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?
Through the Sacrament of Baptism is fulfilled the promise of Jesus to the woman of Samaria. Jesus said to her, "Believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem..." "The hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. For the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. [Jn. 4:21-4]
26. That is why those who are baptised are told to behave as new persons who have been created in the likeness of God, truly being good and holy. [Eph. 4:24] The new heart and spirit must make every effort to control the sinful inclinations of the physical body that is called to die.
This process is to purify the physical body of the believer. The spiritual body does not need purification because a new creation will be born when the sinful one dies.
Thank you. More in 400 posts or so.
“If someone asked me what the source of a Catholic’s faith is, I should answer that it is the Eucharist and the Mass? That is, as opposed to God Himself?”
The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, our Lord. Thus, your question, to us, is a false dichotomy.
The Most Blessed Sacrament is Jesus with us in His Sacramental Presence. That Presence is at close as we get to Heaven in this life.
And thus, the Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the offering of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ to God the Father, with His entire Church joined to Him (which is also His Body), is on earth the supreme act of worship for Catholics. In the Mass, we become present at Calvary and are joined to the Sacrifice Jesus made on the Cross.
However, regarding prayer alone, I'll say this: all prayer to the saints is conditioned on the premise that it's all God. Personally, when I pray to saints in my own words, I ask them to pray for me. Even prayers to Mary, which include the highest praise that may be offered to a human creature, generally include or end with petitions to her to pray for us.
But when I pray to God in petition, I never ask God in prayer to pray for me. God, I petition for the thing itself, whatever it is.
Even in formal prayer, even to Mary, the underlying condition is that everything is through God's power.
At the end of the Hail Mary, our petition of Mary is that she pray for us, now and at the hour of our death.
As another example, there is a prayer commonly said at the end of the Rosary called “Hail Holy Queen.” This is one that should send any Protestant (”non-Catholic/non-Orthodox Christian” for those who don't like the term Protestant or think it doesn't really apply to them) running for the exits. It opens thusly:
“Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy,
our life, our sweetness and our hope.”
And from a Protestant perspective, goes downhill from there.
But at the end, it sums up:
“Pray for us O holy Mother of God,
that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.”
All that we say and ask in the prayer is ultimately conditioned in asking Mary to pray for us. And in this case, we are asking that she pray to God to make us “worthy of the promises of Christ,” which are, of course, the promises associated with salvation.
sitetest
“”that is true as you state, however, on this thread we have Orthodox Presbyterians, individuals (who seem to be searcing for the reasons for the Trinity, so at an initial stage of searching), various other congregationalists, pentecostals and even a paleo-Christian or Judaic-Christian””
The Southern Baptists Convention says the following about confession’s of faith ....
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmpreamble.asp
“(3) That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so.”
How can the Baptist faith as a whole have unity with unlimited confessions of faith when faith can be whatever any large or small group decides?
FK:Actually, that depends.
LOL, spoken like a lawyer. :)
Depending on the source, "You're naughty!" can fit that bill....
Sorry, this playing a victim card won't work. Translational errors have been well documented and are obvious to anyone who has even a basic knowledge of Greek.
I'm not a theologian, kosta50. I know what the Church teaches, but make no claim to understand it perfectly
Well, then, tell me what the Church teaches on the subject. What is lacking in the Eastern Church that is not lacking in the Western? Are the sacraments valid? Yes! Are the clergy valid? Yes! Is there apostolic authority in the Eastern Churches (apostolic succession)? Yes! Are the eastern Churches "real" Churches? yes! So, then, what is ontologically lacking in the Eastern Church to make it "less" catholic?
What the East is lacking is communion with Rome and Rome is lacking communion with the East. The Church (East or West) is not ontologically lacking anything; the fullness of Christ is in the Eucharist of either. What both "lungs" are lacking is the other lung.
“Sorry, this playing a victim card won’t work. Translational errors have been well documented and are obvious to anyone who has even a basic knowledge of Greek.”
Even if and when true, condescension is an attitude, not a recitation of facts.
“What the East is lacking is communion with Rome...”
Precisely.
“...and Rome is lacking communion with the East.”
No. The lack of communion of the Catholic Church with the Orthodox Churches does not alter that the Catholic Church is the true Church (this is what the Catholic Church believes about Herself). In the eyes of the Catholic Church, this does not make the Catholic Church less than the Church. The Catholic Church believes She lacks nothing.
“The Church (East or West) is not ontologically lacking anything; the fullness of Christ is in the Eucharist of either.”
The Catholic Church doesn’t define Herself as “part of” “The Church (East or West),” but rather as “The Church.”
I’m sorry if I’m inadequate to the task of illuminating this belief better, but it is the belief of the Catholic Church.
Of course, none of this any longer has to do with the original point, which is what is the optimal way to organize caucus labels.
sitetest
John 12:20"He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."
Romans 11:7 What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened,
Mark 6:52 for they had not gained any insight from the incident of the loaves, but their heart was hardened.
2 Corinthians 4:4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God
2 Corth 3:14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.
Eph 2:5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved.
Eph2: 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
If you wish to bark at the moon, have at it. Your remark has nothing to do with this argument.
Review the thread. I noted we were still looking for that pesky term "free will" in the Bible, based your post saying "free will" and "predestination" they were co-existent. You responded by citing a number of Bible verses where "choice" was called for. I responded by saying "choice" and "free will" are not the same thing. I defined "free will". You responded that I was, "Not even close." Then you proceeded to state that this was a discussion about "free will vs predestination". I noted that you needed to define the terms to defend the argument.
So, tap the brakes. If you want to define "free will" as "peanut butter", then fine. For you, there is now no conflict between free will vs predestination. But, you will never be able to find out how Reformed thinkers settle the matter of real free will vs predestination. You will not find why Limited Atonement is true, nor Irresistible Grace is true. Definitions are not plastic, nor are they irrelevant. So, I am not defining your "belief" for you. I am noting that the use of the term "free will" is not about "choosing". Everyone chooses all day long. I am choosing to sip this coffee. Now what? Free will addresses the issue about whether I am choosing to sip coffee utterly free from any and all influence/input from anywhere other than my own will. The reformed position says, "No". Your post about choosing implied that if I decide to pick up the cup, that is free will. That is utter nonsense. You will be the one that needs to go argue with yourself.
And, go sympathize with anyone in any cult. That is your choice. It is just not being chosen by your "free will."
That is an ecclesial, not ontological issue. The Church is not a sum of it parts. Where there is a valid bishop there is the ontological fullness of the catholic Church in her clergy, Eucharist and sacraments.
The Eastern Church is deficient because of her lack of communion with Rome, and Rome is deficient without the other "lung." Otherwise, the Pope would not be making reunion his No. 1 priority, and Orthodox prelates would not be working with him to find a way to reestablish that communion.
But keep in mind, although the Catholic Church believes that there is an ontological difference between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, I haven't said that there is an ontological difference between the baptism of Catholics and Orthodox. Or of anyone else validly baptized
What is the "ontological" difference between the two particular Churches? You are tossing around a term which, I am beginning to think, you do not fully understand.
But frankly, I regret getting into a discussion over ontology, as it's sort of beside the point in this discussion, which is about CAUCUS LABELING.
Show me that the Orthodox Church is not ontologcially catholic and you can have your labeling. The point with caucus labeling is that just because the western Church uses a label doesn't make the western Church the only rightful owner of that label.
However, we have conventions which are necessary to accentuate our ecclesial/theological disagreements which are unfortunately confused by some as valid ontological differences, and then some in position of authority inadvertently make a fool of themselves by claiming that these conventional labels represent ontological differences, i.e. that the Orthodox are "guests" on caucuses labeled "catholic" because somehow the Orthodox are not ontologically catholic.
The objection, of course, is that your label needs to be fixed. Just because DemocRats use the label doesn't mean democracy is exclusively their prerogative! This is like labeling the caucus "human" and then proceed to label some participants as "guests" because some of you are more human then other.
I you don' want the Orthodox to particpate in Catholic caucuses, find another label.
The differences between Catholics and Orthodox are sufficient to require different labels. Catholics in communion with the See of Peter include more than Latin-rite Catholics. And common usage gives the name of those Christians in communion with the See of Peter as "Catholics" and those apostolic Christians not in that communion as "Orthodox."
Orthodox is not correct either (there are Orthodox Jews as well). Eastern Orthodox, or Orthodox Catholic (official), or even Greek, should be sued, just as Latin Catholic or Western Catholic or Roman Catholic (very conventional). Monopolizing the term Catholic by one group does not make only that group catholic.
See # 2010
False humility gives no glory to God.. If He has saved you by His blood you are no longer a slave to sin, like Adam you now have the ability to sin or not sin..so you are no slave to it.. Instead you are a slave to righteousness
John 15:15"No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
You now know the holiness of God, You know that He is working to sanctify you ..you are no longer blind .
Romans 61 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.....12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
As the children of God we are no longer slaves to sin.. Like Paul we say
Romans7 14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Unlike the unsaved we no longer love our sin,we hate it..
http://bible.cc/john/12-20.htm
Do you not see a contrast between "the god of this world" and "God" in this passage?
Who is "the god of this world?"
Except if it is against your will?
If He had not predestined us, how could our works be predestined? What if we do not do them?Poor God ..subject to the will of HIS creation
Then you do no know what does. What this says is that Mary participated or "cooperated" in the redemption by giving birth to the Redeemer.
What a nugget!! How do you come up with these?
And, of course, as you say to believe in a human nature that is free to act (and be provident for ourselves) is utter nonsense. But, it may explain why the RCC view tends to elevate men and leads to the Nebuchadnezzar view ("I will make myself as the most high"). Hmmm.
Do you really believe this says God leaves some blinded but not others?
Because it doesn't say that.
Are you speaking for all Protestants and are you (collectively) equally repelled by the rituals of Judaism and the practices at the Temple?
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.