ON TOP OF Mia, who is a horse who thinks she is a Queen.
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?
Not confused, and not a Protestant.
Actually, such is a sign of unity, that being against an aberration, and i can easily provide evidence that a greater disparity of beliefs are regards basic doctrines exists among Catholics versus Evangelicals, and who show more unity on moral issues as well. A certain unnamed Cathodic poster on FR (not this thread) has sided with me on things other RC’s oppose me on. However, as Eucharist technically means thanksgiving, i would not jump on someone for using it when contending with Catholics, unless he was inferring they were the same. I cannot reconcile Paul taking a vow which involved a Jewish sacrifice, but see his motive.
Here's where I check and shy: Worst case: I know Catholics who are all over IVF and contraception. I know a priest who is a pacifist in the sense that he thinks Catholics shouldn't be in the military.
But when these people talk it doesn't occur to me that they in anyway represent Catholic teaching or belief.
(One of our friars is a former Navy Chaplain, reached commander. So two weeks after the pacifist twit said his thing at the nearby Catholic school, our guy put on his uniform and made sure he was seen in it before he vested for Mass.)
Have you heard a Catholic say The Church supports .... whatever heterodox thing? While here there are people NOT saying "I think such and such," but "This is the way it is!" If Mr Rogers says "Eucharist" he is taken to task with considerable vigor! It seems divisive, bitter, and more restrictive than a lot of Catholics are about terminology, as though the word itself had power despite the very clear statements that Mr Rogers has made indicating that his theology regarding the Lord's Supper is utterly at odds with ours.
And he's getting the same kind of "Your words can be twisted to mean such and such so I'm going to accuse you of believing such and such. whatever you may in fact have meant or thought."
...and not accurate or truthful. If you are not in communion with the Catholic Church and profess to be a Christian you are a Protestant.
If so many Protestants can assert what is and is not Catholic I am entitled to assert what is and is not Protestant.
ON TOP OF Mia, who is a horse who thinks she is a Queen.
“Buddhism in it’s “pure” form (Theravada) is anti-superstition.”
What is the Vatican’s position, then, on “pure”-form Buddhism? Can one be a “pure”-form Buddhist and at the same time a member of the Catholic Churdh?
We have oft contact with Buddhists, and we visited a Buddhist seminary in Suzhou, China over Christmas. We are 20 minutes from Jilin Temple, the largest and most influencial temple in Shanghai and this region of China, and 10 minutes from Qibao Temple, another very large one. It wouldn’t matter much in practical terms whether Buddhists claim not to be superstition in their pure form, because that is certainly not what we meet here. Nor have we seen it in Hong Kong, Taiwan, or the Philippines.
If confronted directly and asked if they were superstitious, they would all probably say, “No.” But you will find them in the parks in the morning trying to get energies and vibes from the trees and rocks. You will find them worshipping their dead ancestors as deities. You will find them going to holy mountains with bags full of either printed “Hell Bank Notes” or just rolls of crape paper to burn to spirits. And on and on. We see the Buddhists priests going over builging plans with architects to make sure the Ying and the Yang is just right in the design.
These are not “pure” Buddhists. Well that does not help us.
Strange, the NAB i have here, St. Joseph’s medium size, Catholic publishing co., copyright 1970-77, has “justice” (which perhaps the social gospel Catholics prefer) over righteousness in such places as Rom 4:5,6, and that David “celebrates” the man..., while the online NAB has
But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
This is better, and so it seems, there can be real differences in words, depending on what manner of spirit the translators be, and such believers must try.
>Jonah and Job are probably works of fiction.<
I find that contrary to the way they are referenced in the N.T.,
(Mat 12:39-41) “But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: {40} For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. {41} The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.”
(James 5:11) “Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.”
If these are works of fiction, where it stop? Parables, by way of contrast, do not have real persons named (Lk. 16:19-31 has reasons for not being one) and prophetic allegories are used to describe real events. Tis a slippery slope, and before you know it, all is allegorical, and Mary Baker Eddy and other revisionists win more converts.
Are suggesting that God is still speaking to Protestants? (i assume)?
Well, we have three named exceptions (none being Mary) to the rule that:
So if the Church has not defined whether she died, then presumably one could be a Catholic in good standing and believe that she did not die. Those Catholics, whoever they are, would then seem to be in contradiction to scripture on this point, IMO.
;-)
Of course. He ain't fussy. He talks to Catholics, that's got to be hard!
ph
Cronos: That reading meanings into words. All means ALL, 100%. Christ came for ALL men, not an upper caste.
Now wait a minute. :) That's the EXACT same thing I say about Rom. 3:23, and Catholics always argue with me. :)
“...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...Am I describing the Catholic church or not?”
You are describing some Catholics I’ve met, primarily while in the Philippines.
I have never met a Baptist who handled rattlesnakes, but I’m told they exist (I’ve handled them, but it was for a graduate level class in Herpetology). Doesn’t make it Baptist teaching.
If you wish to differ with the Catholic Church, it makes sense to differ on what they teach, not what can be found in some places.
I find ample stuff I can debate/discuss with them - the idea of ‘re-presenting’ Jesus in the Mass, the whole idea of priests, indulgences, Purgatory, etc.
I very strongly disagree with the whole mariology stuff, but I’ve started to leave out debating it because I find it is a highly emotional area. A Greek Orthodox, no longer posting here because of the beginning of this thread, wrote me in private and explained how he FELT when the subject of Mary came up - and highly emotional areas don’t enlighten anyone. I will sometimes still post extracts of papal announcements as examples that make most Protestants want to barf...the emotion is on both sides.
I find prayers to deceased saints bizarre, but I don’t lump them in with some nominal Catholics I’ve met who wouldn’t drive a car that didn’t have a statue of some saint on the dashboard.
At some point, we need to let others describe their beliefs to us rather than telling them what they believe. I resent it when told I believe in universal salvation, or that man is basically good, that we earn our salvation, etc - particularly when I have expressly denied those beliefs.
And at some point, we need to remember what Paul wrote in Romans:
1As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11for it is written,
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God.”
12So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. - Romans 14
I am not the judge of Catholics. The Pope is not my judge. God will judge both of us, and all others. I have zero belief in transubstantiation, but God will judge me on that - to my approval, perhaps, or perhaps to my condemnation. I reject mariology utterly, and God will judge me on that - to my approval or rebuke.
But there is no condemnation is Christ. Where I err, God has forgiven me. If I have tears from where I’ve erred, God will dry my eyes and welcome me home. I want to do the very best I can for God’s service, and to take his word in my life seriously, and encourage others in any way I can - but I will not judge them. And I have to accept that when they say they believe X & Z, that MEANS X & Z - not Y or T.
I will & have cheerfully explained why I think Catholics are misinterpreting scripture. But I will not hate them. I will not knowingly call them names they resent. I will not tell them they believe X if they say they believe Y. And I will not do Google searches of graveyard images in hopes of finding something to use in attack.
I’m not a limited atonement kind of guy. I believe Jesus died to save every person who believes in him. I believe Jesus loves Catholics more than I can imagine, and he calls me to do so as well. I believe the thief on the cross next to Jesus was saved, not by his doctrine, but by meeting Jesus.
So if the Church has bad doctrine about who Jesus is, then there is no compromise. Mormons believe in multiple gods. JWs believe Jesus wasn’t God. But even there, in my younger days, living in Utah, I sometimes spent 4-5 hours talking to Mormons, and not about funny underwear. I have yet to see anyone insulted to Christ!
PAS
1) individually
a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2) collectively
a) some of all types
"... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'world' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).
The Jews thought they had an exclusive God.. A God that did not love and would not save the pagan gentiles. The words all and world are limited by the usage, and to the Jew it meant something they did not want to believe.. that God had other people, not just them
To take the position that all means 100% of the whole every time would by its usage make you a universalist,, do you believe in universal salvation ??
He is on the cross because that is the centerpiece of catholic worship.. calling Christ down to the altar (a place of sacrifice) and feeding on his corpus
Thanks very much for that post. Very well said.
You're entitled to your grotesquely-contorted strawman version of Catholicism, but you cannot make it true.
Those who have had really poor catechesis know some of the right words, but they haven't a clue about the tune.
I've seen it in other circles. People fall away because the notions they formed when they were young do not stand up to adult thought, and they mistakenly think their immature notions are the fault of the teaching rather than a failure to engage the teaching as their minds develop.
Of course, some people seek in their religion an excuse to stop thinking and growing.
It's kind of important to me and, I think, to every Christian. So often the Gospel gets so muddied up when we try to bring up our children that all they remember is rules and sitting still and being bored and hearing that God is upset with them when they misbehave.
Christian education is hard.
The NT writers sometimes used hyperbole to make a point, as most adults do. But I see nothing in the passage above, spoken to Greeks, suggesting that the meaning is anything other than "Everyone of you is commanded by God to repent".
Only someone bringing in the idea that God wants to damn the large majority of people to hell would interpret it as "God commands some people in some places but in every class to repent".
The root of the word protestant is clearly PROTEST,it speaks of the denominations that came from the reformation and the attempt to reform some of the erroneous teachings that had entered Rome . There are many non-catholic christian churches that are truly not protestant and in fact many are closer to Rome doctrinally than they are protestant, as we can often see right here on the forum.
Generally it can be defined "A member of a Western Christian church adhering to the theologies of Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli."
So the Methodists, the UCC and the baptists (non reformed) Charismatic, Pentecostal, holiness churches and other Arminian denominations are not Protestant . In fact most are anti reformation headed back to Rome theologically .
The title "Evangelical" has likewise been corrupted and no longer means what it does mean as it housed people like Bill Hydel and Joel Olsteen and Rick Warren along with corrupted protestant denominations like the Lutheran Church ELCA and PC USA and now the Anglicans that were birthed in the reformation
Then of course there are those that want to throw the cults like the Mormons and JW's and Oneness folks in with those of us that hold to protestant doctrine..
Now call us what you like, what I do know Christ will sort through the field we call the church and burn the chaff.. when he harvest the wheat. But I think it is good to have a historical understanding of just who it is that is still protesting the doctrines of Rome :)
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.