Posted on 12/08/2012 2:24:39 PM PST by NYer
Do Catholics worship Mary? This question is as old as the Protestant Reformation itself, and it rests, like other disputed doctrinal points, on a false premise that has been turned into a wedge: the veneration of Mary detracts from the worship of Christ.
This seeming opposition between Mary and Christ is symptomatic of the Protestant tendency, begun by Luther, to view the entirety of Christian life through a dialectical lens – a lens of conflict and division. With the Reformation the integrity of Christianity is broken and its formerly coherent elements are now set in opposition. The Gospel versus the Law. Faith versus Works. Scripture versus Tradition. Authority versus Individuality. Faith versus Reason. Christ versus Mary.
The Catholic tradition rightly sees the mutual complementarity of these elements of the faith, as they all contribute to our ultimate end – living with God now and in eternity. To choose any one of these is to choose them all.
By contrast, to assert that Catholics worship Mary along with or in place of Christ, or that praying to Mary somehow impedes Christ’s role as “the one mediator between God and men” (1 Tim 2:5) is to create a false dichotomy between the Word made flesh and the woman who gave the Word his flesh. No such opposition exists. The one Mediator entrusted his mediation to the will and womb of Mary. She does not impede his mediation – she helps to make it possible.
Within this context we see the ancillary role that the ancilla Domini plays in her divine Son’s mission. Mary’s is not a surrogate womb rented and then forgotten in God’s plan. She is physically connected to Christ and his life, and because of this she is even more deeply connected to him in the order of grace. She is, in fact, “full of grace,” as only one who is redeemed by Christ could be.
The feast of Mary’s Immaculate Conception celebrates the very first act of salvation by Christ in the world. Redemption is made possible for all by his precious blood shed on the cross. Yet Mary’s role in the Savior’s life and mission is so critical and so unique that God saw it necessary to wash her in the blood of the Lamb in advance, at the first moment of her conception.
This reality could not be more Biblical: the angel greets Mary as “full of grace” (Luke 1:28), which is literally rendered as “already graced” (kecharitōmenē). Following Mary, the Church has “pondered what sort of greeting this might be” for centuries. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, ultimately defined in 1854, is nothing other than a rational expression of the angel’s greeting contained in Scripture: Mary is “already graced” with Christ’s redemption at the very moment of her creation.
Because God called Mary to the unique vocation of serving as the Mother of God, it is not just her soul that is graced, as is the case for us when we receive the sacraments. Mary’s entire being, body and soul, is full of grace so that she may be a worthy ark for the New Covenant. And just as the ark of the old covenant was adorned with gold to be a worthy house for God’s word, Mary is conceived without original sin to be the living and holy house for God’s Word.
Thus Mary is not only conceived immaculately, that is, without stain of sin. She also is the Immaculate Conception. Her entire being was specifically created by God with unique privilege so that she could fulfill her role in God’s plan of salvation. “Free from sin,” both original and personal, is the necessary consequence of being “full of grace.”
Protestants claim that veneration of Mary as it is practiced by Catholics is not biblical. St. Paul encouraged the Corinthians to “be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). Paul is not holding himself up as the end goal, but as a means to Christ, the true end. And if a person is imitated, he is simultaneously venerated.
If we should imitate Paul, how much more should we imitate Mary, who fulfilled God’s will to the greatest degree a human being could. Throughout her life she humbled herself so that God could be exalted, and because of this, Christ has fulfilled his promise by exalting his lowly mother to the seat closest to him in God’s kingdom.
Mary is the model of humility, charity, and openness to the will of God. She allows a sword to pierce her heart for the sake of the world’s salvation. She shows us the greatness to which we are called: a life free from sin and filled with God’s grace that leads to union with God in Heaven. She is the model disciple, and therefore worthy of imitation and veneration, not as an end in herself, but as the means to the very purpose of her – and our – existence: Christ himself.
God’s lowly handmaiden would not want it any other way.
Well; neither do I!
During a Catholic Mass, it is.
The Catholic Church has no secret teaching.
Fatima seems a little... mysterious.
Deception begets more deception. And on the altar - where 'they' will slaughter Him and drink His blood. Once isn't enough so they ignore It is Written It is Finished.
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap. Gal 6:7
Another warning they ignore at their own peril.
Oh I’m thinking the different interpretations are way more then 30,000. Why there are differences of interpretations within denominations and even individual churches. Just like in the Catholic Church. There are those who think abortion is all right, there are those who think women should be priests, there are those who think same sex marriage is ok, there are those who have all kinds of differences. Same in the Protestant denominations and individual churches. So what’s your point?
>>so the doctrinal differences from the SAME Scripture prove you wrong.<<
No it doesn’t. Salvation, regardless of what Catholics believe, is an individual thing. It has nothing to do with what a denomination teaches, or what an individual church teaches. I am accountable to God alone. I am accountable to what the Holy Spirit teaches me as an individual and how He guides me.
>>God's plans are perfect.<<
They most certainly are. That’s one of the reason I am assured that the Catholic Church is not of God’s design.
The Church has secrets: every sacramental confession is secret, no matter how long ago it took place. The prelates have their privacy. There are bank accounts, the diplomatic pouch, -- like in any organization. There is no secret teaching though, like for example the Gnostics claimed to have.
Jesus answered him: I have spoken openly to the world: I have always taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort; and in secret I have spoken nothing (John 18:20)
Amazing isn’t it.
I KNOW God doesn't go against HIS OWN WORD and whispers into the pope/Rome with their man made teachings/their word.
"Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge." Romans 3:4
Catholic masses are said around the world at different times.
So, Fatima is not a church approved Marian Apparition and there have never been any undisclosed “revelations” of this apparition?
Exactly. The RCC is a worldly organization.
Jesus answered him: I have spoken openly to the world: I have always taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort; and in secret I have spoken nothing (John 18:20)
And NOW the Holy Spirit speaks into His own temples, His Body of Believers.
and in secret I have spoken nothing
Remember that when anyone tells you their man made teachings are from God. GOD HAS EVERYTHING we need in HIS OWN WORD. He held nothing back from us - nor from Eve - but she listened to 'another' who spoke in opposition to HIS WORD.
All the states within the United States also have constitutions and they are governed according to them. In the areas that the Federal government overlaps, the U.S. Constitution states that as well. As Christians, we have a "constitution" and "bill of rights", too - the holy, revealed word of God, the Bible. As to a "Papacy" at the start of the church, you will find NO evidence that such a thing existed or was even thought to be needed. From the source Was the Papacy Established by Christ?:
If there had been a papacy in the first century that was recognized as a distinct office, we would expect it to be mentioned in much the same way that offices such as bishop and deacon are mentioned. We wouldn't expect Roman Catholics to have to go to passages like Matthew 16 and John 21 to find alleged references to a papacy if such an office of universal jurisdiction existed and was recognized during the New Testament era. Instead, we would expect explicit and frequent references to the office, such as in the pastoral epistles and other passages on church government.
That's what we see with the offices of bishop and deacon. Not only are the offices mentioned (Acts 20:17, Philippians 1:1), but we also see repeated references to their appointment (Acts 14:23, Ephesians 4:11, Titus 1:5), their qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9), their discipline (1 Timothy 5:19-20), their responsibilities (Ephesians 4:12-13, Titus 1:10-11, James 5:14, 1 Peter 5:1-3), their reward (1 Timothy 5:17-18, 1 Peter 5:4), their rank (1 Corinthians 12:28), the submission due them (1 Timothy 2:11-12), etc. If there was an office that was to have jurisdictional primacy and infallibility throughout church history, an office that could be called the foundation of the church, wouldn't we expect it to be mentioned explicitly and often? But it isn't mentioned at all, even when the early sources are discussing Peter or the Roman church. In the New Testament, which covers about the first 60 years of church history (the prophecies in Revelation and elsewhere cover much more), there isn't a single Roman bishop mentioned or named, nor are there any admonitions to submit to the papacy or any references to appointing Popes, determining whether he's exercising his infallibility, appealing to him to settle disputes, etc. When speaking about the post-apostolic future, the apostles are concerned with bishops and teachers in general (Acts 20:28-31, 2 Timothy 2:2) and submission to scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 3:1-2, Revelation 22:18-19), but don't say a word about any papacy.
Craig Keener, citing Jaroslav Pelikan, comments that "most scholars, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, concur that Peter died in Rome but doubt that Mt 16:18 intended the authority later claimed by the papacy (Pelikan 1980: 60)" (A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], n. 74 on p. 425). The Roman Catholic scholar Klaus Schatz comments:
"There appears at the present time to be increasing consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the Petrine office in the New Testament….The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.'…If we ask in addition whether the primitive Church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer." (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 1-2)
What's said of Peter in Matthew 16 and John 21 is said of other people in other passages. Other people are rocks upon whom the church is built (Ephesians 2:20), other people have the keys of the kingdom that let them bind and loose and open and shut (Matthew 18:18, 23:13), and other people are shepherds of the church (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2). Just as Peter is given a second name, so are other people (Mark 3:17). Peter is called "Peter" prior to the events of Matthew 16 (John 1:42), and we can't know whether he was given the name as a result of Matthew 16 or, instead, Jesus' choice of imagery in Matthew 16 was shaped by a name Peter was already given for another reason.
Peter is singled out in Matthew 16 and John 21, but his being singled out doesn't suggest jurisdictional primacy. We could speculate that Peter is singled out in these passages because he's supposed to fulfill the roles in these passages in a greater way than other people, but such a speculation can't be proven. Other people are singled out in other passages, but we don't conclude that those people were Popes. Even if Peter was singled out because he was to fulfill these roles (rock and shepherd) in a greater way than anybody else, he wouldn't need to be a Pope in order to fulfill these roles in a greater way than other people. And he wouldn't need to have successors in that role.
So, if Peter isn't singled out in Matthew 16 and John 21 because he was being made a Pope, then why was he singled out?
In Matthew 16, he's probably singled out because he singles himself out. He's the one who answered Jesus' question. Similarly, John and James are singled out in Mark 10:35-40 because they were the ones who initiated the discussion with Jesus, not because they were being given some sort of primacy.
In John 21, Peter probably is singled out because he was the one in need of restoration. Peter was the one who denied Jesus three times and thus needed to reaffirm his love for Jesus three times. Since the other apostles didn't deny Jesus as Peter did, it would make no sense for Jesus to approach them the way He approached Peter. Similarly, Jesus treats Thomas (John 20:26-29), John (John 21:20-23), and Paul (Acts 9:1-15) differently than He treats the other apostles. But nobody would assume that Thomas, John, or Paul therefore has jurisdictional primacy or that such a primacy was passed on to a succession of bishops.
Catholics sometimes argue for a papacy by interpreting Matthew 16 in light of Isaiah 22:20-22. But whatever relevance Isaiah 22 would have to Matthew 16, it would have relevance for Matthew 23, Luke 11, and other passages that use such imagery as well. And any Catholic appeal to Isaiah 22 would have to be a partial appeal, not a complete parallel, since a complete parallel wouldn't favor the claims of Roman Catholicism. God is the one who gives the key in Isaiah 22, so an exact parallel would put Jesus in the place of God, not in the place of the king. So, if Jesus is God and Peter is the prime minister, then who is the king? Some church official with more authority than Peter? What about Isaiah 22:25? Should we assume that Popes can "break off and fall", and that the keys of Matthew 16 can eventually pass to God Himself (Revelation 3:7) rather than to a human successor? If Catholics only want to make a general appeal to Isaiah 22, without making an exact parallel, then how can they claim that papal authority is implied by the parallel? Why can't the Isaiah 22 background convey a general theme of authority without that authority being of a papal nature?
Paul refers to "apostles" (plural) as the highest rank in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20), and he names Peter second among three reputed pillars of the church (Galatians 2:9). The most natural reading of the Biblical evidence is to see Peter as a highly reputed pillar of the church who had equal rank, equal jurisdiction, with the other apostles. He could be said to have had some types of primacy in some contexts, and the same could be said of other apostles and early church leaders, but there's no reason to think that papal authority was one of those types of primacy or that such authority was passed on exclusively to a succession of Roman bishops.
There is no papacy in the New Testament. It's not there explicitly or implicitly. This "clear doctrine of Holy Scripture" that the First Vatican Council refers to isn't even Biblical, much less clearly Biblical. Roman Catholics assume that a papacy is implied in some New Testament passages, but that assumption can't be proven and is unlikely.
Just as you presume non-Catholic Christians have a false image of Catholics' faith, so you indicate the same false impression of other Christians who are not Catholic. I fully grasp and appreciate that, "...the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." (Heb.4:12). Rather than "divorcing Scripture from the body that recorded it", we recognize and accept that that same "body" is comprised of all believers since the very first one came to saving faith - it is a "spiritual house", not an institution set up in a single location holding court over all Christians. When we say that Scripture must be the source for the tenets of our faith, we are simply stating something that even the Roman Catholic Church believes - that Scripture is Divine revelation and, as such, it is authoritative and inerrant. Because of this, we conclude that everything God expects of us to believe to be saved is contained in this book.
Nobody denies that the Catholic Church has developed its doctrine over time. That it doesn't see the essential need to have Scripture to back up its truth claims is troubling to those who DO hold to God's word as our guide to truth. As far as I care, you all can believe whatever you want, but when you come on these OPEN religion forums and insist that because the Catholic Church proclaims thus and such it should be enough to prove it must be accepted, you should expect to be challenged by those who hold to a higher authority - the Word of God.
I think if Catholics on this forum expect to be treated with respect and decency, they should be willing to show the same towards those with whom they disagree. Spitting out epitaphs and spouting broad brush condemnations will accomplish little more than throwing lighter fluid on a glowing ember. It behooves all of us to speak the truth with gentleness and respect, as much as lieth in us.
From what we can gather, Joseph was a carpenter from Nazareth - not an "upper crust" or wealthy profession in those days. As such, it would be doubtful that Mary's parents would have betrothed their very young, virgin daughter (from the lineage of King David) to an older, poor man with other children.
I also question if he did have children from another marriage, why they didn't accompany him and Mary to the census they were called to at Bethlehem. If he could have left them with other relatives, why didn't he also leave his very pregnant wife as well rather than take her along on such an arduous journey?
Finally, if the writers of the gospels intended for the doctrine of the "perpetual" virginity of Mary to be an article of faith among all Christians, why didn't they say so when they wrote the accounts of Jesus' birth? Why did Matthew, for example, say, "he had no union with her until she gave birth” in Matthew 1:25? Why use the words that imply he did have normal marital relations after Jesus was born? Why use the Greek words for "brothers" and "sisters" and not cousins if these people were not actual brothers and sisters?
Whoever is faithful with very little is also faithful with a lot, and whoever is dishonest with very little is also dishonest with a lot. (Luke 16:10)
Amen! That’s MHO, too. :o)
No need to explain anything - GOD has already spoken.
God’s Word is the Final Authority in all matters. NOTHING can change TRUTH. So give it a rest.
The Peace of God lives within me. I lack for nothing being ‘in Christ’.
Luther showed what was already broken and corrupt. And the rest is history! Rome with their 'man made' teachings were left in the dust and now...
His Church has Born again Holy Spirit-filled Believers - just like Jesus said His Church/His Body of Believers would be! And well-equipped to READ and OBEY His Word and spread The Gospel! Praise GOD!
|
Is Peter the 'rock'?
As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'
BEFORE the following verses came along.....
NIV 1 Corinthians 10:4
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. NIV Luke 6:48
He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. NIV Romans 9:33
As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." NIV 1 Peter 2:4-8
4. As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him-- 5. you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6. For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 7. Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone, " 8. and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for. But, since there WAS no NT at the time Christ spoke to Peter, just what DID Peter and the rest of the Disciples know about ROCKS??? NIV Genesis 49:24-25 24. But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel, 25. because of your father's God, who helps you, because of the Almighty, who blesses you with blessings of the heavens above, blessings of the deep that lies below, blessings of the breast and womb. NIV Numbers 20:8
"Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink." NIV Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. NIV Deuteronomy 32:15
Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; filled with food, he became heavy and sleek. He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Savior. NIV Deuteronomy 32:18
You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth. NIV Deuteronomy 32:30-31
30. How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless the LORD had given them up? 31. For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede. NIV 1 Samuel 2:2
"There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God. NIV 2 Samuel 22:2-3
2. He said: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; 3. my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation. He is my stronghold, my refuge and my savior-- from violent men you save me. NIV 2 Samuel 22:32
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? NIV 2 Samuel 22:47
"The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior! NIV 2 Samuel 23:3-4
3. The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: `When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God, 4. he is like the light of morning at sunrise on a cloudless morning, like the brightness after rain that brings the grass from the earth.' NIV Psalms 18:2
The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. NIV Psalms 18:31
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? NIV Psalms 18:46
The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Savior! NIV Psalms 19:14
May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer. NIV Psalms 28:1
To you I call, O LORD my Rock; do not turn a deaf ear to me. For if you remain silent, I will be like those who have gone down to the pit.
NIV Psalms 31:2-3
2. Turn your ear to me, come quickly to my rescue; be my rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me. 3. Since you are my rock and my fortress, for the sake of your name lead and guide me. NIV Psalms 42:9
I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?" NIV Psalms 62:2
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will never be shaken. NIV Psalms 62:6
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will not be shaken. NIV Psalms 62:7
My salvation and my honor depend on God ; he is my mighty rock, my refuge. NIV Psalms 71:3
Be my rock of refuge, to which I can always go; give the command to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress. NIV Psalms 78:35
They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer. NIV Psalms 89:26
He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.' NIV Psalms 92:14-15
14. They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green, 15. proclaiming, "The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him." NIV Psalms 95:1
Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation. NIV Psalms 144:1
Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. NIV Isaiah 17:10
You have forgotten God your Savior; you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress. NIV Isaiah 26:4
Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal. NIV Isaiah 30:29
And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel. NIV Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." NIV Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish. |
And now you know the Biblical position!
I'll continue to comment on threads I feel led to, don't expect to scare me away with hostility.
Then how 'bout bombasity? Smugness? a sense of Superiority?? Delusions of Adequacy???
God's covenant with the the symbolisim of the New Israel, meaning God's covenant offerred to His church, is VERY different than you saying that the church believes we "replaced the Nation of Israel".
I would suggest you do some research on your contention. From everything I can find the RCC believes that the covenants God made with Israel as a special nation is no longer in affect. They believe that the church has replaced Israel in all of God’s promises and covenants.
Just as the Old Testament is full of foreshadows of the New Testament (typology), Catholics believe the Bible is clear that the New Jerusalem of the Book of Revelation is not the historic city of Jerusalem. We do not believe that present day Israel is the same spiritual entity as the historic Israel before the time of Christ. After the crucifixion, the curtain of the Jewish sanctuary was torn in two (Mk 15:37-39, Lk 23:44-46, Mt 27:51) which was God tearing his cloths. At that point, a transfer of authority happened and we believe that the fledgling Church became the New Israel.
[http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_did_the_catholic_church_move_to_rome_from_jerusalem.htm]
SAYING?
It pretty much looked like a QUOTE to me!
This site seems to do a good job of explanation of the church's position in layman's terms.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-covenant-with-israel---42
"The people of the new covenant have a special spiritual bond with Abraham's stock, the council's Nostra Aetate insists. The Church gratefully recalls that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people of Israel. She is aware that, even though Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation, and the Jews in large numbers have failed to accept the gospel, still, according to Paul, the Jews still remain most dear to God because of their fathers."
Nice try. Paul saying that “the Jews still remain most dear to God because of their fathers." Is not the same as the RCC position that Israel is no longer the “chosen” people of God”. I dare you to ask your priest if Israel is still the “chosen people of God” and that all covenants with them are still in affect. If he is honest about the RCC position he will admit that Israel as a people no longer hold that position but that the church does. BTW It’s not just the Catholic Church. It’s also most of the Protestant denomination that hold that position so if you think that was just against the Catholic Church guess again.
Sure it was.
I got some land to sell you in FL. Real nice waterfront property.
Honest.
And just how do you propose that? Return of the Inquisition?
Waiting to see you smacked down by any other Catholics on this forum......
Should be interesting reading through the rest of the following comments.
I’m not on narses’ ping list. I don’t get pings from her unless she’s responding to a post I made, which was the case in post 2,433 which you referenced.
I got pinged there because she was replying to me, not because I am on the list.
Try checking your facts before implying that I’m lying.
Angels are not omnipresent either.
They are obviously not bound by space and time but they are also created beings, thus meaning they are not omnipresent.
Makes sense to believe that.
No it doesn't.
Yes, and we do, as FourtySeven testifies. We have been photographed doing it:
There's no picture of a throne there. Just the inside of a Catholic church.
True believers don't need to go somewhere to *meet* God. We have God living within us.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
Ephesians 3:14-19 14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 16 that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
So every Catholic church has a throne of God in it?
Just how many thrones does God have then?
You didn't really just type that, did you?
Just.....
wow......
LOL And you will find if reading the posts that it’s been relegated to the back of the building too.
So, just which verse of Scripture has 30,000 different interpretations?
Pick just one. Any one.
Catholic church tradition has nothing to do with Jesus establishing the OT as Scripture.ROTFLMAO!
Catholic church tradition has nothing to do with Jesus establishing the OT as Scripture.ROTFLMAO!
Catholic church tradition has nothing to do with Jesus establishing the OT as Scripture.ROTFLMAO!
I have never asserted that each or any single verse of the there are 35,526 verses in the Roman Catholic are interpreted 30,000+ ways. That is a monumental strawman. What I have asserted is that every one of those 30,000+ denominations differ from all other on the meaning of at least one verse at any given point in time.
I understand your attempt to direct this back to me. The position of much of Protestantism is indefensible and it is an impossible position to disprove since each Protestant develops and holds his or her own interpretations and doctrines.
It is fair to say that the Pareto principle applies to Protestantism with 20% of the denominations containing 80% of all Protestants and the remaining 80% of denominations containing the remaining 20% of Protestants. If doctrinal differences were the only criteria for assessing the number of Protestant denominations the number of denominations would approach the number of Protestants whose governing principle is nothing more than Semper Gumby (always flexible).
Peace be with you
Did Jesus exist before Jesus was born of Mary???
Show me where in Scripture it says that. Each angel was created by God to serve the will of God. Each angel has intelligence and will, and each is a personal and immortal creature. Each angel is a unique being who has chosen to love and serve God, its Creator. It is a being who will never die. One third of all angels rebelled against God and were cast out. Beyond this, no human can make any other categorical statements about all angels.
We do not know the number of species of angels nor each of their purposes. One can no more say that angels are omnipresent than one can say they are not.
Peace be with you
metmom; mgist; raptor22; victim soul; Isabel2010; Smokin' Joe; Michigander222; PJBankard>
You might want to check that again, because I and quite a few other people get pinged along with you.
That question denies an understanding of the hypostatic of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis. This too settled in support of the case against Nestorius at the First Council of Ephesus. This council recognised this doctrine and affirmed its importance, stating that the humanity and divinity of Christ are made one according to nature and hypostasis in the Logos. The divine nature of Jesus existed from before the beginning of time. The human nature of Jesus began when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb.
Peace be with you.
When Jesus takes us up at the Rapture, then all "their" problems will be solved and they can continue here as if "we" never existed. Something tells me they STILL won't be happy about it....wonder why?
So what?
Who cares?
If it's a matter not connected to one's salvation, we have clear instruction from Paul on it in Romans 14.
Romans 14:1-12
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”
12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
The Catholic church can't even keep its catechism the same, much less interpretation of Scripture, even when they do get around to offering one. It certainly is in no position to cast stones about consistency in interpreting Scripture.
Each Protestant ey? How about each Catholic that votes for canidadates who vote for abortion? How about gay Priests? How about the Kennedys? How about the thousands maybe millions of Catholics who want same sex marriage? Any of those “hold his or her own interpretations and doctrines”?
I contemplated responding to this for some time and have decided to weigh in. I have to object to what you posted. While much of Protestantism may be objectionable, the group as a whole are fine and decent Christians. The Church recognizes them as our separated brothers and sisters.
Goodness and evil can be found within any collection of people and Protestants are no exception (and neither are Catholics). The passions of their debate, like those of many Catholics, may evoke behaviors and statements that, with 20/20 hindsight, make us all cringe, but with few exceptions we have all been guilty of excesses in defense of what we consider holy. Let's remember that we are all sinners and are called to both repentance and forgiveness.
Peace be with you
One is either in Communion with the Church or is not. There are no shades of gray.
Peace be with you
OK, let me try that again. I will type really slowly for you since reading comprehension seems to be an issue for you.
I am not on narses' ping list. I have never asked to be on her ping list. I do not get pinged to Catholic threads by narses.
The post to which you are referring is post number 2433, which was a response to my post 2,428. Of course my name was the first of the bunch of other names she pinged to because FR software, by default, puts the name of the person whose post someone is responding to in the *To:* field. In order to not have it show up, that name has to be deliberately removed. In order for other names to show up, they have to be deliberately added.
Now, when narses posted a reply to my post 2,428, my name did indeed show up as FR software was written to do.
All the other names were then added.
That does not mean that I am *on a Catholic ping list*. It means that in a post made by narses (post 2,433) responding to a post of mine (2,438), others are on a Catholic ping list were also pinged.
Trying to insist that because of that, that I am on a Catholic ping list is not correct. Nor is the claim that I am on a Catholic ping list.
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.