This has to be the hysteria thread of the month, if not the year.
Posted on 05/15/2014 8:58:50 PM PDT by Salvation
Only for muzlims and Catholics...
And which manifests what Rome really believes.
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. (James 2:18)
And Catholics are far more liberal than those who most strongly hold to the supremacy of Scripture as literally being the word of God.
This has to be the hysteria thread of the month, if not the year.
Just WOW. Spoken like a true Pharisee. You believe that you're better than an Ordained Roman Catholic Priest? Incredible. It's obvious that humility isn't in your vocabulary. This Priest is very beloved by his whole parish and is in excellent standing with the diocese. He is absolutely NOT a liberal!
But which simply rebukes Rome (among others) who presume the same manner of authority.
But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? (1 Corinthians 4:19-21)
But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) (2 Corinthians 10:3-4)
In CONTRAST :
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)
Pope Damasus I c. 305 – 11 December 384: On the death of Liberius on 24 September 366, one faction supported Ursinus (or Ursicinus), who had served as deacon to Liberius, while another faction, previously loyal to the Antipope Felix II, supported Damasus. The upper-class partisans of Felix supported the election of Damasus, but the opposing supporters of Liberius, the deacons and laity, supported Ursinus. The two were elected simultaneously (Damasus' election was held in San Lorenzo in Lucina) in an atmosphere of rioting.
J. N. D. Kelly states that Damasus hired a gang of thugs that stormed the Julian Basilica, carrying out a three day massacre of the Ursinians.[12] Supporters already clashed at the beginning of October. Such was the violence and bloodshed that the two prefects of the city were called in to restore order, and after a first setback, when they were driven to the suburbs and a massacre of 137 was perpetrated in the basilica of Sicininus (the modern Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore), the prefects banished Ursinus to Gaul.[13] There was further violence when he returned, which continued after Ursinus was exiled again.
....there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion , that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received". — Living Tradition, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum, http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
Pope Innocent IV, Ad extirpanda, papal bull, promulgated on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, which explicitly authorized (and defined the appropriate circumstances for) the use of torture by the Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics.
The bull conceded to the State a portion of the property to be confiscated from convicted heretics.[3] The State in return assumed the burden of carrying out the penalty.
Innocent’s Bull prescribes that captured heretics, being "murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith, . . . are to be coerced – as are thieves and bandits – into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb." — Bull Ad Extirpanda
...the fourth Lateran Council (1215) inspired the horrible crusades against the Albigenses and Waldenses, and the establishment of the infamous ecclesiastico-political courts of Inquisition. These courts found the torture the most effective means of punishing and exterminating heresy, and invented new forms of refined cruelty worse than those of the persecutors of heathen Rome.
Pope Innocent IV, in his instruction for the guidance of the Inquisition in Tuscany and Lombardy, ordered the civil magistrates to extort from all heretics by torture a confession of their own guilt and a betrayal of all their accomplices (1252)
This was an ominous precedent, which did more harm to the reputation of the papacy than the extermination of any number of heretics could possibly do it good. Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590-1073.The Torture http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.vi.viii.html
Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council, 1215: We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained;....
Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues.
But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all until they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics.
Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that...they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church;..
But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith;...
Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)
(xii) finally, all Kingdoms, Duchies, Dominions, Fiefs and goods of this kind shall be confiscated, made public and shall remain so, and shall be made the rightful property of those who shall first occupy them if these shall be sincere in faith, in the unity of the Holy Roman Church and under obedience to Us and to Our successors the Roman Pontiffs canonically entering office. — Cum ex Officii Nostri Pope Innocent III, 1207, Note: This Constitution was reinforced in his Papal Bull Inter multiplices [December 21, 1566] by Pope St. Pius V
That's because Catholics are taught the Catechism (man's word) rather than the Bible (God's Word). When your belief system is based on man's word it loses it's strength over God's Word which is Absolute. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 82, reads:
“. . . the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”
Nice list! I should print this and post it by my computer for constant reference. So many examples here. :)
The more such post the more their credibility sinks, which by now is about zero.
Note the fallacious nature of comparing Catholics with Protestants. In so doing,
1. Catholics are defined as only being "traditional Catholics." The majority of those whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death are excommunicated by the unofficial extraordinary Internet magisterium which interpretively determines what their church really is and means - despite what she does and effects, which Scripturally is what constitutes what they really currently believe. (Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20)
2. "Traditional Catholics" is left ambiguous so as to ignore the sectarian differences between them.
3. "Catholic" also is used ambiguously so as to ignore the schismatic differences between them.
4. Protestantism is so broadly used that one could drive a Mormom/Watchtower/Unitarian/Scientology truck thru it, with its defining criteria being that they are not in full communion with Rome, as it includes those who are far removed from both defining Prot, distinctives as well as core truths they held in common with Catholicism.
5. Rather than a valid comparison being btwn the foundational basis for assurance of Truth of each, what is ignored or dismissed is that those who hold most strongly to Scripture as the supreme standard as literally being the wholly inspired word of God are far more unified in basic beliefs than Catholics, for whom the church is the basis for assurance of Truth.
Which is quite an assumption, considering there’s not a shred of Scriptural support for it.
That is absurd. Catholics do not even know how many teachings that cannot disagree on, while Catholicism exists in schisms and sects, with you being one of them, while Rome shows what she really believes by what he currently does and effects.
40% Roman Catholics vs. 41% Non-R.C. see abortion as "morally acceptable"; Sex between unmarried couples: 67% vs. 57%; Baby out of wedlock: 61% vs. 52%; Homosexual relations: 54% vs. 45%; Gambling: 72% vs. 59% http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx
Committed Roman Catholics (church attendance weekly or almost) versus Non-R.C. faithful church goers (see the below as as morally acceptable): Abortion: 24% R.C. vs. 19% Non-R.C.; Sex between unmarried couples: 53% vs. 30%; Baby out of wedlock: 48% vs. 29%; Homosexual relations: 44% vs. 21%; Gambling: 67% vs. 40%; Divorce: 63 vs. 46% ^
Comparing 16 moral behaviors, Catholics were less likely to say mean things about people behind their back, and tending to engage in recycling more. However, they were also twice as likely to view pornographic content on the Internet, and were more prone to use profanity, to gamble, and to buy lottery tickets. ^
In a survey asking whether one approves or rejects or overall sees little consequence (skeptical) to society regarding seven trends on the family (More: unmarried couples raising children; gay and lesbian couples raising children; single women having children without a male partner to help raise them; people living together without getting married; mothers of young children working outside the home; people of different races marrying each other; and more women not ever having children), 42% of all Protestants were “Rejecters” of the modern trend, 35% were Skeptics, and 23% were “Approvers.” Among Catholics, 27% were Rejecters, 34% were Approvers, and 39% were Skeptics. (Among non religious, 10% were Rejecters, 48% were Approvers, and 42% were Skeptics.) Pew forum, The Public Renders a Split Verdict On Changes in Family Structure, February 16, 2011 http://pewsocialtrends.org/2011/02/16/the-public-renders-a-split-verdict-on-changes-in-family-structure/#prc_jump
50 percent of Protestants affirmed gambling was a sin, versus 15 percent of Catholics; that getting drunk was a sin: 63 percent of Protestants, 28 percent of Catholics; gossip: 70 percent to 45 percent: homosexual activity or sex: 72 percent to 42 percent. Ellison Research, March 11, 2008 http://ellisonresearch.com/releases/20080311.htm http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080312/study-behaviors-americans-consider-sinful.htm
46 percent of Catholics who say they attend mass weekly accept Church teaching on abortion; 43 percent accept the all-male priesthood; and 30 percent see contraception as morally wrong. ^
31% of faithful Catholics (those who attend church weekly, 2004) say abortion should be legal either in "many" or in "all" cases. 2004, The Gallup Organization Gallup Survey for Catholics Speak Out: 802 Catholics, May 1992, MOE ± 4%
When ask to choose, three-fourths of all Protestant pastors surveyed said [2009] they are pro-life, and 13 percent said they were pro-choice. LifeWay Research; http://www.lifeway.com/ArticleView?storeId=10054&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&article=LifeWay-Research-protestant-pastors-share-views-on-gay-marriage-abortion
In a 2010 LifeWay Research survey 77 percent of American Protestant pastors (57% of mainline versus 87% evangelical) strongly disagree with same-sex marriage, with 6% percent somewhat disagreeing, and 5% being somewhat in agreement and 10 percent strongly agreeing. (5% of evangelical).
Only 3% of evangelical pastors (versus 11% mainline) somewhat agree that there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage.
11% of evangelical pastors (versus 30% mainline) somewhat agree that homosexual civil unions are acceptable, with 67% of the former and 38% of the latter strongly disagreeing with homosexual civil unions. October 2010 LifeWay Research survey of 1,000 randomly selected Protestant pastors. http://www.lifeway.com/ArticleView?storeId=10054&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&article=LifeWay-Research-protestant-pastors-oppose-homosexual-marriage More
Now there are more difficult cases, but even in these I tend to side with Augustine, whose argument here, to the best of my understanding, leaves no room for social lying, though he clearly struggles with lying for some greater good, such as saving a life:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1312.htm
In particular see here his overall conclusion:
42. It clearly appears then, all being discussed, that those testimonies of Scripture have none other meaning than that we must never at all tell a lie: seeing that not any examples of lies, worthy of imitation, are found in the manners and actions of the Saints, as regards those Scriptures which are referred to no figurative signification, such as is the history in the Acts of the Apostles.
Note that even in the hard case of protecting a human life he presents an example of a church leader, Firmus, who both refused to betray a person he was protecting from Rome, and yet refused to lie to protect himself from harm in the process, and in so doing showed himself to be a person of remarkable honor. See paragraph 23.
And I am further reminded of Corrie Ten Boom's sister, Betsie, who rather than lie to Nazis who came to their home looking for Jews, acted wildly and told them the truth, that they were indeed hiding Jews, but her wildness convinced the soldiers she was insane, and they left the home without looking under the trap door, where indeed Jews were hiding.
So there is Providence to consider. What if God has calculated all possible outcomes and determined that the best possible result will come from us always telling the truth? At a certain point we have to trust Him rather than our own fear of immediate consequences, reverencing God, not primarily by how we do religious ceremony, but by how we live our lives:
Eph 4:24-25 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
Peace,
SR
Indeed. When man becomes the supreme authority, he is sitting in God's temple where he ought not, and the bodies of good men are in danger. But to fully submit to this alterChristo is to dam the soul.
The Catholic Church has doctrine on morality and faith. The Church is made up of sinners. Exactly like the protestant faiths, which have no structure and no set doctrine. Catholic doctrine is based on the Word of God. The Church is the truth! It will not change because there are those that want to be protestant in their beliefs and not Catholic. Faith and morality does not change with the times (the way it does in many protestant faiths). God does not change. The truth does not change. Catholics that live their faith know this. The ones that don’t live the faith will have to answer to God when they leave this world.
“It’s in Scripture. Why isn’t that enough for you?”
There are lots of things reported in Scripture that are not meant to apply directly to believers. Nowhere is this identified as something that was to happen more than once, or that it would apply to believers other than those Christ sent out that one time.
Contrast this with the Lord’s Last Supper, which He commands us to do in memory of Him until He returns. We also have the clear example of the NT Church following this command and Paul’s instructions of how to do it and how to prevent abuse as it’s carried out.
This is why every Christian is exhorted to study and rightly divide the word of truth, to love God with their whole mind...
WHY ISN’T THAT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU, SINCE IT IS COMMANDED??
Judas went out and hanged himself. It’s in scripture too! It is fortunately, not a command for believers, not a part of worship, not an example to follow, etc.
“But I do think if you look at the relevant post (#133, I believe), the very point the poster was making was that neither pedophile priests nor bad individual church experiences make for good analysis. At least that’s how I read it. In that context, I surmise he meant “abundance” simply as meaning quite a few cases, but not that it was the general rule.”
Right on, right on.
I've never, ever seen a Protestant Church with no doctrinal statement. Ever.
Catholic doctrine is based on the Word of God.
Occasionally, that is very true. They get lots of things exactly right. It's all the non-Biblical additions that obscure the simplicity of the Gospel. Often Catholic doctrine is based on paganism, sadly.
The Church is the truth!
Christ is the Truth.
God does not change. The truth does not change.
We Agree! Stop the presses!!
What a crock. That is not true and it cannot stand unchallenged, as if you know what you're talking about.
Protestant churches have structure, governing boards, a board of Elders, engage in church discipline, (which is something the Catholic church does not do and could learn from non-Catholic churches how to do), and a statement of faith.
Here are several.....
Statements of faith for different churches
Assemblies of God
http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/index.cfm#
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
http://arpchurch.org/documents/confession-of-faith/
Calvary Chapel
http://calvarychapel.com/home/about/
The Christian and Missionary Alliance
http://www.cmalliance.org/about/history/
Elim Fellowship Churches
http://www.elimfellowship.org/about-us/statement-of-faith/
The Father's House
http://tfhny.org/the-house/what-we-believe/
Osais LA
http://www.oasisla.org/about/what-we-believe/
Presbyterian Church in America
http://www.pcaac.org/resources/wcf/
United Reformed church in North America
https://www.urcna.org/sysfiles/site_uploads/custom_public/custom2642.pdf
Westside Christian Fellowship
http://westsidechristianfellowship.org/about-wcf/statement-of-faith/
I needed a good laugh this morning. Your ridiculous post gave it to me. Not a one of them are churches. Call them what they are, faith communities, with no apostolic succession, no Holy Orders, and no sacraments. The only one you cited even worth mentioning is the Presbyterian “Church”, Scott Hahn’s former faith before the saw the light and became a Catholic.
That has to be one of the most condescending and utterly unChristian posts I have ever seen on FR! With your attitude I would venture to say that you personally aren't responsible for bringing may people to the Roman Catholic faith. I know that I wouldn't want to follow someone as judgmental and who ridicules others the way you do.
You don't read the religion forum very much do you? Condescension is practically a posting requirement around here.
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.