Posted on 05/18/2015 6:05:47 PM PDT by Old Yeller
For years, growing up as a Roman Catholic, we were taught that we were members of the one true church. It was impressed upon us regularly by the parish priest during Mass while giving his homily; by the nuns all throughout my Catholic parochial school years of second through seventh grade.
It was impressed upon us during our preparation to receive for the first time the sacraments of Penance, Communion and Confirmation. And while attending CCD classes all the way through high school. (CCD is the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, an association established at Rome in 1562 for the purpose of giving religious education, normally designed for children.)
It was an established fact that we understood and we never questioned the validity of it. And to be honest, it was a matter of pride, that we were privileged enough to be members of the correct church, while all others had belonged to something else that didn’t quite measure up to the status of the Roman Catholic Church.
After all, how could it be possible that Roman Catholicism is not the one true church?
Look at what Rome has to offer: It has the priests, the nuns; the bishops; the cardinals; and of course, the Pope. They have the Sacraments; the statues; the holy water; the incense; the Stations of the Cross; the Eucharist - in which Chris supposedly physically manifests Himself into the wafer after the consecration by the priest during the Mass; the Marian apparitions—which appear mainly to Roman Catholics.
And they have the Vatican, where the Vicar of Christ (who they believe is Christ’s representative on earth), governs the faithful and makes infallible proclamations and doctrine. How can this not be the one true church? No other organization on the face of the earth comes close to offering to its flock what Rome provides for its faithful.
But, of course, to be true, one must adhere to what has been established as truth and not teach or practice what is contrary to the truth. We read in Scripture a few passages that declare what is truth and what is not. Jesus proclaimed in John 14:6:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.”
Canon 752: “While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”
Canon 753: “While not infallible in their teaching, [Catholic bishops] are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ's faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic Magisterium of their Bishops.”
He commissioned, Peter (“feed my lambs, feed my sheep”) and his successors for this task.
Jesus commissioned ALL of the Apostles to spread the Word. And there is no word that Peters "successors" (where is that verse found using that wording?) are any different from the other Apostles followers.
He founded one Church (NOT Catholic!), empowered it (Wasn't He was speaking directly to the Disciples) with a “binding” authority and assured that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it (This is the Heavenly Church consisting of saved saints. Any man made denomination IS subject to failure).
The Churchs the Disciples started were based on Jewish religion -starting with the Ten Commandments. The one that says keep the Sabbath day holy. It may also forbid graven images - quick hide the statue of Mary! That's just 2 of the differences between the RCC and the Churchs that Peter and the others started.
Funny, I only remember asking for you to justify the canonicity of James, a request you refuse to acknowledge, much less answer.
Here, I can even be specific to make things easier for you. I want the official RC church's answers to these requests:
James insists that Christians must keep the OC Law, but Peter and Paul disagree. Please tell me the official RC church position on this conundrum. You don't even have to use Scripture - any old official theological blather will do.
James insists that keeping the OC Law provides freedom, while Peter and Paul again disagree, instead teaching that keeping the OC Law is akin to slavery. I would appreciate knowing the official RC church explanation for this discrepancy. Again, Scripture is completely optional.
Was Abraham credited with righteousness by God when he believed God in Ge.15 as claimed by Moses and Paul, or was it not until the Ge.22 Isaac incident, as James insists? Again, any old theological explanation will do, as long as it is the official RC church position.
Are rich people automatically condemned in the RC church as James insists, or is it just a little more difficult for them to be saved, as Christ taught? Please provide the official RC explanation on James' contradiction of Christ, and the position of the RC church as to which one is correct.
James insists that God is not tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone with evil. Does the RC church official position support this contention of James and reject the discourse on the temptation of Christ in the desert as a lie, or does the RC church official position reject this contention of James?
Please provide the official RC church positions on these conundrums. Again, Scripture is completely optional. Use Scott Hahn or Augustine or any of your favorite theologians - as long as they espouse the official positions of the RC church.
===
As a side note, I find your above quoted statement insightful (but not surprising) in that you seem to think that inquiring of biblical proof for doctrines is somehow a wrongheaded thing to do. I knew that you believed this, but I didn't think you would be brazen enough to actually admit it. Bravo!
>>>Deprogrammerliberalism’s response to this is precious: He says: “I have nine books so far in the MetaChristianity series.” It is from this from this he gets his profound insights such as Why would Jesus say, “For God so loved the world” - past tense? Why would He not have said, “For God so loves the world” - present tense? If he really is interested in something that is in-depth may we Catholics sugges? http://www.amazon.com/Catholicism-DVD-Box-Robert-Barron/dp/B005J6U77Q<<<
Sorry, I don't have time for watching DVDs. I am much too busy studying the Bible - something you should try, Steelfish. You can get a good start with my first book (which is free). It explains in detail a procedure for how to solve Bible mysteries for yourself.
Canon 753: “While not infallible in their teaching, [Catholic bishops] are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ's faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic Magisterium of their Bishops.”
Thanks for posting these CynicalBear.
Interesting. Sounds like the wording a cult would use.
You like to lump everyone not you onto the David Koresh band wagon. Here's an example of your approach.
Sister Magdalena of the Cross -The nun who made a pact with the devil
The renowned Franciscan nun who made a pact with SatanSister Magdalena of the Cross (Magdalena de la Cruz) was born in Córdoba (Cordova) in Andalusia, Spain in 1487. Named after the mystic St. Mary Magdalene, the one whom Church tradition remembers as the great "..sinner from whom Jesus had cast out seven demons.” (Mark 16:9), and who was also known for her extraordinary repentance. As for herself, Magdalena of the Cross too would one day become an extraordinary mystic, and later a repentant sinner, doing severe penances for her sins. Not even the great Saint Teresa of Avila would ever have as much prestige across Spain in her lifetime as Sr. Magdalena of the Cross! Her (apparent) outstanding piety and the miracles that she performed were known throughout Spain, and even much of Europe. So much so, that even the Emperor Charles V, the sovereign ruler of the Roman and Spanish Empire asked for a piece of the habit of Magdalena of the Cross to wrap around the future Prince Philip II at his birth, to give his royal son the "assistance of a living saint from birth, to envelop him in Divine grace." Incidentally, prince Phillip II later became the King of Spain in 1556.
Little Magdalena's first visionBut for now, little Magdalena is just 5 years old, and she is already known in town for her remarkable devotion, which is out of the ordinary for a girl of her age. Not long after her fifth birthday, she is praying in Church when she hears music of remarkable sweetness. Then a beautiful young man, with thick, black hair appears to her, wearing a mantle so brilliant that she has to close her eyes. Hearing the story, some believe it to be Jesus. News of this event spreads throughout Córdoba, and many want to see little Magdalena.
Sorting out the heavenly apparitions from the demonic onesThe difficulty that we will now have in sorting out Magdalena's early life story is that as with all the mystics and their mystical graces, there is often the influence and appearence of the demonic along with the heavenly apparitions. Like in the case of the Biblical Job, God allows the devil to tempt and even attack the mystics, to test their faith, love and devotion. This is the case with most every mystic. And with Magdalena, the task of discernement of her obvious mystical gifts and graces is even more difficult in her early years, because there definitely was a period where Magdalena demonstrated authentic piety and deep devotion, with the sincerity and simplicity of a child. But we know that she made a pact with the devil, so there must have been a point where the heavenly apparitions slowed or even ceased altogether, and the diabolic apparitions took over.
But for now, little Magdalena is living a simple life with her family who were poor artisans, and while Magdalena remains of exemplary modesty and conduct, the visions continue, one after another, and as time goes on this attracts the attention of many; so much so that one day she flees her home to take refuge in a nearby cave, where she once again falls into ecstasy. When she awakens, she discovers that she has been miraculously transported back to her bed by her guardian angel.
Miraculous cures. Soon, a person whom she believes to be Jesus appears to her and asks her to somewhat moderate her asceticism, so as not to compromise her fragile childhood health. He informs her that a great destiny awaits her, and that she will need her strength. She flies to the church to thank Jesus and on the way meets a man with a severe limp who asks her to lend him her hand to climb the Church steps. He has hardly climbed a few steps when he stands erect and with great surprise and excitement he dashes through the whole town crying out that he is healed!Magdalena herself goes into Church then falls into a deep ecstasy. Soon, someone comes in looking for her and realises that she is seeing a vision. Looking closely at her eyes, she sees in the reflection in her eyes the heavens and what seems to be the Holy Trinity surrounded by the Communion of Saints. Soon afterwards, like Jesus after the cure of the blind man, Magdalena is subjected to all sorts of interrogations to discover any subterfuge, none of which can apparently be found. Not long afterwards, a mute person also allegedly receives his speech through her intercession.
Magdalena attempts to crucify herself. In 1497 at the age of ten, Magdalena is already quite beautiful, and in her purity she is very cautious to hide herself under long black dresses and skirts. Even so, she still finds herself too beautiful, and one day for penance she tries to crucify herself on the wall of her bedroom. She starts by nailing her two feet, then her left hand. Blood flows, and she faints from the atrocious pain. Her flesh tears and, falling heavily onto a chest, she breaks two ribs. Her parents call the doctor and he bandages all of her nail wounds, yet she is burning with desire to suffer terribly for the reparation of sins, and she repeatedly takes off the bandages, so as to suffer more. But this soon makes her very ill. -
See more at: http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2011/12/sister-magdalena-of-cross-nun-who-made.html#sthash.nRFdX733.dpuf
Steelfish,
Thanks for including me in your ping list.
Two items:
1. I have yet to see you post your claimed “sacred traditions” list of the official traditions Paul referred to. Until you do, it is just a truth claim minus the supporting truth. Ping me when you post it.
2. You wrote this funny statement:
“It is no insult but rather an evident truth to say that there are shoals of fish that swim in these shallow waters who are ready bait for just about any of these self-ordained pastors and preachers. Hence the swarm of Joel Osteens, “Bishop” TD Jakes and pastors of first AME Churches. This is now a lucrative vocation for all of them.”
May I remind you that a recent thread posting of statistics from CARA stated that less than 24% of Catholics even go to mass regularly in the US.
Yet, they are “shallow” enough to call themselves Catholic.
Those who attend services with your favorite straw men (always a logical fallacy in your posts) ACTUALLY SHOW UP SEEKING GOD.
I submit to all reading this thread that those who seek God are not the “shallow” ones.
Finally, aside from these two points, your post was a rehash of your favorite slogans that have already been examined and found lacking in depth multiple times.
Really, I for one would favor a rigorous post filled with actual thought, facts, evidence and logic.
Ironically, until you do this, you are calling others shallow while your posts are shallow. I challenge you to fix that and enter some deep waters here.
Best.
Where did Paul get the teaching ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’, if not from tradition handed down to him?
Hey BTW Neither Democrats or Republicans politicians believe that today so maybe there is some doubt about it.
Your basic premise, that the "lettered" have superior spiritual discernment continues to be one which is contrary to the NT church.
As is the fundamental premise of Rome for discernment and assurance of Truth, that being the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults). And which is actually contrary to the former premise.
For the intellectual tradition that was second to none was the very one which rejected prophets and the unlettered itinerant preachers who showed up in Galilee 2,000 years ago, and which was believed by the uneducated masses as a whole.
Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:45-49)
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: (1 Corinthians 1:26-28)
And with popes using the sword of men to gain power and suppress dissent, then the absence of Protestant competition to men as Augustine - which Calvinism much look to, is not surprising since Rome was in control.
Yet you even have Jerome wresting Scripture in order to support his perverse views on marriage vs virginity. But God did promise to send prophets, scribes and wise men to reprove proud Jewish elitists, (Mt. 23:34) and consistent with that, and since we are to heed RC intellectuals, let us heard the words of the great Catholic historian Joseph Lortz on a certain Doctor of Theology (though he concluded he also was a heretic as per Rome):
"...Luther is an intellectual giant, or, to use a word from Paul Althaus, an "ocean. " The danger of drowning in him, of not being able to come to grips with him satisfactorily, arises from his tremendous output, but no less from his own original style... It sounds banal, but cannot be left unsaid: Luther belongs in the first rank of men with extraordinary intellectual creativity. He is in the full sense a genius, a man of massive power in things religious and a giant as well in theological interpretation. Because of this, he has in many respects shaped the history of the world--even of our world today."
In addition, it was not Catholics which founded Harvard, Yale etc. and produced so many wise leaders in the past, while evangelical intellectuals as Ravi Zacharias manifest that one need not a lot of (or nay) university credentials to be a manifestly wise man. Finally, if it is the weight of sanctioned Catholic scholarship that we are to look to, then we must believe such things as that historical accounts such as Noah and the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Balaam and the talking donkey, Jonah and the fish, Joshua's long day, etc. were fables, and things like Joshua's conquests were mainly folk tales, and the sermon on the Mount may not have been where it says. And this is the church RCs tell us to look to for interpretation of Scripture, versus searching the Scriptures. Thank God that kind of reliance was not how the church began.
And then we have the findings of RC scholars and researchers such as,
Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4:
“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.
That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”
If we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.” (page 1-2)
[Schatz goes on to express that he does not doubt Peter was martyred in Rome, and that Christians in the 2nd century were convinced that Vatican Hill had something to do with Peter's grave.]
"Nevertheless, concrete claims of a primacy over the whole church cannot be inferred from this conviction. If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)
• Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,
“the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” and cannot concur with those (interacting with Jones) who see little reason to doubt the notion that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century:
Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church... — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,222,
• American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown (twice appointed to Pontifical Biblical Commission), finds,
“The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)
• Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian:
Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.
Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop, and actually a contemporary of Eusebius...
Orthodoxy was not established [In Egypt] until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus...
Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list...When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria. (“A History of Christianity,” pgs 53ff; http://reformation500.com/2014/01/17/historical-literature-on-the-earliest-papacy)
More .
Springfielder, please the Catholic Church beats no one into submission. Indeed, it is Benedict and theologians like Aquinas who belief that reason and faith must be braided together.
That depends on whether you are a RC or not, and on who you listen to.
For while the use of reason in seeking to ascertain the veracity the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences is allowed for potential converts (though they cannot even know what Scripture consists of without faith and reliance upon Rome, and in seeking to persuade faith in Rome then Scripture is appealed to as merely historically reliable document), yet a faithful RC is not to do so, as that would mean doubting the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth
Cardinal Avery Dulles: People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72;
It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth....no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
...when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources... - Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
—in all cases there is a margin left for the exercise of faith in the word of the Church. He who believes the dogmas of the Church only because he has reasoned them out of History, is scarcely a Catholic......in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council lhttp://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. . — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
“All that we must do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.”
“So if God [via Rome] declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, "I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?"
“..our act of confidence and of blind obedience is highly honoring to Almighty God,..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."
The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit... (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )
Thus while the use of reason is sanctioned for a RC in seeking to see whether Rome is of God and worth believing in, yet it is not allowed that one can discern the Scripture is of God apart from some faith in Rome. Thus while reason is appealed to as able to find that Rome is of God, it is disallowed finding that Scripture is of God but that Rome is no worthy of the faith-submission she presumes she is and requires.
In addition, while in real life RCs must interpret their supreme authority (which Prots engage in towards theirs), and her teaching can change, the use of reason by her faithful is only sanctioned by Rome under the premise that she defines reality, that Scripture, tradition and valid historical accounts only consist of and mean what she says, thus requiring implicit faith.
Which logically means what Pius X says, to simply follow the pastors, as to seek to ascertain the veracity of teaching by Scripture, or present teaching by past RC teaching, results in division, which we now see. Which is contrary to the cultic unity that RCs imagine they have, and popes under sola ecclesia sought, Thus even conservative SSPX and SSPX type RCs are likened to Protestants because they engage in interpretation of evidences to ascertain the veracity of V2 and modern teaching, as their are obvious contrasts , even as regards EENS .
Which allowance of reason and type of confusion Pius X warned against (according to a SSPV source, arguing against "resist but recognize" the pontiff):
To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation.
if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path...
Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.....
But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces ...
when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope! ” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)- http://christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope! ” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)- http://christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x
But this unScriptural model of effectively placing men above Scripture (since it only consists of and means what they say) under the premise of ensured magisterial veracity, which fosters blind submission to a wider scope of teaching that the "infallible" class damage control RCs point to as unchanging, means that when leadership goes South to varying degrees, then so do the people.
Or they do what Rome forbids, but which Scripture commands and evangelicals do, which is to separate from such, though in the case of many RCs they simply separate to a more extreme RC errors.
As one poster wryly commented: The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
a short-list of independent minds that after serious study, and contemplation converted to Catholicism.
Islam can claim as much, as can we. Scripture is the judge of what is right, and the NT church began with souls discerning what was of God, both men and writings, without an infallible mag. which Rome presumes is essential for this. and in dissent from the historical mag.
, empowered it with a “binding” authority and assured that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it.
You tried this exclusive refuted assertion before.
Likewise, metmom goes off tangent and off over the cliff to think that Catholic doctrine is not inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Name one teaching outside Scripture that is wholly inspired of God as Scripture is, "infallible" or not."
a book written by a convert to Catholicism- Dave Armstrong- a former Protestant campus missionary who offers to meet his request.
Who found the oft-stated (perhaps including you) 33,000 different Prot. denominations to be fallacious:
As for 33,000, I renounced that number years ago (about eight), having been convinced of the faulty criteria used, by Eric Svendsen. I usually say, now, “hundreds of Protestant denominations.”
Thus the “Protestant” traveler has the option of hopscotching from one denomination to another until he/she finds “a” truth that he/she finds confortable with. This is the rotten heresy bequeathed us by Protestantism that allows for a menu of “truths” for grandma to choose from.
Actually, as a raised devout RC who later became born again with its profound changes, i went to different RC churches/masses looking for one that had some real preaching and life, versus the perfunctory professions and congregations who did not want to talk about Christ in their life and the Bible afterward (not for evangelism), the closest being charismatic movement types back then (late 1970's, early 80's).
After 6 years of faithful RC attendance (during which i served as a lector and CCD teacher) I had no problem finding a conservative evangelical church. I listened to evangelical radio, and sincerely prayed to God to show me if you would have me leave the Catholic church, and the Lord promptly told me thru an impromptu meeting with a believer somewhat outside the RC area i was in.
Hence the swarm of Joel Osteens, “Bishop” TD Jakes and pastors of first AME Churches.
Your reasoning is invalid, as its premise is that since souls without an infallible mag see division and bad fruit, then it must be wrong, but which only ignores that God often raised up non-ordained men to reprove those in power, and thus the church began under such, and that division produced Godly men such as Matthew Henry, Spurgeon, Wesley, Moody, Edwards, etc. Which are desperately needed today.
Meanwhile, as early as the 4th c. you have pope Damasus 1 employing murderous thugs in seeking to ensure to seat from his rival, and a litany of unholy popes and political elections, and the conditions which preceded the needed if faulty Reformation:
"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.
"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)< /font>
Exactly!
bump
“A Catholic woman I knew who was a worshipper of Mary”
Either the Catholic is in error of Catholicism, or somebody is bearing false witness against her.
” We just do not worship her like Catholics do.”
That statement is bearing false witness as it is stated clearly, by authoritative Catholic sources that Catholics do not worship Mary.
The question that remains, is, “does your religion have a line of succession from Christ to the Apostles, to their Successors, that is unbroken? This is the only church that can claim to be the original church initiated by Jesus Christ.
Said Catholic woman wanted to think of God as female or was confused by the ridiculous teachings about Mary. It's a profound misunderstanding of who God is to ask such a question. Her desire really seemed to adore/worship Mary per conversation with her and the RCC was all too ready to help in that endeavor though the next person may pick a different "saint" to adore or the Pope or just the institution.
Bank robbers do not confess to robbing banks, and liars will most often swear up and down (even on a stack of bibles) that they are not telling untruths, either.
That is something of an artificial construct, which also by default assumes that even the MOST GODLESS of popes (and there have been more than a few of those) are somehow part of this alleged succession, those God-LESS, even personally reprobate personages still by some 'magic' (that does not extend past Rome, hence a double standard of sorts) could ever have rightfully enough been capital "S" Successors to any of the truly righteous...
There is more yet also, in that the bishopric of Rome was not seen among the early Church as the center of all authority. Those type of considerations were chiefly an invention of 'Rome' Alone, while also something of a corruption of ecclesiastical order of the earliest centuries, wider, thus truly universal Church.
For those of Rome to pretend that their own chr4uch (and their own pope) is the topmost over all others, is contrary to scripture in more ways than one (would you like to see it?) and history (I could show you some of that!) BOTH!
Would such a contrary contraption such as that, be truly invention of the Most High God...?
Or is it something else, yet again?
God can raise up children of Abraham from the very stones, as it is written (oh ye of little faith -- how long must we suffer thee?)
and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.
Signed, Jesus
That water you keep using to wash the hog is getting a bit feted. Are you still believing that nonsense that there is a proven ubroken succession from Peter (in Rome no less)? Do you even know when the first Pope was established?
No mention of Peter specifically nor as head over the other apostles.
What nonsense.
Nope. The question is what you do about Jesus.
religion has no part in a relationship with God through Christ.
No one church organization is the true body of Christ, which is an organism, not an organization.
This!!
Most Catholics either don't understand this or ignore it and to a lesser degree, so do many Protestants. Your ticket to heaven isn't punched by having membership in any particular institutional church. Insisting that it is so is usually the first sign of a cult.
It seems to me that in regards to present day scholarship, one of the converts woops, I mean reverts to Roman Catholicism, one Francis J. Beckwith (who was trotted out in post #34) back when he was a fresh revert (year 2007) spoke quite differently as to who was "second to none" as you put it...
"...Catholics would do well to plumb these works, since in them Protestant evangelicals often provide the biblical and philosophical scaffolding that influenced the Church Fathers that developed the catholic creeds as well as the Church’s understanding of the Bible as God’s Word.But these evangelicals do so by using contemporary language and addressing contemporary concerns. This will help Catholics understand the reasoning behind the classical doctrines.
In terms of expository preaching, as well as teaching the laity, Protestant evangelicals are without peers in the Christian world.
For instance, it is not unusual for evangelical churches to host major conferences on theological issues in which leading scholars address lay audiences in order to equip them to share their faith with their neighbors, friends, etc. Works by evangelical philosophers and theologians such as [J.P.] Moreland, [Paul] Copan, and William Lane Craig, should be in the library of any serious Catholic who wants to be equipped to respond to contemporary challenges to the Christian faith.
Your guy, one of those spotlighted as some sort of genius for having conver reverted, bears witness and testimony against your own words & (general) positions.
Don't you just hate it when that happens?
Shallow waters...?
It's not over my head, but then again all the waters I've fished that were...I fished from one boat or another, sometimes in waters miles deep.
I used to bottom trawl in waters about a half of a mile deep, although in those days usually a bit less, like only 375-490 fathoms deep, but i've seen 530+ on the fathometer, while the gear was on the bottom. Literally.
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.