Where did I ever call you anything? If one goes back through the thread, one finds that you called Catholics all kinds of really nasty things in a rather nasty fashion:
Posted on 05/13/2010 11:22:06 AM PDT by markomalley
Being thin-skinned is being disruptive on an open Religion Forum thread. I saw no instance where you were called names. I did, however, see that you attributed less than flattering motives to other respected FReepers quite a number of times, which is known as “mind-reading.” That is against the rules.
If you want anyone to discuss anything with you, perhaps it would be good to learn the rules.
Did you even read my last comment?
FWIW, I’m not thin-skinned.
I would say that the case has been made.
I'm a hexadecimalist,by the way. Binarism makes my eyes cross.
ROFL!!!
Where did I ever call you anything? If one goes back through the thread, one finds that you called Catholics all kinds of really nasty things in a rather nasty fashion:
It's because it's just your opinion, it has no basis in history. If a Catholic said the same thing I'd tell him that I'm not interested in his opinion. I can go to a Haydock Bible or the Catena Aurea and see what all the Church Fathers said (and agreed to) about most of the New Testament. Why should I restart history with every newborn? It's already been decided long ago.
Look up any anti-Mormon thread on FR and see the never ending scriptural disagreements between the bible only types. Always debating never coming to a conclusion. And with every generation and person it STARTS all over again.
That’s a direct quote from your comment #91. I copy-pasted it.
I like thinking about God. I like studying Him in Scripture. I like talking about Him, discussing Him with others. You’ve asked me questions about God, and I was simply responding, supporting what I wrote with Scripture.
I don’t apologize for loving God, and talking about Him. I’m not sure why you wouldn’t want to talk about Him, why you’d not enjoy discussing what Scripture says about Him.
So? I made that statement. Did I apply it to you? If you are accepting labels that are not given to you, what does that say about you? Copy-paste all you want. It will not lead you to God.
Very good. My six year old likes thinking about mud puddles. My eight year old likes thinking about Star Wars. My 10 year old likes thinking about Space: 1999.
My wife likes thinking about redecorating the house.
The reality is:
that ALL "bible only" people talk what THEY SAY scripture says. They live the lie that history started the moment when they interpreted a verse in scripture.
Self interpreting of scripture is an old error, old already in the year 434:
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS [ A. D. 434 ]
With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity. I received almost always the same answer from all of them, that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and sound in a sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of the divine law; and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
[Here, perhaps, someone may ask: “If the canon of the Scriptures be perfect, and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?” Because, quite plainly, Sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. The same passage is interpreted in one way by some, in another by others, so that it can almost appear as if there are as many opinions as there are men. Novatian explains a passage in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another; Anus, Eunomius, Macedonius in another; Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian in another; Jovinian, Pelagius, Caelestius in another; and afterwards in still another, Nestorius. And thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning.
In the Catholic Church herself every care must be taken that we may hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is then truly and properly Catholic. That is what the force and meaning of the name itself declares, a name that embraces all almost universally. This general rule will be correctly applied if we pursue universality, antiquity, and agreement. And we follow universality in this way, if we confess this one faith to be true, which is confessed by the whole Church throughout the whole world; antiquity, however, if we in no way depart from those interpretations which, it is clear our holy predecessors and fathers solemnized; and likewise agreement, if, in this very antiquity, we adopt the definitions and theses of all or certainly of almost all priests and teachers.
To announce, therefore, to Catholic Christians something other than that which they have received has never been permitted, is nowhere permitted, and never will be permitted. And to anathematize those who announce anything other than that which has been received once and for all has never been unnecessary, is nowhere unnecessary and never will be unnecessary.
He is a true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, the Church, and the Body of Christ; who puts nothing else before divine religion and the Catholic Faith, neither the authority nor the love nor the genius nor the eloquence nor the philosophy of any man whatsoever, but, despising all that and being fixed, stable, and persevering in his faith, is determined in himself to hold and believe that only which he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times.
"Guard" he says, "what has been committed." What does it mean, "what has been committed”? It is what has been faithfully entrusted to you, not what has been discovered by you; what you have received, not what you have thought up; a matter not of ingenuity, but of doctrine; not of private acquisition, but of public Tradition; a matter brought to you, not put forth by you, in which you must be not the author but the guardian, not the founder but the sharer, not the leader, but the follower. "Guard," he says, "what has been committed."Keep the talent of the Catholic Faith inviolate and unimpaired. What has been faithfully entrusted, let it remain in your possession, let it be handed on by you. You have received gold, so give gold. For my part I do not want you to substitute one thing for mother; I do not want you impudently to put lead in place of gold, or, fraudulently brass. I do not want the appearance of gold, but the real thing. O Timothy, O priest. O interpreter, O teacher, if a divine gift has made you suitable in genius, in experience, in doctrine to be the Beseleel of the spiritual tabernacle, cut out the precious gems of divine dogma, shape them faithfully, ornament them wisely, add splendor, grace and beauty to them! By your expounding it, may that now be understood more clearly which formerly was believed even in its obscurity. May posterity, by means of you, rejoice in understanding what in times past was venerated without understanding, Nevertheless, teach the same that you have learned, so that if you say something anew, it is not something new that you say.
But perhaps someone is saying: "Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ?" Certainly there is, and the greatest. For who is there so envious toward men and so exceedingly hateful toward God, that he would try to prohibit progress? But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself, by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in the group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion. The progress of religion in souls is like the growth of bodies, which, in the course of years, evolve and develop, but still remain what they were. . . . For example: Our fathers of old sowed the seeds of the wheat of faith in this field which is the Church. Certainly it would be unjust and incongruous if we, their descendents, were to gather, instead of the genuine truth of wheat, the noxious error of weeds. On the contrary, it is right and logically proper that there be no discrepancy between what is first and what is last and that we reap, in the increment of wheat from the wheat of instruction, the fruit also of dogma. And thus, although in the course of time something evolved from those first seeds and has now expanded under careful cultivation, nothing of the characteristics of the seeds is changed. Granted that appearance, beauty, and distinction has been added, still, the same nature of each kind remains. May it never happen that the rose garden of the Catholic sense be turned into thistles and thorns. May it never happen, I say, that darnel and monk's hood suddenly spring up in the spiritual paradise of shoots of cinnamon and balsam.
We must most studiously investigate and follow this ancient agreement of the holy fathers, not in all the lesser questions of the divine Law, but certainly and especially in the rule of faith. . . . But only those opinions of the fathers are to he brought forward which were expressed by those who lived, taught, and persevered wisely and constantly in the holy Catholic faith and communion, and who merited either to die faithfully in Christ or to be killed gloriously for Christ. Those men, moreover, are to be believed, in accord with the rule that only that is to be held as undoubted, certain, and valid, which either all or most of them have confirmed by receiving, holding, and handing on in one and the same sense, manifestly, frequently, and persistently, as if by a council of teachers in mutual agreement. But whatever was thought outside of or even against the opinion of all, although it be by a holy and learned man, or although by a confessor and martyr, must be removed from the authority of the common and public and general opinion, as being among his personal and peculiar and private views. In this way we shall not, as is the sacrilegious custom of heretics and schismatics, reject the ancient truth of universal dogma, to pursue, with great danger to our eternal salvation, the novel error of one man.
You wrote, “The reality is ... that ALL ‘bible only’ people talk what THEY SAY scripture says. They live the lie that history started the moment when they interpreted a verse in scripture.”
I don’t know what you mean by “Bible only.” If you mean that I believe it to be written infallibly and “breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” then I guess that’d be accurate. But if you mean that I look ONLY to Scripture to gain knowledge about God and life, then that’d NOT be accurate.
I take it you mean to insult those who highly esteem the Bible. That humans are incapable of understanding Scripture, and should avoid discussing it at all costs. Make that “humans other than your priests” are incapable of understanding Scripture; they have a peculiar dispensation to read and understand Scripture that’s withheld by God from His other children.
You seem to forget that Christ chose ignorant FISHERMEN as His first disciples. And over time, as they spent time with Him (and not in formal education), they grew surprisingly wise, something that stunned the religious leaders of their day.
And your contention that I “live the lie that history started the moment when they interpreted a verse in scripture” is pure Roman Catholic indoctrination. You are blind to reality if you have such a cliched, narrow, phony, inaccurate understanding of those who follow Christ apart from your religious system.
This discussion has brought out a lot of hatred and antagonism by Roman Catholics against those who follow Christ. It says a lot about the work of God within you that you’re so hateful and deaf and closed to Christian fellowship.
I maintain that if you’d come “home to Christ” rather than go “home to Rome,” you would experience the grace and love and forgiveness and relationship of God.
Your posting personality changes completely from time to time. It appears to me that Theo is really two different people (husband & wife?). This last posting is the clueless Theo. The questioning of NPF was a Theo with a deeper understanding of the finer points in Post Vatican II Catholicism. There is no way that the two are the same person.
I’ve written enough for both of you.
Yours in Jesus, Mary , and Joseph,
Leoni
BTTT for this older thread.
But whose version? There is Roman Catholic and then there are the Orthodox who will tell you they are the original and true Catholic church? Sheesh, it never ends.
Meanwhile, I often think of Ghandi’s statements that he really liked Jesus but it was His followers that he had issues with. I would say the same of the Catholic Church. There is great beauty in the rituals and meaning of the Catholic Church. I love their traditions, and even their continuity (since I don’t give much credence to the rebels who want to have gay marriage, etc. okayed). However, wowee, when I think of all the Catholics I know and how they live their lives on a DAILY basis...it’s very scary. Of course, are they REALLY Catholic?
I just read your post to another Freeper with some interest. You mentioned a host of “sins” like watching “Desperate Housewives,” fornicating, etc. You spoke of these activities as if no “Catholics” do such. Oy, are you disillusioned. Meanwhile, I always think of the people who are easily “found out” because their sins are outward (e.g., the girl who becomes pregnant out of wedlock). Yet, there are so many who have grievous sins that are more well hidden. Thankfully, God knows all.
Most Orthodox I know tend to view "Latins" as members of the Catholic Church as they view themselves. I actually know of only three areas of dispute between Latins and Orthodox:
I remember my daughter, several years ago, had a female friend who was Russian Orthodox (her grandmother and grandfather escaped from Stalinist Russia). When we first met her grandmother, a very pious woman, the topic turned to the Faith. A comment she made to us that I remember to this day was, "well, you're not Orthodox, but at least you Latins are real Christians." While I would doubt that I'd run into many who were that blunt, I think that is the view that the majority of Orthodox I've met would hold toward Latins.
However, wowee, when I think of all the Catholics I know and how they live their lives on a DAILY basis...it’s very scary. Of course, are they REALLY Catholic?
Interesting thing about Christ's Church (whether you regard it as the Latin and Eastern Church views it or the "invisible Church" thing adopted by Protestants): the Church is Holy, established by Christ, and guided/protected by the Holy Spirit. However, the Church is made up of men (a/k/a homo sapiens). The Bible reveals to us exactly how we men are. The very fact that there is still a Church at all after 2,000+ years is a testament in of itself.
I agree that we all, myself included, should strive to live the Gospel far more than we do.
That is very interesting about the grandmother of your daughter’s friend (hope I remembered that right). I have heard Orthodox people say completely different things altogether, but I will grant you that not all people are equally learned about their faith or their history. Meanwhile, you are right about what the Bible tells us about ourselves. However, it would seem that we should expect the apple tree to produce apples.
P.S. One of my favorite quotes is from St. Francis “Preach the gospel at all times; if necessary, use words.” LOL! Oh,how true.
And I've heard Latins, sadly, say the same things about Orthodox.
We have to remember that the excommunications imposed by Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Michael Cerularius back in 1054 were not lifted until 1965 by Paul VI and Athenagoras I.
Over 900 years of bad blood (despite efforts in the 1430s to re-establish communion) have got to be overcome.
And that is on both sides.
There are a lot, on both sides of the Adriatic, who try to take things in stride. (John 17:21 That they all may be one, as you, Father, in me, and I in you; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me). And there are some who believe it is more important to be right.
I'm not smart enough to be in the latter category.
However, it would seem that we should expect the apple tree to produce apples.
I assume this is in reference to your earlier statement, However, wowee, when I think of all the Catholics I know and how they live their lives on a DAILY basis...it’s very scary. Of course, are they REALLY Catholic?
Here's my thoughts on the subject.
There have been some tremendous saints throughout the millennia.
There have also been some tremendous sinners throughout the millennia.
I can count on one hand (with fingers left over) those who do not have any personal sin attributed against them. And that is with some assumptions. And that is for all of recorded history in the Scriptures.
And, as I alluded to before, I know what my crosses are. I know what my background is. I know what God has forgiven me for. And I am in no position whatsoever to pass condemnation unto Hell on another person. I can judge the quality of their actions, but that is different altogether than judging their state.
Not everybody is a Mother Theresa, Bl. Charles de Foucauld, or Maximilian Kolbe. And I am a firm believer that a sincere deathbed confession is just as effectual as one given a year or a decade before. (in fact, you might enjoy looking up a bio of Bl. Charles...he has a very, very interesting conversion story)
I also recognize that God works with each of us in accordance with our willingness to accept that help. He doesn't force Himself on us. His grace sometimes comes in very, very small measurements. So sometimes we have to be patient. Not only with others but with ourselves.
With that, the biggest thing that aggravates me, personally, is scandal. Scandal being defined as a situation that can lead others into sin. That's a pretty broad brush. For example, seeing a pro-abort politician or a rainbow sash homosexual receive communion is a potential scandal, as their reception of communion can tend to make others think that the Church doesn't care about the positions they've taken. A religion teacher teaching squishy Catholicism is another example -- molding young "skulls full of mush" into a heretical position -- is horribly scandalous. And so on.
FWIW.
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.