Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
Catholic is Catholic. Your statement is a non sequitur.
Well, the UK is the UK. But that doesn't mean that the USA IS the UK because the original 13 states we were once British Colonies. Your bald assertion is no argument, and flies in the face of over 1 000 years of the history of Christianity. "THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH" -- as YOU define the Church -- is a myth, as should be obvious to anyone who has done any reading on the topic.
Anyone with the ability to read the history of medieval and modern history of knows that what you say is flat-out false.
Interesting. My statements are true. That is the reality of the Church.
That your statements are true has yet to be proven by you. What you mean by the reality of the Church is anybody's guess.
Histories of the Byzantine Empire, Orthodox beliefs in the light of the ecosystem, the role and the importance of hesychasm and so on are not definitive histories of the Church.
The works of Joan Hussey, Kallistos Ware and John Meyendorff are pretty standard academic press works. Do you have anything relevent to say about their historiography of Medieval Christianity?
Sherrard and Romanides are polemicists, but their influence should not be ignored -- especially if you want to get a handle on the degree of contempt and disdain with which some influential Eastern Orthodox hold the Church of Rome.
At least I've offered something -- I've yet to see any reference to your definitive history of the Church. A reprint of some 19th century tome that's published by TAN press, no doubt.
...I must say your learning is not in evidence.
Eyes to see and ears to hear. Perhaps your indwelling god might help you out.
Your learning still isn't in evidence. Just a penchant for mockery. Do you have ANYTHING to add to a discussion of disunity and schism in Christianity aside from bald assertion?
I see that you admit to having your own conscience interpreting Scripture. Nice.
I see that you ignore the fact that I begin my reading of Scripture with prayer to God, who I petition to guide my understanding of Scripture with His wisdom. More mockery and personal attacks, I see. Nice.
...or else I'll attend my Bible Church on Sunday and consult my Christian fellowship there.
Ah. Traditions of men huddled around. I must thank you for your frank admissions. Most Protestants deny this.
No, a group of men who prayfully discuss Scripture as best we can with the hope that God will grant us the wisdom to reason with and understand His Word. Admittedly, most Protestants would deny the way you've misrepresented my account.
As for me, I'll continue to point out what I see as myth and falsehood as long as the moderators permit me.
Catholic believe that what God sees matters, as opposed to what we see, however much we want to see it, laden with human pride and arrogance. I must thank you again for your frankness. It is refreshing to see admitted what has been on display since the Reformation.
Well, when in your post you write "I see that you admit to having your own conscience interpreting Scripture," who is doing the seeing here -- you or God?
Once again, do you have ANYTHING to add to a discussion of disunity and schism in Medieval Christianity aside from transparent rhetorical tricks and personal attacks?
I must admit that I don't pray to God for guidance every time I crack open a history book. Perhaps this is a failing on my part, and I rely too much upon my daily prayers to be given the wisdom to avoid falsehood and to "speak the truth" the best I can. Something for me to pray upon.
If you can prove that God has historically "seen" no schism between the Church of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox, then prove it. Otherwise, your words here are just a series of unproven assertions and meritless personal attacks.
You'll really be sorry when you find you're agreeing with me all the time. :O)
Well, the UK is the UK. But that doesn't mean that the USA IS the UK because the original 13 states we were once British Colonies.
The UK is the UK. Period. The Church is the Church, period.
Your bald assertion is no argument, and flies in the face of over 1 000 years of the history of Christianity. "THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH" -- as YOU define the Church -- is a myth, as should be obvious to anyone who has done any reading on the topic.
So you keep claiming. There is one Church. The hierarchs of the Church acknowledge it; it does not matter if you as a non hierarch acknowledge it or not.
That your statements are true has yet to be proven by you. What you mean by the reality of the Church is anybody's guess.
As stated, it is the reality of the Church. Feel free to read it from the many sources that are either in print or online.
Sherrard and Romanides are polemicists, but their influence should not be ignored -- especially if you want to get a handle on the degree of contempt and disdain with which some influential Eastern Orthodox hold the Church of Rome.
Big deal. Some influential Latins hold a dim view of the Orthodox as well. That is why the Consensus Patrum rules, not individual Protestants according to their influence or charisma.
Your learning still isn't in evidence. Just a penchant for mockery. Do you have ANYTHING to add to a discussion of disunity and schism in Christianity aside from bald assertion?
Mockery is an easy term for easy dismissal of the juvenile. My discussion of the history of the Church is limited to accurate historical and theological documentation. Not wild drug ridden fantasies.
No, a group of men who prayfully discuss Scripture as best we can with the hope that God will grant us the wisdom to reason with and understand His Word. Admittedly, most Protestants would deny the way you've misrepresented my account.
You again admit that huddlings of men over tables fuelled with whatever takes their pleasure come up with whatever they come up. But you go further and blame God for their conclusions. Nice. Admittedly, most Protestants, if honest would be honest in their description of the proceedings. Perhaps there is a study that shows the differences between Scotch-driven theology and wine-driven theology.
Mark 7: 5 So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him, "Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders 3 but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?" 6 He responded, "Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; 7 In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.' 8 You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition."
The Reformation honours God with their lips.
Colossians 2: 6 So, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in him, 7 rooted in him and built upon him and established in the faith as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. 8 See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world 3 and not according to Christ.
You were taught the faith of the Apostles; do you choose to follow the philosophies of men huddled around tables with tankards?
2 Timothy 4: 1 1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: 2 proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching. 3 For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, 2 will accumulate teachers 4 and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.
There were many myths generated from and because of the Reformation. I think that you may be following them now.
If you can prove that God has historically "seen" no schism between the Church of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox, then prove it. Otherwise, your words here are just a series of unproven assertions and meritless personal attacks.
I never claimed that there was not a schism. I claim that there IS not a schism and has not been for some time. Read my posts and see if this is not true. And on the face of it, your post is ridiculous. How can I prove that God has historically seen anything?
I'll ignore the personal attacks that litter the rest of your post.
I see that I should have made my last post less specific. If you paid attention to my previous posts, you'll see that I've been talking about late ancient, medieval AND modern Christianity.
Once more: there is a "Great Schism" between Eastern and Western Christianity, it has endured for almost 1 000 years, and it persists to this very day. This is an historical fact that is supported by every text I've read on the topic, and appears to be denied only by self-proclaimed RCs here on Free Republic. I don't think I can make myself any clearer than that.
That's mighty white of you.
Once more: there is a "Great Schism" between Eastern and Western Christianity, it has endured for almost 1 000 years, and it persists to this very day.
No it does not. You are wrong.
This is an historical fact that is supported by every text I've read on the topic
You might want to expand your reading list. You are wrong and, indignation aside, you are still wrong.
That's pretty good. :) I never thought of it that way before. We know what the Apostles taught and know today what matches and what doesn't match.
I think that one might really look at what was. I do not find any of the mainstream Protestant denominations to have any great degree of coincidence to the early Church, much less the post Nicene Church.
You're making me sleepy. Have a good night.
That's great, glad to hear it.
Luminous: Jesus is baptized. Jesus changes water into wine at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. Jesus preached the Kingdom of God's love and forgiveness. Jesus is transfigured. Jesus institutes the sacrament of His body and Blood
Just curious, I can see how the other four go together, but how does the transfiguration fit in here?
My only anti-Protestant dig was that I thought Jesus did NOT turn the water into pasteurized grape-juice.
You restrained yourself admirably. :)
I started with my earlier thing about Sinai. Clearly a mountain doesn't make choices, but I would be thrilled to be there and to think, "Here is where God did this amazing thing." In adoration I read the last several chapters of Romans including the part about the clay and the potter. I thought that we are NOT exactly like clay. Clay doesn't entertain fantasies of greatness. It's only an approximate analogy.
Yes, but even in the analogy the clay is given the "power" to complain, so maybe it's a little closer.
And on the way home (It's 20 miles, so I have time to think) I thought this: I really don't care to whom the "credit" goes for Mary's "fiat" and her motherhood, and all the rest. She IS like Sinai in that God did a great thing (t)here. She is NOT like Sinai in that she is a rational animal, with a will, whether free or not.
I guess I'm not sure I see the reason for the comparison. She is also not like Sinai in that no one gives ongoing thanksgiving to Sinai, nor does anyone make ongoing requests of Sinai.
We don't have a lot of Biblical data. But she said, however she was enabled to do so,"Let it be done to me according to your will." And we pray "Thy will be done, ..." The first we hear of her is that [she] said what Jesus told us to say.
I thought that the VERY first we hear from her was to challenge the information given to her by the angel. :) Interestingly, neither of our sides holds this in any way against Mary as any indication of lack of faith. Her question was logical, and despite the language, it appears she knew something very out of the ordinary was going to happen. I think her question was process oriented rather than a challenge to the truth of the statement.
But I end up not only loving her, but feeling myself to be loved, nurtured, guided, supported, BY her. It outrages the skeptical me. But I cannot deny it. ......... I cannot deny the reasonableness of saying that it would seem that devotion to Mary would detract from devotion to Jesus. One only has so much time, and all that. But the experience is not like that. Here's a crass image: Jesus is the gas. Mary is the STP.
I think I understand at least part of what you mean, although I cannot say I relate to it. I imagine about when our times come and ask if I will get rapped for not giving enough attention to Mary, or will you get rapped for diverting attention from God directly, OR, will God say He ordained for each of us to relate to Him in the way we did and so we're both OK. :)
The “Luminous” mysteries IMHO are about “Epiphany” — how IHS manifests God. They are new. J2P2 suggested them. A lot of Catholics don’t say them. I think they’re excellent, and though I don’t know much, I know enough about J2P2’s thought, esp his phenomenological bent, to see what he was thinking. And I had a brief flirtation with the Phenomenologists myself, so I like it.
The Transfiguration fits into them because they are all “manifestations” (illuminations) of the Divinity of Christ. In our thought, charity is the perfection of justice, and holiness is the perfection of Charity. So all these mysteries deal with the generosity of IHS’s “work.”
One aspect of the Transfiguration is the strengthening of the resolve of Peter, James, and John to face what lies ahead. And because it is immediately followed by a prediction of the Passion it is tied up with it — and therefore proclaims that the outpouring of saving love on the Cross is part and parcel of what it means to say the Jesus is Divine.
Since I was trying to tie each mystery to conversion - and remember, I had less than 3 minutes per mystery — I talked about how they were approaching a kind of starting line for a race that would last the rest of their lives and that would demand much of them. But, I said, sometimes marvellous and unexpected encouragement and strength would be provided. That kind of thing.
The analogy between Mary and Sinai — both locations where the Law was brought forth — is only to say that a “creature” can be thought of as holy because of what God did in/on/through it. Now IF, arguendo, we are granted the notion that we can communicate with saints (and angels) and IF we are also granted that it’s okay to ask for their help (which is mostly if not entirely going to mean their prayers) ...
THEN it would still be silly to ask Sinai for anything. It’s a hunk of rock (with, I understand, a monastery on it, or on what we THINK is it.) But a holy person would be just the person one would ask for prayers.
FURTHER, it seems to us that some people just seem to have a gift of prayer. When our little one was sick unto death we were told of a nearby man who was a Baptist pastor who
was reputed to have that gift. We met with him and he prayed and two weeks later we went to Hopkins where she was put on the regimen that saved her brain, her mind, and her life.
[cue organ on tremolo]
Coincidence? You decide.
I have no idea what was going on in my head when I said the first thing we knew was the Cana thing. Clearly another several hundred brain cells have gone over to the dark side.
I couldn’t have said it better. What an eye opener. :-)
Yep....thread sure reveals the grave errors and the mindsets...no wonder there was the reformation! Thank god!
The thread revealed that there is a virulent anti-Catholic bias alive and active on FR.
I agree....but I think the ANTI- is against false teachings not catholics. Which is what the reformation was about. False teachings were being implemented into the faith that Christ never taught. So it was a good thing the reformation came...it gave people the opportunity to move the church back to it's original beliefs.... unencumbered with the weight of those false teachings.
If you think that an act of vanity that resulted in the death of a significant percentage of Europe's population was a good thing then you miss the point of Christianity and Christ's Church. In the course of this thread I witnessed many, many anti-Catholic posts based entirely upon misinformation and lies. Too many came on the thread to post what they thought the Catholics are without ever bothering to actually read the Catechism or speaking to Catholic clergy.
The thing that puzzles this Catholic is how so many, working so hard to fulfill the mission of the Communists, the Nazi's, the Secular Humanists, and the atheists to undermine the moral authority of the Church, think they are advancing Gods will.
The authority over my life is Christ and the scriptures. I belong to the church of those who believe in salvation thru Christ alone....and that He is the only mediator we need between God and man.
BTW there are also those on this thread who have read the Catechism and the vast layers of catholic literature presented here on this thread and have determined there is much error and misinformation within these writings. As well spoken with catholic clergy only to come away more convinced of the false teachings within the catholic church.
It really doesn't take all of that to determine there are errors and falsehoods in the catholic church. Simply listening to mass and hearing the priest is sometimes enough to draw a conclusion for some.
I'm grateful there was a reformation...that does not mean I am in any way unmindful of the cost of life, But as you know freedom to follow God, as He intended that we should, seems to have always been fraught by wars and cost of life.
False religions or ideologies always threaten the freedom God gave us......”and the Son shall set you free and ye shall be free indeed”
As for “them”.... Well.. Those who believe in Islam think they are also working Gods plan as well....we forget how easily satan can transfer himself to what appears as an angel of light...deceptive he is indeed..and leads those who are open to deception....further there is a human need to belong...clubs organizations etc. only go so far unless they have a strong purpose. Besides this there is a heavenly battle being played out here on earth for the souls of men....we get to choose which side we fight on.
This is a perfect example of the misinformation from those who have made no effort to actually learn the Catechism of the Catholic Church before incorrectly criticizing it. The Catechism clearly states in section 480, 618, 667, 771, 846, 956, 1369, 1544, 1546, 2574, 2593, and 2674 Christ is that one and only mediator between God and men.
I really see no need to go further with this as the thread is chocked full of the very things you are mentioning and the debates about.
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.