Posted on 07/02/2012 6:30:14 AM PDT by Cronos
So, a poster puts herself on trial saying "give me proof I support non-Trinitarians" and then starts crying when proof is shown? Incroyable!
“stpio” newbie - are you verdugo?
Ok, this is a strange position for me, a Catholic to defend Lutherans, but your statement Martin Luther was not a holy man, who would base their faith, their salvation on his heresies? is not only wrong but stupid. No Lutheran claims Luther was a holy man and they would say that they base their faith and salvation on the Bible.
As a Catholic I repudiate your post’s divisive tone. You want to debate with a Lutheran, then explain nicely why you think he’s wrong. Otherwise it’s just spouting vitriol and gets us nowhere”
~ ~ ~
I said I was sorry, I apologized for mistaking you for an
anti-Catholic, not enough I guess. This reply cronos makes no sense and it’s rude and unkind. Name caller.
So, Lutherans know Luther for what he is and they remain
Lutheran? You are aware of the heresies? Catholics do
not believe or defend Luther’s crazy heresies. Lutherans and most non-Catholic Christians do. To say the Bible, a Catholic book is your only authority while you reject and attack Roman Catholicism is crazy.
stpio: I am not a “sour puss”,
Ok, stpio is an ex-Catholic. Didn't know that, thanks for the information, stpio..
I'm Catholic and going by your statement I've referred to in my post above, I see you are ex-Catholic
"show them" -- no one will get any converts to their point of view with such an attitude.
I've spent enough time on FR telling non-Catholics that if they use caustic blanket remarks they will get nothing but distaste back from Catholics. I'm not going to have someone just making a blanket statement about non-Catholics either
No Catholic is going to say "They’re stuck... it will take God" to do something. That's a Calvinist view that people can't change. People chose their own path.
If you want to get people to listen to whatever point of view you have, then explain to them.
Cronos: Typical ex-Catholic...we have such sour pusses on FR as well
stpio: I am not a “sour puss”,
Ok, stpio is an ex-Catholic. Didn’t know that, thanks for the information, stpio..
~ ~ ~
What?~~~!!
Luther’s crazy heresies. -- ok, now the only folks who say that are not Catholics but loony websites -- to me, Lutherans, the conservative kind (not the ELCA) are close to orthodoxy -- they hold to the same concept of baptism and they believe in the True Presence in the Eucharist. They also have a concept of the Sacrament of Repentence
They are close to orthodoxy.
==============
Nice try by the way of trying to push a wedge between Catholics and non-Cahtolics
Yes... exactly right.
also, as you point out , though it is variously interpreted, -- human fallibility being what it is, which is why sola scriptura leads to errors.
Though, the statement Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, .. communion with the Catholic Church can be interpreted in different degrees, it is only between 0 and 1 --> one cannot say the people referred to are completely in communion with the Church, nor can we say they are completely NOT in communion. The latter opinion which the ex-c stated, I opposed and any logical reading of the statement will show it to be false
Furthermore, we talk of Baptism -- I can clearly state that Mormons are not in communion due to their differences in Baptism but the rest of the broad spectrum of "protestants" fall in a broad spectrum -- from Lutherans to Pentecostals and everything in between.
If you go in and execute a private vote, how the heck do they know how you voted and if you were Catholic, Protestant or Wiccan? Does electronic voting tell them who you are and what you believe? This is crazy.
I know you just love a good ole Catholic bash, but aside from that.....Tell me how anyone knows someone’s private, personal vote cast in any election? How? These assertions regarding how any group votes are all based on educated guesses based on anecdotal information. The true facts are that in the last POTUS election any of the above Democrat candidate only had to run against BUSH. The election was handed to Obama on a silver platter, courtesy of RINOS, including some on FR. Prove to me your assertions that the Catholic vote had a damn thing to do with it. You can’t.... and neither can the lamestream mediots.
“stpio” newbie - are you verdugo?
Ok, this is a strange position for me, a Catholic to defend Lutherans, but your statement Martin Luther was not a holy man, who would base their faith, their salvation on his heresies? is not only wrong but stupid. No Lutheran claims Luther was a holy man and they would say that they base their faith and salvation on the Bible.
As a Catholic I repudiate your post’s divisive tone”...
~ ~ ~
You’re lecturing me on being nice?
Your personal comments to me were “caustic”, they were unkind. To infer I am “ill” and “stupid”, leave
me alone, I already apologized.
The exceptions, converts, I’ve shared some of them in a few posts. It is going to take the 2nd Pentecost, God Himself to show Protestants Catholicism is the true faith.
If you brought someone at FR to the faith. I am very happy for you and so is Our Lord. Keep sharing the faith. Our brothers and sisters will remember when the Great Warning happens.
I am Roman Catholic, are you addressing me as an ex-Catholic?
Because they told me themselves with their own mouths.
Plus I can read, as in the political yard signs they decorate their front lawns with.
I've been more than clear on that before.
That they are damned because of their works, not earning salvation by them,or by the power of their church, (Rm. 3:10-23; 6:23; Acts 4:12) and are utterly destitute of any merit by which they may escape their just and eternal punishment in Hell-fire, and must therefore look for the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood, by which faith they are counted righteous, a faith that is expressed in baptism and following Him, and enabling growth in grace toward perfection, “that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” For the regenerate realize supernatural changes which correspond to Divine promises and that overall defy naturalistic explanations, including an essential “unity of the Spirit,” which, as those who have been born of Him and walk therein can attest, results in a spontaneous fellowship that transcends race and tongue, nations and locations, and
is greater than their differences, as all have a common Scripture-based conversion and relationship with the one Lord.
What the spiritual “oneness” of Jn. 17 cannot refer to is complete comprehensive doctrinal unity, except as a goal, which has never been realized.
What you will not see in the New Testament church is that of a separate class (and clothed) of sacerdotal clergy called “priests” (versus bishops/elders as one office), much less required (with rare exceptions) celibacy for them;
Or praying to the departed, and the hyper exaltation of and devotion to Mary above that which is written; (1Cor. 4:6)
Or that regeneration cannot precede baptism (as some hold), or baptism except to those who could fulfill the stated requirements of hearing, repentance and faith; (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37; cf. 8:12; 16:32-34; 19:4,5)
Or the Lord's supper being the means by which souls gain life in them, or that not “discerning the body” referred to the elements of the supper versus the church;
Or bowing down to icons, believers bowing down to any other believer, or an exalted supreme magistrate in Rome (versus warnings against such exaltation: Mt. 23:8; Jude 1:11; 3Jn. 3:9-11; Rv. 2:15) and to whom all the churches were directed to look to,
Nor assured perpetual formulaic magisterial infallibility as per Rome;
Or the mention of any successors to the original apostles (such James: Acts 12:2) besides Judas, he being elected to preserve the foundational twelve apostles, (Acts 1:16-26; cf. Rev. 21:14) and that by lots, preventing political maneuverings and things that resulted in extended papal absences (a headless Roman church), and men being chosen who were not even qualified to be church members, let alone successors to Peter.
Or a separate class of believers called “saints,” or the mention of the postmortem location of the saints being in purgatory versus with the Lord. (Lk. 24:43; 2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1Thes. 4:17)
Or any pastored Christian bodies being called anything less than a church if they preached the gospel by which men are regenerated, and thus baptized by the spirit into the church, (1Cor. 12:13), even when under a separatist pastor, (3Jn. 3:9-11) versus “ecclesia communities” (as Rome refers to evangelical churches as) because they do not subscribe to the unScriptural perpetuated Petrine papacy of Rome and all that which flows from it.
Or conversion being the result of intellectual indoctrination and the supremacy of the church in Rome, fostering faith in the church and one's merits for salvation, versus the aforementioned conviction by the Holy Spirit such as true preaching can effect, usually resulting in conversions in the same hour (though preparation can take a lifetime), and souls can be saved and spiritually added to the church anywhere, even being left alone in the desert, (Acts 8:26-39; cf. 1Cor. 12:13);
This being said, the kingdom is sadly divided on earth, partly due to necessity because faithfulness requires separation, (Mt. 10:34-36; 1Cor. 11:9) resulting in the Church consisting of churches which have their own magisteriums, keeping in principle the ordination of leadership, which is also seen in Catholicism, despite the elitist ecclesiology of Rome.
Your realistic inclusion and willingness to oppose an extremist “Traditional Catholic” position by a fringe RC is commendable, nor do i hold that all Catholics are lost, but i do think that the TC view has substantial weight in official pronouncements as requiring formal submission to the Pope for salvation.
Or that most Prot baptisms are disallowed because the minister does not intend to do what the Catholic does in administering her sacrament, which is necessary for a sacrament to be efficacious (of course, if one cannot be sure that the minister does indeed have the proper intent, then one cannot be sure he has truly received a sacrament, which is another issue).
And baptism is held to operate ex opere operatos in effecting remission of sins and regeneration, resulting in justification because of an actual interior holiness (”infused, vs. imputed” righteousness).
In contrast, in classic Prot theology it is such faith as is expressed in baptism that appropriates remission of sins, and is counted for righteousness.
The closest Catholicism comes to this is in baptism by desire, (which some do not allow) in which the intent is counted for the act, due to a perfectly contrite heart of faith (contritio caritate perfecta).
Which relates to a thread just previous to this one, in which a Catholic insisted that Cornelius and company did not receive regeneration and remission of sins prior to baptism, even though he was compelled to assent to baptism by desire, for which Acts 10 is sometimes invoked (and he also severely Prot restricted salvation to Anglican type Prots).
I invited him (and by extension all other readers) to find another poster who agreed with him on Cornelius and company, but no one responded. Should have pinged you i suppose.
Daniel — read the post above, he’s an ex-Catholic...
And no Trad catholic would go on to call the “Remnant” and all of that post-pre-whatever millenialism obsession. That’s a loon-type obsession with the future rather than Words of Christ TODAY.
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.