Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $34,511
39%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 39% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by stonehouse01

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • How to Go to Heaven

    07/22/2015 5:40:52 PM PDT · 509 of 713
    stonehouse01 to editor-surveyor

    “..To simplify your quest...”

    To simplify everyone’s quest - all that matters in the end is what happens to you (anyone - not you personally) on the day of judgment:

    Revelation 2:23

    Revelation 20:11-13

    Revelation 22:12

  • The LCMS Calls a Post a Post

    07/22/2015 12:01:25 PM PDT · 15 of 36
    stonehouse01 to NRx

    Thank you Nrx. This is a good sign from our Lutheran brethren that they are willing to hold the line on orthodoxy.

    Just last week end I was at a flea market and there was an 1899 copyright (Geo. H. Trabert) original Luther’s Small Catechism for sale for $2.00. It is in excellent condition.

    I have only skimmed through it thus far, however was very intrigued to see that Luther himself retained a lot more from his Augustinian formation than I ever realized. There is far less difference between actual Lutheran doctrine and Catholic doctrine than I previously realized.

    Also, I had a very devout Lutheran Grandmother who came from Germany. This is great news that a mainstream denomination is standing up for actual Christian teachings because many are caving (esp. some Catholic social justice/ “progressive” CINO types - Pelosi, etc.)!)

  • St. Thomas Aquinas On Christ’s Temptation

    07/22/2015 9:11:44 AM PDT · 20 of 22
    stonehouse01 to daniel1212

    “..making Oral Torah equal...”

    I did not make Oral Torah equal - my point was only that oral and written tradition was the norm. The idea of an oral tradition should be considered perfectly acceptable and not treated as an anomaly. Jesus used it (oral tradition - the bible refers to this -see Sermon on the Mount) to reprove and to preach so he picked and chose, but used it. That was my point.

    I was simply showing that the Oral Tradition was VERY important to the nation of Israel until the generation of 70 A.D.. - as you say. That is a long time.

    The jump in logic that I was making Jewish oral tradition equal to written was your conclusion but not my point.

    Interestingly, Martin Luther translated his Wittenberg bible and excluded the so called apocrypha from his canon - which was compiled by the very Jewish magisterium that used the Oral Teachings that were discarded. You are having it both ways from the same (Jewish) magisterium.

    Catholics use the older Alexandrian canon that Christ Himself used.

    “wholly inspired word of God enables the preaching of Scriptural Proofs ...”

    The reality is actually:

    Scriptural proofs were enabled by the preaching of the wholly inspired word of God (by the Apostles orally THEN written down)

    BECAUSE the oral preaching came first.

    Show me exactly when and where (from history with an extant example) the first canon of the bible appeared without the deuterocanonical books and where such a bible lists its own canon. Remember that the Jamnian Council was compiled by the Jewish magisterium that you (correctly) ignore when they produced the mishnah. Show this outside of the canon compiled by the Catholic Councils which settled the Canon (a process) of Rome 382; Hippo 393; Carthage 397; Nicea II 797; Florence 1442; Trent 1546.

    Also for a good faith discussion you could have skipped the “cult” and pagan and Mormon references because they are incorrect. Catholics are totally Christian and have the correct understanding and belief in the Trinity - in fact we were martyred and killed defending the Nicene Creed that first laid out the doctrine.

  • How to Go to Heaven

    07/22/2015 8:24:37 AM PDT · 388 of 713
    stonehouse01 to Mad Dawg

    “..that is where my interest lies...”

    Mine too! Let me know if you find a forum that is like that - or maybe it is a forum that will have to wait for the New Jerusalem.

  • How to Go to Heaven

    07/22/2015 7:27:57 AM PDT · 379 of 713
    stonehouse01 to Mom MD

    “...speak the truth in love...”

    The problem is posts such as #50 that appear very quickly and are not speaking the “Truth in Love”.

    The problem is not disagreement in and of itself.

    It is obvious when the bashing starts as it speaks for itself. Most people inherently “get” the difference in nuance between snark and honest doctrinal discussion.

    Most understand and recognize the difference at once when they experience it or dish it out.

  • How to Go to Heaven

    07/22/2015 6:48:11 AM PDT · 370 of 713
    stonehouse01 to MayflowerMadam

    “...told us many times they don’t believe the Bible...”

    Anecdotal information, and false as well, even it was a priest who said it.

    Every single Catholic doctrine is backed up by scriptural proof - every single one. Just read for example St. Thomas Aquinas who ALWAYS cites scripture to back up his (Catholic) positions. Not one statement in the Catechism is made without a scriptural back-up - not one. Procure an actual copy, read it, look up the biblical cross-references in the footnotes, and then let me know how unscriptural we are.

    The idea that Catholics don’t read and understand Scripture is a myth used by Proetestants to vilify us.

  • How to Go to Heaven

    07/22/2015 6:25:04 AM PDT · 355 of 713
    stonehouse01 to Mad Dawg

    “...It’s a different, and far more vexatious, question to see if we have understood the texts correctly...”

    Well Said!! This is the essential issue on most of these threads that end up in fruitless “debate”. Scripture proof texts are requested from Catholics to back up our position; we provide them and they are simply ignored - re- provided, ignored; asked for, provided, ignored, and asked for again as if they hadn’t been provided!

    The issue at hand IS interpretation as you rightly point out, not lack of Catholic proof texts, which is the implication when scripture is requested. Scripture is always provided by one or another of the Catholic apologists here and then always ignored if another (perfectly reasonable) interpretation is presented that is not agreed with. The disgreement is automatic and based upon opinion of interpretation alone.

    Thank you for being a voice of reason here.

    One last thing - the entire article that was posted is full of scripture to back up its position and yet scripture is requested by the responders to the article as if the article contained none. (not directed towards you - just pointing out the obvious in a general sense)

  • How to Go to Heaven

    07/22/2015 5:32:56 AM PDT · 340 of 713
    stonehouse01 to Tax-chick

    “...wouldn’t generate conflict?...’

    I can’t speak for anyone else, of course, yet it would seem that we can all feel free to post even controversial topics that will generate civil debate and even heated rhetoric; the problem is posts such as #50 that are pure sarcasm, snark and have nothing to do with honest discussion. That seems to be the actual issue.

  • St. Thomas Aquinas On Christ’s Temptation

    07/21/2015 1:14:24 PM PDT · 16 of 22
    stonehouse01 to daniel1212

    “...when He began to address an entire nation then He commanded and inspired His word to be written”.

    Interesting. For consideration:

    Israel was an entire nation that received instruction directly from God orally through Moses. Some of this was written down but the Oral Torah was passed down orally for many generations. The written law and the Oral Torah were equally important and parallel to each other.

    Also I am not aware of anywhere in the NT that Jesus instructed his disciples to write things down. 2 John 12 in fact speaking face to face and preaching was the preferred method of teaching in those illiterate times.

    A stong Oral Law together with the Written Law was the system of the Jewish people.

    Why would the early Jews who became the very first Christians suddenly change this concept to only written? The Sermon on the Mount refers to Oral Tradition in the section on lust as well as prayer. Jesus had no problem using Oral Tradition as a source -

  • St. Thomas Aquinas On Christ’s Temptation

    07/21/2015 8:05:42 AM PDT · 11 of 22
    stonehouse01 to daniel1212; markomalley

    “...the Lord Himself established His Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.”

    Not necessarily. An equally valid position (from the bible) says that He established His Truth claims directly from His Father, or to put it another way, His power comes straight from God the Father without the need of a “scripture middleman”.

    John 13:3

    Matthew 28:18

    John 20:21

    On topic:

    This is an excellent article and thanks for posting:

    “It is disconcerting that there is a veritable army of modern exegetes who use reductive modern critical methods of interpretation to conclude that events like the temptation never happned”

    These modern exegetes also try to explain away the miracles.

    It is actually very very dangerous even more than simply disconcerting.

    St. Thomas Aquinas ora pro nobis.

    Why do these modern scripture scholars wish to deconstruct the bible and try to “prove” there were no miracles?

    The magisterium has always taught since the Apostles themselves that God is the principle author of the bible and because the Trinity is Truth itself (John 14:6) and cannot teach anything untrue, the bible is free from error in everything that it asserts to be true.

    CCC 101-14

    Modern scripture exegesis is suspect, to put it mildly.

    As St. Thomas Aquinas states: Hebrews 4:15 proves the temptation happened beyond doubt.

  • St. Thomas Aquinas On Christ’s Temptation

    07/21/2015 6:18:13 AM PDT · 7 of 22
    stonehouse01 to BlueDragon

    “...invoked Scripture...both understood its supreme authority...”

    Jesus Himself is the Supreme Authority.

  • Something is coming (Editorial)

    07/21/2015 5:46:19 AM PDT · 267 of 365
    stonehouse01 to ez

    “...foxes...”

    Interesting post about the American Indian belief that sighting a fox portends change.

    I have sighted 3 foxes wtihin the last 3 months. Two were alive and well and one road kill. I live in the upper mid Hudson river valley where there are fox, but they are very shy and the two I saw in broad daylight (near woods) were unusual. They were red fox.

    I am over 50 and have never seen so many fox around - maybe 2 or 3 prior to that for my whole life.

    I am not ready to say that it was a portent, but I did find it interesting.

  • The Dreadful Duty of Forgiveness

    07/20/2015 1:01:08 PM PDT · 55 of 81
    stonehouse01 to ravenwolf

    “... forgiveness is one of the works... Hate to mention that dirty word works which has nothing to do with religious rituals which has given works a bad name”

    Well said - forgiveness is an example of a work. This is exactly what a work is.

    Works need not have a bad name for any Christian because the concept that you stated above is the interpretation that all Christians give to works - a ritual is not considered a “work”.

  • Prayers Needed

    07/20/2015 5:30:06 AM PDT · 79 of 83
    stonehouse01 to Grateful2God

    I will add you to my next rosary and will pray for you in the Adoration Chapel. Your posts have often given me fortitude and inspiration.

  • [The] Spanish Inquisition

    07/19/2015 5:04:09 AM PDT · 72 of 86
    stonehouse01 to roamer_1

    “...Protestants did not do so for nearly millenia...”

    This statement is not supported by actual history.

    The Arians murdered St. Paul of Constantinople circa 350 A.D. for his adherence to the correct understanding of the Trinity. The Arians were protestants who did not believe in the Trinity - they were responsible for many persecutions and cruelty against the early Christians who held onto the correct doctrine (the Catholics) handed down from the Apostles.

    Medivial peasants on both sides were unlearned peasants who were prone to viciousness and violence. Virtually none could read.

    Almost everyone was illiterate. Research the sack of Rome in 1527; Protestants had no qualms pillaging and burning with the rest.

    St. Melletius ora pro nobis

  • Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database

    07/18/2015 4:14:28 PM PDT · 85 of 180
    stonehouse01 to Lurkina.n.Learnin

    LOL

  • Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database

    07/18/2015 4:13:44 PM PDT · 83 of 180
    stonehouse01 to Mustangman

    Post of the day! Very well said.

  • [The] Spanish Inquisition

    07/18/2015 12:34:36 PM PDT · 40 of 86
    stonehouse01 to roamer_1

    The protestants were vicious to the Catholics in St. Elizabeth’s England (1585 Penal Laws and the killing of priests) and the Puritans and other protestants persecuted (including the burning of Churches) Catholics in the New World.

    Can we talk about the deliberate starvation of 1.5 million Catholic Irish at the hands of the British protestants?

    These sad eras are due to original sin and its effects on all of mankind - Catholics are no worse than Protestants and all are subject to original sin.

    St. Margaret Clitherow ora pro nobis

  • Prayers for sitetest - update at 116, 121

    07/13/2015 6:52:58 AM PDT · 12 of 125
    stonehouse01 to sitetest

    I will add you to my prayer list.

  • Fordham University Theology Department Chairman Marries Another Man

    07/09/2015 12:35:14 PM PDT · 114 of 115
    stonehouse01 to CynicalBear

    Revelation 2:6 ... the deeds of the Nicolaites ...

    The Nicolaites weren’t Catholic.

    In ancient antiquity there was no such sect as the “Nicolaitan”. Outside of the Apocalypse, biblical and secular history has no reference to such a group. They are a mystical “type” found in the Apocalypse alone and they are a reference to the people who follow Balaam; Apocalypse 2:14 and 15

    Balaam is the anti Christ - Destroyer of the People (of God). The Nicolaites and the Balaamites were one and the same and not a true group but were everyone who broke the covenant and worshipped false gods, and didn’t follow the commandments.

    The Nicolaitans/Balaamites are not sects that bore those names in early times; they are the followers of the sin of Balaam in the Old Testament; the sins of fornication and the flesh. Numbers 25: 1-3

    Actual Nicolaitans did come later (2nd century) They were antinomian gnostics not Catholics. (Clement of Aledandria and Tertullian) These later “Nicolaitans” took their name from the Apocalypse, not the other way around. They were libertines who felt free to sin because they were ‘saved”.

  • Fordham University Theology Department Chairman Marries Another Man

    07/09/2015 7:02:46 AM PDT · 111 of 115
    stonehouse01 to CynicalBear

    “...Of course he does...”

    The pope and the entire Catholic Church live rent free in some people’s heads. Some churches are set up specificially to (attempt to) discredit the teachings of the Church.

    The Catholic Chruch and her teachings live rent free in the heads of entire church so called -denominations because that is their sole raison d’etre.

  • Fordham University Theology Department Chairman Marries Another Man

    07/09/2015 6:58:07 AM PDT · 110 of 115
    stonehouse01 to metmom

    “God blessed sex. The Catholic church vilifies it...”

    Completely, 100% wrong statement about the Church’s teaching.

    See CCC 1616 which sets forth (in part) the Church’s actual teaching on marriage based on:

    Ephesians 5:25-26,31-32; Genesis 2:24.

    For non catholics to actually understand what the Church’s full teaching about marriage consists of - the entire Article 7 “The Sacrament of Matrimony” would be worthwhile. Also be sure to look up all of the scripture proofs that the teachings are based upon.

    God did indeed bless sex and the sacrament of matrimony is the manifestation of this blessing. (man and woman only, of course!)

    The Church also teaches that some are called to chastity, a vocation that is actually superior to marriage (Isaiah 56-3, Rev.14,4; Matthew 19:10-12 and more). This is where Martin Luther went off the rails, breaking his own vow of chastity.

    Our Lord Himself was chaste.

  • Mother Miriam's Heart for the Family and Church (former Jew & Evangelical)

    07/07/2015 8:15:25 AM PDT · 14 of 35
    stonehouse01 to Zionist Conspirator

    “..Catholics scream bloody murder...”

    Please prove this statement with an actual post # reference.

  • Fordham University Theology Department Chairman Marries Another Man

    07/07/2015 7:05:18 AM PDT · 52 of 115
    stonehouse01 to VermiciousKnid; BlackElk

    Thank you for taking the time to reply in detail and all the advice is excellent and will be taken seriously on our daughter’s search.

  • Fordham University Theology Department Chairman Marries Another Man

    07/06/2015 4:09:12 AM PDT · 50 of 115
    stonehouse01 to GreyFriar; vladimir998

    “...NOT see Luther doing a secular list...”

    I just read a book about Luther and I would see him doing such a list. Luther became very eccentric as his life progressed; especially in the areas of chastity and marriage. This included urging his brother Augustinian monks to abandon their vows, and vilifying chastity. He really got weird about sexual matters.

  • Fordham University Theology Department Chairman Marries Another Man

    07/06/2015 4:04:28 AM PDT · 49 of 115
    stonehouse01 to Wallace T.

    Thank you, I will definitely do this. We also have a close family friend who is a Jesuit who is definitely conservative, but although he would never say it, we sense that he feels somewhat alone among his fellow liberal Jesuits and as he is elderly this can’t be easy.

  • Fordham University Theology Department Chairman Marries Another Man

    07/05/2015 6:04:43 AM PDT · 41 of 115
    stonehouse01 to stonehouse01

    Oepration = Operation sorry for typo

  • Fordham University Theology Department Chairman Marries Another Man

    07/05/2015 6:03:20 AM PDT · 40 of 115
    stonehouse01 to BlackElk

    Our youngest daughter (rising senior in high school) wanted to go to Fordham and we visited recently. This is very disappointing news about the Jesuits. She really liked Fordham. It is out of our price range anyway, but how awful this is.

    Thank you for your work defending the Oepration Rescue defendants.

    This is the same order that raised up saints such as Bellarmine and Jogues - this is very upsetting news.

    St. Ignatius Loyola ora pro nobis

  • Evangelizing Evangelicals – Why Pope Francis Loves to Meet with Charismatic Movements

    07/05/2015 4:37:54 AM PDT · 13 of 17
    stonehouse01 to Old Yeller

    No I do not. I never drink from the cup. Communion is perfectly valid under the one species, and it was actually Martin Luther who advocated both species. It was Vatican II who later changed the liturgy to make it closer to the Protestant version. I really don’t know why it was so important (what the underlying agneda really is) to Martin Luther to change this, and for the Vatican II council to de sacralize and protestantize the mass - maybe someone on here knows?

    I agree with you that it is terrible and ought be done away with as well.

  • Evangelizing Evangelicals – Why Pope Francis Loves to Meet with Charismatic Movements

    07/04/2015 3:11:12 PM PDT · 10 of 17
    stonehouse01 to Bigg Red

    Thanks for the input and advice. I do sometimes ty the little wave apporach and it is very good avice - especially since I am handicapped in the right hand from an amputation as a result of a burn injury; I still feel sheepish though.

    More importantly, as you point out - it doesn’t feel right liturgically at all. It just seems to be a wierd interruption of the proper flow of the mass.

    That is why I prefer the Latin - peace and no anxiety for me prior to the peace sign. I suppose the anxiety is also related to my injury - but - at any rate, I do appreciate your thoughts.

  • Evangelizing Evangelicals – Why Pope Francis Loves to Meet with Charismatic Movements

    07/04/2015 8:27:45 AM PDT · 6 of 17
    stonehouse01 to Bigg Red

    “...I keep hoping the “sign of peace” will be eliminated...”

    LOL!! Me too!! I really hate the sign of peace and consider it to be a germ swap.

    The peace that comes from Christ comes from the Holy Spirit and is unrelated to a big loud greeting/handshake during mass.

    I am happy to hear that I am not alone in my dislike of this “peace” circus that ought to have been consigned to the dustbin of history long ago along with the hippie beads and go go boots.

    Happy 4th!

  • Chairman of Fordham’s theology department marries another man

    07/03/2015 7:28:21 AM PDT · 11 of 16
    stonehouse01 to markomalley

    Uh Oh. My rising senior daughter has visited Fordham and wants to go there (too steep a price for us anyway, most likely.)

    We will have to rethink that one - thanks for posting.

  • Awesome or Awful? A Reflection on the Mosaic of Christ in Majesty at the Basilica in Washington

    07/03/2015 7:17:32 AM PDT · 45 of 46
    stonehouse01 to sitetest

    “..I went to CUA...”

    We will be visiting CUA this summer with our rising senior daughter who is considering it for college. I love the mosaic/icon/image picture also. I have been to the basilica, although it was probably over 10 years ago so don’t specifically remember this, but I do recollect the general beauty and sacred feel of the basilica.

    Do you know if CUA is conservative/less liberal at all? We are hoping ...

  • The Almost Unbelievable Account of How the Family Synod Was Almost Hijacked by an Anti-Family Agenda

    07/03/2015 7:05:30 AM PDT · 12 of 12
    stonehouse01 to stonehouse01

    syniod = synod

  • The Almost Unbelievable Account of How the Family Synod Was Almost Hijacked by an Anti-Family Agenda

    07/03/2015 7:03:28 AM PDT · 11 of 12
    stonehouse01 to tjd1454

    Thanks for the reply. A doctorate from Marquette in Theology ... excellent and I am a bit envious. (in a good way) I took some undergrad courses in theology (required) for my B.A. in English literature many years ago and loved studying theology. This was at St. Bonaventure. I always wanted to pursue a post graduate degree in theology, however marriage and raising daughters intervened. All four daughters (3 20 somethings and one rising senior) have retained their faith which is not that easy to do, so I must have been able to impart some level of Truth to them so that is more important (in God’s will for me).

    Our youngest daughter, a rising senior in high school, visited Fordham and absolutely loved it. We became family friends with a Jesuit who was serving for a while at the Martyrs Shrine in Auriesville; he lives now at Fordham for retirement.

    My daughter will also be visiting Loyola (Baltimore) and St. Joe’s Philadelphia.

    This is the key (as you state); we can really get along (Catholics and non) when it can be seen that the Nicene Creed is our friend and unifier and we are not the evil whore of Babylon. This does not mean that non catholics would have to believe every line of it either - it just means that we do have a common starting point and we should not be in scriptural wars. (this not directed at you personally, of course - general) This would not preclude a friendly, lively and civil discourse at times on the finer points of doctrine which can be very worthwhile, even heated.

    The country IS heading toward paganism (indeed we are already there) and we in the Christian remnant are going to have to be a witness of love and charity together to face the onslaught of hate and persecutions that are inevitable.

    P.S. I have great respect for the authentic Jesuit charism before the dissidents took the order into such a liberal morass; The Spiritual Exercises are fabulous and one does not need to be exclusively Catholic to benefit from them. (I am sure you know this.) Also St. Bellarmine is a favorite of mine who wrote before (some of) the Jesuits began going off the rails.

    On topic: I will pray for Pope Francis that he sticks to doctrine and stays away from liberal causes and stays the course on the true Catholic doctrines on marriage for the upcoming syniod. Catholics have stayed strong on marriage when some protestants caved (Henry VIII, divorce, birth control). Let us hope we can hold the line again. Most important I am praying that the synod leaders don’t come out with watered down, ambiguous sounding documents.

    Sorry this is long.

  • The Gospel for Roman Catholics

    07/02/2015 6:06:57 AM PDT · 162 of 1,189
    stonehouse01 to RnMomof7

    “...it is a sacrifice that never perfects anyone...”

    Of course it doesn’t perfect anyone!

    It is not MEANT to perfect anyone and that is not the purpose of the mass!!! Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross does the perfecting. Why would anyone teach otherwise?

    The mass is a MEMORIAL sacrifice. “Do this in MEMORY” of me. This is per the instruction of scripture. 1 Corinthians 23-26 We remember “in the Spirit” in order to worship Jesus in gratitude for his work on the cross for us.

    The mass simultaneously takes us in mystical time to the eucharist in heaven and the one that already occurred here on the cross. Hebrews 10:12 It is a mystical time travel that allows us to be on calvary with Jesus.

    The Hebrew word anamnasis that is used in the original has the meaning in Hebrew of actually bringing the past together into/with the present.

    We become present at the actual cross “in the Spirit (the Holy Spirit).

    A.D. Robles is clueless about what Catholicism actually teaches; why would we listen to his interpretation/ attempt to exlain away Catholicism?

    Robles completely misses the point that the mass is not a means of perfection, it is a means of WORSHIP as instructed in the bible. The mass IS perfection in the sense that the Lord’s death on the cross was perfect (Hebrews 10:12) and we are there again, but the mass accomplishes the process of taking us there again who weren’t present at the time; it allows us to be there.

  • Are Key Republican Leaders in D.C. Being Blackmailed?

    07/01/2015 4:46:12 AM PDT · 24 of 53
    stonehouse01 to cotton1706

    I am suspicious as well. Could those at the top be this destructive on their own? Maybe, but look at Hastert, for example ... It can and does happen (blackmail, that is).

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    06/30/2015 5:18:05 AM PDT · 154 of 306
    stonehouse01 to RnMomof7

    No. The doctrine of the Trinity is proof.

    The canon of scripture of the New Testament is proof:

    The early bible was oral. The apostles were dead when the early canon was being settled; the apostolic successors HAD to be relied upon for the information to even be considered as to what was to comprise the gospels and epistles. There was plenty of apocrypha out there being circulated. How does one know Matthew wrote Matthew, for example? (Sacred) Oral Tradition that was handed on infallibly settled these questions. If, otherwise, the today’s bible would be under question - maybe it contains apocrypha. ONE WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO KNOW FOR SURE.

    Why is C. Michael Patton’s (wrong) interpretation more authoritative than St. Paul himself, who specifically instructed the Thessalonians as follows:

    2 Thessalonians 2:14:

    Therefore brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned whether by word or by our epistle.

    The traditions that the early Christians were specifically told were worthless and not to be followed were the manmade pharisaical customs: NOT the sacred traditions handed down by the apostles first in oral form and then later written down.

    The bible’s seed form was verbal in its very nature and HAD to be passed down at first by the use of speech, not paper.

  • The Almost Unbelievable Account of How the Family Synod Was Almost Hijacked by an Anti-Family Agenda

    06/30/2015 4:31:50 AM PDT · 8 of 12
    stonehouse01 to tjd1454

    Amen. Your good will kind spirit is very much appreciated here.

  • Why I am not Protestant (Non-Denominational, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc)

    06/29/2015 6:40:21 AM PDT · 289 of 330
    stonehouse01 to MHGinTN

    “...What a twisted way to say something! ...it is a hard saying for a catholic to comprehend...”

    It is not twisted to state that God would not have kept people completely ignorant of the way to salvation until Luther came along and got rid of the sacraments and found justification by faith alone in his personal version of the bible that he translated into German with errors.

    This a clear declaration of fact due to God’s nature as all good: God is merciful and just and it would be against His nature to withhold the Truth of salvation for all of those years. The early Christians writings clearly refer to the sacraments.

    Luther added the words “alone” to his personal bible translation in Romans 3:28.

    He freely admits that he did so: “If your papist annoys you with that word (alone) tell him Martin Luther will have it so”

    Clearly Martin Luther felt himself to be infallible.

    This pertains to this discussion and Luther must be brought into it because the error rapidly multiplied and ended up in the Tyndale bible. The Tyndale bible used Martin Luther’s bible as a template which in turn was the precursor to the KJV (mis) translation and the root cause of the widespread heretical doctrine of once saved always saved.

    This was the seed of the false traditional protestant doctrine of faith alone that is being handed on to this day.

    These are historical facts that have not been twisted. It is on the internet if one searches for Church history and avoids the hate and error filled anti catholic websites that perpetuate propaganda.

    “God has kept no man from the Truth the Catholic Church not so much.”

    The Catholic Church does not withhold Truth. One only has to obtain a Catechism of the Catholic Church and read it to see that the Truth is not withheld. Buy one and read it and see if any Truth is withheld, including all the scripture references that uphold the doctrines.

    “hard for a catholic to comprehend...”

    The Church teaches assurance of salvation as well, if one is a state of grace, so the concept is actually not difficult at all for a Catholic to comprehend.

    “Born from above” is baptism. It is the actual water that regenerates from the power of the Holy Spirit (John 3:5) when the baptism is done in the name of the Trinity. The water referred to is NOT amniotic fluid. Nowhere in the entire Greek lexicon of the New Testament is water (hudor) ever referred to as amniotic fluid. Water is water. Also see Acts 2:38 and 22:16

    Baptism is the assurance for Catholics that they will be saved and placed in a state of grace.

    This grace can be lost by the commission of a heinous act of sin. A murderer, rapist or worse is able to sin and state that he has Faith and still goes straight to heaven?

    The ten commandments and the instructions found in the beatitudes are the laws of the New Covenant that must be obeyed. Matthew 25:41 clearly states what happens to those who ignore the instructions in Matthew 5:31-46

    This is absurd and contradicts the scripture that only the perfect are in heaven, and be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect. Matthew 5:48

    This concept of once saved always saved is actually dangerous because it gives a man license to sin:

    Martin Luther: “Sin and sin boldly ... Sin cannot destroy in us the kingdom of the Lamb, even if we should fornicate or murder a million times a day.”

    This is not twisting or “hard for Catholics to comprehend”. This is the actual correct Catholic position without the distorted thinking that accompanies the “explained” (wrongly) version of Catholicism that non Catholics are taught.

  • Why I am not Protestant (Non-Denominational, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc)

    06/28/2015 5:50:20 AM PDT · 99 of 330
    stonehouse01 to Morgana

    Thanks for posting and I will pray for fortitude for you as you will need spiritual armor since you almost certainly will come under attack. There is a double standard on these threads:

    It is OK for anti-catholics to post polemics - one poster puts up anti catholic propaganda at least twice a week or more, and that is considered OK. But God forbid a Catholic should put up an article defending and explaining the Church’s actual doctrine based on scripture because that is considered to be hatred; in fact, particularly if it contains scripture, because only anti catholics feel justified to quote scripture since they have been taught and actually believe the absurd lie that Catholics are “unscriptural”. This occurs even though the Catholic explanation does not contain any vicious language or ad hominem attacks.

    Therein lies the complete lack of civil discourse and conversation on these topics. The moderation rules ought to be changed: individual name-calling and attack is not allowed (deo gratias or things would be worse); group name calling should be banned as well.

    “Cross talk” where groups are talked about (mocked and derided which is actually not Christian and proscribed in the bible) in a side conversation on the thread needs to be banned also; I have read that this type of “cross talk” is forbidden at twelve step meetings because it is destructive and harmful and does nothing to promote healing. These RF threads ought to have a similar rule instituted.

    At any rate, I will pray for this thread.

    On topic:

    Not well known but true, is the fact that Martin Luther made up his own bible translation for the Germans (mostly FROM the Vulgate, the Catholic canon) pretty much as he pleased; he “found” the entire doctrines of sola fida and sola scriptura, etc. using just one or two verses; other scripture he considered “obscure”, nullifying his own “all scripture is useful” premise.

    Somehow God kept Christians from the “correct” (i.e. no sacraments) understanding if the the Truth for 1500 years!

    St. Irenaeus ora pro nobis

    Sts. Peter and Paul; ora pro nobis

    I realize that this post contains the “cross talk” that I believe ought to be banned - however in order to solve the problem it has to be defined before it can be done away with, and that was the intent here.

  • Questioning Same-Sex "Marriage?" - Blame the leaders of the Catholic Church!

    06/28/2015 5:05:04 AM PDT · 10 of 52
    stonehouse01 to ebb tide

    Thanks for posting. This is an excellent article worth reading.

  • Our Lady of Good Success (a prophecy that is materializing) [Catholic Caucus]

    06/27/2015 3:13:47 PM PDT · 31 of 44
    stonehouse01 to GBA

    Thank you for sharing. “...The Eucharist and Communion are as the Church believes and teaches...”

    Just a suggestion: I have found a 24/7 Adoration Chapel for prayer that helps me a lot. If you have one near you, praying there is an ideal place for peace, discernment and strength to deal with the world’s darkness that as you state correctly is getting more insane by the day.

    I will add you to my rosary - I have prayed during my time in the Adoration Chapel for all Freepers to make their way to the Truth and I am reasonably certain that other Freepers are doing the same.

    Godspeed for the journey.

  • Our Lady of Good Success (a prophecy that is materializing) [Catholic Caucus]

    06/27/2015 6:50:23 AM PDT · 6 of 44
    stonehouse01 to NYer

    Thank you NYer. I had heard of Our Lady of Good Success but hadn’t known how on target the prophecies are/were.

    The original statue that is to be found at the time of the restoration of the Church; is that statue waiting to be found? I wasn’t clear on what was meant.

  • 6 Things Jimmy Akin Won’t Tell You about the Pope’s New Encyclical

    06/24/2015 7:19:45 AM PDT · 125 of 244
    stonehouse01 to daniel1212

    “...You are attributing the type/shadow of Eliakim to Peter instead of Christ”?

    I am not attributing this - this is the correct meaning and self evident by the plain meaning of the scripture passage.

    Apocalypse 3:7; Jesus is clearly the holder of the key of David (”he that hath the key of David ...”)

    Luke 1:32-33 Jesus IS the heir to the throne, thus He is the king.

    In Isaiah 22, Eliakim holds the key FOR his master, the King.

    In biblical tradition, the servant of the household who holds the keys carries DYNASTIC authority with the power of succession.

    Peter identifies Christ as the King (messiah).

    Christ as King uses His authority to NOW give the keys to Peter as steward symbolizing authority to bind and loose.

    Rabbinical tradition contains the authority of determining who has the power of binding and loosing. (what is permitted and what is forbidden) so this concept was very familiar to Peter and the apostles who witnessed this and they knew exactly that the Lord had given special authority to Peter.

    The 1906 Jewish encyclopedia notes that the expression “to bind the key upon his shoulder denotes POSSESSION of office. (Isaiah 22:22) Offices have successors. The key as a symbol of authority is also met with in the Talmud.

    “There is no special sense in which binding and loosing is ascribed uniquely to Peter”.

    Incorrect:

    The binding and loosing IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY unique to Peter because THE POWER WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY JESUS THE KING, HIMSELF. That is why it is unique.

    This is not due to RC’s reading into the text - it is due to a logical reading of the text.

    The early Church recognized the primacy of the Office of Peter. The letter (extant) of Pope Clement the 1st, writing an Epistle to the Corinthians, he as Bishop of Rome with particular authority gives them clear doctrinal instructions. This was done in the 1st century, showing the succession of this thought from the beginning. He also references the Alexandrian canon of the OT, books that Luther threw out.

    On Topic:

    This Pope shold have stuck to doctrine. He has jumped the shark by believing in fake climate change; but the encyclical is NOT an ex Cathedra pronouncement on faith and morals that is required belief.

    He upholds that abortion is wrong, and Genesis does tell us to be steward’s of God’s creation.

    I wish he had stuck to Faith and morals, but it doesn’t prove that the Chair of Peter had no succession.

    He wrote iin

  • 6 Things Jimmy Akin Won’t Tell You about the Pope’s New Encyclical

    06/23/2015 10:15:33 AM PDT · 57 of 244
    stonehouse01 to Iscool; St_Thomas_Aquinas

    “...There is only one Holy Father and it ain’t no faker in your Church...”

    Agreed - there is only one Holy Father and no one said otherwise. (Matthew 6:9)

    Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven by Jesus himself in Matthew 16:19. The keys serve a similar function as those given to the steward/vice regent in Isaiah 22.

    St. Peter did not become God the Father. No one thinks this.

    Catholics use the entire bible as a cross reference to understand the context of a verse; they do not just pick verses out.

  • 6 Things Jimmy Akin Won’t Tell You about the Pope’s New Encyclical

    06/23/2015 7:41:56 AM PDT · 43 of 244
    stonehouse01 to St_Thomas_Aquinas

    “See Isaiah 22”

    Excellent advice!!

    I recently did a bit of research on the Keys myelf and also found the Isaiah 22 passage that Jesus references when giving Peter teh keyss. This is very important to understanding the papacy; that it is a stewardship/Prime Minister office that is totally scriptural.

  • Prayer Request

    06/23/2015 5:15:24 AM PDT · 110 of 123
    stonehouse01 to null and void

    I will add this intention to my prayers for healing for Shimmer1

  • The First 10 Popes of the Catholic Church

    06/22/2015 9:24:53 AM PDT · 245 of 299
    stonehouse01 to The_Republic_Of_Maine

    “...RC wasn’t around until Constantine...”

    The persecuted underground (prior to Constantine) and the official state Church that emerged after Constantine are the same Church.

    The eucharist which can only be present in the Catholic Church, including the Orthodox branch of the Church because since Christ they have also always had a valid eucharist, was beyond doubt referenced as early as circa 110 A.D. by St. Ignatius’ epistle to the Philadelphians:

    “Take heed then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of his blood; one altar; as there is one bishop ...”

    Because the underground Christians beleived in the real presence during the eucharist (and all of the sacraments) prior to Constantine, by definition it could not have been the same Church (group of early Christians) as those who later deleted the eucharist and the sacraments.

    Also: St. Justin Martyr, writing in the 150 A.D. time period well before Constantine, chastised and condemned Mithraism:

    “...Wicked demons have imitated (imitated the “food eucharized through the word of prayer that is from Him, from which our blood and flesh are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who became incarnate) in the mysteries of Mithra ...”
    If an early underground church that DID NOT celebrate the eucharist and reemerged in the 1500’s did exist, it would have had to have happened prior to the writings of St. Ignatius, St. Justin Martyr, and of couse the Acts themselves.

    The fact that Holy Communion was preserved before Constantine, shows a consistent tradition being preserved, not a new church being formed.

    Both the Greek and the Latin Church recognize these historical truths, not simply the “evil RC’s”.

    The five sects condemned by Constantine were NOT “original Christians”; their beliefs were heretical even by the modern protestant standards:

    For example - the Paulians were not from St. Paul, but a deceiver named Paul of Samosa who like Mohammed, did not believe in Christ’s divinity but taught that He was a mere man.

  • The First 10 Popes of the Catholic Church

    06/21/2015 5:01:59 AM PDT · 138 of 299
    stonehouse01 to rwa265; Mrs. Don-o

    Also for general consideration:

    In Matthew 16:18 when Jesus is in the process of giving the keys to Peter, He is quoting from Isaiah 22:22.

    The Isaiah passage is about the story of the succession of the office of Prime Minister. The Prime Minsiter was being fired and Eliakim was being installed as the new Prime Minister. The King remained the King, and the passing of the keys did not affect the King’s position as King.

    However, this King NEEDED A STEWARD/PRIME MINISTER DURING HIS TIME AWAY.

    In Matthew 19, Jesus declares that he will give Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus is the King of Heaven; he gave the keys to Peter to designate that Peter is to be entrusted with the authority to govern the Church on earth as a Prime Minister or steward in Jesus’ physical absence.

    The disciples who were present at the time were well versed in scripture and knew exactly the mssion and reference that Jesus was referring to in scripture.

    Kepha in Aramaic means rock and the “Greek means pebble” attempt to explain away the correct meaning of the passage is weak to the point of silliness.

    From Isaiah 22: 19:24:

    “...he (Eliakim) shall be a FATHER to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the the House of Judah...”

    He is even to be called father - (Pope = father in Latin)

    Remember that Our Lord NEVER quoted scripture without a serious reason to elucidate meaning behind the quote.