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?
INDEED.
Which was why I was willing to attempt—and still am—with MarkBsnr and any kindly so disposed folks . . .
to come up with a solution to such dreadful hogwash between the two camps.
The finger frothing cliques tend to insist . . . as usual . . . that any whatever
MUST ABSOLUTLEY MUST [!!!!CONTROL!!!!!] BE ON THEIR TERMS AND THEIR TERMS ONLY.
Even the terminally clueless should know THAT’S NOT going to be; NOT going to work.
Sigh.
Keep pinging me to this conversation, please. I’ll keep up as I can.
Is wikipedia now the official catechism of the Roman Church?
###
BELLY LAUGH.
THX.
Agreed. And as Communion is a public confession that one's beliefs are in consonance with their brethren at the rail, a guy needs to be careful about his actions lest they are misconstrued and cause one of weaker faith to stumble.
. . . with that nose? Are you sure?
Baseball is a bat-and-ball sport played between two teams of nine players each.
Well when Paul was speaking of causing “weaker faiths to stumble” he was talking about some people’s preoccupation with superstition. There is no place for superstition, idolatry, magick, etc. in the Christian faith, let alone in communion with Christ.
LOL.
LOVE IT.
JESUS LOVES ME DEARLY!
What’s your problem?
I think your metaphor using Paul's reference to sex with prostitutes is apt. The LCMS does consider the Lord's Supper to be a sacrament as well as Baptism; both means of grace.
I believe one receives the Sacrament by faith even if the other participants do not.
Again, I would disagree but I applaud your discernment on the issue.
Amen - that got a legit lol outta me
As the link paraphrased showed Luther would commune the man who claimed allegiance to Christ even if he didn't believe him because he must based on the man's confession.
We are in the same boat when we commune those amongst us who are unknowingly (to us) unrepentant. We would expect those of our membership or those with whom the Synod has altar fellowship to approach the Table in a right mind, knowing what awaits us.
Thank you for the HTML lesson, we shall see if it works!
If you have any problems with the HTML, please let me know.
Receiving Communion with those with whom you have a large doctrinal disagreement would cause some of weaker faith to think that the doctrinal disagreements are not noteworthy. For those who believe that they receive the Lord’s Supper by faith that is a message they may send when they commune at a church not holding their doctrine.
True, Presbyterians are never going to hold joint services with Catholics for that reason, and vice versa. When it’s just an individual though it can be a little more difficult to determine what they really believe which is why some churches treat them suspiciously.
I concur with you except for the 'suspiciously'. I think churches have a duty to address those non-members prior to communing them. And it is out of love for them and love for God. Once done, it is an individual responsibility as no examination can read the heart, as humans we must trust their words.
Back in Spurgeon’s day in England, they termed them “suspicious characters” until they knew them better.
Psalms is not a book of prayers to recite, although using versus or phrases as part of prayer or hymns is certainly a good thing to do.
In Psalms 136, yes, the book repeats the same line after each new verse; however, it is not the same as repeating the Hail Mary again and again and again.
Perhaps we see repetitious prayer as something different. I believe you're stating that Psalm 136 indicates repetitive prayer because it repeats the same line after each new verse.
For me, stating the SAME prayer, i.e....if I were to pray Psalms 136 over and over and over again, that, to me, is repetitive prayer. Stating the same thing over and over and over again.
I always end my prayer stating In Jesus Name....now just because I end each prayer with it, doesn't make it repetitive because my "ramblings" or thanks to God prior to are always different. And no one gets to The Father except through His Son.
I grew up stating the Lords Prayer in church. As much as I love the Lords Prayer, now when I look back, I was taught to pray repetitively. Everything said in church, except for the sermons, were the same thing over and over again! It wasn't until I started studying the Bible that I learned how I didn't know, but how I was taught about God and His word incorrectly.
Another problem I have with Hail Mary and ANY other prayers to saints, or anyone else besides God is that the Bible states we should only pray to Him.
I hope you understood my babbling, lol!!
I'm surprised that you say the Psalms is not a book of prayers to recite! Not criticizing but registering surprise. As I was growing up in the Episcopal Church it was a common notion that the Psalms were the “Prayer book of the Bible.”
The core of Catholic daily prayer outside the Mass is a 4 week cycle which involves virtually all the psalms. One impetus in the development of the Rosary was as a “poor man's Psalter,” which is why until recently the “full” Rosary was 150 Aves. Illiterates and people too poor for their own breviaries might not be able to do the “full” daily prayers, but they could do 50 Aves with meditation on aspects of Jesus’ life and the History of Salvation.
The custom of repetitive prayer which seems to have grown up independently (maybe largely in the Eastern Church?) was brought into western Christendom along with the use of beads or knotted strings to keep track.
Paternoster Row in London is so called (according to the Oxford Dict. of the Christian Church) because there were bead makers, and the word bead itself is etymological cousin to “bid” or pray. (I have no idea what they called ‘em before they were used to count prayers. “You know, those little things you put on string” seems a bit cumbersome ...)
And before the structured melange of Paternoster, Ave, and GloriaPatri apparently there was a lot of repetition of the Lord's Prayer alone.
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.