Not scarey enuff? Try THIS:
Reeely reely MAD!
I bet you're skeert now.
But, enough about me, what do YOU think of me?
Posted on 04/27/2008 3:36:18 AM PDT by markomalley
I’m not sure how your church would have dealt with heresy in the the fourth and fifth century. Being Universalist, probably not at all.
As you know, those were different times, long before the separation of church and state and quite serious and violent times for Catholics against heretics and Protestants against Catholics.
As for anathema, I think you will criticize the Church if it changed and criticize the Church it if it didn’t change. No difference there.
I believe “separation from” or excommunication is the proper definition of anathema.
Thanks for your reply.
It is those Catholics who have difficulty in understanding Catholic Teaching who may misunderstand. (They may also get huffy if you suggest they have been poorly catechized). :)
Not scarey enuff? Try THIS:
Reeely reely MAD!
I bet you're skeert now.
But, enough about me, what do YOU think of me?
WOW! Do YOU ever not understand Unitarian Universalists! Back in the day they'd run 'em over with their Subaru Foresters AFTER they criticized them for not having hemp underwear.
It was really vicious.
I still love ya.
I’m sure he knows that...
"The first law that ever God gave unto man was a law of pure obedience."
Montaigne's Essays: Book II.
As for anathema, I think you will criticize the Church if it changed and criticize the Church it if it didn’t change. No difference there.
Not at all. My criticism hinges on the change in the import of the meaning of "anathema" and retroactivly applying your new definition when, clearly, it meant something entirely different.
I believe “separation from” or excommunication is the proper definition of anathema.
Current definition - yes!
What was meant when the Council Of Trent declare multiple Anathema's?
For example:
FOURTH SESSION: DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES: "If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts [the 66 books of the Bible plus 12 apocryphal books, being two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Sophonias, two of Macabees], as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA."
or 
Unfortunately, heretics weren't Universalists either and wouldn't have returned your pacifism.
Whatever mistakes they made, I'm glad some took defense of the faith seriously and passed on the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles so that we have them today.
Like I said, and as they links say, I believe anathema means "separated from the Church" or excommunicated.
Is there any belief one can be officially separated from Universalist Church for? Satanism? Surely you don't shrug your shoulders at any belief.
Whatever mistakes they made, I'm glad some took defense of the faith seriously and passed on the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles so that we have them today.
Do I understand you to say you approve of executing "heretics". Do you think it should be re-instituted? Would you have me executed because I represent a danger to the RCC?
I think it’s an obvious statement.
Heretics were struggling over what was believed and taught. Each to the exclusion of the other. If Arianism, Nestorism, Monophysitism prevailed, this would be to the exclusion of our beliefs and Protestant beliefs today.
In addition to a “to each his own” version of the Gospel.
I think it’s a naive view that were the early Church universalist unitarian we would have anything near the Christian faith of today - we’d have Unitarianism, if anything survived at all.
Do you approve of executing Heretics?
Would you approve of my execution?
It was an answer in this discussion:
Rather than “heretics weren’t Universalists either” being “ a blanket statement which is far from the truth.”, as you said, I believe it is an obvious statement as I explained in my reply.
And don’t worry Reggie, you’re safe with me.
I know that every Catholic would deny that the Eucharist is a re-sacrifice of Christ, but aside from that I was under the impression (I could be wrong) that it is still considered "a" sacrifice which is repeated. That's why I brought up "one time only".
Plus, you said "What if the physical IS the spiritual? "It is raised a spiritual body ...". When I read that I thought of going back and forth, or of simultaneity. I may have misunderstood.
I think we're at the "ranging" part of the discussion. That is, I think the points you made were offered in opposition to what you think our view is. But I'm not seeing how they serve in opposition, so either you hit me but I'm too dumb to notice, or you missed.
Yes, I was guessing. :) When I see "what if" I think "as opposed to". :) We started with my agreeing with AG that what are most important are spiritual matters as opposed to physical matters. My current understanding of Catholicism is that there is a great emphasis on physical matters, (even for salvation itself) such as baptism, the Eucharist, and other physical sacraments. So in general that's where I was coming from.
Then, when Xtians gather in remembrance and Thanksgiving for that redeeming work, and all the other controversial stuff about priests and such happens, we are bringing into the present that great event. Calvin says somewhere that when we say the sursum corda (Lift up your hearts // We lift them to the Lord) at the beginning of the Commemoration Lord's Supper, our hearts are indeed lifted up to heaven, to eternity, where Christ is.
In the old ("Roman") canon (prayer of consecration over the 'gifts') we ask God to take the "sacrifice" to God's altar in heaven. In what I think is a charming expression in one of the newer canons, we ask God to, "Look with favor on your Church's offering
and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself."
I find it charming because if God "sees" the victim, then the Victim is there since God doesn't see stuff that isn't there.
To provide another "schematic view" to go along with and underlie hearts or gifts lifted to heaven, I dare say our thinking is kind of like "Through the magic of eternity" our current here and now time and place are identified with that time and place there and then.,so> it's not a re-sacrifice or a repetition. It is THAT sacrifice, that one "back there", "remembered up" to the present.
Science fiction is replete with images of folding time and space. But our memory of the first time our child said, "I love you," shows that our psyches also can do a pretty good job of making the past present.
All I mean but he "physical is spiritual" crack was that we have a mystery here. When Paul says "a spiritual body" I feel like that is, from a systematic theology point of view, punting. But the "felsh" of a spiritual body seems to me to be likely to be something that blows a lot of categories wide open.
Yes, I was guessing. :) When I see "what if" I think "as opposed to". :) We started with my agreeing with AG that what are most important are spiritual matters as opposed to physical matters. My current understanding of Catholicism is that there is a great emphasis on physical matters, (even for salvation itself) such as baptism, the Eucharist, and other physical sacraments. So in general that's where I was coming from.As long as we are understood NOT to be limiting God's salvific actions to those acts but rather, as we would think of it, trusting His promise as regards them, then, yeah.
WE have a very physical religion. That is to say, a religion full of things one can take and eat or drink or touch or feel - oils and chrism (wonderfully scented oil), bread and wine, water for some of the principal sacraments -- even sex for matrimony (in most cases) as the sort of "Crown" or perfection of the sacrament (we view it as a sacrament). Yep, lots o' STUFF! Holy Water, Rosaries, medals, pictures, sculpture, "smells and bells" — Guilty as charged AND reveling in it! This accounts for the ways some old Catholic church buildings have a certain aura of grandmother's attic about them, I'd guess.
Verbum caro factus est; και ο λογοσ σαρξ εγενετο, and the Word became flesh and pitched His tents among us, and we beheld His glory, gory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."
The Golry was truly, even "factually" there, even though it was only beheld as what it truly was by those to whom the Spirit, by the grace of God, gave the seeing of it.
But even then, when He walked among us, a woman was healed by the touching of only His garment - a garment which was just a garment in itself, but which by contact or proximity with God the Son of God, became something the touching of which could heal a chronic and distressing (and ritually polluting) infirmity.
So, yep. Stuff. Common stuff made uncommon by the grace and action of God. We're all over stuff and its very stuff-ness. And just as you, FK, are more you than ever since you have offered yourself to God and have died and risen (and will die and rise, and are dying and rising) in Him, so water is especially watery once blessed, and when Fr. Dominic blessed my new motorcycle, the hiss of the water as it hit the hot muffler was especially glorious.
But then, I'm easily amused.
I summed up the physical/spiritual divide in another post. I didn't ping you there, but I would appreciate your comments.
Yes, I can understand how it might be a little tricky to articulate to a person who doesn't live the experience. We live by "Do this in remembrance of me". So, it kinda sounds the same, but I realize it is totally different.
All I mean by the "physical is spiritual" crack was that we have a mystery here. When Paul says "a spiritual body" I feel like that is, from a systematic theology point of view, punting. But the "flesh" of a spiritual body seems to me to be likely to be something that blows a lot of categories wide open.
That could be. I have a pretty strong feeling that when we shake hands in Heaven some day that they will slap together rather than pass through each other. :) I see the spiritual angle as God having "cured" us of any inclination to sin for any reason. I have actually given thought to whether I would still be "me" without that, but then I try to just resign myself to not worrying about it since God has all of this figured out totally in our best interests. IOW, however it works out, I won't be complaining. :)
FK: "My current understanding of Catholicism is that there is a great emphasis on physical matters, (even for salvation itself) such as baptism, the Eucharist, and other physical sacraments. So in general that's where I was coming from."
As long as we are understood NOT to be limiting God's salvific actions to those acts but rather, as we would think of it, trusting His promise as regards them, then, yeah.
Yes, I recognize the Catholic belief that God has as many "wild cards" as He wishes to play. We say the same thing. I suppose that we just disagree on the nature of what God's promises are. AG has spoken eloquently on this before, while not associating herself with the Reformed view, by noting the differences between focusing on the physical vs. the spiritual.
But even then, when He walked among us, a woman was healed by the touching of only His garment - a garment which was just a garment in itself, but which by contact or proximity with God the Son of God, became something the touching of which could heal a chronic and distressing (and ritually polluting) infirmity.
That is actually a very good example. I have never thought of that garment as being anything more than irrelevant. If God had ever wanted to "energize a thing" to have special powers, that would be fine with me. But I don't recall being told in scripture that this was true of his garment. Therefore, I assume that the healing actually came directly from Jesus, and had nothing to do with the cloth itself.
Now, it should be noted that God certainly has consecrated certain "things" as Holy and attached to them a special designation subject to automatic exercise of His powers. The Ark of the Covenant would be one example. But truth be told, in my mind's eye the Ark was a box. It was a Holy box, but a box. If I was a Levite back then I would have followed the rules and believed that if I didn't I would have been smited. :) However, I don't think that God really cared so much about the box as what it meant to His people because of what He taught them to understand. It was a tool. I do see some similarities with how certain objects are treated today.
And just as you, FK, are more you than ever since you have offered yourself to God and have died and risen (and will die and rise, and are dying and rising) in Him, so water is especially watery once blessed, and when Fr. Dominic blessed my new motorcycle, the hiss of the water as it hit the hot muffler was especially glorious. But then, I'm easily amused.
Well, then by my beliefs I truly hope that the blessing extended to you personally for safety in all of your travels. BTW, how old do you have to be to get a motorcycle? My wife still won't let me have one. :)
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.