Who are the Catholics: The Orthodox or The Romanists, or both?

Me

[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?

[Cronos]

However, we as an article of faith view it as a final “scrubbing” before heaven for saved souls.

[Forest Keeper]

You spelled Arminian correctly as far as I know.

Yes, it's "Arminian", as in an adherent to many of the beliefs of Jacobus Arminius. He was a synergist and greatly disagreed with the Calvinist monergist approach.

[roamer_1]

I see no logical reason to limit it to any archaic meaning.

PRECISELY. Glad to see you didn't fall into the grasshopper trap.

Is it to say that there is no emotion in sorrow and suffering? Can there be a condition where there is no emotion in joy? What of zealousness? And what of love? Can there be unbounded, uncontrolled love before the Lord? Of course there can. It is a silly premise on it's face.

And it is not Biblical. Evidence abounds throughout the Bible of demonstrable zeal, passion, before the Lord. And he excepts these things greatly, blessing those who come before Him in such a fashion.

God Himself can be shown to have a passionate, emotional character. His righteous anger rises up in His Face; He is righteously brought to jealousy by His wives; He grieved when He destroyed the work of His hands with the flood. He is overjoyed, welcoming home the prodigal son.

While these may not be represented in the archaic term for passion, they are certainly present, and fall well within the scope of the common vernacular.

Of course there is the antithesis - we are to flee from the passions of the flesh, where our emotions work against the will of God - These certainly are to be controlled.

But passion itself is the language of the heart. And the heart is what the Father is most interested in. It is not the passion, per se, but rather the object of passion which can pollute the soul.

MY PASSIONS HAVE BEEN MY LESSONS . . .

Mine too, but that is not limited to sorrow, to suffering, as some here presume (I know that you do not presume it as such).

Some of my greatest "lessons" Have come from unfailing love, being surprised by joy... In faith and trusting, with zealousness. My tears have been turned to joy, in an instant! While no one would deny the lesson of the tears, who has thought about the lesson of the joy? Which one do you think is of the greatest value?

So I return to my earlier assertions . . . I'm utterly convinced that in Heaven . . . our PASSIONS WILL BE FULLER, MORE ROBUST, CERTAINLY PERFECTLY SANCTIFIED, PERFECTED, GODLY. YET THEY WILL BE OURS. My passions won't be identical to yours. Yet they will all be God infused, God focused and God directed.

I don't see us with wimpy pseudo shams of emotions weakly rubber stamping Holy Spirit's memo of the day.

I would absolutely concur, with a pickle, a slice of cheese, and a side order of fries.

This post of yours is of high importance, if folks would only see.

[Cronos]

It makes me wish that Elijah was around to challenge MO to another "God-off". Now THAT would have been hilarious. :)

It's more complex than that. Izlam has a couple of things on it's side:
1. Fear -- if you are a Mo and you convert, you are a dead man -- by LAW in Saudi A and Malaysia and Pakistan and Iran and... and in reality anywhere else in the world. Apostasy inIslam means a death sentence

They will not even debate their religion (probably because they know how many holes are there in it) and if you see any forum where there is an inter-religious debate, you'll see that the Mo's raise questions about Christianity, but woe betide the person who asks a question in reverse.

2. Repetition -- 5 times a day brainwashes people.

[Mad Dawg]

Si! Si! Sciamo! (pronounced she AH mo) Sciamo!

(ma che cosa!)

To be good Catholic, it is necessary to be able to hold before one’s mind the glory of the Love of God while remembering the He likes to show it in extremely earthen vessels.

For one thing, this makes me more tolerant of otherwise intolerable little old ladies who fix one with their rheumy eyes and start nattering. You never know when the word of God may come out!

Still, my favorite Vatican joke is attributed to Pope John XXIII who, it is said, when asked how many people work in the Vatican, replied, “About half of them.”

[RnMomof7]

Jesus keeping the Law has no relationship to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary. The doctrine of sinlessness refers instead to her role as the vessel that held God. That vessel had to be pure.

Of couse it has everything to do with the "sinless" state of Mary.

The law is the measure of sin,it is by the law we know if we have sinned.. Gods word say if you fail in ONE Law you have broken them all

As I said before if Mary was sinless she is god and Jesus had no human nature..

If Mary was sinless then she could have died on the cross, the innocent for the guilty

[RnMomof7]

And you see no conflict in the fact your INFALLIBLE catechism says only Jesus could keep the law PERFECTLY and then in another part say Mary, like Jesus was sinless? No problem folks just keep moving along .......

[Mad Dawg]

“If you are not in communion with the Catholic Church and profess to be a Christian you are a Protestant.”

This is a canned robotic response from an organization that must limit the history of Christianity to guard its own authority.

That's a wee bit harsh. So I was taught in the then called "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United Sates of America."

Tom Jones, Squire Thwackum:

When I say religion, I mean the Christian religion; and when I say the Christian religion, I mean the Protestant religion; and when I say the Protestant religion, I mean the Church of England.

[RnMomof7]

That reading meanings into words. All means ALL, 100%. Christ came for ALL men, not an upper caste.

So are all men then saved?

[Mad Dawg]

As I said before if Mary was sinless she is godPlease help us see the argument.

[Mad Dawg]

[Darn: Posting glitch, fumble fingers.]

As I said before if Mary was sinless she is god.

You said it but you didn't defend it. Were pre-fallen Adam and ever God or gods or what?

Animals cannot sin. Are they God or gods?

Please draw out the argument. I don't get it.

[daniel1212]

Actually, i am the one who has done more of any “biting”, but ask away.

>Regarding Christ—He is not a creation of God’s.<

I certainly have affirmed that. Where did i convey the contrary?

[RnMomof7]

And Warfield would be wrong. Hitler was wholly responsible for his actions, God did not direct or predestine Hitler to commit his actions. However, do not forget that the outcome of WWII was Israel's rebirth after 1876 years. Was that God's plan? God knows. Was it God's hand that directed Hitler to commit the Holocaust -- NO

So do you think God was napping when Hitler was elected? Was God sleeping during the holocaust ?Maybe He was busy somewhere else.. but one of the saints keep guard should have called Him..

Hitler was , as are ALL leaders , ordained of God

Daniel 4:17: "This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones; to the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men."

Daniel 5:21 "And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses; they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the Most High God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that He appointeth over it whomsoever he will."

Romans 13 1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

John 19:11 Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."

God has wiped out nations, struck down individuals for His purposes.

" John 19:11. (David, rebuking Abishai, in regard to Shimei) "Because he curseth, and Jehovah bath said, Curse David.... Let him alone, and let him curse; for Jehovah bath bidden him" 2 Sam. 16:10, 11. "Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee; and the residue of wrath shalt thou gird upon thee' (or restrain), Ps. 76:10. "And I, behold I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians and they shall go in (the Red Sea) after them; and I will get me honor upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, and upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen," Ex. 14:17.

It is important to have a correct theology of God.. God is love, but He also is a God of wrath and judgement ..That is why there is a hell

Not a bird falls from the sky without the ordination of God..

[RnMomof7]

Why was Christ the only one that could die the sins of man, the innocent for the guilty? He was the only one that could keep the law perfectly because He was God..the law is a reflection of the Holiness of God.. not God and mary

I am going snowshoeing.. will be home later :)

[Mad Dawg]

I am going to get SO yelled at for this.

Let me propose an example of a kind of thinking that we feelthy papists do: God is due our prayers and praises. If someone didn't praise a beautiful sunset, we'd think something was wrong with his vision or his psyche. The Good, the True, the Courageous, the Beautiful are due praise. The only problem with this is that it is almost too obvious to see.

When we give God what He is due, He blesses us, even though we have only done what we were supposed to do. There are two ways (at least) to think about this: (1)It is just plain good for one to do the just thing, to render what is due to him to whom it is due. (2)God is generous.

When we do wrong, we are due punishment. In that case, for us to do justice is to submit to punishment, to pay the penalty.

Of course, the penalty for offending God is more than we can pay. Looking to Christ, all we can do is throw ourselves on His mercy, and so we do.

But even then there is usally stuff we can (in grace, at least) do. We can make reparation, fix the window, replace the destroyed thing, "make it up to" the one we have offended as best we can.

This is not only just in the obvious sense (I broke your window, I owe you a window) but in a deeper sense. That is, in acknowledging my fault and in making reparation I am acting in accordance with justice. That is good for me. It helps me (again, under and by grace) cultivate the "habitus" of justice, even though I start from a very lousy position. At least I am headed the right way and training my will, as it were, to see, to choose and to do the right thing.

So the same sorts of "gifts" for the same sorts of reasons apply.

THIS is why Dante present Purgatory as a place of joy and hope, albeit in suffering. The soon to be full-fledged saints (so to speak, nobody really thinks there is a mountain at the antipodes of Jerusalem) are being sanctified.

There is ONE way in which the measure of their sins is requited by the measure of their punishment. And if that one way is focused on to the exclusion of the other way, then it looks all punitive and tit-for-tat.

But the (or 'an') other way is explained by the therapy analogy. That is, to the extent that I let myself grow weak (through injustice) I lay myself open to tearing a shoulder ligament. Once I have done so, I protect that shoulder, I grow weaker, I hunch, motion is restricted, other ligaments contract.

To be healed, I have to grow stronger, to reduce inflammation, to have the ligaments stretched, and so forth.

Fixing your window (or working for the money to pay somebody else to do so, and putting up with privation because my iPhone money went instead to your window) is allowing justice to work in me, to make me more just. The seemingly tit-for-tat trials of purgatory are me enduring that part of the remedy for my sin which is not beyond my capacity to endure. I submit to justice and so God blesses me and makes me more just.

WE may conceptually imagine Hell as the state of those who will not allow justice to work on them, because they have turned away from the God of Righteousness. Purgatory is where those who long to drink deep of God's justice learn how to swallow again.

It's another way of looking at it.

[annalex]

Is it to say that there is no emotion in sorrow and suffering?

No, it is not to say that. This is why I didn't say anything of the kind.

The Bible, and Jesus especially, place high value on human emotion. It is cold calculating pharisaical reason that gets man in trouble.

The issue was the specific way the word passion is used in the Scripture. It is every time consistent with the archaic meaning of unfreedom. It is never consistent with the celebratory tone that modern mind adopts when talking of passions romantically.

Which is the general principle. The New Testament is near 2000 years old. You want to understand it, read the Fathers and learn the ancient culture.

[daniel1212]

I think the issue is not only not sinning, but being preserved from a sinless nature that might be seen as a mark of Deity. Infants, and animals may be said to be innocent, as the former have a sinful nature but do not yet “know to refuse the evil, and choose the good”, (Is. 7:15) thus are not yet personally culpable, and the latter are not evidenced to have a God-consciousness, making them accountable to God. Worship is an activity peculiar to man, though no doubt some debate this position. I do think, however than animals, at least dogs, can feel some sort of moral guilt.

Whether Mary’s purported preservation from sin attributes to her an exclusive attribute of Deity can be debated, but that, and her perpetual virginity - which constituents a marriage contrary to its basic description (leave but no cleave) - and her being Queen of heaven and the most preeminent direct object of devotion and supplication (for most Catholics it seems) critically lack Scriptural warrant, and the latter especially, as has been covered here btwn us.

[annalex]

your INFALLIBLE catechism says only Jesus could keep the law PERFECTLY and then in another part say Mary, like Jesus was sinless?

Well, that is a problem on some level: perhaps a clarification needed somewhere. That part I cited also doesn't know how to spell "conceive". But whatever problem there is, you cannot argue that Mary committed any sin from the Catechism.

On the substance of it, there is no real conflict. Jesus alone could keep the entirety of the law so that to fulfill it for all men. That is the perfection of Jesus the God-man.

Mary committed no personal sin and had no ancestral sin. That is a different statement.

[John Leland 1789]

“Tom Jones, Squire Thwackum:

“When I say religion, I mean the Christian religion; and when I say the Christian religion, I mean the Protestant religion; and when I say the Protestant religion, I mean the Church of England.”

---

Does the Catholic Church (Vatican) have as an objective to, sooner-or-later, re-unite all churches under the See of Rome? Or, can I not say that this is a real desire of the Vatcan? Is this not what Catholic Ecumenism is actually purposed to accomplish(?)-—eventually?

Does not the Vatican actually believe that the Reformation of the 15th, 16th, etc. centuries was a huge error that should have been, or should be countered and reversed? Was that not manifest in a Catholic Counter Reformation in the 16th century (and perhaps even later)?

Did Squire Thwakum have, or did the PECUSA, ever have the objective to, sooner-or-later, reunite all churches under an Episcopal or Anglican hierarchy? Does any Protestant Episcopal or Anglican wing have an Ecumenical program to draw in under itself all other churches (or the member Christians)?

[Cronos]

Fascinating. No wonder you're such a close personal FRiend to the Roman Catholics in these discussions.

If you did read all the posts you'd see Mr Roger's debate with Catholics on other matters. His beliefs on predestination match ours, but we do disagree on other matters. That doesn't mean that we should be enemies as some people may think.

also, that has no relevance to his discussion points.