Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Catholics think reason has a place in religion. The idea that an affliction of the soul could have a material efficient cause is incoherent, I think. Consequently most of your converts would come from non-Catholic populations since incoherence is not a problem for them.
You fall back on your book. I'll fall back on God.
Oh, Gracious MOI!
Of course, we Catholics NEVER touch the Bible so it's entirely a NEW NOTION that James is referred to as the brother of our Lord. Wow! Are we going to have to re-think everything or WHAT!
But, me, I'm not going to rethink wasting time on this sort of thing.
Denial is a serious thing for all of us at some points in our lives . . .
It is a very serious spiritual as well as psychological problem.
LACK OF PERSONAL INSIGHT
is similarly a huge spiritual and psychological problem.
Is LACK OF PERSONAL INSIGHT a subset of DENIAL or DENIAL a subset of LACK OF PERSONAL INSIGHT. OR are they different labels for different facets of the same thing. That would take some pondering.
WE ARE CALLED TO WARN A BROTHER IN OR HEADED FOR THE DITCH. THAT IS OUR CHRISTIAN DUTY BEFORE GOD.
I remain shocked at the degree of wholsale LACK OF PERSONAL INSIGHT on the part of the vast majority of RC's hereon.
Thankfully, you have a lot of personal insight to a significant degree. Betty Boop seems to be largely awash in personal insight. Mark O Malley has a lot of it.
VERY OCCASIONALLY A FEW of the rest show slight to moderate bits of it.
THAT'S A PRETTY HORRID RECORD, IN MY EXPERIENCE. It is unparalleled by ANY other supposedly heterogeneous RELIGIOUS group I've ever been around or observed.
What is WITH that??? It's an enormous puzzle to me--as psychologist and as sociologist. It's an enormously curious, fascinating puzzle.
Two factors stand out--we are all conservatives . . . I don't have a good clue about how that might contribute to RELIGIOUS DENIAL AND LACK OF PERSONAL INSIGHT.
The RC's demonstrating so much LACK OF PERSONAL INSIGHT are the more industrious posters on the RELIGION FORUM. That must have some influence on it in some part.
Otherwise, I don't have a clue. What results in this picture? I don't know. It's very curious, fascinating. IT's a great puzzle. It's just a very glaring garish picture that is impossible to ignore or pretend it isn't true.
Maybe it's best summarized by THERE'S NO ACCOUNTING FOR TASTE OR RELIGION.
,
LOL.
To be "discredited" by fools is nothing to be ashamed of. It's to be expected. And in the long run, it means nothing.
"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." -- 1 Corinthians 11:19 " I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust." -- Psalm 91:2
To be “discredited” by fools is nothing to be ashamed of. It’s to be expected. And in the long run, it means nothing.
” I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.” — Psalm 91:2
“For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” — 1 Corinthians 11:19
INDEED.
BTW, if you have any of your ‘discredit’ left over, I’m happy to take a donation. I’d be honored.
It happens at the moment of consecration, when the priest repeats the words of Jesus at the Last Supper, when the Eucharist was instituted by Christ.
God is good and in His goodness He has given us the way to fulfill Christ's words by giving us His flesh and blood under the guise of bread and wine.
For Passover, the Jews had to sacrifice a perfect lamb and then eat the flesh of the lamb sacrificed. Jesus is the Lamb of God, the last, and most perfect sacrifice. For us to eat His flesh and drink His blood, His body would have to be still present on earth and sacrificed again and again for each generation. But, He is in heaven and has left us His body and blood in the bread and wine, so that we might partake of Him as He commanded.
So, now a Catholic has answered you.
In John 15, Jesus said if we abide in Him, He will abide in us. In John, 6:54, Jesus says, "Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them."
Why did Jesus say this, what was His purpose, and how did he mean for us to fulfill it?
TO those of us familiar with the idea of secondary causes this quote supports our contention. We don't say the Church created the Bible or wrote it. WE say that the text is, as your quote says inspired by the Spirit, authored by God, and committed to the Church.
The Church acting on that commission (Not "mission" means "sent" just as apostle does), laboriously defined (inspired by God) the canon, so the we don't hold the Letters of Barnabas or Hermas or the Acts of Pilate as the inspired, God-authored Bible.
The Church copied, translated (with variable results), copied some more, and made available the Bible authored by God, and handed down as the Supreme Tradition by the God-directed Church.
There is a slander that the Church withheld the Bible from the people. I laugh every time I remember I my putting up the history of various Catholic groups translating the Bible into many vernacular editions (complete or in part). The guy I was talking to essentially said, Well your source is the Catholic Encyclopedia so it can't be true.
ALRIGHTY then!
I hear you. You gave it your best.
I think that's a bit of a common dodge. You are responsible for your actions and for your part in the effectiveness of them. Spreading the Gospel, for example, doesn't mean throwing books at people's heads. If they avoid you and don't read it, it's not God's fault, but yours.
If people reject your message because of you or how you present it, you can look to St. Paul for his approach.
how such an innocuous term
You've already posted that your intent is not innocuous. It's a pretty blatant slur, name-calling. We don't belong to the Romanist Church, there is no Romanist Church, we're not Romans, or even Italians, the Vatican is a separate country from Italy and not the same as Rome. So it's a slur that shows the user doesn't know enough about our Church to even listen to them.
We call the it the "Mother" Church. How would you react to someone who insults your mother?
So I employ things like the video of the Romanist being counseled by the Calvinist therapist hoping that might wake a few people up to how they're being perceived.
Trust me, if it's Catholics your targeting, you're pushing them away by flagging yourself as a, pardon me, know-nothing bigot. I'm not saying you are but that's the flag you're waving. You'll get rah-rahs from your fellows perhaps but acrimony from Catholics.
Further, while we argue theologies in the forum, I think evangelization efforts are better spent reaching out to non-Christians. In an effective manner.
For the millionth time, yes.
EXACTLY! While He was God He manifested in the flesh. He had to come as ‘man’ to take back what ‘man/Adam’ had lost.
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, OVER ALL THE EARTH, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Mankind was given an unconditional authority over this earth. There was no restriction or fine print. Man/Adam transferred our God-given power and authority over to satan.
Jesus, the sinless man, had to reclaim what sinless ‘man/Adam’ HAD and sinful ‘man/Adam’ LOST.
lol. You’re a gentleman. 8~)
Thanks for your graciousness.
However, I’m not likely to ask for a vote on that on this forum! LOL.
At least not if the RC’s have equal votes! LOL.
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.