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?
Men are accountable to God according to His holy word, and not to fallible men who wrongly presume they are "another Christ" who not only think they speak for God but blasphemously tell the world they have become God.
God's word.
"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." -- Luke 4:4 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." -- Proverbs 30:5
Pardon me, I’m yawning...;-D
Exodus 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Thats it Judith ,you show us !
Who cares. They had dominance throughout the Dark Ages and no matter how hard they tried they could never eliminate independent Bible believing churches. Also, even if all Christian churches were independent we would still form associations to better preach The Gospel and fellowship.
Accountability to the congregation through the Scriptures by the ruling elders is what matters.
I agree. The point is though, that prior to the emergence of a dominant hierarchy Christians worshiped in a lot of different ways and it was a period that saw incredible growth as well as accomplishments like identifying the Scriptures. The decentralized structure is pretty bad at enforcing it's views (other than by persuasion) but it is superior at stopping heresy.
A decentralized structure is more susceptible to error, but the error is localized. IOW, you may have a church so caught up in tongues that people are barking like dogs, but it's hard for this error to expand because other churches will first look to Scripture and not accept it as proper. However, in a centralized authority structure error can be introduced, such as bowing down to graven images, and because decision making is localized in one location the practice is accepted and once accepted is very hard to eliminate.
That's why I think church structure led to such a big divergence for the RCC from the rest of the Christian churches and why they can't reconcile with Christian churches that rely on the Scriptures as the rule of their faith.
Changing the word from what was Catholic doctrine for 100s of years might make you feel better..but it only points out the churches efforts to evade criticism of its mass
Reminds me of the martyrs of the reformation..thanks for showing it.. good reminder for protestants to toughen up ;)
good post !
There is a certain group of errorists who evidently want to play Prosecutor; I feel a sense of something dark spreading over the thread...
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be thou our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him/her, we humbly pray. And do thou, o prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into hell all the evil spirits who prowl about the religion forum, seeking the ruin of souls.
Chores. Bye.
Accountability to the pope you mean
Distinction time again. YES, there was a controversy. It's controversies that get councils and popes to "declare and define." They don't go out looking for trouble.
And YES the controversies were complicated. That is, when somebody says "Some kind of change happens in the bread and wine so that it is no longer proper to speak of them as bread and wine," somebody else is rightly going to say, "What in heck do you mean by THAT?"
Then you get different attempts to explore and explain what it might mean and what are the best ways to talk about it and what can NEVER be rightly said. And even with conciliar definitions, there are frequent reviews and refinements.
TO us this is far from being a problem. We do not think of the early Church as a paradigm from which we have all departed and decayed. We think of it more as like an acorn which has, um, ramified, as acorns do.
So the process of questioning, attempting a "Right way to say it," examining, thinking, praying, studying, etc. these are to us what it means that, as we see it, Christ promise to guide the Church in the Spirit.
Did the church fathers agree on ALL DOCTRINE WITHOUT EXCEPTION? or were they fallible human beings? Could they have error in their teachings? Are they infallible like scripture?Heck no.
I think it would be right to say that WE think that, by and large, they agreed "in the gross." But the more they got down to details, the more need there was for an umpire.
You know the biggest miracle is when the Holy Spirit moves in an unregenerate man and He is born again. It is a gift of Gods grace that not one man deserves, yet that in Gods mercy He extends to an unworthy creation.. all other miracles pale in comparison..Yep Easter all over again -- or not all over again but rather Easter still.
And in case you wonder..no I do not believe a piece of bread is worthy to be prayed before or honored or that IT can preform any miracle..Well, we agree that a piece of bread is not worthy ....
We think it's no longer a piece of bread when we adore. If we thought it was a piece of bread, we might think about it and what it meant, but we wouldn't adore. And in any event we don't think "IT" can perform miracles. That's a Eucharistic error I'd guess(though it's about here that my head begins to hurt.) GOD performs the miracle. God is "there" (yet not in a way to say He isn't also elsewhere) as we think of it, and it is He through the Son in the Spirit who is, so to speak, responsible for any Eucharistic Miracle.
I"m just trying to clarify and to present how we think of it, not to persuade you that we're right, though of course I think we are, just as, of course, you don't.
Not until God Himself says we can start bowing and praying to idols.
I have yet to see ANY SCRIPTURE that says we may do so.
Anybody who says that coffee causes asthma, I don't want to hear it. Just saying so, okay?
This is a fulfillment of the lamb offered by Abel, the lamb offered by Abraham, the lambs offered in the temple.
I seriously doubt that some posters have the actual Catholic background they profess. Every kid taking first communion knows it’s “Accountability to God.”
Judith, that's your hat slipping down
Coffee, cocoa, and tea all have chemicals that tend to alleviate asthma. True.
I pray for you and look forward to your book announcement, which will be welcome here on the Religion Forum.
bookmark.
The Old Testament sacrifices were a type of Christ after His death there is no more sacrifices for sin ..Leviticus 17:11 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.'
Hebrews9:19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.”e 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
So what? I have yet to see any tradition which unequivocally gives us permission to use musical instruments in Church.
I have yet to see any ANY SCRIPTURE that says I must doubt that the Spirit of Christ guides the Church.
We see Christ making promises to the Twelve. We see Paul calling the Church the pillar and ground of truth. We see an invitation to trust the tradition which Paul conveys whether written or not.
With you we reject "Traditions of men." We just differ with you about what is a tradition of men and what is a tradition of God.
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.