Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
I have no idea what all the different denominations hold for their doctrine or sacraments, but I have gone into the web, and printed out several from the mainstream Churches, and yes, I would imagine that of all the non catholic Christian Churches out there, 95% have the doctrine for salvation.
You did state in that post that you thought I was being hypocritical. I had responded to MR.PAYNO who had accused me of being a hypocrite and had cited a passage from papal encyclical. Personally I was in total agreement with the Pope and think the encyclical is a wonderful piece of work. I had no idea of what MR.PAYNO was talking about and probably took a quantum leap in trying to explain why I appreciated the Catholic Church.
Anyway I am not a hypocrite,I am Catholic,I believe what the Church teaches,I speak in accord with my beliefs and I act in concert with my words. My mind,my mouth and my body are in sync. My thoughts,words and deeds are one with the Church. I have integrity or cognitive-consonance.
As I said on other posts,I may have a lot of faults and flaws and may irritate a lot of people but I am not a hypocrite. Which leads me to insert a "shameless plug" for the Catholic Church. They have a written body of beliefs,the archives are replete with documents indicating how they determined those tenets, they are available for all to see and they can be used to clarify or straighten out those fellow Catholics who have gone off the path. And there are many,but if it is called to their attention and they argue it, I don't have to worry about convincing them of their error, I can show them where it is written and I know they know and have chosen to say or claim one thing and do or act in another way. They say they are Catholic and they are not and I let God sort it out because it seems to me they are hypocrites and I think Jesus was real clear on how He viewed them. Hope you can see my point and will agree that I,sara,am not a hypocrite.
Now I'm worried,..........It has to be past my bed time. G-Nite all
Can I still at least lurk?
he asked plaintively, as the import of what angelo proposed began to dawn upon him. LOL! Steven, we've got it baaaaad. I don't know if we could withstand the temptation of lurking for five days. Its like the alcoholic getting out of rehab, and then going to the bar to watch other people drink.
You can join me if you want, but I've made up my mind. When I log off tonight, I'm going to stay away from this thread entirely until next Monday. (No, I'm not going to jump over onto one of Mom's threads! ;o)
Sin is only attributed to us if it is willful, and a true Christian does not willfully sin, so if he does what is called a sin, it is not attributed to him as a sin, since it wasn't willful, and the blood of Christ had already paid for it.
Thanks for your thoughtful answer as to the difference between willful and unwillful sin. (BTW, I haven't heard the Holy Spirit referred to as "it" in a very long time. Do you call the Holy Spirit "it" just out of habit, or, do you believe that the Holy Spirit is not a person ((by person, I mean a living being with a personality))?) Anyway, I see what you mean by willful vs. unwillful sin. One can "slip" into unwillful sin, but willful sin is entered into with full knowledge.
What about sin which is entered into with full knowledge (one knows it is wrong), and which one wishes he could conquer, but which he feels powerless to say "no" to, such as a long-term sin which has become a habit? Would it be a "willful sin" or an unwillful sin?
I can't keep up so I'll keep outta da way!
Crusty old church fathers and dusty theology leave me cold sorry.Nothin' I can add to the neverending stoush.
God bless
----
By inference, can I conclude that you would similarly maintain that on those various points of doctrine where they conflict, some are correct and possess the truth, and some are incorrect (by virtue of human fallibility/sin) and do not posses the truth, with relation to those particular points of doctrine that are not (in your opinion), essential for salvation?
You then are saying that sex is sin, is that right?..(^g^)
Not at all. Just cause I said that women are enticing and it would be hard for Adam to resist didn't mean I was talking about sex. I would presume that Adam and Eve would have had children and populated Eden with their decendents, all of them free from Original Sin and destined for eternal life. After a while Eden may have gotten crowded, but I don't think that would be a problem for our infinite God.
After the Fall, the curse given to Eve is that she would have pain during childbirth. This, to me, leaves open the possibility of painless childbirth in Eden absent the Fall.
The sin in Eden was not sex, it was disobedience. And wanting to take the place of God.
SD
The next week or so, she went to church and confession, and told the priest what she had done, and he read her such a riot act that she stopped keeping meatless Friday altogether after that.
I don't doubt the story in the least and this is the perfect example of the Church, or at least this priest, shooting himself in the foot. This is exactly the type of no compassion behavior that causes people to flee.
You make no mention of whether the poor family was Catholic or not, but I will assume they were. Their condition (necessity) should negate their need to follow the abstinance rule. They should of course try as best as they can, but if need be they would not be held accountable.
Your sister visiting is also given leeway. You are not in control of what someone offers to you, especially when you are a guest. If I go to someone's house, if they invite me in for dinner, and it is Friday in Lent and they are serving meatloaf and don't mean offense I am acting more Christian like in accepting gladly what a host provides than I am in snubbing my host. How much more so if it is a poor family offering from what little they have.
The priest blew it here. Big time.
SD
Assuming this number is accurate, I don't believe it has anything to do with comprehension of Scripture. You don't mean to imply that attending Mass is the prescribed way to learn Scripture? Do YOU?
Attending Mass is, if nothing else, a default way to hear Scripture. People should obviously study it on their own. But if they do not, or if they can not (think: illiteracy now and through the ages) by attending Mass they will be exposed to the teachings and stories of Scripture. As for comprehension, it is the duty of the celebrating priest to "open up" the Scriptures of the day by explaining their relevance to the audience.
The point that was being made was that a person who does not read the Bible on their own will, over a period of years, hear most of the New Testament and large hunks of the Old (thematically related, even) just by attending services. What readings to sermonize about is not left to the whim of the individual pastor. In any given independent Church there is no similar guarantee.
SD
No, but it's a heck of a lot better than the pastor picking one or two verses to expand on over 45min. The third year we attended our local bible church I turned to my wife and said "you know, I don't think I've ever heard him read from one of the Gospels?". Lot's of time in Roman's hearing Paul's idea of what Christ said, but not alot of time actually reading what Christ said.
At least you can't get out of mass without hearing several paragraphs from an epistle, a Gospel, and and OT verse. We can argue about whether your average priest ever does anything with the verse, but at least you hear it.
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.