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 never heard it referred to as "holy", nor, in fact, any of the Magisterial teaching so described. No one would say "holy encyclical" or "holy Council XYZ of the Church". I think, "protected from error" is about right.
And the ecumenical councils also give us basics of Church doctrine which are rejected by those outside The Church
And we don't see the dichotomy as complete as you do. The CHurchis the Body of Christ, and we, with certain waffles, identify the Catholic Church with 'the Church.'
He has decided already, read the bible
I missed that from last Sunday.
I would say that everything in the Catechism is correct because it reflects accurately the Faith delivered to the Apostles and applies it to our condition today. The difference with the Holy Scripture is that the Scripture is words of Christ and inspired by Christ words of His apostles and prior revelation to the Jews. While the Church as a whole continues to receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we cannot elevate any individual product to the level of divine dictation that the Holy Apostles received. Further, it is a modern product and therefore a change of focus might become necessary over years. For example, the Catechism addresses historical and sceintific developments of the modern age, which might become less relevant over the passage of time, and new things will be more relevant.
“The question is who will believe? And WHAT will they believe ?? / Are Mormons saved?? They believe? What about the JW’s ? They believe ??What about the Muslims? They believe?”
No, not in the God revealed in scripture. Mormons are polytheists - there are many gods, and we will all become gods of our own world if we follow Joseph Smith. That is not following Christ.
The JWs deny the deity of Christ. You cannot be saved by believing in the wrong God.
It isn’t belief by itself, but believing in God. The real God. The one who exists. And that requires God to reveal himself to us, and to seek us out.
He gives all some revelation. Those who refuse it may lose whatever they already have. But the passage you cite doesn’t show that God saves a list of names, but he saves those who believe - who respond with faith to his revelation.
RC's that fall into these Marian beliefs are embracing heresy. These are beliefs were made up after the Apostolic era ended. These are beliefs lead to practices that are repugnant to God.
The Scriptures don't need to be added to.
1John 1:4 And these things we write to you that your joy may be full.
What are these “heretical” beliefs of The Church that you speak of? The belief that Mary is the Theotokos, the Mother of God?
remember — you said that the BLOG was an “Official Vatican approved website”. Just like you said that a website by a UFOlogist was a “Roman Catholic website”. And just like the link to a VANITY FR thread was posted as “proof” for an argument.
I’m wondering where it says in the Bible that being urgent in season and out of season means repeat the same thing over and over again.
God's reasons for electing one man and not another are unknown to us.
However, we are told why God doesn't elect one man and not another, irrespective of any good or evil those men might do or have done...
"...are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." -- Romans 3:9-11"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple" -- Psalm 65:4
We do not know why God has chosen us to bring to Him by grace through faith in Christ. But we certainly know some of the reasons which were not why He choose us --
"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." -- John 15:16"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth" -- Romans 9:11
Men are not chosen for anything in themselves. They are chosen and then regenerated to repentance, faith and good fruit by the free gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit. It's ALL of, by, for and through Jesus Christ.
"And they were both righteous before God"
Amen. Were they "righteous" of their own accord? If so, they'd be the first who were. In order to be righteous, to "know the spiritual things of God," a man must be born again, not by his own will, but by God's free, regenerative gift of the Holy Spirit.
Calvinists are always puzzled Arminians do not (yet) see that to presume God elected them (even in part) according to their own righteousness and their good work of faith is 100% "boasting." Our faith is not of ourselves. It is an unearned, merciful gift from God to whom He will for His glory alone.
Read Zanchius. It's wonderful.
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7
Why do men glory in who they are and what they have as if these things came from themselves and not from God alone?
Because it feels sooo good.
I just noticed that there are two very similar conversations going along two different lines. To Harley and Petronski, I was asking that if Catholics believe Jesus atoned for our sins then why is confession necessary to get into Heaven? In 6168 Alex began his answer by saying that Catholicism holds that Jesus did in fact die for all of our sins everywhen, but that this atonement does not attach to the individual soul on a go-forward basis after baptism unless there is penance:
Alex: Christ has fully and completely atoned for any sin anyone has committed or will commit, big or small, confessed and absolved or not, cleansed in Purgatory or not. ....... Any penitential action one can do does not add to the atonement worked by Christ. That includes simple inward sorrow for a sin, outward sorrow expressed to others in words, restitution of material harm done, physical self-punishment or self-humiliation, prayers, pilgrimages and Bible studies, sacramental confession, reception of absolution, purgatorial cleansing, -- none of that makes the sin in question any better atoned for than it was atoned at Golgotha near 2,000 years ago. What these acts of penance do is apply the atonement to your soul.
My response got into justification by faith, etc.
Yes, however, in the Eastern tradition she was assumed Body and Soul. Either way, her body isn’t buried here (or we’d have hundreds of Marian relics around). And we don’t have her burial place.
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.