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?
In YOUR view, according to YOUR own personal interpretation of Scripture.
Were you referring to transubstantiation, how do you define "Catholics", and where did you get your statistics?
Given the abysmal state of catechesis in the last 40 years ... I’d suggest that people who give answers #2 and #3 may be repeating what they were taught ...
Here is more wisdom, the Catholic Church is not a democracy and doesn't permit its Catechism and dogma to be established by popular vote of the members, the elect or even the clergy, let alone non-practicing CINOs.
Just like Salvation, Catholicism is not declared or awarded. It is justified by faith AND works.
You used a lot of words and bandwidth but are still as wrong as ever. Using Hebrew words doesn't make it more right, either. The Old testament was satisfied, "Tetelestai", by the death and resurrection of Jesus.
I remember this Gallup poll from the early 1990s.
Actually, the poll provided five choices, and gave them all in moderately theologically-technical language. Only 30% of respondents correctly chose the choice that described transubstantiation. But others chose similar-sounding descriptions of consubstantiation and similar doctrines of Real Presence, with 64% selecting one choice or other that signified the Real Presence (albeit not necessarily transubstantiation), as opposed to a merely symbolic presence.
Thus, the poll didn't show that Catholics don't generally believe in the Real Presence but rather that most Catholics DO believe in the Real Presence, but cannot identify the theological language accurately that describes Catholic belief.
That's not a good thing, but neither is it that 70% of Catholics reject the Real Presence.
sitetest
By the way, a couple of more pertinent facts. Among weekly Church-going Catholics, the belief in the Real Presence was higher, and 44% of weekly Mass-assisting Catholic chose the correct response describing transubstantiation.
As well, the poll was conducted over the telephone, and thus, folks were being asked to choose between these theological explanations verbally, over a phone, without the ability to see on paper what was being asked.
Not a very promising methodology.
sitetest
I'm not sure what you mean with "upper-caste". How would you describe the Israelites in the OT? They were separated from the gentiles by God to be the Holy people of God. That's pretty much how I see the idea of the elect, although it isn't exactly the same since many of the Israelites were not saved. On the merits, the elect aren't any better of a people than anyone else, just as the Israelites weren't. They were just chosen. I mean, you guys are in, so ........... :)
......... but predestination, and limited atonement seem like a basic either-or, no gray area or possibilities of misunderstanding.
Yep, I'd agree with that. I can't think of any third positions on these off the top of my head.
Is this an endorsement or confirmation of the principle of invincible ignorance? If not, how could any of them have been saved since none had a personal knowledge and acceptance of Jesus?
When someone was convicted of a crime, in Yah'shua's day After they had served the complete sentence, We have been given a pardon for all of our sins The debt for our sins has been paid for by All we need to do in order to receive salvation, I'm glad you brought up "Tetelestai".
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
and they were sentenced to be punished for the crime.
they were given a document which denotes the crime
and written over it is "Tetelestai"
which meant that the crime had been paid for.
by sacrificed blood of the Lamb of G-d.
the blood of the slain Passover Lamb.
is call on His NAME => YHvH be my salvation.
So 20% do not?? Are they Catholics ??
I probably could not find 20% of born again believers that believe in the real presence..so we seem to be doing better on having faithful adherents :)
In YOUR view, according to YOUR own personal interpretation of Scripture.
WOW ! So what you are telling me is that you serve the
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
same god as the Allah of Mohammed.
The word was not only used with respect to punishment. It was used to indicate satisfaction of a debt or a task. With it Jesus indicated that his mission, the satisfaction of the Old testament was completed.
"All we need to do in order to receive salvation, is call on His NAME => YHvH be my salvation."
With all due respect, that is woefully incomplete.
The meaning of that paragraph has been explained countless times by remedial witnesses far more skilled than I am.
The word was not only used with respect to punishment. It was used to indicate satisfaction of a debt or a task. With it Jesus indicated that his misson, the satisfaction of the Old testament was completed.
"All we need to do in order to receive salvation, is call on His NAME => YHvH be my salvation."
With all due respect, that is woefully incomplete.
Salvation see:shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Gen. 49:18; Exod. 14:13; 15:2; Deut. 32:15; 1 Sam. 2:1; 2 Sam. 22:3, 36, 47; 23:5; 1 Chr. 16:23, 35; 2 Chr. 6:41; 20:17; Job 13:16; Ps. 3:8; 9:14; 13:5; 14:7; 18:2, 35, 46; 21:1, 5; 24:5; 25:5; 27:1, 9; 35:3, 9; 37:39; 38:22; 40:10, 16; 50:23; 51:12, 14; 53:6; 62:1f, 6; 65:5; 67:2; 68:19; 69:29; 70:4; 71:15; 78:22; 79:9; 85:4, 7, 9; 88:1; 89:26; 91:16; 95:1; 96:2; 98:2f; 106:4; 116:13; 118:14f, 21; 119:41, 81, 123, 155, 166, 174; 132:16; 140:7; 144:10; 146:3; 149:4; Isa. 12:2f; 17:10; 25:9; 33:2, 6; 45:8, 17; 46:13; 49:6, 8; 51:5f, 8; 52:7, 10; 56:1; 59:11, 16; 60:18; 61:10; 62:1, 11; 63:5; Jer. 3:23; Lam. 3:26; Jon. 2:9; Mic. 7:7; Hab. 3:8, 13, 18; Zech. 9:9;
Ohhh my..don't you know that the entire old Testament points to Christ and His crucifixion?
Why did God create man? To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.. All of creation is for His glory..God is glorified in the fall of man and His plan of redemption..It shows us the Holiness of God and His mercy and grace.. If God had not ordained this, and it was against His will, He need never have created anyone. Look what Peter said of Christ
1Peter: 18 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. 20 For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you 21 who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
Before the foundation of the earth was formed the plan of salvation by Christ was fully planned..
God had a plan, a plan to glorify himself.
See what Peter said here
Acts 2:Acts 2:23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
What do you think would have happened if Christ had not been crucified and lived to a ripe old age?
cite your scripture source please and while you are at it please cite a scripture for a priesthood in the New Church
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.