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?
“When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into heaven, brings Christ down from His throne and places Him upon our altar, to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man. It is a greater power than that of monarch and emperors.”
Tell me about Reformed baptism. Do the Calvinists believe that the pastor reaches up into heaven, brings the Holy Spirit down and makes him go through the ritual of baptism on whomsoever the pastor decrees should be baptized? It is a greater power than that of monarch or emperors, right? Commanding the Holy Spirit? Isn't that sacriligious?
Says your religion, of course...Who would expect your religion which usurps God's authority in His written words to admit it has no authority???
Religion Moderator, some personal remarks follow. You may want to delete this post.
I’m not upset with NGZ. I’ve been known to make a number of sharp remarks in the past, and I am not innocent, so it may be understandable that NGZ does not think I am sincere.
At one time, I thought Alamo-Girl was insincere and posted that. So, again, I state that I am not innocent and do not blame NGZ. But I was sincere, and still am, in my prayers.
Part of why I opus’ed last Nov. 5 was to get away from the really ugly posts here on open threads. That’s what I meant about saying, above, that the open threads can be an occasion of sin, or even just a near occasion of sin.
So. I think I’ll spend the evening reading. It will be much more pleasant. I am, to put it mildly, sick and tired of this dreadful thread.
Some really excellent posts on it, some that have been very uplifting. I may check in later so there’s not so much to catch up on, tomorrow.
NGR, even though you are mistaken, I understand why you posted what you did, to me. Again, may God bless you in all ways, with peace and safety, with love and laughter, in the Holy Name of Christ my Savior, I pray this for you, and for everyone on the thread.
Oh—Alamo-Girl, I am sorry I didn’t accept your blessing way back when. Please accept mine.
Now I will go read before something else happens. Better to do something else.
Mark, thanks very much, but I couldn’t let you defend me.
Actually, Judith Anne, if you read my post, I wasn't specifically defending you...
Then tell me by which process and by whose hand did Scripture come to appear in your bible if not through the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.
“once more I believe in the See of Jesus Christ. There were churches following Christ up into the Caucuses Mountains and Eastern Europe, and all the way to Northwest Europe in the first three centuries which had never heard of the “See of Rome.”
1. The histories of Durant, Wells and others well documenting the surging human migration of those three centturies. Migration was not static at all. There was migration of millions from the Mediteranean region to ALL areas of the then known world, including Europe, as far as the British Isles and further north.
2. People were traveling during those centuries from northern and central Europe to the Mediteranean region. They were merchants and others. Travel was no more static than general migration.
3. There was no centralization of Christian ecclsiastical power in Rome in either the first or second centuries. The was no over-arching “SEE” there.
4. The spread of Christianity during the first century is described in the Scriptures themselves as being rapid and expansive. Two passages are in 1 Thessalonians and Colossians, letters written to two cities with the Meditterannean Sea to the south. It is easy to assume logically that their exapnsive evangelism was to the north and to the west.
5. Although it is not stated in the Scriptures, Paul may have actually made it to Spain, which he did state as a plan of his. Looking at a map of the Atlantic coastline, and knowing that there was both commercial and migratory movement between Spain and the British Isles by sea, long before there was a Roman “SEE,” It is a logical assumption that the fruit, or the fruit of the fruit of Paul’s ministry was already in the British Isles in the first and second centuries.
6. A straight line can be drawn from Antioch (merely to pick a point where the Bible describes a missionary movement)to almost any point in central and northern Europe (EVEN WHAT IS NOW THE CZECH REPUBLIC), and the the reading of Durant and Wells will reveal that during the first century there were already migratory and commerical movements along those lines.
7. It would be unreasonable to assume that the migrations northward from the Med. Sea included no persons who received the Gospel in the Med. area, Syria, Byzantania, Palestine, etc., long beforethere was any centralized ecclesiastical power in Rome.
6. Christians of that day were fervent and soul-winning and missionary in their intent.
You dare much, NL, in making demands of the Lord High Iscool, Pope of the Church of Iscool (population one), enthroned in His LaZBoy throne on Sundays before the Holy Sports Tube. Ware the thunderbolts and plagues of as old should the Pope of the Church of Iscool grow annoyed.
Iscool has oft stated that Scripture was self generating and every single believer had a copy and could read it in the original KJV printed in English that Jesus and the Apostles taught from. As an old CofC preacher in Texas once spat at me: if English was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for all men.
Baptism is a confirmation of the new birth, it does not confer new birth.
“Do the Calvinists believe that the pastor reaches up into heaven, brings the Holy Spirit down and makes him go through the ritual of baptism on whomsoever the pastor decrees should be baptized?”
No.
No.
If you do not believe this, then why do you accuse Catholics of similar methodology in the Eucharist?
lol. Mark, that is complete fiction.
The photographer who took the photo named it "Mary's Sacrifice."
Get it?
Mary is on the cross, as a sacrifice, as anyone with new or old eyes can plainly see who googles Mary on cross Nicaragua photography by Ivan.
If wishing were horses you'd be riding high.
lol.
A Roman Catholic priest represents the Roman Catholic position until it doesn't suit their argument and then he won't. Until he does.
“If you do not believe this, then why do you accuse Catholics of similar methodology in the Eucharist?”
There was no accusation. There was a citation and a quote from a Catholic priest’s book that I know for a fact is used to teach converts - material which bears the Imprimatur of someone in authority in said Church.
lol. Mark, that is complete fiction.
No. This is as it appears in the photograph. The shot is very narrow; it is diagonally shot upward and there is very little else shown. There are no nails or other methods of fixation to the cross, the contact with the cross is with her right hand grasping it over the top of the extreme right hand end of the crosspiece, and her left hand is very much in view over her heart and her expression is of distress.
The photographer who took the photo named it "Mary's Sacrifice."
Umm, okay. And? Who is the photographer? What did he mean by sacrifice? Who is Mary? What did he intend by the photograph?
Mary is on the cross, as a sacrifice, as anyone with new or old eyes can plainly see who googles Mary on cross Nicaragua photography by Ivan.
I have described the photo as you have posted it numerous times. As in your Scriptural postings, it does not mean what you say it means. The photograph is clear and my description is accurate.
If wishing were horses you'd be riding high.
I wish that you could be accurate in your postings.
There was no accusation. There was a citation and a quote from a Catholic priest’s book that I know for a fact is used to teach converts - material which bears the Imprimatur of someone in authority in said Church.
Your posts were of an accusatory nature in which you claim that Catholics control God. How do you know that this book (whatever it is) is used to teach converts? Who teaches them using this book? The good Dr. E. frequently posts from antiCatholic or pagan websites claiming that the material is from authentic Catholic sources. Since she is mistaken on this matter so frequently, it is possible that this is yet another such a case and that you have been fooled.
A recent example is the good Dr. E. posting that wayoflife.org is a Christian website. I believe that she was completely taken in, not only by the fact that they are not American, but by the fact that their declared version of 'Christianity' approximates that of the Westboro Baptists and that they hate Calvinists at least as much as they hate Catholics. So if I can help correct mistaken beliefs about non Christian organizations who pose as Christian ones, then I am happy to help.
What is this priest's name and his position in the Church?
On WHAT do you base THAT? That's astonishing. There are plenty of priests who are barely competent in theology.
It could be true. Some years ago I helped with a totally awful RCIA class taught by a SPirit of Vatican II deacon who boldly taught "fundamental option" despite it's being condemned (WITH explanation) in Varitatis Splendor
I think tthis writer is a contender for the Bozo prize because he expressed God's fidelity to His promise as the priest having power over God. I can sort of see it as a rhapsody on Divine condescension and humility, but it's lousy theology.
The book, “Faith of Millions” by Fr. O’Brien has a study guide. I have a copy, which was given to me by a Roman Catholic interested in converting me. I earlier posted a site where it can be read in part. It is available in lots of places.
Here is one link. This is not a manufactured quote.
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.