Posted on 06/29/2010 5:57:07 AM PDT by TSgt
Well they can’t molest anyone in their Church anymore.
You wrote:
“Illustrates your ignorance of the Protestant faith.”
I am not ignorant of the Protestant faithS. Protestant ministers are NOT ordained. They merely go through what they call an ordination ceremony. No actual ordination takes place. Actual ordination is dependent upon apostolic succession.
“Note: I’m not Protestant.”
Here are your choices if you claim to be a Christian:
1) Catholic,
2) Eastern Orthodox (I’ll lump in non-Chalcedonians here as well),
3) Protestants,
4) quasi-Christians such as Jehovah’s Witness and Mormons.
That’s all there is for those who claim to be Christian. Which one are you?
That is not really a proper choice, here are the choices ...
Mormon, Catholic, and then there’s those that simply believe Jesus ....
He is right, the man would be out of the church he was ministering in .Ministers serve with the consent of the people, they are not "appointed" by a superior..they are voted in by the congregation.. most likely a church would remove the man.
Why would anyone have to label themselves at all other than they believe John 3:16?
You wrote:
“That is not really a proper choice, here are the choices ...”
No, actually what I posted are the choices. There are no others for those claiming to be Christians.
“Mormon, Catholic, and then there’s those that simply believe Jesus ....”
Mormons believe in Jesus - just much differently than you and I. Catholics believe in Jesus - just more perfectly than you apparently do. Thus, what I stated is correct and a much better system of understanding than what you posted.
You wrote:
“Why would anyone have to label themselves at all other than they believe John 3:16?”
Because Mormons and Jehovah’s Witness say they believe in it too. Protestants say it. Catholics say it. E. Orthodox say it. Clearly a more detailed understanding of their differences is necessary.
The Word doesn’t label Christians as anything other than being Christians.
Romans 16:16
You wrote:
“Rather bigoted of you to lump everyone together.”
Proper categorization is not an indication of bigotry. It is merely a sign of proper thinking. The categories are proper.
“Again, your ignorance of other faiths shows.”
No such ignorance is suggested by what I posted. If there was such ignorance you probably would have tried to point it out by now. You have failed to do so. Apparently you’re just going to make empty accusations of ignorance while failing to refute what I posted.
That’s because the Catholic Church is the “one true” church. s/
You wrote:
“The Word doesn’t label Christians as anything other than being Christians. Romans 16:16”
Untrue. The Word labels Christians according to the location of the seat of their bishop, or their home city or region. Thus, from the beginning, the Apostles and other sacred writers realized that proper categorization was neceesary for accurate and precise communications and proper Church life. As heresies and schisms developed, that necessity became all the more clear.
You wrote:
“That’s because the Catholic Church is the “one true” church. s/”
The Catholic Church is the one true Church. And even if it wasn’t, it still would not change the accuracy of what I posted. It would still be irrefutable that Protestants are Protestants, quasi-Christians are still quasi-Christians, Eastern Orthodox are still Eastern Orthodox and so on. No matter which Church is true, what I posted is accurate.
What scripture supports your post?
In the book of Acts it only talks about how the apostles and Paul are sent to different geographic locations (cities) and establish or elect leaders at the church at Corinth, etc. The Word says nothing about the name or organization of such church.
So the victims who have lost faith in the Catholic Church because of what happened to them are condemned to hell?
You wrote:
“What scripture supports your post?”
What scripture doesn’t? Are you not aware that the churches were known by city names or that Christians were called by their city names? That was common practice. Early Christians used all sorts of terms to designate and differentiate themselves from non-Christians: The Way and Christians come to mind immediately. Do I really have to tell you where in the Bible that is? Are you that unfamiliar with God’s Word? Names were also given to heretical groups: Think of how easily St. John differentiated the Church of Ephesus from the Nicolaitans.
“In the book of Acts it only talks about how the apostles and Paul are sent to different geographic locations (cities) and establish or elect leaders at the church at Corinth, etc. The Word says nothing about the name or organization of such church.”
The Book of Acts is not the only book in the Bible. You might want to read more of your Bible sometime. Having said that, it also needs to be said that most of what Acts covers is the very early history of the Church - when there was really only one Church. Protestants would not come about for nearly 1500 more years.
You wrote:
“So the victims who have lost faith in the Catholic Church because of what happened to them are condemned to hell?”
Is there anyone, ANYWHERE, who has EVER made such a claim? Why do you make things up like that?
By your post I would guess then only Catholics would be saved, considering what you label as other churches didn’t exist until the 1500s.
That’s a lot of souls being condemned to hell.
Just bringing things to their logical conclusion.
Answer the question please.
So there's no due process?
An accusation or charge is sufficient to permanently remove a man?
I conclude that the words "guilty" and "not guilty" have little meaning in your particular profession.
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.