Posted on 02/08/2015 12:34:39 PM PST by RnMomof7
First two sentences of the article are absolutely false. No need to wade into this anti-Christian muck.
If you deny it's a sacrifice you had better get lined up with your church and correct them. See HERE before you embarrass yourself.
OK, thank you. I should have thought of that but don’t remember other posts by him.
I am wholly aware of the church’s teaching and need nothing from a jealous bigot and participant in a gutter faith. There is always time for you to turn away from hate and to Christ. Whenever you wish, a Catholic will happily help you.
Turn to a self admitted pagan church? Are you kidding me?
So your statement about he first two sentences was just hyperbole or what.
IBTZ
Falsehood of question 1. Every Catholic thinks about the mystery of the sacrament. Falsehood of Question 2. Every adult Catholic is aware of the mystery of the sacrament.
Don’t bother to post to me further. Bigots who attempt to divide Christians, do not interest me. Particularly those whose hatred is a result of their own poor self-esteem and lack of faith.
How UNChristian of you to speak this way about another person's faith!
Make comments in error here and you are going to be challenged. If the kitchen gets to hot for you perhaps the Religion Forum would be something you might consider avoiding.
Truth hurts, and I will not stand back and be a victim to an anti-Christian bigot!
:-)
Nope. You’re the one who avoids answering direct questions. Done dealing with you. Don’t bother posting to me anymore - I won’t respond. You can’t seem to act like an adult.
No it doesn't,it sets us free.
For the record, you initiated the posts.
No one is obliged to speak well of a false religion. Paul said such people should be accursed.
Welcome to FR.
Is your treatment of those who disagree with you supposed to make them want to swim the Tiber?
You skipped verses, 6, 7, and 8, as well as 10 so explain why not to call anyone teacher, professor, and a good many other titles in common use that are implied in those other verses but conveniently ignored in a lame attempt to change the subject.
Oh, and what about in the same chapter
(2) Saying : The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.(3) All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do : but according to their works do ye not ; for they say, and do not.
which shows that Christ establishes authority and order that He expects His flock to obey because of the authority He granted their position. An anarchy of thousands different doctrines and the bad joke about an invisible church really fits that well, doesn't it?
How about "obey your prelates"?
How about Jude warning about the heresy of Core which is "let it be enough for you that we're all Holy as an argument against having a priesthood over them? Sound like the same broken record the tens of thousands of anti-Catholic comic book fans spout?
Yeah, I know, none of that matters because it doesn't change the subject to anything you want to discuss.
You like the strong delusion of Self and Self Alone?
Fine, enjoy it and the single verse, out of context, games that destroy the Scripture by turning it into little Lego Blocks everyone can build whatever they want to build out of.
have a nice day
In light of the above italicized, as a test exercise, in order to better clarify if there are "two sets of rules", try the following question on for size;
while checking the context in which that question was put, as a response.
Of course it isn't. But that is not the point. This one sola which Romanist keep hating on was never intended to be the "be all end all of revelation" as you put it.
The way in which you wrote out it to be, describing it as you just did, is not the way it is worded by those whom understand that one sola (in how that fits with the other solas) nor is the way sola scriptura is best understood, and then applied.
That some may get it wrong, and misapply it -- does not mean the principle itself is in error.
In the Scriptures themselves there is place for revelation (to be received, from God, by way of the Spirit).
A prime (no pun intended) example;
Even though Peter had been told by his brother Andrew -- "we have found the Christ", some time later when Jesus asked them, "who do you say that I am?" and then when Jesus turned to Peter and asked Peter the same question more directly, Peter answered that Jesus was the Messiah.
Jesus responded to Peter then -- "flesh and blood did not reveal that to you", even though previously, Peter's own flesh and blood brother Andrew, had done very much that exact same thing (reveal that Jesus was the Messiah, using human speech to convey that concept).
Upon that revelation (as Peter received it, by spirit) the Church is built upon, and must be renewed in each and every soul. Only the Father who is in heaven can initiate --- and finish that renewal, thru Christ, as author and finisher of our faith.
Words alone, human speech, reading what others have to say, listening to and even following to the best of one's ability to whatever Church 'authority' has to say, all of that put together is not enough, and will still *always* fall woefully short, leaving behind newly created Pharisees ---->if one is not born (again, from above) by the spirit. (John 3:5).
Yet the Scriptures still are supra over and above revelation, must be returned to, and cannot be overpowered by revelation. They most certainly were not overpowered when Peter was given that particular revelation in Matthew 16, and Christ Himself did return to reliance upon as it is written rather than stand only upon His own authority, although that authority He did establish by time and again, over and over, performing the miraculous. (John 4:39-54, John 6:30)
Rather than 'sola scriptura' if that is what you are attempting to criticize here, it could serve everyone well today to see that principle expressed as 'prima' scriptura -- the Scriptures being unbreakable Word --->according to Jesus anyway.
That said, forgive me if you will, for going over Scripture passages which you are likely well enough acquainted with (or so I would assume), but it did come to mind here as I was forming this comment, that we never know when some lurker may happen upon comments made on this forum --- including possibly some Muslim seeking the truth of Isa, Isa al Masih, the man in white.
What RC's are railing against isn't really sola Scriptura. It's a strawman version of it that they erect and knock down.
When they state what they think it is, you won't find any believers accepting that definition either.
They have been corrected many times and yet, as evidenced by their persistence in repeating the same error, have not accepted the correction.
Indoctrination does not tend to leave a person with a teachable spirit.
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.