Posted on 06/04/2010 5:43:13 AM PDT by markomalley
Dear A. Patriot,
Please observe that I have quoted authentic Catholic sources: dogma, catechisms, and quotes from the Fathers of the Church. This is the only way to provide Catholic information. The rest of the posters have only given their personal opinions, which are some misleading, some inaccurate, some incomplete, but mostly dead wrong.
Oh, give me a break.
Feeneyism is ugly. And heretical.
I quoted dogma, catechism, Fathers of the Church, you reply with irrelevant name calling.
47 is right in stating that the issue is not dogmatic. A number of things concerning creation have been defined in a dogmatic way, but the meaning of “yom”, the Hebrew word normally translated as day, is not among them. Thus, there is no need to stay incognito on the issue, but there is a need to exercise charity toward those holding alternate opinions on the issue and to remember that one’s own personal interpretation does not hold the weight of dogma.
Catechism? A catechism prepared by a Salesian who became the bishop of an obscure diocese (<8,000 Catholics) in India. Could you not find the verbiage in mainstream documents?
Shoot, even the Radio Replies catechetical documents, posted by another FReeper, say:
But Protestants who are ignorant of the truth of the Catholic claims, and who believe in Christ, trying to serve Him as best they can, would not be regarded as heathens. An exception is made in their case because of their lack of knowledge and because of their good dispositions.
And while you did post many of the Church Fathers, you fail to note that the heresies they were responding to were distinctly different in quality than those of the Protestant "reformation" and that they were written in immediate context of the time in which those heresies existed.
Unfortuantely, Feeneyism does not distinguish between those differences. Perhaps that is why the Holy Office declared definitively that it was a heresy.(in their letter dated 8 Aug 1949 -- see the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, pp 360-362)
Nope. I sure don't.
"Church," like "religion," isn't a dirty word, either.
There is a "church" of Jesus Christ on earth and "religion" does its best to articulate the faith of that church.
Some succeed and some fail, depending on their adherence to God's word.
I'm never sure where you stand from one day to the next, Kosta. But it seems immeasurably sad your Orthodoxy has led you to denounce Scripture as "man-made tales."
lol! you have quoted authentic Catholic sources. that's awesome. IF you trust authentic Catholic sources for your salvation. Dig and quote all you want, your information is wrong. Dead in your sins wrong.
Sounds to me like you question the value of religious tolerance and liberty? (I don't need to resort the holy Scripture for answers when common sense will do...classical Protestantism has always acknowledged such subsidiary authorities to scripture.)
There are gatherings that call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ, whose theologies and beliefs are as different as night and day, yet all of them claim to be the "true" Church.
I'm never sure where you stand from one day to the next, Kosta. But it seems immeasurably sad your Orthodoxy has led you to denounce Scripture as "man-made tales."
Orthodoxy did no such thing. The scriptures did.
Because that 'dogma' is heresy. It teaches double procession. It subordinates the Holy Spirit. It denies the monarchy of the Father. It denies that, as regards his existence, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. It is a violation of the Ecumenical Council. It is a conceptual error of translation gone wild.
What does it matter who claims what? There will always be impostors. There is a church of Jesus Christ on earth whose members have been named and numbered by God for His glory.
We know men by their fidelity to the word of God.
Or by their lack of it.
How does someone who believes the Scriptures are "man-made tales" presume he can define heresy or dogma?
You are forgetting that the Catholic Church started in Jerusalem before it was headquartered in Rome.
There are still many Catholic Rites (not Latin) in that area. I’ll post a thread soon about the different rites of the Catholic Church.
Sounds to me like you are avoiding my question. I did not address the issue of freedom of conscience (which I support) in my response. I addressed the issue of schism and whether that is a good thing or not.
Second, you do not need to resort the holy Scripture for answers? What is that??? Maybe you do not need to resort the holy Scripture because you know that the Scriptures do not support your beliefs in this area.
When I converted, not that long ago, that was not the case. The only thing I was asked that could be a problem was was I a freemason.
You wrote:
“For one, I have been told very recently by one FR Catholic that while the Orthodox sacraments are “valid” they are not eficacious.”
But Kosta, that is NOT Catholic doctrine. What is more alarming is not what an individual FReeper posts to you, but what the Eastern Orthodox CHURCHES teach in contradiction to one another. Some EO Churches believe Catholic sacraments are efficacious while others don’t. That’s much more alarming to me than the opinion of one FReeper. The one FReeper can be ignored since his view doesn’t agree with the actual teachings of the Catholic Church which he claims to belong to. How can two contradictory views of two different Orthodox Churches be resolved? They can’t be. They have NO WAY of resolving the issue.
So, if I wanted to become Russian Orthodox, I would just be chrismated - since I was already baptized as a Catholic with proper form and matter. If I went Greek Orthodox, however, especially at Greece, Cyprus, or Serbia I would have to be “baptized”. http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/rcsacs.htm
Of course you can't prove that but I would say extremely unlikely...
By the guy's own testimony he used to walk following behind Jesus and now he walks beside Jesus...
Christians led by the Holy Spirit walk 'in' Jesus, and Jesus walks 'in' them...
You don't have to be French to say that French speak French, Dr. E. I can say with reasonable certainty that I am familiar with what either Church teaches.
Assuming this to be true, then it does not matter who thumps his chest and claims to be a believer, does it?
We know men by their fidelity to the word of God.
We only know what others want us to know about them.
By the guy's own testimony he used to walk following behind Jesus and now he walks beside Jesus...
Very strange testimony. No discussion of theology at all? He was upset because Calvin did not believe exactly what he did? This is news? Reformed Christians believe the scriptures are the final authority, not Calvin, Luther, or Augustin.
Ooh, ahh, the ancient sights, sounds, and smells. I am pretty sure when Pope Liberius signed onto Arianism or Pope Honorius for Pelagius, the mass was just as theatrical.
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.