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?
I think they do it to convince themselves that they are one of the winners in Calvin's Casino. Their behavior is a lot like that of the townspeople in Shirley Jackson's classic short story The Lottery.
Thanks for the heads up.
If I went around to my friends and the bank and said I had paid part of the debt, or that this benefactor was now bowing to my bidding because I had let him do me this great service, that would be insulting to him who paid it all.
ROFL!
Wow, on a forum where no personal attacks are allowed you call someone a hypocrite and imply that they are a racist.
And for the record, the term "call a spade a spade" has been in the English language since the 16th century (before there were slaves in America), Erasmus mistranslated the Greek saying "call a bowl a bowl" into Latin and it found its way into English.
I am so grateful ya are not going to burn me...LOL ...I would not burn you either .but there are a few I would have to think about..LOL (just kidding)
When the face of a perfectly nice person suddenly, involuntarily twists upon his learning that I'm a Catholic, I begin to wonder who's doing the twisting.
Awe.. I happen to have a very nice husband that is a catholic.. we have shared the same space for more years than I want to admit to.. I also have sweet catholic friends and family..I KNOW they are wrong..and they think I am wrong :).. so in love we do not discuss doctrine..
I am a predestinarian, so I believe if they are called they will come.. That is Gods work not mine.. I am free to love them as they are and hopefully they will love me as i am... a blunt old lady with a sometimes hard to understand sense of humor and a strong desire to share the good news..
Can I just say, I have read a couple of books in my life, and one of them was the Bible?
YES, I know that there's a kind of a historical slide from presbyteros into heirous. I know it, and I'm okay with it. It has to do in our thought with the church being the body of which Christ is the head, abody all of whose members participate in Christ's Kingship, Prophetic Charism, and Priestly Office, AND with the separation of functions and gifts among the many members of the body.
Once again, we do not hold the Church of Acts to be a kind of standard from which everyone has declined.
Here is some info on the actual conciliar "definition" of Infallibility. I'm not sure your reasoning is in there.
Yes. I know and have on this thread said that Peter wussed out. You guys seem never to tire of adducing the funkiness of popes as an argument against the grace of God.
Look. WHile we regret all deviations from the path and so forth, there's a certain celebration for us in knowing that a scoundrel like Leo X can be pope and yet not promulgate some disastrous teaching. That Peter waffled neither shakes our confidence in his being Pope nor in the charisms given to the papacy. We don't trust the MAN Joseph Ratzinger (though I hear he's a very good teacher and a very good man. We trust God.
Jesus said, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God...Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”
I don’t think He’ll take offense at my taking Him at His word.
And in my analogy, the person accepted what had been done - he didn’t go around afterward and pretend he had paid it himself.
John Calvin:
“29. The work of God is this. They had spoken of works Christ reminds them of one work, that is, faith; by which he means that all that men undertake without faith is vain and useless, but that faith alone is sufficient, because this alone does God require from us, that we believe For there is here an implied contrast between faith and the works and efforts of men; as if he had said, Men toil to no purpose, when they endeavor to please God without faith, because, by running, as it were, out of the course, they do not advance towards the goal. This is a remarkable passage, showing that, though men torment themselves wretchedly throughout their whole life, still they lose their pains, if they have not faith in Christ as the rule of their life. Those who infer from this passage that faith is the gift of God are mistaken; for Christ does not now show what God produces in us, but what he wishes and requires from us.
But we may think it strange that God approves of nothing but faith alone; for the love of our neighbor ought not to be despised, and the other exercises of religion do not lose their place and honor. So then, though faith may hold the highest rank, still other works are not superfluous. The reply is easy; for faith does not exclude either the love of our neighbor or any other good work, because it contains them all within itself. Faith is called the only work of God, because by means of it we possess Christ, and thus become the sons of God, so that he governs us by his Spirit. So then, because Christ does not separate faith from its fruits, we need not wonder if he make it to be the first and the last.
That you believe in him whom he hath sent. What is the import of the word believe, we have explained under the Third Chapter. It ought always to be remembered that, in order to have a full perception of the power of faith, we must understand what Christ is, in whom we believe, and why he was given to us by the Father. It is idle sophistry, under the pretext of this passage, to maintain that we are justified by works, if faith justifies, because it is likewise called a work First, it is plain enough that Christ does not speak with strict accuracy, when he calls faith a work, just as Paul makes a comparison between the law of faith and the law of works, (Romans 3:27.) Secondly, when we affirm that men are not justified by works, we mean works by the merit of which men may obtain favor with God. Now faith brings nothing to God, but, on the contrary, places man before God as empty and poor, that he may be filled with Christ and with his grace. It is, therefore, if we may be allowed the expression, a passive work, to which no reward can be paid, and it bestows on man no other righteousness than that which he receives from Christ.”
I said hypocrisy, not hypocrite.. and in my neck of the woods the term “black as the Ace of Spades” was common and so Black folks take offense at it..I worked in the inner city for 25 years.. I asked Judith IF it was a racial comment.. I ASKED
Extrapolating very slightly, if at all . . . from one of Mark’s recent long posts about my . . . pet issues . . .
and re:
We don’t trust the MAN Joseph Ratzinger (though I hear he’s a very good teacher and a very good man. We trust God.
#####
I’m more than a little skeptical about how far that
ROYAL ‘WE’
would apply, actually.
I never worked in the inner city. I’m a country girl, and we don’t have a lotta PC goin on around here.
I am not a bigot, but there are white folks (can I say “white folks?”) whom I do not like.
Catholics love to appeal to this scripture to prove tradition..but it is a false and weak argument..If there was something that God wanted contained in scripture, that was necessary for salvation ..it would have been there..
Once again please show us where Jesus ever taught from tradition to give us a pattern, as he did in prayer..
One of their favorite tactics...The change a word here, leave one out over there, and then claim the scripture says something it doesn't...
The scripture does NOT claim that Jesus taught any thing that is not included in the scriptures...They're making that up...That's a fallacy put out by you know who...
The scriptures tell us that Jesus did many other signs and miracles that are not recorded in the scripture...NOT that there was additional teaching...
Seminary had its moments.
Yes, I have heard it said that a true Christian cannot commit the unpardonable sin, and just the fact that you worry that you did, shows that you did not!
Life has its moments, like seminary.
For a while, about a year after Rob died, I dated an Army officer from Ft. Wood who was black, but he was sent to Afghanistan. Probably the handsomest man I ever knew. And a freaking genius.
And yes, we kissed. ;-D
Discuss the issue all you want, but do not make it personal.
“There are in reality only two types of religious thought. There is the religion of faith, and there is the religion of works. We believe that what has been known in Church History as Calvinism is the purest and most consistent embodiment of the religion of faith, while that which has been known as Arminianism has been diluted to a dangerous degree by the religion of works and that it is therefore an inconsistent and unstable form of Christianity. In other words, we believe that Christianity comes to its fullest and purest expression in the Reformed Faith.
“The basic principle of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God. This represents the purpose of the Triune God as absolute and unconditional, independent of the whole finite creation, and originating solely in the eternal counsel of His will. He appoints the course of nature and directs the course of history down to the minutest details. His decrees therefore are eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise and sovereign. They are represented in the Bible as being the basis of the divine foreknowledge of all future events, and not conditioned by that foreknowledge or by anything originating in the events themselves.
“All of this brings out the basic principle of the Reformed Faith - the sovereignty of God. God created this world in which we find ourselves, He owns it, and He is running it according to His own sovereign good pleasure. God has lost none of His power, and it is highly dishonoring to Him to suppose that He is struggling along with the human race, doing the best He can to persuade men to do right, but unable to accomplish His eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise, and sovereign purpose.
“Any system which teaches that the serious intentions of God can in some cases be defeated, and that man, who is not only a creature but a sinful creature, can exercise veto power over the plans of Almighty God, is in striking contrast to the biblical idea of his immeasurable exaltation by which He is removed from all weaknesses of humanity. That the plans of men are not always executed is due to a lack of power, or a lack of wisdom, or both. But since God is unlimited in these and in all other resources, no unforeseen emergencies can arise. To Him the causes for change have no existence. To assume that His plan fails and that he strives to no effect is to reduce Him to the level of His creatures and make Him no God at all.”
- Loraine Boettner
I'm sort of serious. I think it was in First Things where there was a almost a damning with faint praise of some of his encyclicals. Of course, J2P2 is a tough act to follow.
I know one of my favorite guys studied under him in Rome and thinks the world of him, as a guy. And some of us are delighted at the outreach to the Anglicans, which is a creative and interesting thing to do.
But look at the language I'm using. It's not all boogedy-boogedy "vicar of Christ" stuff. That'll come out if he has to declare and define something. In the meantime he's a guy of intelligence, piety and learning, and he seems to be pretty warm and modest. All good things in anybody, but especially in someone in a position of responsibility and authority.
Some people insist upon being superstitious. They INSIST upon it. Precisely because we have a hierarchy and different roles and responsibilities, we don't have to tell them, go away and don't come back until you think as we do. We can love them, teach them, administer the sacraments to them (I mean not ME, personally ...) and pray for them, and we can trust God.
Just as we don't save souls or make converts (because GOD does those things) we also don't have to and can't shepherd every individual soul in every step of his or her way.
Some physicians are horses patoots. That doesn't mean I no longer subscribe to the germ theory. Some Catholics are superstitious. (I know PLENTY of Protestants who are hag-ridden with superstition.) So just because they get it wrong, doesn't mean it's wrong in itself.
Yes, you said that what Judith wrote was hypocrisy and THAT is the same as calling someone a hypocrite.
nd in my neck of the woods the term “black as the Ace of Spades” was common and so Black folks take offense at it.
Perhaps, but Judith NEVER used that phrase or the term "black", she wrote, "Calling a spade a spade." YOU were the one who brought race into it.
The apostles were not the church...The church was not the apostles...The church is those that were added daily such as would be saved...The body...The body is the church...
The apostles were pillars...They supported the truth as colums and pillars do support structures...
God is the foundation of ALL truth...God is THE pillar and ground of the truth...
And then there's the crazy assertation that YOUR religion is the church...
David heaped curses upon his enemies, so it has been prayed before, and directly to God. Let alone the prophets. Read the Psalms.
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.