I reject the Rcc, its pope, its marian dogmas, its claim to be the one, true church..

Stella1000 said:
How do you account for all those who were certain of salvation and then down the track were tempted right away from faith? How can any human have the type of certainty that they won't be tempted away by the devil? To me that invites the devil into the picture.
Click to expand...
Biblical FAITH has two attributes, both of which must be operational and present in order for it to BE FAITH.
SUBSTANCE - you can put your weight on it ,and it holds you. EVIDENCE - incontrovertible PROOF that that you don't see - is there.

SO You believe that Rom 8:38, 39 is a LIE then?
 
JoeT said:
They are persecuting the Body of Christ, which is the Church.

Right, from what you read and interpret.

JoeT
Click to expand...
Not possibly because the RCC is not the body of Christ. It is the bad tree and that is proved by its fruits. Also it does not meet the description of the real church.
 
balshan said:
It posts the truth about the RCC,
Click to expand...
just enough of it too fool Catholics. Typical of the great deceiver. It's a religious version of the Trojan Horse. I expect little demons to jump out and burn the building down.

JoeT
 
JoeT said:
Catholics are your next crop of Saints. Even plants follow the laws of nature. A rose plant does not produce oranges, rather roses. A apple tree does not produce pears, only apples. Protestantism does not produce saints only cockle.

JoeT
Click to expand...
wrong. those your pope claims to be a saint - most likely are not. God is Who makes one a saint thru the rebirth.

yes, there are many saints that you label as Protestant. many are and many are not.
 
Bob Carabbio said:
I always remember Richard Cardinal Cushing in Boston, MA, who led the rosary on WEEI radio in the evening. He spoke the entire first sentence of the rosary as ONE WORD: "HailmaryfullagracethaLordiswiththeeblessedartheeamongwomenanblessedisthefruitofthywombJesuuuuz".
Click to expand...
Yep it is a case of how quickly one can say the rosary, I mean there are a lot of Hail Mary's to recite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mik
Bob Carabbio said:
I always remember Richard Cardinal Cushing in Boston, MA, who led the rosary on WEEI radio in the evening. He spoke the entire first sentence of the rosary as ONE WORD: "HailmaryfullagracethaLordiswiththeeblessedartheeamongwomenanblessedisthefruitofthywombJesuuuuz".
Click to expand...
yep - I remember that being done. not cushing in Boston - but it was a regular happening!
 
romishpopishorganist said:
Seriously?

I am saying that the only two dogmas infallibly defined by the POPE are the IC and the Assumption.

So are you saying that the pope infallibly defined this too--and is thus an exercise of papal authority on the exact same level as the IC and Assumption? If so, I have never heard any theologian maintain this.
Click to expand...
The main difference between the solemn definitions of the Immaculate Conception, The Assumption, and the Bull Una Sanctam are that there were elaborate ceremonies associated with the Marian dogmas.

The language used in the documents are virtually the same. Ineffabilis Deus says; "We declare, pronounce, and define..."

Munificentissimus Deus says; "by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma..."

Unam Sanctam: "..we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

If a truth has been solemnly defined by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council, it is de fide definita. You are every bit as obliged to believe what is contained in the Papal Bull Una Sanctam as you are the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

From the Bull Una Sanctam; to the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Waldensians in 1208; to Lateran Council IV; to the Council of Florence under Eugene IV; from these dogmatic documents of the Church it is clear that the necessity of belonging to the true Church of Christ (not the Vatican II Big Tent "Church of Christ") is a dogma of the Faith, of which the highest theological note, and degree of certainty applies.

To hold a proposition that contradicts a dogma incurs the theological censure of heresy against divine faith.
romishpopishorganist said:
Right--so in other words--context has nothing to do with it? We can dismiss historical context as meaningless?
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with observing the historical backdrop in which documents of the Church were written in. But to think that dogmas evolve or change over time is a heresy condemned in #54 of Lamentabili Sane of St. Pope Pius X.

Furthermore it is a tactic used by modernists, such as yourself, that calls into doubt every religious truth, because it renders the very idea of a religious truth impossible. It runs each dogma through the philosophical meat grinder of relativism, subjectivism, and “historicism,” and turns it into ambiguous mush, which, I'm sure, is your intention.

Unam Sanctam is universal and dogmatic in nature. It lays down principles regarding the relation of Church and state and is not directed toward any individual.
romishpopishorganist said:
Ever heard of William Whitaker? How about William Goode? George Salmon? Not that I agree with them--but they are fine theologians.

If all you have ever read are caricatures of Sola Scriptura--which I suspect you have, I can understand why you would say what you are saying. In all the debates I have heard---the Catholic apologist usually winds up conflating Solo Scriptura with Sola Scriptura. Catholic priests, apologists, and theologians do not seem to grasp what is and is not being asserted with respect to Sola Scriptura. That doesn't make the doctrine true--it does mean they need to do a better job of listening to Protestants and understanding them before they attempt to debate them.

Catholic theologians need to do a better job articulating what they mean by Tradition, how it relates to Scripture, how Scripture relates to the Church, what, exactly we mean by "inspiration" how that works in relation to the scientific claims of the Bible, etc, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
What the ironic thing is, is this, I believe, is the first time I've ever seen you reference any work or writer, and they are all Protestants.

Honestly dude, you are already 99.99% Protestant. You work so hard trying to deny or relativize Catholic doctrines why don't you just go ahead and convert to Protestantism? I suppose there is no need. You can have it both ways. You can go to your Saturday afternoon "mass" to fulfill your Sunday obligation and then play the organ in your Protestant Church on Sunday mornings. Isn't that your routine?

I'm sure your "pope" would be very proud.
 
Stella1000 said:
Ncc's don't know 'hope' in the sense that Catholics do. They think of it as 'wishing'. But we understand hope as a 'confident expectation'. That distinguishes an attitude of presumption from the rightly ordered awe of Gods mercy, patience and the undeserved grace we receive.
Click to expand...
That is totally false. We too know hope, in the Bible, means confident, Joyful expectation. Not "wish."

Catholics don't like it when we misrepresent their beliefs, so kindly do not misrepresent ours.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top