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 know enough to know why Greek was chosen :)
So, here is one set of Protestants crawling a lone Baptist for using the word Eucharist. Talk to me some more about unity among Protestants, ‘cause I ain’t seeing it.
Sorry i missed your response amidst all the posting, and it seems i am missing the points you are referring to, so i will respond to those you provide here.
Point 1. If Jesus was a super David, then as far as our existence was concerned, then Jesus could be eternal. The angels are, for instance.
Jesus was a super David, but the ability of God to be such does not relegate Him to simply being only that, but the supernatural Deity which enabled David, etc. And actually, apart from His kingship aspect, in practice, Jesus would be more a Moses and a Elijah than a David.
Point 2: If Jesus started out as man and then became a god, then he could have the power of creation, as far as the LDS are concerned.
The question is what does Scripture warrant, and your reasoning here confirms that you need a extraBiblical literature to assert such. God/Jesus is from “everlasting” (Ps. 90:2; Mic. 5:2) always existing as God, and who is a spirit (Jn. 4:24) which nature essentially is not that of flesh and blood, (Lk. 24:29) which Jesus took on, (Heb. 2:16) a body being having been prepared for Him. (Heb. 10:4)
Point 4: It may not violate the divinity of Christ, but neither does it absolutely confirm it.
What is being referred to here i am not sure.
Point 5: Jesus does not change; these passages merely refer to changes in our time.
Highly problematic, as to be consistent, you must attribute this to God the father as well, who states, I change not, and make everlasting limited, which sometimes in the O.T. can mean for an age, though not in the New, and as referring to God is best warranted to mean from eternity past to eternity future, unless you are going to believe God was created, or evolved.
Point 6: Father and Son. Creator and created, with the abilities given to the Son by the Father. Subordinationist at best.
Another theoretical postulation, but nowhere is Jesus said to be created (though He is the head of all creation), but one through whom all things were made, “and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (Jn. 1:3), as “all things were created by him, and for him”, (Col. 1:16) thus WTS adds “other” after “all” so as to disallow Jesus being pre-existent as creator. Also in testimony is, “Let US” make man in OUR image”, and 5 other times, before the royal “we” is known to be used. In addition, in no places is creative activity attributed to angels, rather, “Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth BY MYSELF;” (Isa 44:24)
Your objective are wanting, and rejecting John is untenable, and the Scriptures in their totality provide abundant warrant for the doctrine of the Trinity as against other postulations.
But SS does not exclude the need, warrant, and viability of a strong and dedicated teaching by the Church on this and other doctrinal issues, as the Scripture materially provides such. But that alone is insufficient, rather, it was because the Scriptures best warrant the doctrine of the Trinity that is has so universally “stuck”, the exceptions usually being among those who look to a supreme teaching magisterium such as the WTS or LDS, etc. And the problem we have with Rome is with them progressively affirming teachings, which unlike the Trinity, critically lack Scriptural warrant, (and which as in the Assumption, the early fathers had various opinions about, not unanimous consent which are claimed for them: http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/livingtradition.html).
Where do you get that information?
Of course He is risen. T Holy Sacrifice makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.
Why do you try to argue what the Catholic Church teaches in direct contradiction with the official Catechism of the Catholic Church? Is it because you gained all you know of Catholicism from a Catechism pamphlet prepared to explain the mysteries of Christianity to seven year olds?
It is one thing to acknowledge the Church's teachings and then explain why you disagree with it, but to argue incorrectly what those teachings are as the reason you disagree is either hubris, malice or lunacy.
Aw, come on! It was a serious question. I was under the impression that in the first century Latin was not the Vulgate but Greek was the Koine, if you get my meaning. I would be interested to know whether, when, and how far Latin spread eastward.
He is not. That's a statue.
It is a depiction of a historical event.
Do you believe the Iwo Jima Memorial means those Marines are somehow trapped on Suribachi?
Is Lincoln somehow condemned to sit on a marble throne in DC?
Are the disembodied faces of four presidents doomed to spend eternity on a rock face in the Black Hills?
Bizarre.
“What hope is there for Biblical clarity when Protestants adopt the papacy’s vernacular? It certainly makes one wonder about motives.”
No reason to doubt.
As a young child, I was kidnapped by Roman agents and taken to the Vatican, where I was forced to bathe daily in the Tiber. Yielding to their mind control, I was sent out at 18 as a mole. For over 31 years, I labored as a ‘Closet Catholic’ to deceive my ‘fellow’ Baptists, until I was discovered and outed here on FreeRepublic.
My Vatican masters are displeased. My pension is in doubt, and they are threatening to repossess Mia and my other horses, Lilly & Trooper. My Border Collie has promised to stick it out with me, but my Australian Shepherd was caught searching the Internet for air fares from Tucson to Rome...they give you a ‘familiar’, but until you’re on the ropes, you don’t REALLY know!
Either that, or I was reading Philip Schaff’s history and liked his comments about ‘the Eucharist’.
Choose whichever explanation you are predestined to...
No. The Church is a "communion of saints": this expression refers first to the "holy things" (sancta), above all the Eucharist, by which "the unity of believers, who form one body in Christ, is both represented and brought about"
Personal prayer, personal Jesus, no intermediaries, as opposed to corporate ritualized impersonal prayers to everyone but God, no access to Christ except through Mary, a whole heirarchy of intermediaries and you need to keep them straight.
That sounds just horrible.
Thank God you're not describing the Catholic Church.
Am I describing the Catholic church or not?
“Christians do not worship God by partaking of Communion.”
Speak for yourself.
This Arizonan Baptist worships God at the Grand Canyon - not because the Grand Canyon is transubstantiated into the flesh of Christ, but because of what it reveals about the Creator. When I partake of Communion, or the Lord’s Supper, or the Eucharist, I worship God because of what it reveals about our God and Savior.
I remember, and remembering, I worship. Why is that so hard?
“It is a “Communion” between believers and God, not between believers and each other.”
Yet Paul said, “15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”
We are one Body. Some of my Catholic FRiends can attest that I’ve said that is the interpretation for “29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.” - that in context, it is talking about taking communion without recognizing that we are one in Christ, and we need to care for each other (vv 20-22, 33-34).
That description bears NO resemblance to the actual Catholic Church, but does sound like the boogeyman church created by the self aggrandizing "reformers" attempting to scare a few devotees away from the truth.
Nope.
“Oh yes, it’s been noticed!”
Mia noticed too! When I entered the corral, she turned...and defecated. “Oh yes, it’s been noticed!”
I'm not entirely certain that Machenites worship God at all; I can see where they worship Saint Paul, Calvin and Machen, I can see where they worship some portions of the Bible, but I can't see where they worship God.
NOT
Please tell me Mia is a horse...
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.