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?
If you understand your position before God (Guilt) and yet love God for what he did in Jesus (Grace) then you have only gratitude for what he did.
Amen! That's GREAT!
But I know some are very heated up about it. It just doesn't make sense to me. Ssome day I'll ask somebody to help me understand the thought (if any) behind that notion. What's TLDR, please?
Feelthy Papist (please note that while a lot of non-Catholics on this thread refuse to give us the name we think is proper to us, while many more persistently charge us with believing things we do not believe and doing things we do not do, nevertheless they don't actually call us "feelthy Papists," at least not to our faces, though they find many other terms and ways to express contempt and hostility.and then hit that key every time I refer to Catholics.
Do you want a situation in which we call ourselves what we think the proper term is while you all disagree so that every thread can at least argue about that while they look for other ways to avoid substantive conversation? How many people do you suppose think that we think that you have called us "feelthy papists" out loud and in front of God and everybody?
OK, that is helpful. Thanks, and thanks for giving some info on the structure of how the Mass works. For some reason in all this time I have never learned about it.
Yet Rome says that very same thing about Mary. And they are just as wrong about her as you since Christ alone redeems.
Mary should have any kind of preference before the Twelve. Its not that she 'earned' it by suffering.
We've been told dozens of times Mary's suffering earned her the elevated position Rome places her in.
Sharing in His work means to share in His redemptive work.
We share in the result of Christ's redemption. We don't join Him in redeeming others. Christ alone redeems.
Amen!
"Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" -- 1 Thess. 1:3
Yep. That's exactly what they say -- that Jesus was born without impacting Mary's virginity and thus without blood.
This peculiar concept, of course, is found nowhere in Scripture and actually implies there is something impure about natural childbirth.
Where does your water come from, the faucet or the well? BUT that's not quite right either, because of what Sacrament means. I fear I'm going to end up saying the faucet is an essential aspect of the source/well/spring. The other feeble attempt is that a mountain summit is an area as well as one geometrical "tippy-top" point. So the Eucharist is Summit while Jesus is the "tippy-top"? Maybe?
When I think of "source of faith" I think of God alone. When I think of "source of growth of faith" I think of God through a variety of ways, some of which include prayer and spending time with Him in His word. Is this what you are talking about? Or, a very different view would be that a non-believer could walk into a Catholic Church, participate in however many sacraments, and as a direct result then have faith because the sacraments are the source (along with the cooperation of the person). Since the exact words "source of faith" were used I just wanted to clarify what is being said. I thought that to participate in sacraments outside of Baptism that one had to already have faith. How can this be so if the sacraments are the source, etc.?
It's all about control and constantly moving the goal-line. When the-conscience posted this thread, wanting to call himself "C"atholic (as in universal), RCs had a fit.
RCs do not control the language, try as they might.
In classical psychology, projection is always seen as a defense mechanism that occurs when a person’s own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else
We see, throughout the whole extent of Popery, not merely horrid profanations of the Supper, but even a sacrilegious abomination set up in its room. In the first place, it is prostituted to filthy lucre (I Timothy 3:8) and merchandise. Secondly, it is maimed, by taking away the use of the cup. Thirdly, it is changed into another aspect, by its having become customary for one to partake of his own feast separately, participation being done away. Fourthly, there is there no explanation of the meaning of the sacrament, but a mumbling that would accord better with a magical incantation, or the detestable sacrifices of the Gentiles, than with our Lord's institution. Fifthly, there is an endless number of ceremonies, abounding partly with trifles, partly with superstition, and consequently manifest pollutions. Sixthly, there is the diabolical invention of sacrifice, which contains an impious blasphemy against the death of Christ. Seventhly, it is fitted to intoxicate miserable men with carnal confidence, while they present it to God as if it were an expiation, and think that by this charm they drive off everything hurtful, and that without faith and repentance. Nay more, while they trust that they are armed against the devil and death, and are fortified against God by a sure defence, they venture to sin with much more freedom, and become more obstinate. Eighthly, an idol is there adored in the room of Christ. In short, it is filled with all kinds of abomination (John Calvin, Comm. on I Cor. 11:30).If in Paul's times an ordinary abuse of the Supper could kindle the wrath of God against the Corinthians, so that he punished them thus severely, what ought we to think as to the state of matters at the present day?
Sounds like the loony left's definition of "hate crimes," only with thoughts instead of actions - hate crime of the cerebrum. "Clockwork Orange."
If everyone understood that fact think how lovely this earth would be.
Colossians 1:16-17.
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.
I don't see how this addresses "source of faith". Presence doesn't mean a transfer of faith (necessarily).
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.
If it is the supreme act of worship then that mandates that you already had faith before you participated in it. How can it then be the source? :)
In the Mass, we become present at Calvary and are joined to the Sacrifice Jesus made on the Cross.
What does this mean? I can think of some possibilities that sound pretty bad, so maybe it would be better if I just let you answer first. :)
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.
OK, I'd say that addresses well many of the strongest criticisms of Protestants concerning the subject. That matches the analogy often given of asking a friend for prayer. However, as many of us on the other side have done, it is easy to find published prayers to Mary that read like this - Petition to Mary by Saint Alphonsus Liguori :
This is by no means an isolated example, so I'm sure you can imagine what is going through our minds when we read prayers (by a Saint no less) like this. :)
That is a most excellent point. I don't know of one single Christian that will tell me that God didn't work in their life to bring them to Him.
I didn't see that said or implied anywhere. I saw the direct connection being made to her sorrow. I think it's right in front of the bolded part.
What would you all think of the label "Apostolic Caucus"? This would cover all subjects on which Western Catholics and Eastern Orthodox agree. So, things like Immaculate Conception would be out, but the rest of the 95% of agreement would all be in.
That's an excellent analysis, Mom. Thanks much for the ping. :)
I will ask you again, please, do not ping me to your every reply to this—or any—thread.
“I presume it is sarcasm,...”
You've read my mind unsuccessfully.
There was not a drop of sarcasm intended.
In my own opinion, Mr. Rogers is one of the most charitable posters on Free Republic. That he tries very hard to love each poster here is evident in his posts.
sitetest
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.