Posted on 02/07/2005 9:05:30 AM PST by skellmeyer
Roughly half of America dislike everything George Bush says, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t the President of the United States. This is a point too few people keep in mind. Take, for instance, the example of Stas, a very nice Orthodox man, who read my recent piece on concerning the Muslim reporter who implicitly threatened to kill me and nuke America. He thought the piece excellent except for my statement that the Pope was the head of Christianity: “As for the Pope, 1 billion various protestants and 300 million Orthodox don't follow his words and that's half of Christianity.” To keep things honest, a Mormon and a Protestant also voiced essentially this disagreement.
I could have pointed out, as I do here, that his statement proves nothing about either the Pope or the President, but I demurred. Instead, I merely pointed out that there are no major theological differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, apart from a minor theological point concerning the generation of the Holy Spirit and his aforementioned quibble concerning the Pope. He insisted I was wrong, and in attempting to demonstrate his case, he inadvertently made a connection between Orthodoxy and Islam that I had read about, but never really seen in action before.
(Excerpt) Read more at bridegroompress.com ...
You are right. I was trying to follow that to get to "the point", until I realized there wasn't much of one in the first place.
Some say thats a description of Roman Catholicism but Islam is much worse than that.. Jesus as I read him came to make ALL religion obsolete.. and DID.. Religion after all is just a club.. Only a Manic Pseudo-God needs praise.. or religion.. or worship..
No, I would not agree.
As for children being corpses, this applies only to the ones who are physically killed by the use of artificial contraception and/or abortion.
You do understand birth control doesn't kill anyone?
It's actually quoted from a discussion by Aquinas, which is more complete and does not exclude the idea of a non-Catholic who believes he is acting without fault being saved. This was common knowledge at the time, not a novelty. (Trent affirmed it, Pius IX affirmed it, Vatican II affirmed it ... it's old stuff.)
I was wondering when he would be banned or suspended. What a maroon!
Your last statement is very much closer to Islamic thought than most in terms of your view of organized religion.
The Bible is clear that the Church includes the entire, worldwide body of believers in Jesus Christ. Protestants have clergy who "shepherd" churches (small "c", localized gatherings/families of believers).
Islam doesn’t accept the notion that a particular group of people can claim for themselves to be representatives of God on earth. The entire human race is regarded, in a sense, as representatives of God on earth.
Protestants believe all Christians, *not* all of humanity, can claim, and in fact *are*, representatives of God on earth.
P.S. I come from a Baptist background, which is not to say my source is the Baptist Faith and Message, but rather the Word. If any Protestants out there reading this thread disagree with me or would like to add anything, please do.
If you are interested, here's a nice link explaining the Baptist view of the priesthood of all believers:
http://www.baptisthistory.org/priesthood.htm
Oops, I meant #149 for you, Destro. FRegards.
Re: The definition of anathema, that would normally be how I read it too, but the RCC has long claimed that what its popes bind on earth will be bound in heaven, in accordance with its (erronious, in my view) interpretation of Matt. 16. Therefore, for a formal conclave of the Roman church to anathematize someone is as good as them saying, "We're condemning you to hell."
Re: Unam Sanctam, the contextual argument is made rather irrelevant and frivolous by the absolutist and universal language the Pope chose to employ. He does not say that "all Catholics must be subject to the Pope" (which would be both fair and true), but "all human beings must be subject to the Pope" in order to be saved.
In any case, whether the anathema of the Protestants is the RCC attempting to sentence them to hell or whether it's the RCC "recognizing" that they're going to hell doesn't really matter to me. Honestly held exclusivist theology has never been my sore point. What does matter is that until that "sentence" and/or "recognition" or whatever you wish to term it is revoked, it makes any ecumenism between Protestants/Evangelicals and Catholics a total farce. And it is that farce that concerns me, not simply the beliefs and teachings of the Roman magisterium.
Of course, the Catch-22 is that the RCC cannot revoke so many of its own councils and bulls without completely undermining its own authority. It is much, much easier to simply try to bury such language and rewrite history to edit out the polemic of both sides in the hopes that the vast majority of Christendom, Protestant and Catholic alike, simply remains ignorant of history. Those of us who know our history don't much care for that. Furthermore, no dialogue based on diplmatic spin, lies, and omissions could be pleasing to our mutual Lord and Savior.
Indeed He does!
"Actually some Protestants, who are against icons and clergy between them and God and Moromons (polygamy, ban on alcohol - Smith's description of his revelation is almost identical to Muhamed's) are closer to Islamic thinking than the Orthodox..."
God was the one who tore the veil in two, protestants did not.
1/2? They just pulled that number out of the air.
Only 17-19% are self proclaimed leftists, 40+% say they are conservative, that leaves the rest as the mushy midddle who don't care enough to take a stand.
The author is confusing the voting with "hating".
Just more MSM push propaganda.
Catholics use potentially abortifacient birth control about as often as everyone else. Likewise for abortions (I mean the kind where you go to a "clinic" and get the kid vacumed out or dismembered).
The Catholic Church will issue a divorce -- oops, I mean "annulment", which is totally different -- to whoever wants one.
Just measuring with the same measure here.
In the Western tradition, the King provides protection, order, and justice to his subjects, in exchange for their loyalty and service. He is not an arbitrary despot. This seems to be the main difference between Western and Eastern conceptions of "King"
No it doesn't. In Sunni Islam they have Hadith, which is Tradition and considered authoritative. The Shiites regard the Imams as authoritative, and although the last one is "hidden", they do have a clerical hierarchy.
Pope is no St. Peter. Nor has the Pope been given the keys to heaven simply by putting on his robe and changing his title from Cardinal.
That makes me wonder about something. Is the unitive purpose of sex really about nothing more than physical sensations?
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.