Posted on 08/31/2013 3:38:44 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
Full interview (roughly one hour) with former Roman Catholic priests Richard Bennett (website: http://www.BEREANBEACON.ORG) & Bartholomew Brewer, Ph.D, author of "Pilgrimage from Rome - A Testimony" (website: http://www.MTC.COM) and former nun Rocio Zwirner give glory to God for their exodus from the Roman Catholic Church & into the glorious grace of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. (Description from youtube)
"It ain't a 'gift' if you have to do SOMETHING to get it."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Are you serious? Consider the following scenario:
1. Ann is slowly dying from kidney failure.
2. John offers to donate one of his kidneys to Ann to save her life.
3. In order to receive John's kidney, Ann and/or John have to do the following:
Are you seriously saying that in your personal view of things, that unbelievably special life-giving/life-saving gift that John made to Ann (one of his own kidneys) is somehow NOT REALLY A GIFT, just because Ann had to do a number of other things in order to be able to receive that life-saving kidney donation from John?
It's not even us who does it but God in us.
For all Catholics sneer at the total depravity of man, they need to get a much better grip on the corruption of our nature and our slavery to sin that keeps us from being able to do anything good on our own.
There is this underlying current in Catholic thought that they can go through life and not sin for periods of time. Like they are good enough, which is why they think their works can contribute to their salvation. They don't see that even our best works in and of ourselves is corrupted with sin and therefore unacceptable to God.
They are missing completely the meaning of the wedding feast and the garments, which are the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. (Matthew 22)
I didn't think any was; so why are you confused?
Or that a propagandized, brain-numbed Catholic would swallow such an inane idea.
So, in your eyes, "life saving" is nothing like "life saving"?
I think it was a good thing for Vladimir to provide the extra sentence he did. After all, it then clearly demonstrates that the sentence:
“It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness”
Should be understood as saying...
“The Catholic Church rests upon the understanding given to her through both supernatural sources and consistent historical sources.”
It doesn’t mean anything like, “The Church decides arbitrarily what is true, to suit her own purposes”
In fact I’d argue the sentence “It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness” rests (no pun intended) on its own merits. The author clearly delineates two sources of knowledge (for the Church) in that sentence. One, a supernatural source, (a “supernatual” form of “awareness”, or here an awareness of the supernatural and the role the supernatural plays in the Church).
Another, a source of “perpetual consciousness”, which can only be interpreted as a source based on a “perpetual” (or consistent) form of “consciousness” (or awareness, here an awareness of history. )
But again, vladimir’s extra quote does make this even clearer, that this was Manning’s intention.
If a Catholic’s opinion of your quote “counts”. (But yeah, it’s only Catholics who refuse to consider another point)
Isn’t it amazing though we (human beings) can STILL argue about what a (relatively) modern work says, actually means, by only reading that work?
But yeah, sola scriptura will never lead to error. < /sarc >
I’m ‘saying’ that your attempt at simplification of what constitutes ‘work’ to receive a ‘gift’ is an inaccurate over-complication.
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
While the latter is your quote, and "arbitrarily" is too broad a term, yet Rome does engage in interpretation to suit her own purposes in the sense that while she invokes tradition, history, and scripture as supporting her claim to be the one true and (conditionally) infallible church. And which means that only her sure interpretation of such can have authority, which is a premise proceeding before she even makes an interpretation. And which interpretation, of course, must support her if she is to claim that that only her interpretation of such can be correct.
In fact I’d argue the sentence “It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness” rests (no pun intended) on its own merits. The author clearly delineates two sources of knowledge (for the Church) in that sentence. One, a supernatural source, (a “supernatual” form of “awareness”, or here an awareness of the supernatural and the role the supernatural plays in the Church). Another, a source of “perpetual consciousness”, which can only be interpreted as a source based on a “perpetual” (or consistent) form of “consciousness” (or awareness, here an awareness of history. )
Which does not change what i said. In dealing with opposition which invokes two sources of knowledge as providing evidence contrary to Rome, Manning resorts to claiming that these interpretations are invalid as only Rome can correctly understand these, and which interpretation supports her assertion that they support her.
But again, vladimir’s extra quote does make this even clearer, that this was Manning’s intention.
The extra quote does not change in the least that which i invoked as supporting , which was not that Rome claims that she has no antiquity, but that "history [antiquity] is what Rome says it is."
The RC protest, and Vladimir's accusation of deception or stupidity, was as if i was claiming Manning's argument was that the church of Rome actually has no antiquity, rather than in the sense of the past being present with her, which distinction i saw as being obvious. but as said, Nor did i purposely leave out any of Manning's words in order to teach what you attack me for. But i will include more the next time, and am sorry if you misunderstood it. .
If a Catholic’s opinion of your quote “counts”. (But yeah, it’s only Catholics who refuse to consider another point)
And where did i say it’s only Catholics who refuses to consider another point? They are not alone, yet RCs here have declared more than once her that they will not look as Prot sites provided in opposition to their argument. (And in time past Rome forbade laymen to engage in public debates on RC doctrine.) And if and after Vladimir responds to my last post to me i look forward to providing Catholic support for Prot. rejection of Mt. 16:18 referring to Peter as "the Rock," and against the perpetuated Petrine papacy.
Isn’t it amazing though we (human beings) can STILL argue about what a (relatively) modern work says, actually means, by only reading that work?
Indeed, and it is i who usually provide such in substantiation, often resulting in vain RC protests that they are invalid, or out of context, when they are not.
But yeah, sola scriptura will never lead to error. < /sarc >
That is another example of resorting to presenting a false argument, by one known as FactChecker no less, as supporters of SS do not claim all conclusions reached under SS will always be infallible, nor was any magisterium so, save for the Lord. But as seen in Scripture, truth or error is established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
And thus souls could have assurance of truth even before there was a church in Rome, and be right in following a holy man in the desert who are insects, and in itinerant Preacher, in dissent from those who occupied the magisterial office. Those are the facts.
Consider the following scenario:
1. Six year old Heart-Rest is anxiously waiting to open all her birthday presents (gifts).
2. Mommy hands her her gaily wrapped gift.
3. Heart-Rest rips the bow and paper off and grabs the baby doll she has ALWAYS wanted.
4. Little HR says, "Thank you Mommy!", and runs off to play with her new doll.
Now, what did HR actually have to DO to get that gift? She was a good little girl, you might say? She was born into that family and was her Mommy's little girl. All she did, had to do, was RECEIVE the gift.
I could come up with some more examples like this if you need them. The point is that God used the term that implied something given that the receiver does not earn, merit or, even, deserve. In fact, we don't get what we REALLY deserve - which is eternal separation from God (the penalty/wages of sin is death). Mercy means we don't get what we DO deserve. GRACE means we get what we don't deserve - the favor of Almighty God, the adoption into the family of God, the indwelling Holy Spirit as the guarantee of our inheritance, the new birth which frees us from the bondage to sin, eternal life with God in heaven. What God says we need to DO is believe, AKA, have faith, receive the gift by faith. He takes it from there and, since we did nothing to earn this gift, our deeds do nothing that lets us KEEP it, either. What would it take for people to get it that grace means grace? How many ways does God have to say it before they will believe Him?
“You do realize that those references to Peter were written years after the events described, right?”
Thanks, v998! It seemed insulting to point out that the name change was obviously being spelled out, long after it had happened, to try to clarify for the potentially confused.
Some people work so hard to stay confused!
Thank you so very much for your encouragements, dear sister in Christ!
Sound evangelical counsel but as a RC you cannot practice objectively searching the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of something Rome has settled, or as if revealed truth does not come, and can come, only by way of external authority (Rome), and not by way of private judgment and investigation. Search "The intolerance of the Church" in post 362
Of course, the pagans also used altars, and also made sacrifices on those altars in their worship. Do you think God was telling the Childen of Israel that they should not use altars, or make sacrifices on those altars, because the pagans used altars and offered sacrifices on them?
Of course not: these were basic things the pagans highjacked, while things like praying to someone else but the Lord in Heaven, or rounding the corners of your heads, (Lv. 19:27) were distinctively pagan. Likewise a feast to a pagan God on or around Dec. 25. (An extensively examination of copycat theories is here .)
Note that God can use things that were seen among , perhaps such as distinctive priestly garments, but as with making graven images, this is by His order, not that of making unto yourselves such things. But again, God makes new creations, and Christianizing the feast of Saturnalia makes somethings that be reclaimed for God, as it was a tree (so to speak) He did not plant. As said, commemorating the birth of Christ (for which Dec.is unlikely) as the Lord leads is one thing; borrowing a day specific to the pagans and Christianizing it as an annual feast say is another, and allows it to easily be reclaimed for idolatry .
Thus the ongoing effort to "put Christ back into Christmas," as if this was a day He ordained believers to keep, rather than letting it die of neglect among believers. God does not reform the flesh, but has it crucified, and new creations do not need to borrow distinctly pagan religious celebrations with its retained distinctly pagan elements to worship God.
It also amounts to legalism, as any dissent from keeping this feast is effectively disallowed. Even in most evangelical churches a man will never advance in leadership if he desires to walk in liberty to worship God as seen in Scripture, versus submitting to a annual season of observance which was only seen among pagans, and not in Scripture. A pastor can preach as the Lord leads 11 months out of the year, but come Sept. he basically must conform to an extra-Scriptural tradition which is the result of an unScriptural attempt to reform a distinctively pagan celebration which still is recognizable as such in its elements (bowing before a tree, etc.).
"But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. " (Galatians 4:9-10)
I think the censure here goes beyond doing so as part of an admixture of law and grace, but extends to an admixture of pagan worship and that of the New Cov. And in which we see no liturgical seasons, and a worship service that is hardly typical today, (1Cor. 14) in its manner of participatory aspects.
However, insofar as Christ is exalted, then there can be some edification, for the truth of God is potent even in an admixture of Christianity and paganism, thus souls may be saved by a Christian message in a hard rock concert, but such are not the right ways of the Lord.
See how the true, full, honest context totally changes that passage, and shows you much more clearly what it really, truly means than the misleading fragment you keep posting?)
Of course God opposed paganism because it was evil, and thus He condemned holding on to distinctively pagan practices that were part of it (Gal. 4:10), and that would lead them back to it, such as worshiping in the high places. Thus the true, full, honest context does not change the passage (Deuteronomy 12:30) from applying to attempts to Christianize pagan celebrations, as a 'competitive strategy.' to allow pagans to keep their distinctly pagan days and practices in an an adapted Christian form. I think God wanted them to abandon it, and worship God as He led, not re-form a pagan celebration.
Thus it is true, in a certain sense, that some Catholic rites and ceremonies are a reproduction of those of pagan creeds; but they are the taking of what was best from pagan- ism...
There are some things that God wants utterly destroyed, but someone else also had Rome's idea of wht to do with paganism:
"And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed. " (1 Samuel 15:15)
"And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. " (1 Samuel 15:22)
Then you keep quoting this passage from some guy's book which is most certainly NOT a book about the teachings/beliefs/doctrines of the Catholic Church:
The book i presume is at issue is is by a priest describing what the Christianized observances were before, and thus it is about the teachings/beliefs/doctrines of the Catholic Church. If not, where is the censure of the highly exalted RC magisterium whom we are told works to ensure unity?
The RCC specifically states that taking something from the pagans to worship God is exactly what they did."
No they most certainly do not say that anywhere in that passage, or anywhere else! Where the heck do you see that?!?!?
Well, in confessions as this:
Some Christmas Customs. When we give or receive Christ- mas gifts, and hang green wreaths in our homes and churches, how many of us know that we are probably observing pagan customs? We do not wish to assert that they are not good customs; but they undoubtedly prevailed long before Christian times.
Everything a believer does to honor God is worship and applies here, not just to the formally ceremonious, and all is to be in accordance with His word. And motive is not enough to do so rightly, and thus while becoming all things to all can allow one to adopt the clothing of the country of India, it should not sanction wearing the tilaka, even if a Christian meaning is ascribed to it. I think 2 Corinthians 6:17 may apply here. "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, "
But thank you for trying to being reasonable, and i respect your motive to honor God. How one is saved is more important, and thus my tag line.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear daniel1212!
Once again. Well done daniel1212!
Glory be to God for what is good.
Which is exactly what we see happening to Christmas these days.
All SHE had to do was say *Yes*.
SHE cannot make arrangements for a kidney transplant on her own. No doctor or no insurance company would go for it.
They make all the arrangements, they do all the work, they pay for it. She just has to show up.
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.