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?
Who says I'm trying to duplicate anything?
I don't know of anybody saying that you are TRYING to duplicate anything. I'm saying you ARE duplicating the ancient anti-Trinitarian arguments. Please understand, "Once I was young and now I am old," and I used to go up against the Jehovah's Witnesses (who are Arians) just to stay sharp. We have seen before the verses you bring forward to make your case.
Part of the problem, I would say, is looking for an external witness, a sure and certain guide, by which the sure and certain guides of scripture and/or tradition can be rightly discerned and rightly chosen. It is, as somebody said, like lighting a torch to see the Sun.
If I were to advise you, I would say that at least every morning upon rising but also whenever it occurs to you, you should address a prayer to the Father and ask Him to lead you into the Truth. "For everyone that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him who knocketh it shall be opened."
When the topic of conversation is one's religion it seems hard to criticize us for discussing our religion.
All this time, every one of you has been pointing to your catechism and claiming IT is your guide...
Some of you have even said your catechism is as inspired as the scriptures...
Already do.
I missed that. In what post was that said?
If you had been reading the post in context you would know that what NGZ's question amounted to is "Why should you trust the Catechism?" For someone who wanted to know what we teach, the Catechism IS a good guide. For someone who wanted to know why we think so, my answer is as good as any and better than many.
A lot depends on the choice between wanting to understand what those with whom one disagrees actually think or wanting to find targets for cheap shots.
Good. The only other advice I would dare to give is to be alert for God answering your prayer. In reviewing my life I realized that many times God had granted my prayer and I hadn’t noticed.
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTUREOne common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
Thanks. Interesting to see how that applies to a Catechism.
I'm not sure if this was an answered prayer, but this thread certainly reinforced my beliefs and let's me know that so far, I'm on the correct path.
As far as I know, another hint would be the cross on your back.
I’m inclined to agree with your interpretation. As I said, I haven’t studied the issue, and simply don’t want to commit to one side or the other. Arminius thought there were good arguments on both sides, and refused to commit.
I DO object to HarleyD writing in post 8014 “If you believe in “free will” then it doesn’t surprise me to see you believe one can lose their salvation” when in post 8000 I wrote to him, “I haven’t studied it, and wouldn’t want to commit one way or the other.”
Until I do study it, I choose to think I should believe in eternal security, and live as though salvation could be lost.
“Nowhere in that particular passage, Hebrews 6:4-6, does the writer say they have trusted Jesus for salvation.”
It says, “...in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6and then have fallen away...”
You are correct that it doesn’t specify former believers, or former followers of Christ. It may well be referring to those who took a look and turned away, except that it says, “since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt”.
Once again? I’ll repeat: “There are certainly scriptures that cast doubt on the question.”
“Once again? I’ll repeat: “There are certainly scriptures that cast doubt on the question.”
And I will repeat, it is God that justifies us, not we ourselves; He has passed the sentence of innocent on all who have trusted Christ for salvation and that is His righteousness. The just God judges righteously. Rom. 3:26, “To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”
Now if God has judged us to be in the right because of what Jesus accomplished, who are we to deny this sentence or later claim that the sentence was wrong? The judgment means our status with God is one of peace and nothing, not even we ourselves, can remove that status of innocent.
Rom 5:1-2, Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Rom 8:31-39, “What shall we then say to these things? If God [be] for us, who [can be] against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? - [It is] God that justifieth.
Who [is] he that condemneth? - [It is] Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? - [shall] tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? (As it is written, ‘for thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter’.)
NAY!!! - in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us for I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
So what is in front of your eyes? Three gods, one god with some assistants who have certain powers, a god his son and a force(spirit)?
The Trinitarian doctrine is difficult to reason because humans aren't God and we are confined to a vision of existence that is limited by our intelligence and senses.
Simple scriptural proofs:
In the first chapter of Genesis, God(the Father) speaks creation into existence. God's Spirit 'moves upon the face of the deep' in that same chapter. In the NT, 1 Chapter of John. "The Word" is identified and further placed at creation. Later Jesus affirms, "I and the Father are one" and "If you have seen me you have seen the Father."
How God makes the Trinity works, is tough to figure out, fortunately we receive faith so we don't have to know the mechanics and all the innerworkings of something to believe and confess that it exists.
Isn't indecision the inherent flaw of the free will perspective. If God only reacts after the fact (we must take the first step) and salvation can be lost (we have free will to walk away even after we are saved) nothing is certain. We can't even count on God because God is subject to what we do.
“And I will repeat, it is God that justifies us, not we ourselves;”
No kidding.
“Now if God has judged us to be in the right because of what Jesus accomplished, who are we to deny this sentence or later claim that the sentence was wrong?”
I haven’t.
However, there are plenty of scriptures that discuss needing to persevere to the end. Hebrews talks about falling away. Are those fake Christians, who were never part of us? Are they Christians who fell away?
I haven’t studied the issue, so I’m not willing to comment. But “There are certainly scriptures that cast doubt on the question.”
“If God only reacts after the fact (we must take the first step)”
Never said that. God DOES take the first step, and a whole bunch more. It is God who seeks out man, and God who has done the work of salvation. God doesn’t react, he initiates.
“We can’t even count on God because God is subject to what we do.”
We can count on God to do as he says. God being true to himself is NOT making God subject to what we do.
There is no other God. Muslims worship God falsely.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes it this way:
III. "YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME"
2110 - The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed himself to his people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion. Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion; irreligion is the vice contrary by defect to the virtue of religion.
Superstition
2111 - Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.
So also, in our seeking, however inadequately, to convey the truth about Him, He who needs no defense is not made stronger. We are.
Agreed. Explaining life in the Spirit is like listening to recorded music vs live music, or seeing real artificial flowers vs real blossoms. The explanation lacks the immediacy of the beauty of the Holy Spirit. I sure wish I had the words, but I'm convinced no words exist, that can capture the breathtaking loveliness of Grace. He loves us. He has always loved us. He holds us in His heart, all of us, and showers us with blessings every second...He is smiling on us, with utter benevolence and generosity, He is our God, we are His people.
Who are the Catholics: The Orthodox or The Romanists, or the the Blended in Voodoo worshipers, or all?
“ . . . followers of the religion, which blends the traditional beliefs of West African slaves with Roman Catholicism.”
See:
Haiti earthquake: Voodoo high priest claims aid monopolised by Christians....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2442740/posts
Except that voodoo doesn't "blend" anything. The names of Catholic saints have been substituted in the voodoo rituals for the original African names of spirits as part of the adoption of the French language and its cultural influences.
Besides, when did the UK Telegraph, which doesn't substantiate or attribute the "blended" claim, ever publish anything accurate or unbiased about Catholicism?
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.