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?
This whole forum is so rich!
Sometimes I'm distressed at the heat:light ratio, but then I read, say, Athanasius, and, well let's say he wasn't even nominated for Miss Congeniality. And Calvin used to crack me up with his angry and dismissive rhetoric.
Then the whole problem of what's a Scriptural proof? What's a sophistry, the difference between fallacy (error in reasoning) and falsehood (error in fact?). And so on.
And evidently nearly all of us can say something unbelievably awful about the other side, and then parade waving the bloody shirt in one hand and suffering no sense of incongruity about the dagger in our other hand.
There's at least one doctoral thesis here. I wish I were younger. It is completely fascinating!
So then God does not accept bloodless sacrifices right??
That is where you fundamentally err. The Church is neither a republic OR a democracy. You give yourself and your congregation too much credit and God too little. Accountability is to God.
Just because you say something is so is not substantiation...And when you use the writings of one of your church fathers that very well could be forged, that as well is not substantiation...
Isn’t this bizarre?
Tallulah Bankhead, Judith and Holofernes, and throwing babies out with holy water all on the same page?
Well, that’s the Religion Forum for ya.
What’s age got to do with it? You’ve got a great idea, I say run with it. If you can’t find a publisher, you can always self-publish.
I've answered this twice, didn't you read my mosts 3625 or 3722 or are you making this personal about a certain's poster's views?
LOL!
You got all ten toes right up to the line of calling me a liar. If this were an NFL game the Religion moderator would have his head in the replay box right now. And for the record, repeating a lie "falsehood" doesn;t make it true.
Has anyone here ever gotten the feeling that someone was trying to set him/her up?
I believe your question was answered above. I don’t believe that I personally have to respond every time my chain is yanked.
See my post 375l below.
So my friend, you are right about my spiritual condition, it is one that daily must repent and thank God for my Savior Christ.....I know that my salvation rests not on me or my works but on the work of Christ.. I am a filthy rotten sinner that has a loving Father that adopted her in spite of who and what she was and is.. What a glorious God we have..
Amen!!!
The theory of transsubstantion was not developed until the 9th century by a monk Paschasius Radbertus. At that time a monk named Ratranmus wrote: "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense"
This controversy continued until the 13th century... it was not "resolved "until the the Lateran Council in 1215
As the Dark Ages got even darker.
The Doctor of the Church, Duns Scotus, admits that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century....so you assertion that it was always held to be the real body and blood is just not accurate. It was not a doctrine of faith until that time, before that if you were Catholic you were allowed to believe it was or was not the actual body of Christ.
Superstition always goes hand-in-hand with tyranny.
Cutting and pasting always goes right along with finding suddenly grammatically correct posts about somebody else’s faith.
It intrigues me that in the Eucharistic Prayer of Cranmer (who was, I think, more Calvinist that anything else in his thought) there is language along these lines:
"And here we offer and present unto Thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice ..."Of course, the word "bloodless" does not appear, but I guess I always thought it was implied. ("reasonable" here means "able to reason".)
Is the notion that every offering be bloody a part of some theologies? Just asking. No hidden agenda.
If the FR reads through the thread he will see Calvinists and Calvin dragged all over the place and mocked with "slurs"
We need to grow up here..we are not liberal cry babies, we are not post modernists that think every word we do not like is a "slur"
Go and read the works of the documents of the reformation and you will see plenty of hits and strong language on both sides.. Guess what they were grown ups that did not let every little thing bother them .. Romanist is no different than Calvinist ..should they out law that too?
Instead of whining and complaining we should examine issues ...
I have had enough personal insults thrown at me in the last few days..that if I cared i could whine about..but I really do not care what the Catholic posters think of me personally.. the center of discussion is doctrine not our personalities it is a search for the truth about Christ.
er...my post 375l above, rather.
Hmmm...It may have nothing to do with feelings...What's God say about it???
Yea we need a few idols
But, no need to bring THAT up, right? An irritated Catholic could say, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, and don't be thin-skinned," but Catholics don't do that. It is the RM's perogative. I know. The RM has said it to me. ;-D
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.