Posted on 03/01/2015 4:54:44 PM PST by NKP_Vet
Archbishop Fulton Sheen once wrote: “There are not over a hundred people in the United State who hate the Roman Catholic Church; there are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church.”
I was one of those who hated because of what I wrongly believed about the Catholic Church. The reason I had these beliefs was due to being told what to believe about the Catholic Church from those who were told what to believe about the Catholic Church. No one was willing to find out what the bottom line was concerning the Catholic Church. Everything said about the Church was taken as truth while it seemed no one was delving into what the truth really was.
What about these Catholics? They worshipped Mary. They had a religion but not a relationship with Jesus Christ. They said they believed in God but really their belief couldn’t be the same, could it? The Bible says in James 2:19 KJV “Thou believest that there is one God; Thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble”.
So do Catholics have a belief such as the devils? When most Catholics are asked if they have been “born again” or “have accepted Christ as their Savior”, their main response is “I believe in God” or “I am a good person”, or “I’m Catholic”. Also, they have all these rituals, Saints, Statues and what about the Pope is he really standing in for God? Another big item, are they cannibals when they eat the bread and drink the wine during communion? Why do they leave Jesus on the cross, don’t they realize Jesus has risen from the dead?
For the rest of Steve’s story, click at link.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic-convert.com ...
“The Jews do NOT claim the Muslims serve the same God they do.”
Actually Jews have admitted that Muslims profess they follow the God of Abraham. That doesn’t mean they believe it, but they have no problem acknowledging that’s what Muslims profess.
I guess you’re unfamiliar with this fact . . . like soooo many others.
Here’s some proof of what I speak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuKpLJlYnEw You will, of course, either ignore this (or dismiss it, or downplay it) or change the subject.
Um...you may need to talk to the Catholic Church.
CCC 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
It's official. Catholics and Muslims serve the same god.
Following a church who doesn't know the difference between the God of scripture and the god Muslims serve is surely to lead to sorrow.
Of course, why we are to do something doesn’t change what we are to do.
E.g., if I told you to give your child a hug in remembrance of me, you wouldn’t think I meant a symbolic hug.
Non Catholics do that by the millions every week around the world...Jesus said,' eat this bread in remembrance of me'...And that is exactly what we do...
1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
Paul knew they were eating bread...He says so right there...God proves you wrong with his scripture and you continue to argue against him...
Top 10 Most Wicked Popes
http://listverse.com/2007/08/17/top-10-most-wicked-popes/
1. Liberius, reigned 352-66 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
2. Honorius I, reigned 625-638 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
3. Stephen VI, reigned 896-89 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
4. John XII, reigned 955-964 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
5. Benedict IX, reigned 1032-1048 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
6. Boniface VIII, reigned 1294-1303 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
7. Urban VI, reigned 1378-1389 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
8. Alexander VI, reigned 1492-1503 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
9. Leo X, reigned 1513-1521 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
10. Clement VII, reigned 1523-1524 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
Top 10 Worst Popes in History
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php
1. Pope Alexander VI (1431 – 1503)
2. Pope John XII (c. 937 – 964)
3. Pope Benedict IX (c. 1012 – 1065/85)
4. Pope Sergius III (? – 911)
5. Pope Stephen VI (? – 897)
6. Pope Julius III (1487 – 1555)
7. Pope Urban II (ca. 1035 – 1099)
8. Pope Clement VI (1291 – 1352)
9. Pope Leo X (1475 – 1521)
10. Pope Boniface VIII (c. 1235 – 1303)
If *Protestantism* is invalidated based on the behavior of certain religious figures allegedly within it, then it says the same thing for Catholicism with its religious leaders and the lifestyles they lived.
That is the only thing that matters.
Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.
Got a link for that "statistic?"
"Most" would be millions, and a majority. Not believable, but show where you got that OK?
It wasn't necessary for the thief on the cross.
The Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded. Period. The rest is all nonsense.
What Catholic priest said this and when?
Amen to that!
Once a "Catholic priest" posts a comment that says that Protestants give birth to babies around Christmas time so that they can eat them--all credibility is lost.Arthur McGowan a few weeks ago.What Catholic priest said this and when?
But maybe he just plays a "priest" on the internet.
But I notice that you are still dodging questions.
LOL
Those over-the-top statements were self-evidently ironic.
There is only one reason that anyone would PRETEND, as you do, not to recognize that those statements were ironic: fully deliberate malice.
Believing what God has told us in Scripture is called *faith*.
Y'all Catholics should try it some time.
Security of the believer
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 10:25-30 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.”
1 Corinthians 1:4-8 I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus,that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge—even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you—so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Corinthians 1:21-22 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
2 Corinthians 5:4-8 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.
Ephesians 1:13-14 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Colossians 2:13-14 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
Colossians 3:3 For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
1 Peter 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3156607/posts?page=313#313
2 Corinthians 1:21-22 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
For which the Greek, from the Byzantine, is:
2Corinthians 1:21-22 ο δε βεβαιων ημας συν υμιν εις χριστον και χρισας ημας θεος ο και σφραγισαμενος ημας και δους τον αρραβωνα του πνευματος εν ταις καρδιαις ημων
The first word in bold above is “bebaion,” the idea of confirmation, frequently used in commercial settings to confirm a bargain. Which of course makes sense of the remaining terms used here, which are also elements of a secured contract.
The second word in bold above is “sphragisamenos,” being sealed is to be marked by the signature, signet ring, or other unique proof of identity, that we belong to God, and this sealing is done by God, who is the one taking action in this verse. We do not and cannot seal ourselves. We do not, by our own powers, have access to God’s “signet ring.”
The third bolded word above is “arrabona,” and indicates what we might loosely refer to as earnest money, but in Hebrew culture conveys more the idea of a pledge of covenant, a security given as a guarantee that the deal will go through, though we only receive part payment at the beginning. See ערב for the related Hebrew stem indicating “pledge.”
Thanks:
The issue is some churches do not apply exegesis to passages. We have Springfield Reformer on many occasions giving pleasant and constructive instruction on the use of direct metaphors in Jesus Christ’s discourses. I have yet to see responses to those posts other than diatribes on Luther and changing the subject. I cannot replicate the style in which SF opines on this subject but will list the basics of proper Biblical exegesis:
1. The Grammatical Principle. The Bible was written in human language, and language has a certain structure and follows certain rules. Therefore, we must interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with the basic rules of language.
Usually, the exegete starts his examination of a passage by defining the words in it. Definitions are basic to understanding the passage as a whole, and it is important that the words be defined according to their original intent and not according to modern usage. To ensure accuracy, the exegete uses a precise English translation and Greek and Hebrew dictionaries.
Next, the exegete examines the syntax, or the grammatical relationships of the words in the passage. He finds parallels, he determines which ideas are primary and which are subordinate, and he discovers actions, subjects, and their modifiers. He may even diagram a verse or two.
2. The Literal Principle. We assume that each word in a passage has a normal, literal meaning, unless there is good reason to view it as a figure of speech. The exegete does not go out of his way to spiritualize or allegorize. Words mean what words mean.
So, if the Bible mentions a “horse,” it means “a horse.” When the Bible speaks of the Promised Land, it means a literal land given to Israel and should not be interpreted as a reference to heaven.
3. The Historical Principle. As time passes, culture changes, points of view change, language changes. We must guard against interpreting scripture according to how our culture views things; we must always place scripture in its historical context.
The diligent Bible student will consider the geography, the customs, the current events, and even the politics of the time when a passage was written. An understanding of ancient Jewish culture can greatly aid an understanding of scripture. To do his research, the exegete will use Bible dictionaries, commentaries, and books on history.
4. The Synthesis Principle. The best interpreter of scripture is scripture itself. We must examine a passage in relation to its immediate context (the verses surrounding it), its wider context (the book it’s found in), and its complete context (the Bible as a whole). The Bible does not contradict itself. Any theological statement in one verse can and should be harmonized with theological statements in other parts of scripture. Good Bible interpretation relates any one passage to the total content of scripture.
5. The Practical Principle. Once we’ve properly examined the passage to understand its meaning, we have the responsibility to apply it to our own lives. To “rightly divide the word of truth” is more than an intellectual exercise; it is a life-changing event.
And yes, context is very important.
The Catholic Church put in their official Catechism that the Catholics and the Muslims serve the same god. Live with it. Following a church who doesn’t even know the difference is really not wise.
This kind of sophomoric internet-theology is of little use. Go read the great works of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict XVI who has been called the “theological Einstein of our times.” Their works are standard fare in the theological departments. of major colleges and universities.
As the saying goes, put 100 Protestants (depends which sect one chooses) and provide them with a passage of scripture, and a pencil and paper, and have them write down and explain their interpretations and you’d have 101 different versions of scripture. This is the heresy of Protestantism that spawned a cluster of heresies from Bishop TD Jakes to Rev. Jeremiah Wright to say nothing of the Moonies, and Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
It was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that we find a definitive list of canonical books being drawn up, and each of these Councils acknowledged the very same list of books. From this point on, there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the Bible, the only exception being the so-called Protestant Reformers, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later.
Every noted Protestant theologian has converted to Catholicism. There is Catholicism and then every other “truth” under the sun that attracts the congregants of the type that gravitate to the Joel Osteens (“prosperity gospel’) Billy Graham (“vapid readings”) Jim Jones, David Koresh (lethal intepretations) and every corner street Foursquare church pastors who purport to crack open the Bible (books assembled as infallible under the infallible Petrine authority) and offer us their “own” interpretations.
Francis J. Beckwith, a “born-again” evangelical, a tenured professor at Baptist-affiliated Baylor University in Waco, Tex, was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, an association of 4,300 Protestant theologians resigned and joined the Catholic Church. One blogger likened it to Hulk Hogan’s defection from the World Wrestling Federation to the rival World Championship Wrestling league.
Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, was a pre-eminent Lutheran theologian in America. He knew his Bible-text and history like no other Protestant. When he converted to Catholicism he said, “I have long believed that the Roman Catholic Church is the fullest expression of the church of Christ through time.”
Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
Don’t take my word. Here’s one original source. St. Irenaeus:
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
Today, except as part of an exotic inquiry, Protestantism is a “clusters of beliefs” that is not taken seriously by religious scholars and thinkers.
No, He didn't and there is no way He would sanction a "church" that includes paganism or the false teachings of the Catholic Church.
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.