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?
Should we expect a burning in our bosom?
I’m a totally depraved sinner saved by sovereign grace trinitarian Catholic Christian.
So I'll take that as a "No".
. . . "can" . . . ????
Uhhhhh . . . no . . . I came up with some charitable, inclusive, encompasing terms I hoped would be seen as mutually acceptable.
I got back the usual heretical !!!!CONTROL!!!! PHREAQUE !!!!DEMANDING!!!! stinking piles of supreme arrogance from the usual finger frothing cliques for TPC's to utterly kotow to and comply with. NOPE. No more.
HINT:
They burned that bridge.
They burned the bridge pilings.
They burned the bridge abudments.
They burned the bridge approaches.
They gleefully burned the asphalt for miles around leading up to the bridge approaches.
I would frequently limit my preferences in posting fun and colors just in an effort to minimize jangling some of their starchy, prissy, sanctimonious, self-righteous, snooty, Nurse Rachetty sensibilities . . . when one cares, one frequently defers on sensibilities. NO MORE. Rain on em. It can take me many years, as I've demonstrated, hereon, to get burned out on even the nastiest of scoundral types. However, it does happen, on occasion.
If they want to pretend to Mother Mary that they can or want to play nice, THEY can come up with a MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE umbrella term. That they refuse will be a screaming persistent declaration of their fierce galactic level arrogance and stubborness about their exclusive, unrighteous, UNBiblical IN-GROUP vs OUT-GROUP mentalities.
OR, Perhaps I should just let my creativity roam and see how many possible plausible unheretical terms I could come up with . . . and Trinitarian Protty Christians could just choose which seemed like the most fun for us.
Well put.
Love it.
When asked if I was “Catholic,” I’ve noted that I was a member of the Univesal Church of Christ Jesus—Christ’s Body made up of all who accepted His Blood covering; who accepted Him as their salvation. . . . that I was not a member of the Roman Catholic tradition. And, that I was Pentecostal/Charismatic in theology and practice.
Are you contending that they would be less saved by virtue of their not taking communion?
If so, that is elevating communion above being saved by Christ, and saying that being saved by Christ is insufficient to in fact be saved if not supplemented by communion.
First my testimony: God is not a hypothesis, His Name is I AM, I’ve known Him for half a century and counting. I am a Christian, plain and simple.
Now my story: For many years I’ve attended mass with my Catholic family members whenever they invited me. Lately, I do it a lot as some family members are elderly and need physical assistance to attend.
The local priest and a person I gather is a deacon routinely offer me the bread and the cup which I routinely decline. The reason I decline is that in the very front of one of the books in their pews is an official statement by the Catholic Church instructing non-Catholics to not participate in that part of the mass.
And so out of respect and honor for the Catholic Church and my beloved relatives, I comply, even though I know this particular doctrine does not comply with Scripture (emphasis mine:)
Truly, I would not want to be among those in the Catholic Church who participated in the establishment of this doctrine, i.e. I don’t see how they shall justify before Christ the withholding of what they believed to be His body and His blood.
To God be the glory, not man, never man!
The LDS phrase is not a bad metaphor . . . just the wrong source.
Great example why it is a waste of time to talk with RC's. The question was asked and I then answered it. The only response left is to denigrate the post. Typical.
St.Augustine would agree with us.
INDEED.
Some cliques have a preference, a hobby and habit of dinegrating the postER vs even the post.
I wonder if they’ll list that on their application to Heaven under “HOBBIES” . . .
Hmmm.
THX.
Fear not, wm! God always has a remnant and his elect arise from many peoples. We may not always see what God is doing initially.
Amen to that!
I especially enjoy the links that Dr.E provides, lots of good information.
Amen brother.
Wonderful point.
I know you want to have a dialog with them and be united by our common faith in Jesus, my experience has been it's a fruitless exercise. They are the product of a hegemonic church that can't live in peace with others. It is reflected in their doctrines/dogmas and arrogance.The blessing is it also makes them terrible at apologetics.
Thanks for your affirmation of persistent sad truth.
God be with you.
Thank you for your encouragement, dear brother in Christ!
If the_conscience one day repented of any hope outside of Christ’s death for his sins, burial, and Resurrection for his justification, and trusted only Christ,
then he was baptiszed by the Holy Spirit INTO Jesus Christ (1 Cor 12:13; Eph. 4), and was made bone of Christ’s bone and flesh of Christ’s flesh.
That’s WHERE he was baptized.
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.