Who are the Catholics: The Orthodox or The Romanists, or both?

Me

[Quix]

You are quite welcome to disbelieve my perspective.

You are evidently much more “expert” on such topics and issues than I am.

Nevertheless, I believe my perspective to be sufficiently correct to remain in tact.

Actually, I think there’s much more evidence for my perspective than there is for Mary’s sinlessness and than there is for her “Assumption.”

It’s so fascinating . . . the Vatican et al seem to be persistently, narrowly, rigidly on the side of issues of questionable . . .

!!!!TRADITIONs!!!!

I think Paul’s CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED is a much more

BIBLICAL

and a much more RELIABLE doctrine, dogma and perspective.

A LOT else is chaff.

[Quix]

Most of the Hindu’s I’ve known knew they worshiped demons.

[Cronos]

Others here usually give a link when they do that, I don’t recall ever seeing one from Dr. E. Anybody?

Yup, links to supposedly Catholic websites that aren't Catholic at all....

[Cronos]

Is the mortal’s choice inside or outside of God’s will?

and I repeat that that question itself is wrong. Is it God's will that we have a choice? I say yes. Does the use of this choice -- either way -- affect God's will? No. God's will is that we have a choice.

You are asking if God's will is challenged if you or I reject God's grace. I say, no, God's will is NOT challenged or denigrated or lessened by our choice. God's PLAN is also unaffected by your or my free will choice.

[Cronos]

In the first place, it is prostituted to filthy lucre (I Timothy 3:8) and merchandise. --> How?

Secondly, it is maimed, by taking away the use of the cup. --> The Cup isn't taken away. The wine IS given in certain parishes. However, we further believe that if one receives the Eucharist in only one form (under the appearance of bread or wine) as in some Catholic parishes, he has received both the body and the blood of the Lord. Holy Communion may be received under one kind (the Sacred Host alone), or under both kinds (both the Sacred Host and the Precious Blood). "Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father's Kingdom... (However,) Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even under only one species, and consequently that as far as the effects are concerned, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any of the grace that is necessary for salvation" (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 281-282). "The Diocesan Bishop is given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite's becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason" (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 283).

Thirdly, it is changed into another aspect, by its having become customary for one to partake of his own feast separately, participation being done away -- huh? Participation is done away with?

Fourthly, there is there no explanation of the meaning of the sacrament, but a mumbling that would accord better with a magical incantation, or the detestable sacrifices of the Gentiles, than with our Lord's institution -- have you been for a mass lately? There is no mumbling.

Fifthly, there is an endless number of ceremonies, abounding partly with trifles, partly with superstition, and consequently manifest pollutions. --> ceremonies to ensure that we treat the Host with respect. Ceremonies that the French lawyer couldn't seem to understand -- Luther in contrast DID and seems to have retained this.

Sixthly, there is the diabolical invention of sacrifice, which contains an impious blasphemy against the death of Christ. --> ditto as above.

Seventhly, it is fitted to intoxicate miserable men with carnal confidence, while they present it to God as if it were an expiation, and think that by this charm they drive off everything hurtful, and that without faith and repentance. Nay more, while they trust that they are armed against the devil and death, and are fortified against God by a sure defence, they venture to sin with much more freedom, and become more obstinate. --> ditto as above

Eighthly, an idol is there adored in the room of Christ -- ditto again. Man, Jean Cauvin, the lawyer

[Cronos]

If not specified it is up to the reader to use their judgment (judge rightly) to discern what she meant

Unless the picture is titled falsely.

[Mad Dawg]

Not going to be the best arguer for 48 hours. Recovering from the election and having some commitments between now and March for Life

I thought the Josephus stuff about IHS was considered to be a bogus interpolation. What do your sources tell you?

We're still arguing at cross purposes. It's like that thing with Judith Anne where I said "We are the evidence." What do I mean. Good question. When I find out, I'll tell you.

I think I mean here I am, a convert, coming in at a privileged time, with respect to things like Vatican II, printing and media, context of free enquiry, safety for Catholics in the US, etc.

My devotional practice has two main, um, themes? preoccupations? (1) To live more deeply into the truth that every good gift comes from God who loves me and wants the best for me. (2)To be better and better at loving, listening to, and serving God's people.

Now of course this is completely subjective and not amenable to judging. But my impression is that my joy in Jesus, my reliance on Him, and -- very little by very little -- my patience, understanding, etc with my bubbas and sissies are just getting more so as I continue with my faith and practice -- which includes an almost daily rosary, the occasional spontaneous prayer to Mary or to a saint, as well as more down the middle explicitly Christo-centric stuff.

So I COULD be entirely deluded. But as it seems to appear in my life and thought, and in my interactions with other Christians, all the filtered, sifted, even digested tradition (for my money etymologically paradosis just means "giving over" or "given over stuff") is vindicated.

I'll try to do mo' better at the weekend.

[Mad Dawg]

Looks Catholic to me. I wonder what order. Interesting habit. Must be one of the newer orders or a post Vatican II one where they don’t wear conventional habits.

[markomalley]

BTW, any luck going through that ecclesiology Scripture study we discussed earlier?

[Mad Dawg]

The "deposition" as it is called, necessarily took place near the cross, since it was the cross down from which our Lord's body was taken. It is not clear of course that our Lady helped to take him down from the cross.

One would have to be uninformed about themes of Christian art to think that this had anything to do with Mary on the cross.

[Mad Dawg]

Shoot and move, shoot and move.

The “SEE” does not want any believers to show up in NW Europe before its priests get there, but that does not mean they weren’t there.

Maybe you'd better restate your thesis. This quote shows that it is not yet formed enough to debate. The timing of the arrival of presbyters was not, I think, part of the original contention.

Shifting your contention may be a good was to gain a kind of illusory upper hand in a discussion but it has nothing to do with the truth.

[Cronos]

1. The website was by a photographer who doesn't give details of what exactly he took photos of -- just pictures he found interesting
2. The name of the picture is precisely that -- the name of the picture given by the photographer. We have no idea what the statue was originally named or meant to represent.

[Cronos]

Arminianism is NOT Pelagianism. Do you even know what Pelagianism IS? It means you save yourself. Neither Arminianism nor orthodox teachings teach that — God Saves you, you just accept God’s grace. That’s a big difference

[Cronos]

I’ve read enough of them to know they contradict Scripture, so how much good can they be?

Which scripture? Not the distored Bible that the OPC reads that glorifies Machen?

[Cronos]

The choice we make is God's plan.

Ah, so you believe that God's plan is dependent on YOUR CHOICE?

[Cronos]

your Question was “There were people and groups in N-W EUrope that did not know of the See of Rome”. I have proven you wrong. Do you retract your earlier, incorrect statement?

Do you even have any proof for this? Or just spout strangely disjointed words?

[Cronos]

So, you have any proof for your statement about Czechs forming Churchs in 45 AD? your Question was “There were people and groups in N-W EUrope that did not know of the See of Rome”. That is flat out, historically, WRONG.

[Cronos]

Most of the Hindu’s I’ve known knew they worshiped demons.

Could be, I don't know the people you know. However, i'm saying that if you wished to tell them about Christ, telling them "you worship demons" is not the best opening line. It would mean that they would not listen to any of the good things you say after that, as you would have antagonized them too much for them to listen to you.

[Cronos]

Yes, John Leland 1789 said “There were people and groups in N-W EUrope that did not know of the See of Rome”.

Do you, John L, have any proof of this?

[Judith Anne]

1) What is the source of Robertson’s quotes?

2) Do you have a link and location for the passage from Calvin’s commentary?