Posted on 08/08/2016 2:14:55 PM PDT by NYer
U.S. Olympian Katie Ledecky is the world record holder in the 400-, 800- and 1500-meter freestyles, and the American record holder in the 500-, 1000- and 1650-yard freestyles.
In the Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, she will compete in the 200-, 400-, and 800-meter freestyle. She has won Gold medals in the 2012 London Olympics and again in the 2016 Rio Olympics.
But before every race Ledecky, a faithful Catholic, offers a Hail Mary. “I do say a prayer – or two – before any race. The Hail Mary is a beautiful prayer and I find that it calms me.” she said.
In an interview with the Catholic Standard Ledecky said “My Catholic faith is very important to me. It always has been and it always will be. It is part of who I am and I feel comfortable practicing my faith. It helps me put things in perspective.”
You haven't PROVEN anything; just made another assertion.
Matthew 25:41
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
(I mean, not that I'm Wesleyan, but that it's up to the pastor, kind of a pray-by-the-seat-of-one's-pants thing.)
Fine, there fallen angels AKA devils. I am talking about non-fallen Angels. But why talk to you about this...you always engage in semantics and reject the fact that Jesus founded the Catholic Church as His church.
Well said.
Well said.
Mary Ark of the Covenant to carry Jesus was perfect. God would have it no other way for his Son.
You call your religion “Christianity”, but your religion is really just another heretical group.
Protestantism (16th Century)
Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura (”by Scripture alone”—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide (”by faith alone”— the idea that we are justified by faith only).
The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church “against” the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.
The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.
The rest of the heretical groups... http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies
Your Christian teaching seems to depends on whom is interpreting the Bible. Catholic teaching follows the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles.
I do hope you find God’s Truth and not just your own truth.
“the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology”
Right there, is where your car left the road and began careening down the mountainside - before it went over the cliff.
RIP
Education could have saved dear ADSUM, but he turned it down.
It was on him. He chose poorly.
Anyone who is a follower of Christ is a Christian. Hence Christianity.
You call yours roman catholicism. In the overwhelming vast majorities of postings in these threads your brothers and sisters refer to themselves as "catholic". Rarely, very rarely, and it's usually when they're called on it, do they identify as Christian.
It gives the impression that the catholic believes that by being a member of a denomination that will somehow save them.
It will not.
A person can join the Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, etc and not be saved. Without faith in Christ membership in a denomination does nothing for your eternal salvation.
Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura (”by Scripture alone”—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide (”by faith alone”— the idea that we are justified by faith only).
Christianity, unlike roman catholicism and mormonism, does rely upon the written word that was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Without this standard there is nothing to compare any resulting "traditions" against. As we see in both roman catholicism and mormonism this leads to a great number of theological errors.
In just a cursory examination of the Early Church Fathers (ECF)there is a divergent opinion of beliefs on some of the very things roman catholics hold dear. Some ECFs believe Peter is the rock, others believe it was his statement. Some believe Mary was ever-virgin, some don't. Some believe she was without sin....some don't.
Which one do you rely upon?
Some catholic writings elevate Mary to a goddess status. And many have been approved by the rcc itself.
See the prior discussion regarding the apparitions calling themselves Mary.
I said it earlier and I'll say it again. If the catholic really believed the promises of Fatima then there should never be a poor or sick catholic. None would ever die an unexpected death. But we know this isn't the case. There are poor and sick catholics and some die unexpectedly.
What is the catholic answer to this?
Catholics like to claim they have the corner on how to properly understand the Word. But as has been pointed out on other threads, how many verses of the OT and NT have been explained by roman catholicism? Where is the verse by verse exegesis?
Some parts of the ccc call into question if Genesis 1 records a literal six day (24 hrs each) creation. Now, to be fair a number of non-catholic churches do as well.
The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.
This talking point is beginning to remind of the liberal left. You keep repeating something often enough and people may begin to believe it. The catholic likes to trot this out while ignoring the various differences between just the rcc and the eo.
Here's another little fact roman catholics like to ignore. Each Sunday around the world thousands of rcc churches hold their services. There are individual Bible studies by some catholics during the week. We have on this very board several posters who post articles written by catholics.
Yet, are any of these written/approved by the Vatican? Has the pope signed off on each and every individual Bible study a couple of catholics may be engaged in? Are all the lessons taught on Sundays approved by the Vatican, or per chance, is the individual giving their understanding of the Word?
We see a wide diversity of thought in these very threads amongst the catholics. Some catholics are pre-v2 catholics....others aren't. Some like the current pope....others are ready to toss him out.
Think about that....some catholics are ready to toss out the "vicar" of Christ because what he's saying doesn't agree with their own personal understanding of scripture.
Your Christian teaching seems to depends on whom is interpreting the Bible.
See above. Catholic teaching follows the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles.
Sadly, as we have seen on these boards, this is not the case.
There are some catholics who believe wearing a piece of fabric on their head will keep them out of the hell-fire. This is taught no-where in scripture.
Think about that. What this is saying is that somehow, the shed blood of Christ is somehow insufficient for the remission of sins.
I do hope you find God’s Truth and not just your own truth.
I have! I believe His promise made in John 5:24. Yet sadly, there are some catholics who, when asked, will not affirm they believe this promise.
24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Colossians 2:13-14
So you base everything on one statement, but ignore others from Jesus:
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
As Paul says, “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing” (1 Cor 13:3).
I agree that all Catholics might not gain life in Heaven, but that is a decision for Jesus.
As I have said before, I do believe that the universal Catholic Church is the true Church that was founded by Jesus. As to other Christian religions, they left the Catholic Church over not agreeing on the principal doctrines of the Church, thus heretics.
Individuals can claim that they are Christians and practice or believe in part of the teachings of Jesus, but are they truly followers of Christ?
Why do they choose to ignore the Sacraments and graces that Christ left us in His church? Baptism, Reconciliation, Confirmation, Eucharist, Anointing of the Sick, Marriage, Holy Orders. And receive the Body and Blood of Christ at Mass?
I believe that one rejects the Church Jesus founded, then they reject Jesus.
Why would someone reject the church of Jesus when salvation is at stake?
Why does any individual feel that they can do it on their own by reading just the Bible and ignore the path that Jesus created for them through His Church?
Jesus asks us to believe in Him in way more than just this one statement.
Look at John 6. Read it in context picking up in v26. Look for every place where believe is used.
Fast forward to 6:67-69
67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.
69“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”
Peter nails the answer!
Peter again in Acts 10:43
43“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”
The Samaratans....John 4:39-42
39From that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, “He told me all the things that I have done.” 40So when the Samaritans came to Jesus, they were asking Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days. 41Many more believed because of His word; 42and they were saying to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.”
Jesus to the unbelieving people in Cana.
48So Jesus said to him, “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe.”
Jesus talking to the Jews again. John 10:24-26
24The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. 26“But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep."
One comes to Jesus through belief/faith in Him.
Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.
The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).
Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
I'd like to see the Scripture support for this. Now the Mormon can claim their in, as can the Hindu, the Aztecs, etc.
It's why Christianity sticks with the Word for Truth.
What a terrible job someone did in trying to define non-Catholic Christianity! Of the many errors in this, the part about "first rule of Bible interpretation", perverts what the Bible verse even says. It DOESN'T say in 2 Peter 1:20, we are told: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” In fact, that passage is talking about the Old Testament prophets and how they were carried along by the Holy Spirit in what they wrote rather than their own thoughts. Here is that verse IN CONTEXT:
See the difference?
A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church “against” the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture,
It's NOT heresy to state that Holy Scripture - which alone is divinely-inspired - is the standard on which to base truth claims. Sola Scriptura also does NOT deny the role of pastors/teachers in the local churches to teach and edify their members. They can certainly teach the infallible truth but they themselves are not infallible. They are servants of the word and in subjection to it rather in authority over it.
Please try to use better sources for your citations than biased Catholic tracts.
The heresy is that various protestant religions deny the truths of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus including:
The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
Christ’s Catholic Church.
The Sacraments
The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and the others were founded by man.
Many others
I do believe that many protestants are sincere God fearing individuals, But I have personal concerns for them that it might not be enough for their salvation.
Peace.
What they deny is the understanding that the Roman Catholic denomination has about the teachings of Christ.
Fortunately, we have a reasonably candid assessment by Cardinal Ratzinger - you may know who him better as Pope Bennedict XVI - that puts a timeline on many beliefs of Roman Catholicism that evolved much, much later than the time of the Apostles. Yes, this means they were not believed nor taught by the Apostles. Read on ADSUM. Your Cardinal has much to teach you.
"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/)
Ratzinger writes (emp. mine), Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative...
Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5th Century; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared. - J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59. .
“If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus… As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution, was, to a large extent, corrected…” (Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 381,82;
“The concept of [apostolic] succession was clearly formulated, as von Campenhausen has impressively demonstrated, in the anti-Gnostic polemics of the second century; [and not, as some Roman Catholic writers assert, in the first century] its purpose was to contrast the true apostolic tradition of the Church with the pseudo-apostolic tradition of Gnosis” (“God’s Word: Scripture-Tradition-Office” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press ©2008; Libreria Editrice Vaticana edition ©2005) pgs 22-23).
we are fairly certain today that, while the Fathers were not Roman Catholics as the thirteenth or nineteenth century world would have understood the term , they were, nonetheless, ‘Catholic,’ and their Catholicism extended to the very canon of the New Testament itself.” [yet even here many did not hold the apocryphal books as being Scripture proper.] (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, trans. Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, Theolgische Prinzipienlehre ]San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987], p. 141.)
"Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church" (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1,chapter 1.).
At the moment of his encounter with the Risen One he understood that with Christ's Resurrection the situation had changed radically...The wall is no longer necessary; our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14)." (Pope Benedict XVI,11/19/08 General Audience; —
When asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, then-Cardinal Ratzinger responded that “the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” (53).
He went on to say that, “Everything comes from Him [Christ], as their Latter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language” (God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306
Indeed, you can see why "protestants" who treasure the Word of God, disbelieve your claims. Even your Cardinal has acknowledged the problem. It is bogus.
I borrowed this extended quote from a previous post by Daniel1212
Well stated!
It amazes me how some Catholics here seem to believe that it doesn’t matter if someone trusts in and follows Jesus Christ in holy living and gratitude for the grace of God because not being a Roman Catholic disqualifies them for salvation. They give even atheists a better chance to be saved if they “live according to the dictates of their conscience” (Lumen Gentium) but not non-Catholic Christians! I’m so glad the Lord has a better standard. I’ll trust Him and not man.
1. NT clergy being charged with or instructed in feeding the flock by offering the Lord's supper, as agents dispensing the body and blood of Christ, rather than their primary active duty being that of with feeding the flock by preaching the word, (Acts 20:28; 2Tim. 4:2) which is said to be "milk" and "meat" (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:13; 1Pt. 2:2) and by which they are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up? (Acts 20:32)
2. NT clergy being distinctively called "priests," and engaging in a unique sacerdotal function, that of offering the Lords supper?
3. The Lord's supper being described as a sacrifice for sin, versus a remembrance of His death for the body of Christ, the church, showing His death until the Lord comes?
4. It is taught that essential spiritual life if obtained by literally physically eating anything?
5. The observance of the Lord's supper being regularly exhorted in the letters to the churches?
6. The Lord's supper being manifestly described as a daily priestly ritual, versus being only manifestly described in one epistle, in stark contrast to Catholicism in which this is the supreme central sacrament, around which all revolves?
7. The church chastened for not discerning that the elements consumed were the body and blood of Christ, versus not discerning/recognizing other members as being part of the Lord's body, the church, by eating selfishly and independently which was to the "shame "them that have not," and thus they were actually not coming together to eat the Lord's supper, since they were to show/proclaim the Lord's death, by sharing food with each other, as being members of the body for whom Christ died? (1Co. 11:17-34; Acts 20:28)
Christ’s Catholic Church.
That is begging the question, presuming what needs to be proved, and that Roman Catholicism is unique that church cannot be, since the Catholic church is basically invisibly in the life of the NT church, with,
1. No ensured magisterial infallibility;
2. No church looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over the church;
3. No Lord's supper that is administered by priests changing bread and wine into "real" flesh and blood, which is offered as a sacrifice for sin, and consumed in order to obtain spiritual life, as the central supreme sacrament.
4. No preaching on purgatory as the next experience for believers, commencing at death, whereby they become good enough to enter Heaven;
5. No example of baptizing souls contrary to the stated requirements of repentant, wholehearted faith; (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37)
6. No distinctive class of sacerdotal clergy/priests;
7. No clergy which is normatively celibate;
8. No regular confession to clergy in order to obtain forgiveness (neither Mt. 18 or Ja. 5 teaches this), or restriction to clergy of the power of spiritual binding/loosing, even as regards obtaining deliverance due to sin. The only exhortation to confess sins other than to God is to other believers in general, which may also be able to bind and loose as Elijah did, (Ja, 5:15-20) as being of holy fervent prayer (not that I claim this level of holy faith, sadly);
9. No praying to created beings in Heaven;
10. No distinction btwn "saints" and believers, nor btwn elder and bishops; etc.
The Sacraments
Rather, it is Cath sacraments which are contrary to Scripture, in part or whole:
1. The Eucharist, as shown above and more extensively here, by the grace of God.
2. The Cath sacrament of baptism, in which the act itself effects regeneration, even apart from personal repentant faith, is contrary to what Scripture teaches, in which the heart is purified by faith, such as which is normatively expressed in baptism. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-10; cf. Mt. 10:32; Rm. 10:9-13)
3. Confirmation, which is a mockery of what we see in Scripture when real apostles and men such as Ananias laid hands on believers in baptizing people with the Holy Spirit.
4. Reconciliation, in which all the believers normally need to come to "priests" to ask for and obtain forgiveness.
5. Likewise anointing of the sick by "priests," as mentioned before, which is typically a precursor of death, versus healing as in Scripture.
6. Likewise marriage, which too often can be declared a non marriage due to various reasons, including due to it being between a Catholic and a non-baptized person, or lacking the sufficient use of reason.
7. Likewise Holy orders, distinctively ordaining a class of "priests."
The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and the others were founded by man.
Rather, the NT church actually began contrary to the Catholic Church, which presumes that the instruments of stewards of Scripture are the infallible authorities on it, while the NT church began with an Itinerant Preacher who was rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, unto whom "were committed the oracles of God," (Romans 3:2) "to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises. (Romans 9:4)
But whom established His claims on Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did His church, and not on the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).
In addition, even Catholic scholarship, as well as others, provides testimony against papal propaganda. Less than 300 years after the death of the apostles you had Damasus 1 employing murderous thugs in seeking to ensure to seat from his rival.
I do believe that many protestants are sincere God fearing individuals, But I have personal concerns for them that it might not be enough for their salvation.
I do believe that many Catholics are sincere God fearing individuals, But I am sadly sure that is not enough for their salvation any more than it is for Mormons. Both must come to God as souls damned for their works - not saved because of them - and destitute of any means or merit whereby they may escape their just and eternal punishment in Hell Fire and gain eternal life with God. And with contrite heart cast their repentant whole-hearted faith upon the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Divine Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood. (Rm. 3:9 - 5:1) And whose faith is thus counted as righteousness, but it is a faith that will follow Him. To the glory of God.
Thank you for posting the truth. God bless.
Then can you explain WHY the seven churches 'founded by Jesus Christ' in Asia were SO screwed up that an angel had to be send from GOD to tell John to WRITE to them in warning?
Catholicism is SHOWN to be not very good at carrying out what JESUS alledgedly instructed it to do.
Golly; even Mormonism grants us a bit more than this!
HEAVEN-The Mormon church teaches there are three levels of heaven (three "degrees of glory"):
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.