Posted on 02/22/2013 5:43:18 PM PST by NYer
I've been aware of Mr. Bonhoeffer for decades when I first bought his book "The Cost of Discipleship". I am saying we grow up. We are not the same person we were when we were a pre-teen or a teenager. People change. Mr. Ratzinger should be judged on his actions later in life. I certainly disagree with his choice of church and their policies but I do not attack the man personally.
A long list of proof that does not really say any thing.
Should not of mentioned Abraham, he was in favor of polygamy, either that or let off on the Mormons.
We can read the Bible for ourselves, Paul told the whole world that he accused Peter to his face for he was to be blamed, Peter never defended himself, he took the words of Jesus seriously in turning the other cheek.
2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
Rev 18
18 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.
2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,
Golly gee - believe in the primacy of the Pope or you don’t really believe in Christ...moonbats who probably also believe the Pope/Bishops/Cardinals need to be involved in global warming/gun control/drinks larger than 16 oz...
PP, I think every abuser from every denomination should be in jail. I made that clear.
“since 1609 they might....but they are following the wrong road!”
Christ is ALWAYS the right road.
“The Archdiocese has millions of dollars, and the local protestant congregation has a few thousand....that’s the difference!”
“Don’t store up treasures on earth...”
Pretty sure the word “Bishop” doesn’t appear in the Bible either.
"Most scholars since the time of Pius IX have, therefore, held that Unam Sanctum, while an authentic teaching, is not infallible and is, in fact, no longer considered the teaching of the Church". Found on a random Catholic forum.A random Catholic forum has the authority to erase something from canon law?
Unam Sanctum is canon law.
Some information from the Bull of Boniface VIII on papal supremacy.
...the necessity of belonging to it (The Catholic church) for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation."For eternal salvation a Christian must be born again and have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Then he or she is a member of Jesus' church, not the Catholic church.
One does not have to belong to the Catholic church for salvation, but it is declared in canon law that it is a necessity. Written in stone by a pope.
Jesus is the supreme head of the church, not a pope.
Submission to a pope "to attain salvation" is not Biblical, nor is it anything that was taught by Jesus or any of his disciples.
Submission to Jesus is the only way to salvation.
...significantly, the bull proclaimed, "outside of her (the Church) there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins".
Boniface: "Let no one persuade you that... you are not subject to the head of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, for he is a fool who so thinks."The Bible clearly states call no one a fool.
Here Boniface is declaring that all who do not wish to be subject to a pope are fools.
Pope Boniface excommunicated King Philip and Philip made some accusations against the pope a few of which were "infidelity, heresy, simony, gross and unnatural immorality, idolatry, magic, loss of the Holy Land, and the death of Celestine V. Five archbishops and twenty-one bishops sided with the king."
They pretty much had a big flame war there, as sometimes happens her at Free Republic also...
Salvation and remission of sins can ONLY be accomplished through Jesus, not some man or organization.
All of this is history and can be found by a simple google search.
Aside from claiming the name, what makes them Christians???
Now there you go again...The only thing biblical about your Catholic religion is what we read about it in the book of Revelation in Chapter 16, 17, 18...And the only Simon Peter who led your religion from Rome is Simon Peter Magus...And it is his chair that your religion is currently celebrating...
Read the bible to see what God says about it...
In the creed of the Council of Trent is the following article:-"I do most firmly receive and embrace the apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and other usages, of the Roman Church."Wow, that Aesop statement is interesting in so far as it seems like the "Church" has done just that."The Catholics," says Dr. Milner, "hold that the Word of God in general, both written and unwritten,-in other words, the Bible and tradition taken together,-constitute the rule of faith, or method appointed by Christ for finding out the true religion."[2] "Has tradition any connection with the rule of faith?" it is asked in Keenan's Controversial Catechism. "Yes," is the answer, "because it is a part of God's revealed Word,-properly called the unwritten Word, as the Scripture is called the written Word."
"Are we obliged to believe what tradition teaches, equally with what is taught in Scripture?" "Yes, we are obliged to believe the one as firmly as the other."
We may state, that the traditions which the Church of Rome has thus placed on a level with the Bible are the supposed sayings of Christ and the apostles handed down by tradition. Of course, no proof exists that such things were ever spoken by those to whom they are imputed. They were never known or heard of till the monks of the middle ages gave them to the world.
To apostolical is to be added ecclesiastical tradition, which consists of the decrees and constitutions of the Church. It is scarcely a true account of the matter to say that tradition holds an equal rank with the Bible: it is placed above it.
While tradition is always employed to determine the sense of the Bible, the Bible is never permitted to give judgment on tradition. What, then, would the Church of Rome lose were the Bible to be set aside? Nothing, clearly. Accordingly, some of her doctors have held that the Scriptures are now unnecessary, seeing the Church has determined all truth.
In the second place, Papists make the Church the infallible interpreter of Scripture. The Church condemns all private judgment, interdicts all rational inquiry, and tells her members that they must receive the Scriptures only in the sense which she is pleased to put upon them.
She requires all her priests at admission to swear that they will not interpret the Scriptures but according to the consent of the fathers,-an oath which it is impossible to keep otherwise than by abstaining altogether from interpreting Scripture, seeing the fathers are very far indeed from being at one in their interpretations. "How often has not Jerome been mistaken?" said Melancthon to Eck, in the famous disputation at Leipsic; "how frequently Ambrose! and how often their opinions are different! and how often they retract their errors!"
The Council of Trent decreed, that "no one confiding in his own judgment shall dare to wrest the sacred Scriptures to his own sense of them, contrary to that which hath been held, and still is held, by holy Mother Church, whose right it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of the sacred writ." And they further enact, that if any disobey, they are to be denounced by the ordinaries, and punished according to law.
In accordance with that decree is the following article in Pope Pius's creed:-"I receive the holy Scripture according to the sense which holy Mother Church (to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense of the holy Scriptures) hath held and doth hold; nor will I ever receive and interpret it otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers." "Without the authority of the Church," said Bailly the Jesuit, "I would believe St. Matthew no more than Titus Livius."
So great was the fervour for the Church, of Cardinal Hosius, who was appointed president of the Council of Trent, that he declared, in one of his polemical writings, that were it not for the authority of the Church, the Scriptures would have no more weight than the fables of Aesop. Such are the sentiments of modern Papists.
A lot of denial that the Holy Spirit can interpret scripture. Hmmmm, that's His job!
Thanks for the informative post boatbums!
Well, you’re just plain wrong there. “Bishop” is an anglicization of the Greek word, “Episcopus,” meaning, “overseer.”
Diakonos (”helper”) -> Deacon, one who helps, but does not preside.
Presbyter (”presider”) -> Priest. One who presides over an assembly (”ekklesia”)
Episcopus (”overseer”) -> Bishop. One who oversees the entire community (”metropolis”).
If there’s any doubt over the connotations in the context of the early church, there are plenty of first-century and early second-century texts to make quite plain what is meant, such as the Didache (”[the writings of”] the twelve”), the letters of Clement (the first bishop of Rome after the initial prosecution), and the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (the first bishop of antioch, the headquarters of the early church since the persecution and destruction of Jerusalem).
Galatians 2:11-14 " But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
I Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"
Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." There are a great many churches that gather in the name of Christ and not Peter or the Pope, teach the Bible, ect. What of them?
Another lie...Not only do they demand that you adhere to their interpretation of the scriptures, they demand that you adhere to their interpretation of their church fathers...
There has never been unanimous consent among their church fathers...
And what do we non Catholics have as a guide??? First of all the words of God, the scriptures...Secondly, the Holy Spirit who guides us in the scriptures...
And thirdly, the millions upon millions of Christians who rejected this tripe in the past which has been posted here for us who led the World in the greatest enlightenment the world has ever seen, the Reformation of the Catholic religion back to Jesus Christ...
Its not a question of following the Pope, but following the teachings of the Church where the Pope stands in the shoes of Peter and his disciples who were commanded by Christ to go forth and teach all nations. You are like the “illiterate” student in the class who tells the teacher, I don’t want to be taught, I can read and teach myself. The teachings of Christ were first handed down to illiterates by Peter and his Apostles to believers and un-believables. The Church continues this tradition. So you can follow your own teaching, the teachings of 30,000 other Christian sects (including Joel Osteen or Rev. Wright, Joseph Smith and his band of Mormons: take your pick) or follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Aw, geez. Find me the word "Bible". And I mean in the text, not on the title page.
Extra point: find "Bible College".
Extra point with a cherry on top: "Vacation Bible School".
I'm so tired of this.
This discussion got off on the wrong foot from the outset, with everybody first reacting to the (unnecessarily provocative) headline, and then settling into their same-old, same-old, "I-could-recite-this-in-my-sleep" positions in The Endless FReepin' Bone-Weary Religious Hokey Pokey.
Both of us could cut and paste both sides' favorite verses, from memory, I have no doubt.
"Earthly bureaucracy and call it infallible". C'mon. Nobody says any earthly bureaucracy is infallible. Why argue about what none of us believes?
Or "appoint a human who will talk to Jesus for us". Who are you talking about: my pope or your pastor? Nobody believes that they can't talk to Jesus their very own self. So why bring up this imaginary argument which doesn't reflect the actual belief of anybody on this forum?
Or "dictate to God [about] who is a saint." Yeesh. Nobody pretends to do that. Again, why attack such an obvious false premise that nobody in their right mind would defend in the first place?
I'm sorry, GeronL. I like you, really I do, and consider you a huge ally --- especially on issues like porn and abortion ---- and I'm not grumping about "just you." I'm grumping about the whole tone of the Religion Forum, 90% of the time.
I guess it keeps you 'n' me and all our friends perpetually engaged with mutual biting and kicking in our very own fenced-in area (a buffalo reservation for Christians) while a desperately deteriorating "outside world" cries for help, and no one hears.
I should go off and do some penance for my own sins. Excuse me for keeping a very poor Lent.
The Lord be with you, bro. Pray for me, if you're one who prays.
That pretty much sums it up nicely. Thanks.
It's not just in the headline...The entire article is an attack on all Christians...Even Catholics...The article is trash at it's finest...
“Aside from claiming the name, what makes them Christians???”
If a person believes that Jesus is the Son of God, that he was born of a virgin, was crucified and died, as payment for our sins, was resurrected by his Father 3 days later. If he/she repents of their sins, admits they are a sinner, and asks Jesus to come into their hearts, I believe that person is saved, and is a Christian.
I believe the Catholic Church teaches that.
Well, I sort of feel sorry for them all.. that staff that the Pope carries around, with a dead man- with the weight of the world’s sin upon him.. would cloud any amount of beautiful marble or cushy couch I would ever see at the Vatican.
Just the idea of living in the shadow of a dying corpse, nailed to cross- caught for all time with a curse on his head- makes me want to run FAST! Spooks me out, whenever I see it.
Jesus is alive, he isn’t on a cross or a tree.
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.