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?
Do you see the irony of this? If you are accepting that Paul offered new revelation and additions to the Gospel he was violating his own warning.
Catholics believe that sacred tradition is a continuing manifestation of the Holy Spirit and is what gave us the bible. We do not accept that the Holy Spirit retired roughly 2,000 years ago, but is alive and active today.
Amen! By the grace of God alone.
So you don’t believe that Paul was appointed Apostle to the Gentiles to preach the gospel to us? You don’t believe in the New Testament? You don’t believe that Christ saves to the uttermost?
Redemption has been performed. All the sins of Christ's flock have been forgiven."
And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." -- Hebrews 10:14,17-18" For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified...
The RC terminology is that a priest "offers" the mass which defies God's word.
Yes, it comes naturally to pray for a saint known for some particular virtue. However, that the prayer of a saint has a greater effect is biblical, see James 5:16.
Here is that verse in context:
I don't see how any argument could be made that this passage includes departed Saints. This writing clearly concerns only instructions to living people on earth. Do Saints confess their sins to one another in Heaven, for example? I don't think you would say that.
It is the righteousness of a saint that makes us expect greater effect, not his "specialty".
Then why are different Saints "designated" to different areas? Why would it come naturally as you say above if the basis is on general righteousness? I mean, if you had a medical issue would you seek the prayers of any doctors you knew ahead of asking other people for their prayers?
A canonized saint is certain to be in Heaven.
Why is a canonized saint certain to be in Heaven? I thought we were prohibited from judging the hearts of others (or knowing God's judgment of others) to this degree of certitude:
I was sure this was God's territory alone.
However, it is not wrong to ask others to pray for your intention, dead or alive.
I'm sure Petronski would agree. :)
In fact, the only way for one to be canonized a saint is to have people pray for his or her intercession, -- pray, that is, BEFORE he is canonized, on the faith that he has heroic virtue waiting to be recognized.
How would that not amount to a human controlled popularity contest? I mean, along with the recognition of miracles and such, it sounds like a departed is elevated to the level of Saint in Heaven based on the decision of humans. Is that correct? Is your use of the word "Saint" simply a human description of a few of the departed, or do they have a special status in Heaven bestowed by God (because of human decision?)? I guess I don't understand if the term "Saint", as Catholics use it, presupposes canonization (such that "canonized Saint" would be a redundancy like "born-again Christian") or if it is possible to be an uncanonized Saint.
I am speaking for myself and not the Catholic Church, although what I am going to say has some support within the Church. I believe that there is a hierarchy between and within Scripture. The words accredited directly to Jesus have the highest weight. The descriptions of the eye witnesses to Christ closely follow. The Old Testament gives us context and the Letters of Paul give us clarity. Next are other contemporaneous works not found to meet canon like the gnostic Gospels and historical works.
Jesus chose to speak to us in clear and simple words. I believe that if everything else but the Beatitudes was stripped away we would still have out path to salvation. I personally don't give much weight to the Book of Revelation because it is too cryptic and subject to misinterpretation..
(1)I'm guessing you mean repudiate.
(2)The priesthood of all believers is a key part of our faith. We hold it in high repute. ;-)
BUT I Cor 12. Are all apostles? etc.
Paul said he was taught by Christ Himself. That’s like saying, Well I believe Ezra, but not Jeremiah so much.” Revelation is spoken bt christ. It’s unbelievable, to me, a believer, that you don’t believe Christ’s revelation. Yet as a Catholic, you apparently have no problem with the words and traditions of men.
spoken by Christ
Is it part of your doctrine that original sin is carried on the Y chromosome or is that somebody else?
They don’t do the word study on zakar or on memory in general. They don’t believe in eternity. They do not see that the Eucharist is not a repetition. They HAVE to argue that we are repeating something and they’re wedded to the idea that we are wrong, so they have to exclude certain concepts.
Verb 1. repute - look on as or consider;
When did it become an actual crucifixtion? Who's idea was this? Where is the scripture?
You say the priest is not another Christ. Then the priest has the power, over God, to call Him down from heaven and offer Him up as a sacrifice. Do you see anything wrong with this?
To get around that, then the priest himself becomes Christ and offers Himself up. You then all get to participate in the original crucifixtion. Where is the scripture to support this rite?
Those He does not gracuiously regenerate will not want to obey God and keep His covenant.
And they are lost.
Paul was a man too. I began my path to salvation as both an agnostic and a cynic. I read many of the religious books of the world and rejected most because someone would say "God spoke exclusively to me and only I can tell you what he said", often in exchange for prestige, power, perquisites and pay. Jesus was the difference. The life example of Jesus was radically different and caused those who had or coveted the 4Ps enough angst to have Him killed. I am no longer agnostic, but there is still some cynic in me so I rely on the hierarchy.
"The false traditionis of men."
However . . .
I understand your argument, I just don't accept it. The problem we have is that we spend 99% of the time arguing about the 1% we disagree on. For now I am content to agree to disagree. Our problems are not the differences between the shades and flavors of Christians they are with the Godless.
1st peter
To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:
Well if you break one of the commandments you are judged as breaking them all .... so if you have already broken one..you will be in DEEP trouble on judgement day
I appreciate your honesty
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.