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 would say that this is in direct conflict with what He taught:
Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (Matthew 16:24)
Hmmmm....
I don't see what the problem is with posting colored text. Takes a lot of HTML skills, if you ask me (not that you did!)
I’m not asserting that I don’t read your playskool gibberish, I’m stating such.
I don’t care if you expect me to read it or not...I’m not going to waste my time trying to decrypt what has been purposefully encrypted.
DRINK MORE OVALTINE?
OK. Thanks for the clarification. I know that there are a lot of folks who wish destruction on us...and following progressives like Congar is the best way to bring that destruction on.
The matchstick is under the turtle...repeat...the matchstick is under the turtle.
“about others
“’!!!!LOOKING TO BE OFFENDED!!!!’ “
They sound so utterly offended to the point of paranoia. One must sit back and wonder what they think others intend to do to them. I mean, they are hidden behind their screen names and do not give their locations-—yet they respond as if someone intends to do them physical harm because of their positions.
I wonder, when they are responding if they are not constantly glancing over their shoulders. When they talk about being “attacked” perhaps some of them are contemplating hiring body guards.
A couple of them have contacted moderators for something akin to “restraining orders.”
Let all be advised that through history the people who have stood the tallest for your right to believe and practice according to your conscience without your being harmed in your persons or your property have been those considered “dissidents” and “non-conformists” to hierarchical religion.
This explains Cromwell in Ireland and the Klan in the US. I think there's plenty of blame to go around.
Amen! Basic Christianity beautifully testified to in your post.
You know I’ll dispute the significance of the past tense.
Further, I think the Protestant concept of what we are saved FROM is good, but the concept of what we are saved FOR is deficient.
“This explains Cromwell in Ireland and the Klan in the US. I think there’s plenty of blame to go around.”
I think spreading the Gospel is an essential aspect or part of atonement.
“”What does Calvin do? “”
Hilaire Belloc hits the “nail on the head” exposing the agenda of darkened mind of calvin when he wrote the following....
“Yet it remains true that Calvinism is the core of Protestantism to this day; that the effects on character which the Protestant culture continues to admire are essentially the effects of Calvinism; that the whole world of anti-Catholic thought, even today when it has lost the doctrines of Calvinism, is in its most intimate ideals molded on the Calvinistic model.
What Calvin did was this. He took what is one of the oldest and most perilous directives of mankind, the sense of Fate. He isolated it, and he made it supreme, by fitting it, with the kneading of a powerful mind, into the scheme which Christian men still traditionally associated with the holiness and authority of their ancestral religion.
God had become Man, and God had become Man to redeem mankind. That was no part of the old idea of Inevitable Fate. On the contrary, it was a relief from that pagan nightmare. We of the Faith say that the Incarnation was intended to release us from such a pagan nightmare. Well, Calvin accepted the Incarnation, but he forced it to fit in with the old pagan horror of compulsion: “Ananke.”
He reintroduced the Inexorable.
Yes, God had become Man and had died to save mankind; but only mankind in such numbers and persons as He had chosen to act for. The idea of the Inexorable remained. The merits of Christ were imputed, and no more. God was Causation, and Causation is one immutable whole. A man was damned or saved; and it was not of his doing. The recognition of evil as equal with good, which rapidly becomes the worship of evil (the great Manichean heresy, which has roots as old as mankind; the permanent motive of Fear) was put forward by Calvin in a strange new form. He did not indeed oppose, as had the Manichean, two equal principles of Good and of Evil. He put forward only one principle, God. But to that One Principle he ascribed all our suffering, and, for most of us, necessary and eternal suffering.
Again, the Catholic Church had called the soul of man immortal. Calvin accepted that doctrine; but under his hands it becomes an immortality of doom, and for the few who shall have doom to beatitude, doom it yet is, as doom is is to the myriads for whom it shall mean despair.
From this man, I say, proceeds a whole web of ideas which still live, though the doctrines which were so living to him and his followers, the strict dogmas upon which they evolved their mighty system of warped theology, have faded from the modern mind. If today your non-Catholic conceives of the material, and, more latterly, the spiritual processes as inevitable, if he inclines to despair, if he is tempted by the latest fad of the “subconscious” which man fights in vain, the savor of Calvin is in it all.
You may find today in unexpected regions of thought the influence of the man. He it was, for instance, who said that the ministry must proceed from election, but that ministers once elected had authority over the electors. What better parallel for the Parliamentary fallacy, the falsity of which Europe is only now perceiving? He it was who in a fashion not general, like that of the old humanist scholars, but direct and dogmatic, pitted document, however fragmentary, against the living voice of tradition. He it was who rendered humility futile and the appetite for wealth a virtue. He it was who began the war against Joy. He it was who set up in so definite a fashion the wall which separates the Catholic mind in Europe from its opponents; he it was who put up a new positive force directed against the positive force of the Catholic Church.”-Hilaire Belloc (How the Reformation Happened_
Thank you for confirming the idolatry of the papacy.<
Some (if not all) of them really do believe that Mary is God's mother, and that salvation comes from her...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2344359/posts says that:
Socrates58 ^ | September 19, 2009
Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 5:14:40 PM by NYer
O Philipp Melanchthon! . . . I appeal to you who live in the presence of God with Christ, and wait for us there until we are united with you in the blessed rest . . . I have wished a thousand times that it had been our lot together!
(from online paper, “John Calvin — True Presbyterian,” by Francis Nigel Lee [pdf / html]; his own sources provided: J. Calvin: Clear Explanation of the Holy Supper, in Reid’s Theological Treatises of John Calvin, S.C.M., London, p. 258; see an alternate 1978 printing listed on amazon and this exact excerpt — and larger context — from it)
The same thing is found in Tracts Related to the Reformation, Volume 2, translated by Henry Beveridge, Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1849; “True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ,” pp. 496-497):
Thou hast said a hundred times, when weary with labour and oppressed with sadness, thou didst lay thy head familiarly on my bosom, Would, would that I could die on this bosom! . . . Certainly, thou hadst been readier to maintain contests, and stronger to despise obloquy, and set at nought false accusations. . . . I have not indeed forgotten what thou didst write.
Further online documentation: one / two.
John T. McNeill, editor of the 1960 edition of Calvin’s Institutes, mentions it as well, in his article, “Calvin as an Ecumenical Churchman,” Church History, vol. 57, 1988.
Yep. I hadn’t read that before, but I think it right. And it explains the incredibly unbridled expressions of hatred for the Gospel. It ends up being a sadistic and arbitrarily aristotratic view of the Universe and of God. “We are the chosen of God, and our call and privilege is to denounce the ‘lost,’ and to kill them where we are permitted to.”
Sure his name is Jesus...
Why don't you post any quotes from this Jesus that you claim is your Christ? Are you ashamed of Jesus?
I have yet to see which Christ it is you refer to...
That's because of your omission of the Gospels.
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.