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?
“Coakley has earned every bit of it.”
True. Sorry to get creeped out.
I agree it is spiritual warfare. I am certain about Christ’s commandment concerning how we are to conduct ourselves. I am not so certain which side others may be on....
May God Almighty, Father of Christ Jesus, bless you with His Loving Presence, may He grant you health, wealth and happiness, may He protect and guide you always. In Christ’s name I pray.
My sense about her, however,
is that she has relentlessly, doggedly, bone marrowly CHOSEN
SATAN’S side at virtually every point for a long time.
There are consequences—PARTICULARLY if she has absolutely no inclination toward confession and repentance.
Understand.
Please keep in mind . . . Coakley is the one who has
RELENTLESSLY CHOSEN
the creepy choices, actions, priorities, values . . . to the max.
She MUST reap a good measure of what she has sown or God is a liar.
All the more so short of confession & repentance.
God is NOT a liar. That’s how HE set up the universe.
May she say in public that a prominent Red Sox hero is a Yankee fan...
May she lose the election by a LARGE margin...
May she go back home and live a productive life as the virtuous homemaker to her family, washing the kitchen floor on her knees...
May she overdraw her bank account,
How’m I doin?
One thing to bear in mind about Coakley, she has been indoctrinated by the Great Deceiver along with many who were likewise indoctrinated by nature worship, different spin-offs of Marxism, etc. Satan is our real foe, not flesh and blood.
It could be that Coakley thinks she must fight this war against freedom and prosperity by hook or crook. “All’s fair in love and war.” Her supporters think the bitter is sweet and the sweet is bitter, that “Evil is good.” [To borrow a phrase from Eddie Murphy.]
Our war for TRUTH, FREEDOM, PROSPERITY, and RIGHTEOUSNESS is fought in many ways and for many reasons.
They also fight for many reasons.
I think you are an awsome member of this forum. God bless you and FRegards ....
“One last thing. When Saint Paul was writing to Saint Timothy about all Scripture, which Scripture do you suppose he meant?”
He was addressing the power and role of scripture, not its extent.
And even the Catholic Church has rarely pulled doctrine from the Apocrypha, since it is an open question - left that way at Trent - if the Apocrypha is good for doctrine.
The Catholic Church doesn’t pull any doctrine from the Apocrypha.
As for Catholic doctrine pulled from the Deuterocanonicals? Well, that’s a different story.
May she gain 10 pounds
Bro,
we are going to see a
RESTORATION OF THE
WHOLESALE AND DEEPLY INTENSE
FEAR OF ALMIGHTY GOD
in our era.
And NOT at the hands of a RELIGIOUS bureaucratic political bunch of Inquisitional power mongers.
AT THE HAND OF GOD HIMSELF AND OF HIS ANGEL ARMIES AND HOLY SPIRIT.
That is headed our way at a faster and more intense and larger scope than ever before.
The Deuterocanonicals? That word was coined AFTER the Council of Trent.
Meanwhile, Trent ‘punted’ on the long standing question of pulling doctrine from the Apocrypha:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/02/semi-authoritative-catholic-canon.html
So what?
LOL
You need to think of Trent as judicial, not legislative. The Council ruled on many things already in longstanding use.
Do you not understand that a thing or category of things can exist long before given a name?
Do you think DNA did not exist prior to the twentieth century?
Thanks for your kind words.
However,
we are dealing with a ruling elite that Scripture warns us about quite forcefully.
THEY CALL EVIL GOOD AND GOOD EVIL.
Their willfully satanic choices repeatedly over long periods of time have resulted in God giving many of them over to reprobate minds, wholesale delusion from hell.
They are well and far over the line of no return in many many cases.
It is a mercy to pray for their capacity and opportunities to commit more horrific sins . . . to be dramatically lessened . . . else they merely rack up worse and more eternal punishments for themselves.
I like to pretend that as long as there’s life there’s hope. And I may even pray somewhat accordingly for even the worst offender.
However, I know in my bones, in my spirit, that many are over the line. I certainly believe Shrillery is. OThuga appears to be. Dillbo Klintoon may well be—particularly participating willfully more than once in voodoo rites.
Anyone supporting someone who’d do that to a baby has no excuse.
None.
If you want to teach something additional, like the Assumption of Mary, that is your business - but don’t claim it is binding doctrine. And Purgatory, Priests, Indulgences, Penance?
Well, they are not needed for every good work.
From where I am Priests are kind of critical for the life of the Church, for the members of the Church. But leave that aside.
Are you proposing that only "what is needed for every good work" be the standard of what is de fide?
One problem is that that's a mighty vague standard, at once demanding (EVERY?) and vague (who gets to say what 'good' is?)
Just FYI, that wiki says that the term vicar of Christ was not used for a pope until such and such a time means nothing to me. Again, the notion of a church gradually declining from purity until it is reformed is not the only paradigm, and it is one which, with qualifications, we reject.
The argumebnt that Peter did not preside at the Jerusalem COuncil also cuts no definitive ice. I've been in a number of situations where the "president" is not the supreme officer.
In any event, the unparalleled accounts of interactions between Jesus and Peter and his primacy in every list is dispositive for me. And, title or not, an apostle is a vicar (where vicar is related to the word "vice" as in "vice-president").
I don't mean this to be an argument but a setting out of differences.
“The Council ruled on many things already in longstanding use.”
Yes. So what were the Deuterocanonicals called before the term “Deuterocanonical” was coined in 1566?
If you want me to use Deuterocanonical instead of Apocrypha, why? After all, I can USUALLY spell Apocrypha without error...and I’m pretty proud when I can do that with a word that has 4 silla...syllibl...parts.
And you want me to start using a word that has 7?
May ALL her credit cards be declined when she is with somebody she wants to impress.
I have consulted my expert, Dave Barry, and I can say with authority that they were called,
You know, those books, the other ones, the whaddyacallit.
I'm glad you asked.
For Catholics, there are Apocryphal books that are not part of the Deuterocanonicals.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm
First graf should be sufficient, but the whole article (with hyperlinks therein) is helpful.
“I’ve been in a number of situations where the “president” is not the supreme officer.”
Dude, I’m ex-military. Trust me, I always knew who the SRO of a meeting was...and General Officers don’t give ‘advice’ or opinions.
We can agree on having differences, and letting others know WHY we hold those differences. I wouldn’t want someone to go against their conscience because ‘I said so’...not that anyone has OFFERED to!
May she be afraid to ask “Do these pants make my butt look fat,” because she knows no one is afraid to say,”They sure do, honey!”
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.