of those types. Even she was Baptized because she really liked my Baptism. Thing is, we were Baptized at different churches by different people, and she wasn’t satisfied with hers because it “wasn’t as nice as mine.”
She was missing the point. So many do.
You know what... that is the best response I’ve had to my concerns on that matter, and it’s the only one I’m actually able to accept thus far.
A beautiful rebuttal.
Carry on folks.
HELLO?
IT’S RC’S
WHO HAVE COVERED THE WATERFRONT WITH THE TEACHINGS OF THE VATICAN INSTITUTION
ON THESE THREADS! YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT!
Proddys hereon don’t have to twist a thing.
Your own documents indict you wholesale repeatedly.
And throw in the contradictory statements from a wide range of RC’s hereon . . . goodness . . . it sounds like a zoo or a circus of theological/intellectual gobbledy-gook to the max.
I would like to think I am capable of loving my fellow man while still being disappointed in an empty, shallow Bible study.
My expectation from such a group is that those involved will have some depth of thought and do more than parrot back what is said to them. One of the dangers facing the Church today is that there is a growing lack of understanding, of thought behind the faith. How do you serve God through preaching a faith you don’t understand?
Heck, how do you serve God by running a Bible study from a written recipe? If people cannot handle an in depth conversation with other PEOPLE, how can they expect to handle the complexities of a message from God? I’m not expecting people to lie on their sides for days on end or build little effigies of a city out of mud, but I’d like to be able to say something about the acknowledgment of our sinful nature being necessary before we can accept forgiveness for such a nature without someone freaking out.
I question whether some on here are really Christians. Their "religion" seems to be anti-Catholicism. Many of the anti-Catholics are either unable or unwilling to tell us in the broadest terms (i.e. Methodist, Baptist, etc.) what denomination they belong to.
But yet your religion's claim is that they are members of the Body of Jesus Christ, His church...
Can't happen...
You don’t see the endless stream of FREEPMAILS I have gotten over the years.
Much agree on those points.
HUH??? That's un-American...And possibly un-Christian...
They're going to be serving green bean casserole and whole cranberry sauce at the Wedding reception of the Bride and Bridegroom...
Please forgive my confusion but I am not sure what you mean.
We aren't the ones burdened with the man-made invention of YOPIOS.
Not only that, would be rather difficult for us to literally eat His flesh, since He was resurrected and lives today.
Would that because He somehow lacks the ability to be omnipresent? Did He LIE when He said, "This is My Body"? Did He LIE when He said, "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them"?
Normally this would be entirely too weird for me to address, but your post 535 to Mad Dawg’s post 531 sort of makes your statements in 542 (and everywhere else) seem kind of strange.
With that in mind, please elaborate on the truth you found in 531. I also saw a lot of truth in that post and I’m confounded that a post which makes an effort to refute most of what you’ve stated is something with which you appear to be in agreement.
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."[330]
Footnote 330 refers to Lumen Gentium, (DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH), POPE PAUL VI, November 21, 1964, section 16:
16. ... But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
Also, NOSTRA AETATE, (DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS), POPE PAUL VI, October 28, 1965, section 3:
3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.
Based on such, an implication is thus seen by some that Muslims are saved by their recognition and worship of the true creator and their Abrahamic faith.
In contrast to the above would be such solemn declarations as,
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 302.).
.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements
V2 addressed the issue of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation), and in the Catechism it basically teaches that this refers to Rome as materially providing for salvation, while only excluding those who know, who are convinced she is the OTC, and yet reject her:
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?[335] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.[336]
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.[337]
This absolves those who are convinced she is not, but have been baptized in Christian faith. Of course, Rome also taught in Dominus Iesus (2000), that Protestant “ecclesial communities … cannot be called ‘Churches’ in the proper sense.” and in "Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the church, " the “Congregation for the doctrine of the faith” stated that such are considered defective in grace, though the contrary is manifest.
I don't see too many Jews offering up lambs today. Not mere coincidence. The Last supper was done on this holiday for a reason.In the old they were not allowed to drink the blood. The life is in the blood. When the lamb died the life in that lamb died. Thus the blood died. Unless it's the blood of the true everlasting lamb(Christ). Why? Because Jesus lives everlasting.
If God decrees this in the Old how much more so in the New.
LOL.
If you think that even as a psychologist
I have the capacity to
effectively help most RC’s hereon understand such complex workings of the mysterious ultra-dimensional space between my ears
. . . then you must be seriously mis-assuming.
I don’t know that I’ll get back to that post in that degree at all.
I believe Mad Dawg wrote a number of valid general assertions in that post. I’m happy to agree with him, when, in good conscience, I can.
RC’s seem to have a horrendous time jumping to conclusions and misconstruing all manner of data way beyond reality.
That’s usually not a wise idea with my pontifications.
Of course someone can know a subject thoroughly and reject it. One must begin by accepting certain premises, or conclusions do not follow, no matter how airtight the argumentation. And here the priest begins by rejecting the dogma of papal infallibility AND certain other dogmas that are foundational to the Catholic Faith. Further, he has also rejected the spiritual community in which he was reared and the way it worships, and that more surely leads to the rejection of the tenants of faith than “study.” In a way, this is like a political defection. In the end, it is simply a matter of choosing. Assuming that this is not fictional, I grant anyone the right to explain why he changes sides and until he is caught in a falsehood, I assume him to be honest.
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.