ROTFL!
Posted on 05/16/2008 3:19:30 PM PDT by netmilsmom
Stemming from this comment
>>I think the RCC doctrines are a product of the enemy<<
Please tell us where we stand here. Examples welcome, but I'm not sure that actual names can be used when quoting another FReeper, so date and thread title may be better.
Interestingly enough, despite the strong positions taken by many involved in the Protestant Reformation, it was common for top ranked Protestants to keep concubines and/or plural wives.
No doubt those were dark days for Christianity. However, they came to an abrupt end during the conduct of the Thirty-years War ~ whatever you thought was necessary to make other men holy became a justification for mass murder.
Germany was almost destroyed.
Uh, BTW, the Thirty-years War put all previous "dark days" to shame. It was the darkest of times in the history of Western Christianity.
In the end they all agreed to create nation states and stay out of the other guy's church related business.
Christian belief regarding their obligation to force salvation on others changed at that time.
I agree with you. I forgot the sarc post. I was implying it wasn’t a new thing, it was always there since the bible was written.
Do you have a Strong's Concordance? That's what the margin notes are in the Geneva Bible.
I am a Protestant and I have NEVER doubted that Catholics are Christians.
Does the person who posed this question have any idea of the definition of a Christian?
Vision Forum sells a reprint Geneva Bible, and I was thinking about buying one for historical interest and for beautiful language. However, it's not just the Bible. It's the Bible and commentaries. So bizarre, from people who profess Sola Scripura.
ROTFL!
Aren’t Catholic’s followers of Christ, hence “Christians”? Strange question in my opinion.
Centuries before Henry the 8th created his own religion and the multitude of Christian ideologies emerged, there were only one group of followers of Christ - Catholics.
I think some are, some aren't. Ted Kennedy? Nancy Pelosi? Give me a break!
Most are probably trying really hard, the same as in most Christian congregations.
Ah, perhaps the best response thus far.
Folks should consider this from two angles:
(1) Individuals, as xzins has commented upon--and I would add the "relationship" with the true Christ and the true Father as key (see John 17:3)...
(2) Church body what I would reference as "content-faith"...as in the way Jude 3 is used..."contending for the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude is talking about delivered once-for-all)...so on that end, I acknowledge that this faith was delivered to...
...the catholic (small "c" - universal church);
...and carried forth unto the Roman Catholic (big "C" - church) & Orthodox church & Coptic church...
...and that this branched off into the Protestant church...
When Jude uses "faith" he's not talking about an individual trusting in Christ for salvation; he was talking about ALL of the saints having received the body or content of faith--a faith that would be passed on generation by generation from family to family and church fellowship to church fellowship...encompassing both the visible and invisible church.
It was such a political thing anyway, and Westphalia resolved the political issues.
There could be some RCs around who think Trent continues to have legitimacy of some sort, but they forgot what came next ~ The Thirty Years War ~
Hold on now. Logically speaking “the hyper-fundamentalist side” when it comes to the Reformation would, of course, be the RC church!
“Anathematized” actually means “accursed”, and is, and always has been used for those excommunicated from the Church. Since Rome regards itself as the only “True Church” with salvation dependent on membership in it.... than the doctrines of the Council of Trent should hold for it, namely that anyone anathematized, or excommunicated from her is, by definition, on the way to Hell. Up until a generation or so ago, this is exactly what Roman Catholicism still taught—and it is entirely consistent with her history. That the Magisterium teaches this no longer, doesn’t change the (real, not revisionist) history of this teaching, nor the meaning of the words.
“Heretic” also refers to someone not just in error, but who has comprimised and ESSENTIAL belief of the faith. Without all the essentials one is also in serious risk of Hell, by definition. This too was taught of Protestants until recently—and is the meaning of the word.
So Roman Catholic brethren, what say ye? What are we Protestants, anathematized and heretics—and thereby hell bound? Or just defective and separated brethren?
If Rome really wants to soften the antithesis, let Rome rescind its anathema of Trent against all those who believe in their salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, and its anathema against all those who have confidence in their salvation by Christ's perfect, accomplished atonement on the cross.
Talk is cheap.
They are there because the Calvinists feared that people would misinterpret the Bible. Quite funny when you think about it.
Attle info: I went to an all girl Catholic High School. We were told NOT to ask protestant boys to the prom. A Jewish boy??? Don’t even think of it.
BBWWWAAAHHHH!!!
Did you just think you could slip that one in there and hope no one would notice?
Do you own a Strong’s Concordance?
You talk about the Thiry Years War like the Catholics got the wrong end of the stick there. lol. Catholics nearly wiped out every Calvinist from the face of Europe.
The Turkish government has invested some serious bucks into discovering their early involvement in the East Coast. Just search the net for Jamestown Croatoan Smith Balkan Turk, etc. You'll find plenty of stuff.
Two items are rather fascinating ~ you'll run into them eventually ~ Cherokee has been found to have Uralic-Altaic elements in it ~ either from all the way back to the Ice Age and the arrival of the Sa'ami in North America, or more recently with the arrival of a good number of Turkish speaking people. Several researchers into the people called "Melungeon" argue that their "term" is, in fact, Turkish for "the accursed of Earth" ~ you can find references to all sorts of things by looking for "Melungeon".
Some genetic tests a few years back demonstrated that the "Melungeon" people actually have some genes found only in a Negro group present in Karachi, Pakistan ~ they were brought to that area in trade in the 1300s or thereabouts. Pakistan at that time was part of a Moslem Empire extending from Spain to Indonesia, so it's possible some of those guys got to America as Spanish POWs.
You are hell bound, generally speaking, yes, by the fact of your being separated brethren. Excommunication is no small matter, but you cannot excommunicate someone who never held a claim of communion — someone who is not separated brother. I am not making light of it, I am simply pointing out that the real problem here is not words but beliefs.
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.