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?
Where is Mary’s body?
You did NOT answer the question. If faith COMES to us, from WHERE does it come to us?
You use Romans 12:3 to describe where faith comes from:...Wow, that puts a whole new light on it, doesn’t it!
Not at all. The first verse (Rom 10:7) talks of faith coming to non-Christians. the second (Rom 12:3) talks fo faith coming to Christians. These are TWO separate types of events. In the first (Rom 10) faith is given to us. In the second, as we submit God may give us more.
Since you're quoting Barnes, here is what he has to say on John 1:12-13:
2nd. God gave them this privilege. It is not by their own works or deserts; it is because God chose to impart this blessing to them, Ephesians 2:8; John 15:16.
a few people voted for it — that is a description of the councils that gave us the Creed and the completed Bible you know.
He DID answer the question, it's right there in Romans 10:17.
17 Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.
Hearing the word of Christ gives us faith, so transformative is His word, so powerful is God and His message for us.
No rationing, no cosmic lottery. He came so that all the world might be saved by Him.
My personal theory is that east and west meet around Canberra. But if you’re from Canberra, they meet in the Bronx.
Ears perk up.
... and RC's think their beliefs "evolve".
Ears and tail droop.
The word we usually use, thanks to John Cardinal Newman, is develop.
Interesting that WE are accused of picking nits and yet your side introduces the word "evolve." If you disdain to pick nits, why not try an accusation which we will recognize and say our doctrines are developed? it seems somehow disproportionate to accuse of of nit-picking and then to insist on your vocabulary. Evidently there are enough nits to go around.
There was a hysterical case where an attempt was made to draw a theological conclusion from the pronunciation of "blessed" ('blest'-- the good, upright, Calvinist pronunciation -- or 'BLESS-ed' -- the vile, heretical, Catholic pronunciation) was argued with every appearance of the arguer thinking this was a serious point. This was maintained right up until someone adduced a case where everyone says 'BLESS-ed.'
Suddenly the argument was dropped, no references to it were acknowledged. An error by the elect is simply not permitted to exist, and there's an end to it.
So once the change has been made from "Vatican approved website" to "website by an alleged member of a Vatican approved group" the former expression is deleted from the record, and it is considered bad taste to bring it up. Only Catholics err. The elect do not err. History itself is bent to expunge their errors.
This adds a certain surreal air to the argument which I find quite pleasant.
Appollonius Conic Sections late 3rd or early 2nd century BC. An amazing work! Decartes thought he must have had algebra and was keeping it secret. All I know is it gave me a headache. He describes the ellipse, hyperbola, and parabola without the use of numbers, but entirely in terms of geometric ratios. UNbefreeking LEEVable!
Ptolemy's Almagest Mid 2nd century. Impressive development of the trigonometry necessary to go from the angular measurements of the location of planets to an account of their motion.
They knew right much geometry.
LOL! I remember that argument. Blest-Bless-ed. ROFL!
Dante's Commedia (13th or 14th Cent) is based entirely on a Ptolemaic view of the universe with a spherical earth at the center. He works astronomy into the piece and, since Mount Purgatory is at the antipodes of Jerusalem and the poem takes place over Easter weekend of a particular year he does a decent job of describing what would be overhead and what to the east or west at that time from that place.
The problem people had with Columbus's proposal was that not only did they think the world to be spherical but they also had a pretty good idea of how big around it was. And so they thought it would just be WAY too far to sail West to Cathay.
And they were right. They just didn't anticipate this great honking landmass in the way.
silly is good, IMHO.
“The Lord has them in derision.” I always take comfort in that.
One way (My way, and therefore clearly the best) (that's a joke) (but that doesn't mean it's not true) to understand/articulate the dogma of the Assumption (whether or not you agree) is this:
Mary currently enjoys fully all that all the blessed will enjoy at the consummation/eschaton/end of the trouble beginning of the party/however you think of it.
Our bodies WILL be resurrected and restored to ourselves. Her body is already resurrected (or, some say, she never died but was taken up like Enoch and Elijah).
So when some king or other expressed a real desire for a relic of the Virgin, the monks or whatever drew straws to see which on of them got to say, "Um, your majesty, sir, your extreme greatness, ah, you see, we ain't GOT no relics, on account of we ain't got no body, on account of ...."
What is the authority - where does that news come from - for determining Mary is bodily in heaven?
Adam.... outright and deliberately disobeyed God for:
- Gods command not to eat was given expressly to Adam.
(The Lord God commanded THE MAN saying...) Gen.2:16
- Adam was told the CONSEQUENCES if he did eat.
(thou shalt surely die) Gen.2:17
- Adam had a CHOICE:........................ = DECISION
Tree of Life....................... = LIFE
Tree of Knowlege of good and evil.. = DEATH
(By ONE MAN sin and death entered the world)
{”You’re looking at points in time in your life where you stumble.”}
NO..I’m looking at points in my life where I sin not stumble...
..stumble denotes the temptation or inner battle before the actual sin is acted on.... The struggle to overcome the temptation to do what I know I shouldn’t do but I find myself wanting to do and WILLING to.
I can yield to the temptation....I can even want or desire without being tempted for it’s my human nature to do so.I have a will. God did not remove that.
Hi Zone...no, I’m not in Long Island. Out here in Western PA...above Pittsburgh. I actually have never traveled to NYC or anywhere near other than the Poconos, Went boating on Harveys lake where alot of NYC people head to in the summer.
I have a friend who is right now in NYC. from CAlif. On a buying trip for her business back in Carmel. Called last night to say she had purchased a fur coat. She has champagne taste. I’m more conservative and not a big city individual at all. Ok to visit but I am more community minded.
Yes one can ask for one's own dear departed mother's prayers. Either Mom is in heaven, which means she's a saint. OR she's in Purgatory, which means she's a saint getting her final coat of paint an polishing and stuff. OR she's in the toaster oven, which means God will graciously forward the prayer to another department. But there is no problem (in our thought) in asking the prayers of those in purgatory, and it is assumed that they would like our prayers. So when you hear "poor souls" or "suffering souls" that's about praying for our bubbas and sissies in Purgatory.
If Lewis was right, then I wouldn't understand how the departed could be qualified to understand our problems or have compassion about them. They would no longer be able to relate. This description to me would be to lose a substantial amount of our humanity.
My kid when she was young, lost a nasty plastic barrette. My heart was grieved because she was grieved and I willingly entered into her pain. But, a nasty plastic barrette?????
So I think it's like that. That is, it's a kind of compassionate, condescending in the good sense, narrowing of focus, remembering what it was like when a little trinket was all the world to us.
Further, while we go out in tears sowing our seed, we return with rejoicing shouldering our sheaves. (ps 127?) That is, because it was hard for the ol' Mizris and me to start a kid up, we had a clear understanding that weeping with her was more joyful than not having a kid with whom to weep. And now we look back on the tears of 21 years ago and we STILL thank God for them.
It is interesting. Sin thinks it understands sin better than virtue does. Sinners say,"How could you understand? You've never done anything this wicked."
But we get that shoplifting a paper clip is not essentially different from stealing a large diamond, that while sins certainly can be 'graded' still ANY sin is a calamity. And because we may see more clearly the goodness of God (that is YOU may see it, I'm still too deep in sin, myself) we may understand how great the stain is BETTER than he does to whom everything is a mottled grey.
How is this relevant? It is that our grief and pain are tainted by the vices of fear, despair and pride. At any loss or discomfort, I am bowled over. I lose sight of God's providential and loving control of the universe; I lose hope that he can redeem the most grievous thing into the best thing; and I am offended, outraged that things are not to my liking.
We can scarcely imagine grief not crippled and spoiled by these taints. But I think the duty of hope may summon us to make some effort to imagine a compassion without sin.
No offense, I think the idea of "investment" of prayers is wrong. Prayer sometimes feels laborious NOW. But to go to Him whose society is Bliss and to ask Him who delights in being asked, that's not an investment, it's a dividend!
Wow, this is verbose. Sorry.
From the authority and promises God in Christ gave the Church.
Yeah. It was astonishing. And, I think, informative. They SAY they are dungheaps covered with snow. But they don’t mean it to apply to themselves personally.
The difference is... they were right.
Isn't that what I stated?
HD-{”You’re looking at points in time in your life where you stumble.”}
caww - NO..I’m looking at points in my life where I sin not stumble...
Stumbling is sinning. God always brings you back doesn't He?
The struggle to overcome the temptation to do what I know I shouldn’t do but I find myself wanting to do and WILLING to.
Yes, but after you sin don't you feel just a tad creepy that you were disobedient? You sinned because you deceived yourself into thinking that it would bring you fleshly or worldly pleasures; but in the end you learn that it doesn't. In the end you go right back to God, confess your sins, and move on. And in the end you have learned something and you are no longer deceived by that particular thing.
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.