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?
Interesting.
Thanks.
Leviticus 26:1 - Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.
WRONG.
It’s been around at least 400 years.
People make up lies all the time about the Catholic Church here on FR. When someone says that Constantine was a A Pope and the Church Fathers did not believe in the True Presence of Eucharist- what do you call it? It's a lie!
Is the word fabrication of truth acceptable ? Sounds better anyway :)
Only because they represent a focus point and symbol for the actual saint. Prayers offered to saints are intercessory, that is they ask the saint to pray to God, the one source of salvation and goodness. This is no different than asking our living friends and family to pray for us or for another.
“BTW that is similar to Jesus saying He does not pray for the world, only for those God gave Him”
Yes, Jesus prayed for the disciples. Golly. But He came because “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
“How would you describe your theology?”
I don’t give it a label. I’m starting to conclude that it is folly to study ‘systematic theology’, because the folks who write the texts always mix in large doses of philosophy.
I’ve read that Watchman Nee wrote a book on systematic theology, and then decided he didn’t want it published, because it made things too easy. Like Calvin, he believed doctrine must be worked into our lives to have any value, but unlike Calvin, he believed that reading a book changes the mind, not the heart.
That is why we don’t see theology taught systematically in scripture. Scripture was written to make us wise to salvation thru faith in Jesus, and teach us how to live as God wants. It isn’t supposed to make us brainy philosophers.
What an unusual amount of excessive dripping sweetness today!
I wonder what the occasion is.
As far as I know, I was “careful.”
Thanks for removing those posts, including mine, and thank you for removing that source from FR. I appreciate your response.
Maybe not.
I wonder what the occasion is.
Okay, that one made me giggle!
I agree. I know a number of “church ladies” with the same qualifications who are currently in the church today (friends of mine) and they don’t seem to give “rote” type answers, they just speak from their own heart, knowledge and experience.
None of them would dream of leaving the church, and couldn’t be Baptist if they tried. Sometimes a history is difficult to believe.
Do you have a tickler file or reminder that tells you when you think enough time has lapsed since the last time you spewed this tripe for the refutations to have diminished in the minds of the innocent?
“Catholics and all authentic Christians bow to statues of saints.”
So anyone who doesn’t bow to statues of saints isn’t authentically Christian, and is destined to hell? Or, are false Christians to be saved?
I didn’t think that was Catholic doctrine...guess I’m in deep doo-doo, then!
. . .
. . .
compared to . . .
. . .
. . .
all the “lies” about Protty beliefs and assertions, I suppose.
You can even attribute motive to a source as long as it is not another Freeper, e.g. the author of that website is a liar, the book is full of lies from beginning to end.
But do not attribute motive to another Freeper, e.g. you intentionally fabricated that.
LOL!You're so gifted ,dear brother
I think this may be a product of it's organizational structure. The primitive Christian churches were decentralized, leadership was developed from within the church, services were not scripted, the pastors were not elevated and the unity of these churches was based on a common FAITH.
Once a centralized hierarchy emerged sanctioned and supported by the state it was only a question of time before it would dominate. From that dominant position you see doctrines "evolve" where these beliefs now point back to this dominant church as controlling an individual's salvation. Centralized power in the hands of a few "for the good of everybody" is the liberal mindset.
The interesting thing is that during that period where a decentralized Christianity existed the Scriptures were identified and growth in numbers was due to individual one on one contact presenting The Gospel. Once a dominant hierarchy emerged conversion became more of a state mandated practice. Also, during that decentralized period you read in Scripture of churches where they spoke in tongues, others were pretty strict in their structure and others in between the two.
Thanks for the clarification.
Okay. The author of that website (now removed) is a crazy liar who hates Jews and Catholics, in no particular order.
Okay?
Yes.
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.