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?
(I don’t think they want to understand. Some people define themselves by what they’re against.)
Actually, the one particular poster you placed in your cross hairs quoted a Roman Catholic hierarch suggesting in no uncertain terms that it is a top dogma of the RCC in one of the recent threads. So, condescension and faulty understanding seem to be a straw man rather than something substantive.
Rather, the Catholic Church believes and teaches that murder in all its forms is wrong, and that a just society must protect innocent citizens from murder though law
The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches the same thing regarding murder, but since when does the Church dictate what the society must do?
A society is unjust to the degree that it refuses to provide the protection of law to innocent persons.
That seems to be at odds with the teachings of St. Paul who actually states that all authority must be obeyed.
It is fundamentally at odds with ... to declare a “constitutional RIGHT” of one class of persons to privately murder without legal consequence another class of persons
I couldn't agree more. However, the society, especially some members of the female gender in the society, is in disagreement as to what is a person, denying that a developing human embryo is ontologically human!
The Catholic Church teaches that [legalized abortion] is a horror (it is), and that Catholic politicians must not support such a legal regime, and in fact, must do their best to reverse it
These politicians argue that they don't support murder but merely recognize that other people do not see abortion as murder. This is what happens when you confuse a label for essence.
However, rather than telling how others should think, or what they must do, the Church ought to practice what she preaches and do what she needs to do—namely, excommunicate those who openly go against her beliefs.
RCC also functioned in Nazi Germany and maintained diplomatic relations with Hitler's government. the Nazi leaderhsip proclaimed a different 'religion' so their excommunication was a no-brainer. Nevertheless, the RCC found a workable relationships with the Nazis on many levels.
Because they teach generally that no Catholic can support the legal regime of abortion on demand that entirely violates the fundamental human rights of over one million unborn children per year?
So, why doesn't the RCC then do what it did with the Nazi leadership and summarily excommunicate every and all those Catholic politicians who profess support for abortion?
It would be VERY DISAPPOINTING if the bishops did not speak out clearly, urgently and forcefully against the wholesale slaughter of an entire class of human persons
It is even more disappointing if they do noting about it, which is the case in the RCC as a whole. The problem S that they just talk about it! And the Eastern Orthodox Church is doing even less in that regard! Apparently, the Greek side of the eastern Church here in America seems to feel that just being Greek is enough to "erase" the sin of supporting abortions and will go even as far as honoring such politicians.
Either way, both Churches seem to talk too much and do too little! As far as I am concerned, they deserve each other wholeheartedly.
What should be a more important topic on the bishops’ social agenda than the slaughter of over one million innocent children per year?
Throwing out the trash.
Even if the society fails to do as much as it should for the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the sick, THE POWER OF THE STATE IS NOT USED TO IMPOVERISH, TO STARVE, TO STEAL, TO MAKE HOMELESS OR SICK. But the power of the state IS used to PERMIT PRIVATE MURDER OF AN ENTIRE CLASS OF PERSONS, and practically speaking, the number of persons so murdered is huge.
So, why is the Church then maintaining relations with such a government? How is, in the eyes of the Church, one murderous government different form another simply because millions of innocents being murdered by law happen to be Jews in once case and non-Jews is another? Where are the mass excommunications?
Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
The scriptures always disagree with you guys...
That's not what the Church is about. The Church needs to clean her own house, not try to run the government. If it is not her business to legislate immaculate Conception then ti is not her business to legislate morality either. The Church needs to do what the Church MUST do and that is excommunicate those preach what the Church is opposed to.
But it is precisely because this is NOT a matter of Catholic religious dogma or doctrine, NOT a matter of Divine Revelation...but an obligation [sic] on ALL men to acknowledge the moral law written on their hearts...
The knowledge of which is supposedly a matter of divine revelation...The only claim to any universal morality is based on religious revelation. There is nothing inherently in man's biology that requires him to submit to moral principles universally.
Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion commit mortal sin PUBLICLY
How so? Pelosi and Kennedy and the Sarbanes, and Snowes did not murder anyone personally. They simply recognize that some people are of a different moral persuasion and that we, as a secular society, cannot impose our religious beliefs on others.
The early Church taught that a Christian can not serve in the military. That sure has changed! The early Church also taught that embryos were not "ensouled" and St. Augustine argued that one, therefore, cannot kill that which is not alive. That sure has changed! The early Church also proclaimed at the Quinisext Council that Christians are not to go to Jewish physicians. That sure has changed!
And, more recently, the Church excommunicated the whole leadership of the Nazi Party in Germany but has "difficulties" doing the same when it comes to pro-abortionists like Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy, etc. At least the Eastern Orthodox don't thump their chest. They keep things pretty much quiet and hope than no one with notice. I myself did not know about the Sarbanes's and Olympia Snowe's position precisely because ehtnofiletism competes with Eastern Orthodox morality at times. But both Churchs are guilty of hypocrisy when it comes to abortion.
Wasn't Kennedy's funeral a moral equivalent of the Greek Orthodox Church's honoring of the Sarbanes "native sons" or looking the other way with Olympia Snowe? Lack of condemnation of such politicians by any Orthodox Church is a grave moral sin in steroids!
So, perhaps both Churchs deserve each other quite well, but not as a compliment.
What NL is trying to say is that Moos say thatAllah IS YhvH and he is ONE.
2 points
(1) IF I understand it, the real pedal to the metalNominalist position is that the will would not even be directed by what I would think of as the intrinsic attractions of the good. Just for what it’s worth. I’ll try to go further into it.
(2) I DO think that the risk or challenge of our side is the temptation to give oneself ‘props’ for choosing the right side or something. I don’t think it’s a necessary error, but certainly we make more room for that goof.
I can only testify that if I ever made a good choice, I was the most surprised person in the room, and that my perception, not my thought — my FEELING was the the good decision was given to me or happened for me or .. ANYTHING but that it’s mine. All I can add is sin. That’s not a logical proposition, it’s a reluctantly reached conclusion. (Except once you reach it, it’s kind of cool.)
Such a claim only has teeth to the extent others believe it .
De Montfort uses “worship” somewhere. The word doesn’t matter that much. These guys don’t want to see it; they’re not going to see it. It would take away a lot of the excuse for righteous anger.
At this point I should respond to the_conscience's request that I reveal my own beliefs.
I decline to do that. Depending on whose ox is getting gored, I've been called Catholic, anti-Catholic, Mormon, anti-Mormon and so on.
As long as everyone is complaining, I take it as evidence that I am being even-handed.
I thought you were a Catholic, anti-Catholic, Mormon, anti-Mormon.
I'll be sure to step up my complaints about you then, you know, to keep things balanced.
First, whoever kicked off/out my fellow Orthodox Christian believers certainly needs to examine his/her sense of what it means to be Christian. Whoever made that decision mas set a very dangerous precedent.
Second, I am an Orthodox Christian and belong to the ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church...the one the Lord Jesus Christ established.
LOL!
I’ve never done that.
I would like you to actually address the substance of my argument.
Perhaps a better way would be to ask the RM to tell us what is ontologically lacking in the Easttern Orthodox Church that makes it a "lesser" catholic Church. Last time I checked, the Orthodox sacraments were "valid," the clergy are "valid," the Eastern Orthodox Eucharist is Real presence, the Eastern Orthodox bishops have "valid" apostolic succession and occupy "valid" apostolic offices (i.e. the authority of the Eastern Orthodox Church is "valid") and the Eastern churches are recognized "real" or "valid" Churches.
Where a valid bishop is that is where the fullness of the Cahtolic Church is (cf +Ignatius). The Church is not a sum of its parts, but each individual church has all the fullness of the Body of Christ ontologically speaking.
That is the definition of the Catholic Church from the earliest days of the Church. Nowhere does it say that one must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or that the Church where that bishops resides has monopoly on catholicity.
Ontologically, there is no difference in authority or validity of either Church. Then what makes one "Catholic" and the other one doesn't? The Pope? If we are going to legislate papal bias on this Forum, then at least have a decency to admit it as a matter of policy for all to know and see.
Thank you very much.
ping
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.