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?
It’s amazing what you can find on teh interwebs thingy ... apparently, the Chicago “L” system regularly does a car or two in some sort of advertising paint job.
That depends upon one's particular talents
Anoreth is a very good artist in a number of media.
The Border Patrol sponsors a NASCAR entry, covered with their insignia, that’s stored just up the road from us.
This photo appears to show (from the rear diagonal) Jesus hanging on a t-shaped post with fleurs de lis out of the ends. The fleurs de lis are not Italian; they are French. I am unaware of this type of representation of what might be the Cross in some eyes.
On the reverse (a little grainy due to enlargement), appears to be what might be a female figure cradling a small child, with her attention fixed on it. The female figure is less than 2/3 the size of the Jesus on the opposite side and is certainly not crucified. If this is intended to be metaphoric, I'd say that the author might (and I have no idea about this at all) be representing the infancy of Jesus versus His Crucifixion. But I have no information about any of this whatsoever.
What car?
I’ve never taken note of the number, but I think it’s on the trailer. I’ll try to remember it next time I go by.
I’m a dope ... I googled it ;-). #28 in the “Busch Series” whatever that means. I confess, I’ve lived in the South most of my life, and in Charlotte for almost 7 years, with little awareness of NASCAR beyond the fact that my father-in-law looks just like Richard Petty.
If a priest cannot represent the Catholic position, then neither can any of you, and I have to go iron a shirt.
Faith of Millions was presented to my father in law as a tool in his catechism. Imprimatur is endorsement to anyone who understands tenth grade English.
I did. The female figure is leaning towards the Cross on the right hand side. Her right hand is grasping the extreme right hand side of the crossbar. Her left hand is over her heart and she is looking distressed.
These points were asserted, proven and settled weeks ago. But that doesn't stop RC apologists from denying what transpired and reasserting a false pretense of reality, as you have done here...
The point is that this female figure is not on the Cross; she is not Crucified and you are wrong once again.
WayofLife.org is not an "anti-Catholic website;" it is a Christian website. And there is no reason to doubt the photo's authenticity other than wishful thinking.
Wayoflife.org is a virulent antiCatholic website. They are not American, by the way. You prattle and prate about American superiority and still keep coming with non American heroes, icons and idols. They trash Billy Graham with wild glee. Alcohol is the devil's gift to man. Pentecostals are the devil's apostles. They trash all the current Baptist groups. They post extensively on the emergent church apostacies. The nice thing is the even more extensive repudiation that they have of Calvinism and Reformed doctrine.
Going through their site, they remind of the distasteful Phelps group that pickets the funerals of American soldiers who have died in the service of their country. No wonder you like them, Dr. E. - like to like.
There is another statue of Mary on the cross at the Church of the Mother of God of Polish Martyrs in Warsaw, but I haven't looked for a photo yet.
Then don't tell us about it - given your history of alteration, it might not turn out to be true - until you have the photo and the information about it.
And as I recall. Gamecock found a half-dozen representations of "Mary on the cross" from various RC websites. If Gamecock's around maybe he could post them again...and again.
Please do.
What world do you come from? I was questioning your described action, not your grammar. It would help if you spoke English, not some odd dialect that you've picked up somwhere.
Where is your definition from? You say that you post links. Here is yet another example of you posting something without attribution. Yet again and again and again.
We snicker at Calvin and laugh at his words. We have no fear of him.
Well, Tarzan, at least you're reading him. It may help, God willing.
My name is not Tarzan, Dr. E. I suspect from your postings that I have read Calvin as much as you have and understand him far better, especially as he diverges from Christianty.
>>If a priest cannot represent the Catholic position, then neither can any of you,<<
Ever hear of Medjudgore? Priests have all different opinions. Not all of them are right. Look up infallibility. Even the Pope is only infallible in matters of Dogma.
I don’t represent my opinion to be Catholic. I refer to the Vatican.
Anyone can misrepresent the Catholic position, this thread is full of them, and any Catholic can represent his own position, but only the Catholic Church can represent the Catholic Church, which your example does not.
What world do you come from? I was questioning your described action, not your grammar. It would help if you spoke English, not some odd dialect that you've picked up somwhere.
Where is your definition from? You say that you post links. Here is yet another example of you posting something without attribution. Yet again and again and again.
We snicker at Calvin and laugh at his words. We have no fear of him.
Well, Tarzan, at least you're reading him. It may help, God willing.
My name is not Tarzan, Dr. E. I suspect from your postings that I have read Calvin as much as you have and understand him far better, especially as he diverges from Christianty.
Trying to make a place for yourself?
You'd find out your church traditions are meaningless to God
Judaic traditions. Jesus created His own.
Your religion is full of false Christs
We don't have a religion.
So what??? Paul warned us about heretics all over the place...What evidence do you have that your church fathers weren't some of these heretics???
In some cases (much of Origen e.g., and substantial portions of Augustine), they were. The Church selected correct doctrines from the among the writings of the sinners.
“A Roman Catholic imprimatur can require up to four steps:
* If the work is produced by a member of a religious order, a Nihil obstat (Latin, meaning “nothing hinders”) from two censors appointed by the order. This indicates that the work has been examined and approved by the delegated censors and that they both find it free of doctrinal or moral error. The censor is appointed either generally or for a particular work, and is often a scholarly priest and/or one who has expertise in the field. It is the censor’s task to work back and forth with the author of the work to correct any inaccuracies, ambiguities, easily misunderstood passages or other problems. The nihil obstats of two censors from the order were formerly required by universal canon law; today, they may be required by an order’s own canstitutions.
* If the work was produced by a member of a religious order, an Imprimi potest (Latin, meaning “it can be printed”) from a superior within the order. This indicated that it had first been examined and approved by the religious superior or head of the religious order (or a duly appointed representative). The imprimi potest was often given by the provincial superior of the author. This was given only after the two nihil obstats mentioned above. Today, such approval is still needed but the process is less specific.
* In all cases, whether a lay person or cleric, a nihil obstat from the censor of the diocese in which publication takes place was, and still is, always necessary to obtain the imprimatur itself. The censor in this case is appointed by the bishop and again may be a priest given general authority for this or assigned specifically for an individual book. Even if the above nihil obstats had been obtained, and the imprimi potest, this diocesan nihil obstat was also always necessary. Today, most books need just this nihil obstat.
* Imprimatur (Latin, meaning “let it be printed”) — This is the actual final approval by the bishop of the diocese where the work is to be published, or by other ecclesiastical authority. It is given under the bishop’s role as chief teacher of the faith within his diocese.[2]
Following this, some works may also include the following statement:
“The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.”
While at first glance this statement might seem contradictory, it indicates the purpose of the imprimatur: theologians and other writers are free to discuss various theories, ideas, approaches, or positions on theological topics - even if the bishop does not agree with the author’s positions - provided they do not actually contradict Catholic doctrine and are not likely to harm the faith or morals of the reader. Within Catholic doctrine, therefore, a breadth of possible opinions may be freely discussed.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur
Wiki. Take it for what it is worth. It certainly would indicate that it that the opinions found within shouldn’t be ones damaging to Catholic faith.
“Imprimatur is Latin for “let it be printed.” When a Roman Catholic bishop grants his imprimatur to a printed work, he assures the reader that nothing therein is contrary to Catholic faith or morals. This imprimatur is not given lightly; only after a thorough review process.”
http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/imprimatur.asp
“Please know that the presence of an Imprimatur does not mean that a book is an official text of the Church. It doesn’t make the book the equivalent of an encyclical, say. It’s not the approval of the work by the Pope or a dogmatic Council, and it’s not a stamp of infallibility. It doesn’t even mean that everything in the book is accurate, only that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic dogma. But, while occasionally a book sneaks through and its Imprimatur later recalled, this procedure is an important way for Catholics to increase their chances of staying error-free with regard to doctrine. Sadly, because of the triumph of modernsists and liberals in the human aspect of the Church since the Second Vatican Council, books which could well contain a watered-down theology, a warped view of History, etc. now do receive the “Imprimatur.”
http://www.fisheaters.com/imprimatur.html
I have no idea how many books receive an imprimatur.
Yes, I do sneer, at all lies. I do not believe her blessings. I do believe they are used as sarcastic responses and are disingenuous, at the least.
1 John 4: 7 3 Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. 8 Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love. 9 In this way the love of God was revealed to us: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might have life through him. 10 In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as expiation for our sins.
11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also must love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God. Yet, if we love one another, God remains in us, and his love is brought to perfection in us. 13 4 This is how we know that we remain in him and he in us, that he has given us of his Spirit. 14 Moreover, we have seen and testify that the Father sent his Son as savior of the world. 15 Whoever acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him and he in God. 16 We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us. God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him. 17 In this is love brought to perfection among us, that we have confidence on the day of judgment because as he is, so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment, and so one who fears is not yet perfect in love.
19 We love because he first loved us. 20 If anyone says, "I love God," but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God 5 whom he has not seen. 21 This is the commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.
I am in no danger of judgment. Anyone can go look at this person's posts and see the sarcasm dripping off every one of her "blessings".
Philippians 1: 9 And this is my prayer: that your love may increase ever more and more in knowledge and every kind of perception, 10 to discern what is of value, so that you may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, 11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ for the glory and praise of God.
Give up the hate that drips from your posts.
Isaiah 50: 4 3 The Lord GOD has given me a well-trained tongue, That I might know how to speak to the weary a word that will rouse them. Morning after morning he opens my ear that I may hear; 5 4 And I have not rebelled, have not turned back. 6 5 I gave my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who plucked my beard; My face I did not shield from buffets and spitting. 7 The Lord GOD is my help, therefore I am not disgraced; I have set my face like flint, knowing that I shall not be put to shame.
Accepted.
Is it not reasonably well accepted that Thomas went there?
The sola crowd must deny Thomas' journey to India since the record is not contained in the Bible.
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.