Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who are the Catholics: The Orthodox or The Romanists, or both?
Me

Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience

I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?

I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?


TOPICS: Catholic; General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: 1holyapostolicchurch; apostates; catholic; catholicbashing; catholicwhiners; devilworshippers; eckleburghers; greeks; heathen; orthodoxyistheone; papistcrybabies; proddiecatholic; robot; romanistispejorative; romanists; romanistwhinefest; romannamecallers; russians
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,661-1,6801,681-1,7001,701-1,720 ... 12,201-12,204 next last
To: Dr. Eckleburg
"And every Presbyterian denomination preaches more Scriptural truth than the RCC."

Ironic that the non-all inclusive compendium of Scriptural writings, the bible, was edited and published by that same "RCC" you now trivialize and insult.

1,681 posted on 01/11/2010 8:17:17 AM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1586 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
"I know these folks may not have the "proper" viewpoint in their praying, but the fact remains, many, many people pray TO saints for specific things. Right or wrong officially, they do."

Do you know non-Catholics who are superstitious too and do you know the Church's official position on these superstitions?

1,682 posted on 01/11/2010 8:20:43 AM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1596 | View Replies]

To: the_conscience
So much better! You'll have a much easier time convincing people you can interpret the intricacies of scripture once you convince them you can handle the "subtleties" of the dictionary.

You're welcome.

1,683 posted on 01/11/2010 8:22:41 AM PST by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1680 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; Cronos; Dr. Eckleburg; boatbums; Forest Keeper

Interesting difference. I started at 13 going to chapels on the military bases where we lived, and most of the baptist churches I’ve gone to have been in the western US, plus one in Texas. At 51, and a military brat turned active duty for 25 years, I’ve had a lot of exposure, but none back east.

Regional differences, maybe? I’ve never met a baptist preacher who didn’t give altar calls at least some times.


1,684 posted on 01/11/2010 8:23:20 AM PST by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1678 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

“If that is true, how do we know when our works are complete to assure salvation?”

“When you pass from this life to the next.”

The conclusion can only be that there can be no assurance of salvation in this life.

There is no peace with God because we cannot know this side of the grave if He is satisfied with the payment made for our sins - original and subsequent.

There is, therefore, no Gospel.

Contrariwise, by trusting in the full payment for all sins by Christ, we can say with Paul, Romans 8 that there is no condemnation of those who are in Christ.


1,685 posted on 01/11/2010 8:23:46 AM PST by esquirette (If we do not know our own worldview, we will accept theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1409 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

“I think most Baptists abuse baptism.”

Why? I can understand that some folks want to include infant baptist, but I’ve never understood how anyone can object to believer’s baptism. How can that be wrong?


1,686 posted on 01/11/2010 8:27:09 AM PST by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1679 | View Replies]

To: esquirette
The conclusion can only be that there can be no assurance of salvation in this life.

True.

There is no peace with God...

False. Good grief. It's called faith and hope.

There is, therefore, no Gospel.

Way to go all Thelma & Louise with the non-sequiturs. LOL

1,687 posted on 01/11/2010 8:27:17 AM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1685 | View Replies]

To: esquirette
...those who are in Christ.

All depends how one decides to define "in Christ."

1,688 posted on 01/11/2010 8:28:11 AM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1685 | View Replies]

To: Hegewisch Dupa

I keep forgetting that Romanists are unable to interpret “subtleties” of context. I suppose that’s why they always need to refer back to Rome to understand Scripture.


1,689 posted on 01/11/2010 8:28:20 AM PST by the_conscience (I'm a bigot: Against Jihadists and those who support despotism of any kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1683 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
"From a first-up Roman Catholic site on google..."

Stooping to google mining shows the vacuous nature of your argument. "These Last Days Ministries" is hardly a sanctioned voice of the Catholic Church.

1,690 posted on 01/11/2010 8:28:30 AM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1621 | View Replies]

To: the_conscience; Hegewisch Dupa

I am totally at sea. Quotation marks around “correct” make “irregardless” a word in the English language?

This is getting bizarre.


1,691 posted on 01/11/2010 8:28:58 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1680 | View Replies]

To: the_conscience

more like when people need to play games to turn ‘call no man father’ into ‘call no priest Father’ - that’s pretty straight-forward. Or wine = grape juice. Sure - perfectly straight forward.


1,692 posted on 01/11/2010 8:30:41 AM PST by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1689 | View Replies]

To: Hegewisch Dupa
..."subtleties"...

Wait, don't you mean the nonsubtletilessness?

1,693 posted on 01/11/2010 8:31:06 AM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1683 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I really don’t want to spend time on this. I just adduce it as a real life example of how one can be polite without tradiucing one’s principles or dignity.

The abuse in our view is re-baptism. In our view it’s a one time thing.


1,694 posted on 01/11/2010 8:31:46 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1686 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

LOL


1,695 posted on 01/11/2010 8:31:56 AM PST by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1693 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

I can see you’re at sea.

Not in the Roman handbook?


1,696 posted on 01/11/2010 8:38:09 AM PST by the_conscience (I'm a bigot: Against Jihadists and those who support despotism of any kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1691 | View Replies]

To: Hegewisch Dupa

The first one is pretty straight-forward the second one not so much.


1,697 posted on 01/11/2010 8:39:16 AM PST by the_conscience (I'm a bigot: Against Jihadists and those who support despotism of any kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1692 | View Replies]

To: the_conscience

OMG you still don’t get it.

LOL


1,698 posted on 01/11/2010 8:40:12 AM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1696 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

‘...those who are in Christ.

All depends how one decides to define “in Christ.” ‘

No it does not. Paul wrote this to believers. Romans 8 was written for the benefit of those who have heard the Gospel - the good news that there can be peace with God. It is in the Bible, on Earth, now. Souls in heaven no longer need that assurance.

There is no therefore no condemnation is written to people who are alive - on this side of eternity - in the body. They are being told there is no condemnation for those who put their trust in Christ.


1,699 posted on 01/11/2010 8:43:13 AM PST by esquirette (If we do not know our own worldview, we will accept theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1688 | View Replies]

To: esquirette
They are being told there is no condemnation for those who put their trust in Christ.

Is this a Scriptural quote? Chapter and verse please.

1,700 posted on 01/11/2010 8:45:32 AM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1699 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,661-1,6801,681-1,7001,701-1,720 ... 12,201-12,204 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson