| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/08/2017 9:20:43 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish infighting |
Posted on 03/31/2017 10:00:24 PM PDT by ebb tide
“Fortunately for me, all the rest of Christendom, outside of the Roman Catholic Church agrees with me as to what the Roman Catholic Church is and is not.”
Really? Show me the evidence that the Orthodox all share your understanding that the Catholic Church is merely a human institution. You’ll fail - because they don’t agree with you by a long shot.
“That is not a comment on persons who may be members of the Roman Catholic Church, but the human institution that that Church is.”
It is merely a comment about one person’s lack of knowledge and understanding of basic fundamentals of Christianity. One person’s - and that one person is YOU.
“basic fundamentals of Christianity”
So much of what you call “basic fundamentals of “Christianity” is no more than “basic fundamentals” of Catholicism, period.
Catholicism IS Christianity.
Catholicism is a sect/denomination of Christianity, it is not of and by itself singularly Christianity.
“Catholicism is a sect/denomination of Christianity, it is not of and by itself singularly Christianity.”
False. The Catholic Church cannot be a sect, nor can it be a “denomination”. Denominations have formed after breaking off from the Catholic Church (e.g. Lutheran groups, Anglican, etc). Christ established ONE Church and that’s the Catholic Church.
If the Roman Catholic Church was “the true” one and only “true Church” in any absolute sense, the other Christian denominations would never have been formed. They were formed because too much of Catholicism was not a testament to intrinsic Christian truth, and too much was just it’s own justification for itself as an institution.
“If the Roman Catholic Church was “the true” one and only “true Church” in any absolute sense, the other Christian denominations would never have been formed.”
(sigh) Your comment is. . . it’s irrational is what it is. Here’s why. Adam and Eve knew God on very personal terms would you not say? They STILL violated the very simple law He set down for them. God spoke to Cain urging him to master his sinful temptations. And Cain murdered his brother anyway. God told His people through His prophets exactly what would happen if Israel got an earthly king. Israel insisted on having an earthly king anyway. Salvation history is replete with examples of God telling human beings NOT TO DO SOMETHING and them choosing to do it anyway.
Jesus Christ - God Himself - prayed that His followers would be one. . . and schisms happened even while the Apostles still lived.
The reason why I say your comment is irrational is that it denies a simple reality: No matter how obvious the truth is that God shows us, some human being will rebel against it anyway. God led Israel through Sinai and fed them, watered them, protected them and they STILL turned to the golden calf. Why would you think that just because God sent ONE Church that all men would be loyal to it?
Didn’t any of that occur to you?
“They were formed because too much of Catholicism was not a testament to intrinsic Christian truth, and too much was just it’s own justification for itself as an institution.”
That may have been the rationalization for the rebellion. Adam and Eve had their rationalizations. Cain had his. Israel had its rationalization. All you’re doing is posting another rationalization. Get in line. Take your number. Salvation History clearly is not over.
[Catholic Caucus]
Why are you even here?
“That may have been the rationalization for the rebellion.”
It was no rationalization.
“It was no rationalization.”
I have no reason to believe you. Martin Luther could rationalize why he could tell a German prince polygamy/bigamy was fine but that that German prince should tell anyone that Martin Luther told him so. If a revolutionary could rationalize that, well, what couldn’t he rationalize?
Pull out your dictionary.
A schism can only begin within the same church or organization.
And your hero, Bergoglio, is trying to start one.
I quote him: “It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.”
So pull your head out the sand, or whatever dark place it may be at this time.
With the number of errors you make in these threads you’re clearly the one who needs to pull his head out of something. Maybe it’s sand. Maybe it’s not.
Look up “schism”, Junior.
“Look up “schism”, Junior.”
I already posted the definition of Schism in post 17. Apparently you didn’t see it because of where your head is.
Pope Francis preaches and authors heresy.
Again, I already posted the definition of Schism in post 17. Apparently you didn’t see it because of where your head is.
Again, I already posted what Francis has boasted: “It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.”
If you don’t realize a split in the Catholic Church is schism, I can’t help you.
He is the result, not the cause.
You claimed I didn’t know the definition of Schism when I was the only one up to the point between us who had posted it. That’s just yet another of your never-ending list of errors. You opinion of Pope Francis is unimportant. What is factually certain is that you made yet another error. It is your way.
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.