- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,910
- 3,646
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
I'm with you on that first...Fire Francis and torpedo Trent and we’ll talk.
Upvote
0
I'm with you on that first...Fire Francis and torpedo Trent and we’ll talk.
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Psalm 51:5Infants don't need to repent, because they've nothing yet to repent of. They are humble and simply believe God. In order for us to receive the Kingdom of God, we must convert and become as they already are - believing and humble. We should not hinder our babies, who by their humility are already predisposed to believe God, from growing up in the ways taught by their Lord and Savior.
Thank you, we know this Psalm by heart. But being conceived and born into a sinful world does not make one guilty of sin, no. You were conceived and born into a world that is not right, and afflicted damage on you as you grew and developed within it. That damage led to your becoming guilty of sinful thoughts, feelings, and actions while you matured. You were not born guilty of any intentional rebellion against the goodness of God, and by the grace of God, you are also able to avoid sinning, even as a child.Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Psalm 51:5
The sects in the Catholic Church have, really, nothing to do with the faith. They're all over worldly issues.Once again you resort posting propaganda. As told you before, comparing one church with whatever is relegated as Protestantism is not a valid comparison, nor is the Scriptural basis for what one believes based on official paper professions. Instead, as James said, "I will shew thee my faith by my works," (James 2:18) and the Lord said "by their fruits ye shall know them," Mt. 7:20) and the reality is that trad. evangelicals have consistently testified to being far more unified in basic beliefs (and thus opposed by both liberals and trad. Caths alike) in word and deed than Catholics.
Behind the veneer of unity Catholicism exists in schism and sects, even more so with V2 and other modernist contradictions and now Frank the so-called "hippie pope." And rather than the RC magisterium effecting unity, as one poster wryly observed,
Nice opinion.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, Against The Grain
Also, Partial List Of Divergent Beliefs Between Catholics
- Within official teachings:
- Where unbaptized babies go if and when they die.
There is no such official teaching. Neither the Earth nor the sun is the center of the universe.[*]Geocentricity or Heliocentricity
Well, of course it did. Otherwise, it would have been Trent II and III, not Vatican I and II.[*]Whether Trent closed the canon or not
There is no denying they are infallible.[*]Whether canonizations are or always infallible.
This is not a matter of faith. The world wants to bicker, but the Church doesn't.[*]Who all the [so-called] “church fathers” are.
Same thing. The Church knows what they meant.[*]What the church Fathers meant in many cases.
Again, a worldly concern.[*]How many Scripture verses have been infallibly or officially interpreted.
The Church knows. Just because it may not be written means nothing[*]What multitudes of Scripture verses surely mean.
No doubt scripture is inerrant. What's at question, to the world, is what constitutes God's Word.[*]The meaning and scope of the inerrancy of Scripture (“for our salvation” or more).
Such as?[*]The official immutable position on many theological issues.
Human freedom is God-given. God uses our imperfection to perfect His creation.[*]The reconciliation of the efficacy of grace with human freedom.
Huh? Sacred Tradition is part of God's Word.[*]The relationship between Scripture and Tradition: partim-partim or not.
Why does the world care about this stuff?[*]How many infallible teachings there are, and what they all are
Again, why does the world care?[*]What magisterial level multitudes of teachings belong to, and thus the manner of assent required.
Huh?[*]What required assent to non-infallible official teachings all entails.
Huh?[*]The meaning of official Catholic teaching to varying degrees.
Depends on how you define "the Church". We define it as "all baptized Christians". Are Protestants lost? We leave that to God.[*]How to reconcile Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Lumen Gentium,and if former Catholics who die as faithful evangelical-type Protestants are lost.
Were the anathemas of Trent ratified by the Pope?[*]Whether the anathemas of Trent apply to Protestants today and what they entail.
No, but an anti-pope can.[*]Whether or not a pope can be deposed.
When the bishops say it is ensured, we believe it.[*]How many bishops are necessary for this Collegial infallibility to be ensured?
I don't think there's a question about this. The doctrine doesn't state one way or the other.[*]Whether the Virgin Mary died and then was assumed or whether she was assumed before death
The Church didn't, though some in the Church did.[*]Whether Roman Catholicism promoted slavery
Thus, based upon facts and the Biblical criteria for determining belief, the RCC cannot be one in belief, while as for being the one true NT church, Catholic distinctives are simply not manifest in the the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
- Partial List Of Implicitly Sanctioned Divergent Beliefs Between Catholics outside official teachings.
- Partial List Of Divergent Beliefs Between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox
Therefore the Catholic may argue that in any conflict, Scripture, history and tradition only consist of and mean what she says, if she does say so herself.
Wrong: both the premise that info by Iraneus is essential and must be right, and that all else such says also must be right and binding as wholly inspired words of the apostles were (Accept him ,and not only accept Paul, but alos you must accept tradition "stay true to tradtion we taught you" and the church as the vehicle of passage ie "the foundation of truth is the church"), is fallacious. Or do you want to contend that that we must follow whoever provides us such tradition, and or that Iraneus and the like were wholly inspired of God, and popes likewise are when they speak what is tradition. If so, go ahead.
The oral tradition.Ok I’ll bite. Which traditions did Irenaeus mean when he mentioned traditions? I asked a Roman Catholic the same question but they declined to answer.
Please quote and note the relevant work.
I used to think only Muslims and Mormons thought that but I realized some Christians have this idea. Even I used to think the reason for the Reformation was that the Church became corrupted. So I want to know the date and reason that damaged the Church.
So how can you trust Christianity?When the original disciples were murdered, and political science exploited faith. So, a little bit after resurrection. Also, when man decided to choose which words of the Most High were important for the spirit of other men (canon). That all happened around the same time (give or take a century).
Ecumenical power has accelerated the effects.
I used to think only Muslims and Mormons thought that but I realized some Christians have this idea. Even I used to think the reason for the Reformation was that the Church became corrupted. So I want to know the date and reason that damaged the Church.
So how can you trust Christianity?
Then why did your Eastern bishops break away from the supreme pontiff of the West? Does that not make the East the first Protestants?
. . . . Or what would it take for the Pope to come back to the Faith where he is "first among equals"?
Although we share 1000 years, we have also been estranged for another 1000. We are very different. You are closer to Catholicism, as a Protestant, than is the Orthodox Church. Your separation is not as wide.
Love,
Christina
The Pope would renounce his Roman Catholicism and become Orthodox. There is nothing that would cause the Church as a whole to join with him.
There are such things as uniate churches, which are basically Byzantine Catholic churches and the like, but they are no longer Orthodox.
And your argument is that you must accept this tradition and thus on that basis you also conclude that then we must "stay true to tradtion we taught you" as in whatever else Rome sanctions, which fallacy I addressed and your ignored in order to simply reiterate your fallacy. Which refutation is that, besides the names of the unnamed writers not being essential (and many RCs disagree on who the unnamed writer of Hebrews was), based upon your logic 1st century souls should have submitted to the Jews and its magisterium.. Without the church you have no New Testament.
Which is another fallacy, that of the Catholic belief that one cannot discover the contents of Scripture and discern the difference apart from her, even faith in her.Indeed without such as iraneus , you must treat the gospels of such as Thomas, Peter and James the same!
If they do say so themselves. Which includes the tradition that whatever they say is tradition/the word of God, is so. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.And as Iranaues and many other fathers state true doctrine is that handed down by bishops in apostolic succession , (primacy at Rome ) which is the meaning of tradition.
Then you should read what this means in the light of the the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, including how they understood the OT and gospels, which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.So not " whoever" You may choose. We follow those who Jesus chose , the ones they appointed, and the one who Jesus gave the office of keys, with power to "bind and loose" on doctrine.
There was a rather good discussion on Constantine and his white horse on another thread.The answer I'm given is "at the time of Constantine".
I have been labeled a preterist by cf because I say the second coming was in 312 AD when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, and Jesus came into power through St. Constantine who rode a white horse and conquered with a bow. And he sent his messengers with a trumpet and gathered the elect of all the Church together, to Nicea.
If Jesus came back then the world would be destroyed by know.
The prophecy in Revelations shows NO ARROWS, so Constantine couldn't have fulfilled it
The second coming is the coming of the sign of the Son of Man in the clouds coupled with Jesus coming into power (through St Constantine who rode a white horse and conquered with a bow).
You are so ridiculous in saying the first horseman conquered with a bow and no arrows. That is impossible.
Did "St." Constantine conquer with a bow, but no arrows?
The prophecy states that the white horse rider had a bow but no arrows. In prophecy, everything is in symbols. It doesn't mean that some one will be on a LITERAL white horse with a LITERAL bow. Animals in prophecy throughout the entire Bible always represent a power. Besides, this was just the first seal (I believe) there were still 6 left, so it couldn't have been the coming of the Son of Man
LOL. What good is a bow with no arrows? Of course the first horseman (St. Constantine) used arrows!
The Revelation can only be opened by the second coming of Jesus, which was in 312AD.
Rev 6:2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
It makes no reference to arrows. Your idea of the second coming of Christ is warped
The only purpose for a bow is to shoot arrows. Your idea of a bow without arrows is warped. Constantine is the only logical candidate for the first horseman largely because bows and arrows are no longer used in warfare.
A bow is also used to play violins and other stringed instruments.
Why would Constantine be an archer in his own army?
That's silly.
You can't conquer with a violin bow. Now that's silly.
Yeah.
I guess you would have to be one tough dude to conquer with a violin bow.
That is pretty silly.
I'm trying to think of what in the world any of this has to do with preterism -- oh yeah - there are 312 AD preterists - "Constantine Preterists" - bow-huntin' preterists...
Bow and arrows.The second coming was in 312AD when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, and Jesus came into power through St. Constantine who rode a white horse and conquered with a bow.. The day the sign appeared is known as the turning point of history because ever since that day, Christian nations have been the dominant force on earth. And Constantine sent his messengers with a trumpet, and gathered the elect of all the Church together, to Nicea.
He’s actually Anglican and a very rare offshoot of Anglican.There was a rather good discussion on Constantine and his white horse on another thread.
The member "interpreter" is a Catholic btw.
[I would be lying if I said there wasn't some humor interjected into it:]
Full Preterist Safe House
Bow and arrows.
One of the funniest dialogues I have ever seen on CF.....
But could Constantine do this?
Which is absurd! Tell that to them. And you expect me to take your replies seriously?!The sects in the Catholic Church have, really, nothing to do with the faith. They're all over worldly issues. Nice opinion.
Which is simply an opinion, and contrary to such weighty Catholics as Augustine of Hippo.There is no official teaching, other than that children under the age of reason cannot go to hell. Therefore, they go to heaven.
Thus my point is valid, since it is a matter of RCs can disagree on within the bounds of RC doctrine.There is no such official teaching. Neither the Earth nor the sun is the center of the universe.
Not so. Trent defined what the books had to be accepted , but did not say no more could be added. Thus whether Trent closed the canon or not is indeed a matter discussed among RCs.Well, of course it did. Otherwise, it would have been Trent II and III, not Vatican I and II.
Which is simply an opinion. Other Catholics say, "The short answer is no, or at least not yet. The reason is that the decisions emanating from the consistory are juridical and not theological in nature." http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur373.htmThere is no denying they are infallible.
Not in all cases, at least she has not officially explained with all they said, nor without excluding any interpretation. Which Catholics engage in, even in debate with EOs.Same thing. The Church knows what they meant.
Obedience is a matter of faith, and knowing what the word of God says and means is required, and is not a "worldly concern," which is absurd.Again, a worldly concern.The Church knows. Just because it may not be written means nothing
Wrong again. The much debated issue is whether inerrancy was limited toNo doubt scripture is inerrant. What's at question, to the world, is what constitutes God's Word.
Have you been reading? Read the next one.Such as?
Which is ignoring the debate which was linked to.Human freedom is God-given. God uses our imperfection to perfect His creation.
Huh? This again is ignoring the debate which was linked to.Huh? Sacred Tradition is part of God's Word.
The world does not, but your church does, thus it says it provides such and distinguishes btwn this magisterial class and others.Why does the world care about this stuff?
Again the world does not, but your church does, as should you, unless you think everything that was said in every bull, etc. is binding.Again, why does the world care?
Whether your response is feigned ignorance or real, the fact is that this is debated. At one time the likes of your were forbidden to engage in public debateHuh?
I find it hard to believe you can be this ignorant. Here is an example of one that is not: Can a Pope Commit Heresy? (“Heresy” Defined)Huh?
"We" is not all, past or present. After years of papal and conciliar teaching such as states, “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing," "in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors," "whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church," "subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful," "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church;”Depends on how you define "the Church". We define it as "all baptized Christians". Are Protestants lost? We leave that to God.
Were the anathemas of Trent ratified by the Pope? [/QUOTE
Others disagree. And can.
Are YOU "Anathema"? How about Your Protestant Friend?
[*]Whether or not a pope can be deposed.
I agree, but it has been and is debated. St. Robert Bellarmine answers the question "What if a pope were to fall into heresy?"No, but an anti-pope can.
[*]How many bishops are necessary for this Collegial infallibility to be ensured?
The point remains that faithful RCs can disagree on this.When the bishops say it is ensured, we believe it.
[*]Whether the Virgin Mary died and then was assumed or whether she was assumed before death
The point remains that faithful RCs can disagree on this.I don't think there's a question about this. The doctrine doesn't state one way or the other.
[*]Whether Roman Catholicism promoted slavery
Other RCs disagree . The point remains that faithful RCs can disagree on this.The Church didn't, though some in the Church did.
You are reading intoInfants don't need to repent, because they've nothing yet to repent of. They are humble and simply believe God. In order for us to receive the Kingdom of God, we must convert and become as they already are - believing and humble. We should not hinder our babies, who by their humility are already predisposed to believe God, from growing up in the ways taught by their Lord and Savior.
I used to think only Muslims and Mormons thought that but I realized some Christians have this idea. Even I used to think the reason for the Reformation was that the Church became corrupted. So I want to know the date and reason that damaged the Church.
There isn't anything being read into Christ's words that isn't in fact contained within them. You're choosing to overlook the fact that Christ Himself, by these very words about children, testified of the existence of the presence of the virtue of humility in the young children. If the children are humble, and we know that Jesus does not lie, then they are believers, because the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to the "poor in spirit" (that is, the truly humble).You are reading into
Scripture what it does not say in orer to support a teaching Scripture does not record.
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:3-4)
This does not say infants can comprehend who they need to believe in as an object of faith for their salvation, or why, nor is the Lord saying one must become as a little child in any way except humility.
That you must resort to eisegesis in order to support what Catholicism holds to be of cardinal importance, but is never described in the the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, is an argument against it.
Doctrines which are passed down orally.Which are...?
Which he said was?