FROM
THE DELUSION OF GRANDEUR
THAT I HIRED YOU
AS
MY
STYLE
COACH
???
That's rich!
ROTFLOL!
Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
I have seen the comparison between “Romanists” — meaning Catholics — and liberals several times on this thread, with the clear meaning being that Catholics are liberals. Several times the percent of Catholics who are reputed by some stupid poll is said to be >50%.
I would like to ask the Religion Moderator to make a determination here about this. Because I don’t think ANY Catholic on FR is any kind of liberal. We Catholics put up with a lot of baloney here, but one thing that is far far below the belt is accusing us of being liberals. I am quite certain NONE of the Catholics participating on the RF voted for Obama. This is mixing politics WITH religion, and in a particularly snide, underhanded way.
Post 1069 shows two of the comments, and Dr. Eckleburg agreed with this in another post.
I don’t mind defending my faith, but here on FR how can it be considered a religious argument to say that because of my Church I’m liberal? How disgusting is that?
Is it valid to try to tar the Catholics with a liberal brush? That’s really a huge offense, and it goes beyond the Religion Forum.
According to Acts 18:2, "...Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome."
Also, from the first 15 chapters of Acts and the book of Galatians, we know that Peter's ministry, at least until 49 A.D. was in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Galilee, and Antioch.
If Peter had established his ministry in Rome after 49 or 50 A.D.. why didn't Paul mention him in his letter to the Romans? Romans was written about 58 A.D. Paul neither mentioned Peter nor addressed the letter to him. Although Paul does greet 26 other people in Rome by name. (Rom. 16:1-16).
Paul does not mention Peter in any of his four letters written from a Roman prison, either. 61 A.D. Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. In his last letter from Rome, Paul writes to Timothy "At my first defense no one supported me, may it not be counted against them. "(2 Tim. 4:16). 66 A.D. "Only Luke is with me." (2 Tim. 4:11).
If Peter had been in Rome at this time, SURELY he would have visited Paul. Surely Paul would have sent greetings to Peter if he had been in Rome.
That leaves one year for Peter to have set up his governing ministry in Rome. 67 A.D. Is Babylon a code name for Rome? Because this is the only year an argument could possibly be made for Peter's ministry in Rome. One year. To set up the basis of the Catholic Chu;rch.
Is it valid to try to tar the Catholics with a liberal brush? That’s really a huge offense, and it goes beyond the Religion Forum.
*************************
I agree with you, but I am sorry to say that while your objection is valid from a moral perspective, it may not meet the mandates of this forum.
You are either saved or you aren't. You are either pregnant or you aren't.
It's not too hard to understand, if you don't attempt pretzel logic to twist it into a belief system. And try to make it say something it clearly does not say.
I’m disappointed in that post.
SOME folks get so disappointed,
they have to work at avoiding tripping over their lower lip.
“You are either saved or you aren’t. You are either pregnant or you aren’t.
It’s not too hard to understand, if you don’t attempt pretzel logic to twist it into a belief system. And try to make it say something it clearly does not say.”
Pretzel logic?
Comparing a mortal’s 9 month pregnancy which is a material event to a lifelong spiritual journey of the soul backed by Scripture is completely off the mark.
quack quack
It appears to a number of us Proddys
that many RC’s seem to live AWASH in disappointment, angst and thin-skinned wailing and dust throwing.
One would think with
THE DISPENSER OF ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL GRACES
flinging such an abundance of pseudo grace and white hankys around
that ALLLLLLLLLLL the RC’s would be tripping merrily through the tulips.
I have confidence in the RM.
Look what happens when one of the “ruling class” accepts Scripture as the final authority. He becomes Born Again. His eyes are opened. He believes!
INDEED.
And joyfully lays aside all the accoutraments of self-righteousness and self-aggrandizement so inherent in his former position.
Which may well be ONE reason why Christ said . . .
LET THE DEAD BURY THE DEAD.
Which is why we can't deal with just plain questions. Definitions differ. And what comes across as deceit may JUST be a misunderstanding of a definition of something, like salvation, or grace, or baptism, or The Gospel of Christ, or works, or justification, or sanctification. I guess we are going to have to insist on definitions BEFORE dialogue can take place.
I have been over this line so much that I actually have the Greek word so translated in my failing memory! υστερηματα! Wow! An old Dawg can sometimes learn a new trick. (Just checked, I got it right! Accent on the ETA and there's a 'rough breathing' on the oopsie-daisy, I mean upsilon)
Do you have an analytical concordance? I think you will find that the KJV translators had an agenda when they chose that obscure clause to translate that word. Everywhere else it has a sense of deficiency. Here they, scandalized that Paul, of all people, could say that somehow there might be something lacking in the suffering of Christ, find some clunky phrase for their translation. But that is the plain meaning of the words.
Your take is certainly in the ball park, IMHO. (like I have a clue.) But we take VERY seriously indeed the Body metaphor for the Church. And so, since we hold the baptized to be incorporated into Christ, we hold that we share in His suffering.
Now, of course, in the most important sense, ΙΗΣ ain't messin' 'round when he says Τετελεσται. It is only by the 'perfecting' and complete sufficiency of His "work" that we are given the chance and the ability, by Grace (of course), to share in it.
I brought this up because I think it sheds light on the works v. grace/faith thing. Only a little light, but some is better than none.
In my deranged mind, it's kinda like the Trinity. God is One. But He does One His own way, so that somehow He is also Three.
So Jesus does "complete" but in His own way, so that there is still stuff for us to do. The completion includes some 'lack'.
To think about this stuff, as too many Catholics do, as hoops to jump through and tickets to get punched and so forth is to miss the whole point! Is it a horrible burden for you to study Scripture and expound it here and elsewhere? Do you do it hag-ridden, looking over your shoulder to see if God's okay with it?
I'd bet not. It's a blessing, a privilege, and a way other blessings come to you. You undertake it confident that where you fall short, God will forgive and amend you AND see to the amending (or, if it's REALLY a BIG goof, redeeming) of your work.
Am I at least part right? The work does not earn grace (that amounts to a contradiction in terms, as though one could 'deserve' mercy), but grace comes through it nonetheless.
It is not a burden to me to go to Mass, to pray my office (breviary, whatever) and Rosary, and to go to confession. I do not approach these things as 'tit-for-tat' matters. Sure, there is sometimes a reluctance, a kind of holding back, but, IMHO, that is just the enemy trying to keep me from doing something that will bring me pleasure and 'health.'
I remember one evening Mass, just before Mass began, a friend walked out of the confessional and up to where she usually sits. She had a nice, happy, calm, smile on her face. And I thought,"Now THAT's the way to come to worship! Assured of grace and forgiveness and happy with it. This is someone ready to 'do' the Eucharist -- thanksgiving with all her heart.
So the seeming "burden" of works as vehicles of grace is, to me, looking at it entirely the wrong way. Any Catholic, any person whatsoever, who thinks he can come to God and bring a portfolio and resume to bargain His way out of Purgatory and into Heaven has it all wrong.
When I see God, I mean to THANK Him for all the wonderful things He let me, enabled me, helped me do. I mean this most seriously. Glory to Him for sometimes letting me not mess up too badly!
Oh, in that connection, (wha'?) I want to say that I see Purgatory not as a burden but as a mercy. I mean YEAH, I wouldn't mind being martyred so I can skip that step. But just as, when dirty, I want to be washed so, I take great hope in knowing that here and hereafter God will "put away all my sins," and not only the sins themselves but the scars and weaknesses they have left in me.
Because it’s literal except when it’s symbolic/spiritual except when it’s literal except when it’s symbolic/spiritual except when it’s literal except when it’s symbolic/spiritual except when it’s literal except when it’s symbolic/spiritual except when it’s literal except when it’s symbolic/spiritual . . .
depending, of course, on what’s good for THE INSTITUTION at the time vis a vis the audience concerned, the direction the wind is blowing and the particular pattern the latest rain of white hankys has landed in.
He is the True Vine, why was He never reported to look like one?
True faith requires going beyond our human senses and logic.
Why that was my line . . . but I decided not to use it.
LOL.
BTW, it’s so thoughtful of you to fill-in for Petronski.
A certain type of . . . merriment . . . has been lacking.
"But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." - 1 Corinthians 9:27
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.