Religion Forum threads labeled “Ecumenical”
Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical information and a legitimate subject for an ecumenical discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenical” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenical” tag.
Religion Forum threads labeled “Ecumenical”
Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical information and a legitimate subject for an ecumenical discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenical” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenical” tag.
Religion Forum threads labeled “Ecumenical”
Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical information and a legitimate subject for an ecumenical discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenical” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenical” tag.
Here we go.
This explains why Catholics never go in for deathbed conversions and last rites for the condemned
I can see a problem with her explanation already. Catholics do not believe in “justification” by faith alone. We believe in “salvation” by grace alone. Her assertion that Catholics do not believe in salvation by faith alone is confusing as is her contention that works are needed for salvation.
This is a good explanation of Justification and Sanctification in Catholic teaching.
http://www.saintaquinas.com/Justification_by_Grace.html
From the site I linked to in my previous post.
“Justification is a term that means the cleansing of sin in a person, and the communication by grace of “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22) “ through Baptism.
Christ has redeemed the whole world, but we must freely choose to cooperate in the redemption.
Justification includes the forgiveness of original and personal sin, restoration of the interior man and sanctification of the soul through grace. Thus justification and sanctification occur together and are not exclusive of each other.
Grace is a free gift of God that imputes divine life into the soul as well as the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity.
Sanctifying grace of the soul must normatively be received through the sacrament of Baptism. Through baptism, God adopts us as his sons and daughters. This is why Catholics baptize infants.
Jesus Christ alone can merit our initial justification and sanctification through his Passion and Resurrection.
Once grace is imputed in the soul, faith, hope and charity can merit the increase of justification and sanctification.
Faith without good works is dead faith (James 2:17).
The seven Sacraments of the Church increase grace and thus justification in the believer.”
This is very confusing to follow because the original blue text cannot be seen, is there anyway to edit your post so it is clear which text is from which author?
Very good. When you abandon the Priesthood you abandon the Authority of God. Without it you cannot have ordinances and you hollow out the Gospel.
good article. The difference between us in orthodoxy (Catholics, Orthodox, Orientals etc.) and those outside is that we know that God isn’t the God of “OR” but rather “And” — it isn’t Faith alone but Faith and repentence and..