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?
"Sort of like the Statue of Liberty, or the one of Lincoln? Or that famous portrait of Geo. Washington? Or holding above all one particular incomplete, inaccurate translation of the Holy Bible does?"
What church has portraits of George Washington, Statues of Liberty or Lincoln in their church?
Church is where one goes to worship the Lord. It is a holy place. The statue of Liberty, Lincoln or portrait of George Washington are NOT holy places.
"Except that she was called the Mother of God and her Son called her the Mother of the Church."
Could you point to that scripture?
How do you know, did you take the picture yourself of her here? Perhaps you photoshopped her here. You can not know who is on a thread at all times.
More pictures
Hey this hair splitting is fun. You could not possible know she was exactly on this thread at that very moment without a live cam... you should provide links.
More art that shows Mary as the same tier as Jesus on the cross... can do.
So read Douay and forget the Protestant ones. The reason they exist is to obfuscate the Holy Scripture as written.
τοις εθνεσιν απαγγελλων μετανοειν και επιστρεφειν επι τον θεον αξια της μετανοιας εργα πρασσοντας", says the original.
I just plain read Greek. See my preceding post.
That's what tradition is...
Tradition works for me...
You and my wife.
If that is supposed to be an example of Mary crucified with Jesus, it is not. The subject of this relief is known as “Deposition” or “Descent From the Cross”. It refers to Jesus’ dead body being taken from the cross by a group of disciples, Mary among them. At times, only Mary and Christ are shown, as in Michelangelo’s famed Pieta, or in this one.
Because I did not want to have it on a thread about the earthquake, and did not want to create an impression that I avoid making a public argument. Please don't feel "dragged".
Like one proving that St. John fasted and wore a camel shirt? I posted direct scripture about "works worthy of penance", was challenged on it, and produced the original. Need more scripture, just ask. I am, you know, Catholic. I got scripture.
I’ll “feel” any way I see fit. Bless your fur and tail.
You haven't started showing that.
LOL
If the OT righteous were saved because at the core the OT God is the same as the NT God how does that exclude the Muslims who share the belief in the God of Abraham but have only accepted Jesus as a prophet and not the Saviour?
And yet it was that very same tradition that gave you the New Testament.
So, did the commandment against images/statues specify location, ie synagogues? Or not?
Erm....google is my friend?
I have a busy life. The description of all the priestly duties performed how and when takes up a lot of text. You need to read it for yourself.
You made a claim which is unScriptural. Your snippet of Paul does not mean what you say that it means. The question was over the position and the actions of the OT priests in front of the Cherubim which God commanded to be constructed in gold over the Ark. Studying and workmanship is no answer. Telling me if they bowed before graven images commanded by God is.
While we do "set apart" places and bless them and so forth, EVERY place, since Jesus walked the earth, is a holy place.
You’ve lost me - where am I picking Psalms over Peter?
Posting http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2421970/posts?page=4340#4340 in which you say: “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all (2 Pet. 3:16); yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them (Ps. 119:105, 130).”
This is what I mean.
“One does need an understanding of Kingship and authority and the role of the steward of a kingdom. The keys are specific. Very specific.”
Yes, Jesus so specifically made Peter the Steward in His absence that just over a chapter latter, we find:
“Mat 18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
Who says that the steward is the greatest? The steward is merely the stand-in to keep things going until the King returns. Nobody said that Peter was the greatest. In English history, the steward's position was normally named formally. In the ceremony, sometimes the keys were actually given in a public fashion. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm has some good Protestant commentary on not only the passages of Matthew 16, but also Isaiah 22 and in their comparison.
Don’t you mean, let’s stroll thru the first few chapters of Acts?
Peter was sometimes called Apostle to the Jews, and as the main thrust of Christianity left the Jews and turned to the Gentiles, much more emphasis fell on Paul.
< In the first 12 chapters of Acts. Peter’s name is mentioned 55 times in 53 verses. He is mentioned once in the rest of Acts.
In Chapter 15, in the Council at Jerusalem, Peter speaks, and then “they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me... 19Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles...”
Peter was no preeminent in the Council. I have no problem with this, nor do I think it denigrates Peter in any way...I think Peter was an awesome Christian, and a man so far above me in faith that it is ridiculous to use my name in the same sentence.
The establishment of Peter's leadership is what was demonstrated here, especially during the ministry of Jesus and in the transition to the Church after the Ascension. Paul does not lead the Church; he leads his see.
But he sure wasn’t the Vicar of Christ.
Where does it say that? I didn't find anything in the NAB, nor the KJV.
Timothy is told to use scripture for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. The result of doing that “the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Every good work is important, but we are not Arminians. Good works are not sufficient for salvation.
MB “The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.”
Well, the TRUE church is. If a church requires one to go beyond scripture, then it isn’t true. By definition.
Whose definition? Not Scriptural, is it?
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.