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?
Guess we're "2 peas in the same talky pod"!!
Your explanation makes a lot of sense. I'm on my own here, so having these kind of conversations teaches me a whole lot. Thanks for that.
The different sects I was speaking of, perhaps sects is not the proper word, but there are different types (?) of Catholic churches...some have become more "loose" or "relaxed", some stayed "strict", etc.
Yes.
Thanks!!! That is excellent advise!!
My understanding has always been that it's not so much non-Catholics are not assumed to be in a state of grace, but more that they are assumed not to be in union with the Church, not to be one with the mind of the Church, perhaps particularly with respect to the nature of the Eucharist.
You know that we believe the Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ; perhaps you are not aware that it is also a strong symbol of unity, especially unity in faith; a recurring theme of Communion hymns is that many grains of wheat become one bread. So, in our eyes, for one who doesn't share our Faith to receive Communion is a scandal and a sacrilege, though I wouldn't presume to know whether it is culpable in a particular non-Catholic.
Are you aiming for French or Latin? Try Sine Jesu Christo! ;-)
Everyone certainly must act in accordance with his conscience, but we also have to take care that our consciences are in good working order -- doesn't happen automatically!
If not performed through faith in Christ, then they have their rewards already and it was done by themselves independent of Him.
Anybody performing outside of faith through Him, is acting in sin.
In order for Christ to work in the person, they must first take on the mind of Christ and allow Him to indwell within them. Christ is unable to indwell the person, until that person is indwelt by God the Holy Spirit, and this does not occur until something spiritually righteous is found in that person. Faith alone in Christ alone does provide something God finds to be righteous per Rom 3:22. Once this happens, God the Holy Spirit regenerates the human spirit, providing a temple for the indwelling of God in the believer. Once indwelt, and remaining in fellowship with Him, God the Holy Spirit is able to further sanctify the human spirit, which then makes sound Bible doctrine understood by the mind in the soul of the believer. A the believer matures with more doctrine circulating in his soul, he then may begin to take on the mind of Christ.
Man ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden. He is able to discern and perform good works, but not necessarily by God's Plan or by His Divine Standards unless it is performed in a right way. A good work is righteous by Divine standards, only when performed through faith in Christ.
There are many good works performed everyday independent of faith in Christ, but those will all be burnt up as hay and stubble or dross in the refining fire or defined as good for nothingness.
You might read up on The History of the Iconoclastic Heresy, which arose under the influence of Islam and against the already long tradition of veneration of images by the Church, and its condemnation by the Second Council of Nicea in the eigth century.
Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons -- of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.
The Incarnation made a much bigger, more far-reaching and more real difference than you seem to realize.
... the job you save may be your own or your neighbor’s!
...
unless, of course, you work at a big box retailer that sells products made elsewhere ...
Ping to me. Excellent explanation.
That’s all I hear from people who say they don’t believe in God, or at least my God of the Bible, but all you have to do is be a good person.
But we pray to her BECAUSE He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Some like to say that a large enough difference in degree makes something different in kind. Maybe so. But a difference is a difference, as a person's a person, no matter how small. So to point out that it's a SMALL difference is not the same thing as pointing out that it is a meaningless difference.
Sometimes plodding clarity is necessary to contend with sophistical error.
Really?
What's amazing to me is that an ecclesiology which is not clearly based in Scripture is considered, so to speak, the default ecclesiology, while the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church is considered incomprehensible and idiosyncratic.
And it's not just a matter of technicalities. Ecclesiology has resonances in one's theology of the Incarnation and one's theological anthropology.
But you’re still praying TO HER.
It may be that one or both of us understands the ontology of our respective Churches wrongly, or the understanding of our two Churches differs, but I don't agree with your understanding of their ontology.
From the Catholic perspective, we believe that the Orthodox Churches lack something ontologically from having the fullness of the Church.
I understood that the Orthodox view is similar. But I could be mistaken.
“From what you are saying, baptism does not make one either ‘Catholic’ or ‘Orthodox.’”
No, that's not quite what I said.
“They believe that valid baptisms brings one into the Church and that there is only one Church.”
I'll extend a little what I said. It appears that at least some Orthodox generally reject as valid the baptisms performed by non-Orthodox. This is in contradistinction to the Catholic Church, which generally accepts non-Catholic baptism as valid (with certain exceptions to the rule).
As well, I was under the impression that in Orthodoxy, not anyone could validly perform a baptism, but that's a digression.
"Orthodox posters are individual posters, with individual opinions."
First, we are always being lectured about how the Orthodox PEOPLE are the true guardians of Orthodox faith, so that doesn't fly on the level of first principles. But second, it wouldn't matter to me anyway. I'm not describing the formal positions between our Churches (notice the plural there, even though in some sense we share membership in one Church, we are nonetheless divided) as seen by head-in-the-clouds theological commissions. I'm talking about the reality on the ground, here at FR, which is where we're talking about caucus labels.
“The Orthodox Church of America does. Again, the Greeks are not the only Orthodox in America and do not speak for all Orthodox in this country.”
Some Catholic bishops do. Some don't. No bishop speaks for all Catholics in this country.
The current situation in both Churches in the US renders this comment invalid:
“Is there any wonder then that to the Orthodox any union with such aberrations seems undesirable or even some individuals in particular actually heretical. I mean, Pelosi argues that the Church was not always opposed to abortion. Is that ‘orthodox?’”
We have our Pelosis, you have your Sarbanes. We have our Kennedys, you have your Stephanopolouses. We also have our Bishop Tobins, Archbishop Burkes, and a host of other episcopal voices who have at least spoken publicly to rebuke the heresies of individual Catholic politicians [even a number of our "squishies" publicly condemned what Nancy Pelosi said, including Archbishop Wuerl and her own archbishop, Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco], and apparently, you have some bishops, too, who have done something similar, although I am entirely unaware of such widely-proclaimed public pronouncements.
sitetest
Agreed. It is just there is another entity clamouring to be heard as well. Sometimes the deceiver's message is a whole lot more palatable than God's. Forcing the issue or bringing one's pride into matters invariably leads to the lord of this world's message being the one heard.
See posts 881 and 882.
It was grace, or presumed lack thereof, that was referred to.
Personally, I am a Christian.
No further designation needed.
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.