Posted on 12/18/2007 1:52:09 PM PST by NYer
"Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,"
It's Christ that is important, not the "Stuff"!
I think you are, actually. The first parts of the Orthodox / Roman Catholic schism were started at the Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD.
Thus any and all references made by Athanasius who died in 373 AD cannot possibly be referring to "Catholic" in the sense that you are using it.
Hurtling? It's been a thousand years now...
All we can do is trust in the Lord. I would prefer not to grieve the Holy Spirit, if it is His will that our two Churches unite again.
Regards
I agree that the Temple was God's House, and I believe that the Catholic church of the 300's also had the same thing in mind - that they would dedicate wonderful buildings for public worship, God's House... I believe it gives a sense of the community's religious awe of God. I really think it is sad that religious architecture has fallen in such a sad state. I am going to Italy this spring and cannot wait to see the various ancient Christian churches built in honor of God.
All of these churches were built in honor of God, not the Pope. Again, if they were, we would not be seeing these works of art in the Vatican Museum. They would be in private collections willed by the dying Pope to his family. Thus, I cannot agree with you on this matter of ownership.
3. Whenever anyone uses money FOR LUXURIES, (which by definition means it is unecessary) when someone else has less than they NEED, it is wrong. The Pope could wear a Yankee’s cap and feed a family in Ruwanda. It would be a great statement of humility and love.
LOL! That would be an interesting sight. Well, from what I know, the Pope lives in a small apartment in the Vatican. Again, the DONATIONS of artist works are to the Church, not the Pope in office. The fact that he does NOT sell these works of art for some food is a testimony to the fact that these are not his works of arts, but the Church's. At any rate, the pomp and circumstance helps to move the simpler folk to reverance. Quite honestly, I don't see the big problem.
“And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” (Mark 10:21 RSV)
This wasn’t meant for the builders of God’s house, or of people who anoint the Lord Jesus Christ, but common sinners like you, me and the Pope.
I think that is meant for those whose wealth interferes with one's walk. Do you think that even if the Pope WAS rich, his walk in Christ is lacking? Is Christ telling us that ALL men are to give up all their money? I do not think Christ is calling all men to give up their money and follow Him in the manner he spoke of to the rich young man. One must be prepared to do just that, however. The man wasn't. That was the problem. He was attached to his money, placing it above God. I believe that was the lesson Jesus was teaching. NOTHING should be placed above God, and all things should be readily available for sacrifice.
By the way, my family moved to London my junior year in high school. I have seen enough cathedrals to last a lifetime. Our family church is St. Bernard’s in Mt. Lebanon, PA
Well, that's good. Don't you sense a bit of awe and reverance when praying to God in public at such places, rather than a gymnasium or a cafeteria hall? For me, anyway, my simple mind is moved more towards God when I pray in such a place specifically built for the worship of God.
For this reason, I do not accept that the Bible can be taken literally, even the red letter parts. I believe that men have crafted different interpretations and even added their own verses.
Ah, well, that's a different topic. While it is true that there are many versions and interpretations of Scriptures, I think that is the result of men trying to teach their particular version of the truth. That is why I find a living interpreter, the Church, to be more effective in telling us what God has revealed. I can understand your frustration if you consider that all denominations and versions of Christianity are equal. The natural question would be "who is correct?" That is why I became Catholic as an adult, among other reasons.
As the son of God, the least we can say is that He would be consistant, so contradictions are man made. There are a few passages that seem to say wealth is good, but the bulk is on the side of sacrificing ourselves for others. That’s what Jesus did after all. I choose to believe that Jesus wants us to be like him and live a life of sacrifice. I have personally fallen far short, but I believe it no less because of it.
I think wealth is an incredible temptation to put God aside, and as such, I believe that in many cases, we are better off without it, if we consider our eternal destiny important. God does give men wealth for good purposes - as you well know. I believe that money can be a root of evil because it is so tempting to please ONESELF, rather than others. God wants us to love others more than ourselves, just as Christ did. Thus, wealth has a tendency of moving us away from loving others. But money itself is not evil.
You also, have a Merry Christmas
It feels like hurtling. Unlike the Western Church, we Orthodox are not given to change simply because a millennium has turned.
With God, one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
LOL! Yea, your younger brothers here are an impatient lot... Be patient with us.
Regards
Yes. Nothing that calls attention to God and His Church should be spared out of a phony concern for the poor. If you can come up with another insitution that has done more for the impoverished than the Catholic Church, I'd love to hear it. Until then, unless you're ready to get into a gutter in Calcutta and demonstrate your deep concern for the poor instead of criticizing the Pope's hat (sheesh), maybe you should be more worried about what you've done lately for the less fortunate.
Correct. Because if they viewed them as authoritative, Luther didn't have a case against the Church. Convenient, eh?
Ummm...no. To say that the Reformation was about more than just indulgences and purgatory is understatement in the extreme.
That's okay. I think it may have given Dr. Freud a bit of a giggle. ;o)
No, most certainly not Kolo. I was just correcting the mistaken idea that if the word isn’t in the Bible then it didn’t exist in the earliest days of the Church.
They were the first Catholic Bishops only the term Catholic was not yet in use.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
:::Wycliff was a Catholic with a difference of opinion and he was burned at the stake.:::
Interesting. One would think that with hurling all the anti Catholic rhetoric about that you’d get SOMETHING right. Alas, no.
John Wyclif suffered a stroke in 1381 which partially disabled him and suffered a second in 1384 while attending Mass and died three days later.
Please carry on, though. I enjoy the entertainment.
Keep reading his body was exhumed and burned
“the Pope ordered his bones exhumed and burned. Intense persecution stamped out his followers and teachings. It would be hundreds of years before men like Martin Luther resurrected the reforms of which Wycliffe dreamed.”
:::Tyndale was burned while alive.:::
Wrong again. This is getting fun.
Tyndale was betrayed by a friend, Philips, the agent either of Henry or of English ecclesiastics, or possibly of both. Tyndale was arrested and imprisoned in the castle of Vilvoorden for over 500 days of horrible conditions. He was tried for heresy and treason in a ridiculously unfair trial, and convicted. Tyndale was then strangled and burnt at the stake in the prison yard, Oct. 6, 1536.
Very good. Neither gentleman was burned alive.
Now, where was he taken prisoner? And by whom? And for what was he executed? Not heresy. He was stripped of his priesthood for that.
Treason against the Crown of England.
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.