Posted on 03/15/2013 10:51:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
How true.
So-called indeed. We do not call ourselves RCC. And the 'flavours' are cultural, not theological.
They do not revere the man in Prada shoes
There are no revered men in the Catholic Church that wear Prada shoes.
They do not slavishly adore a man in a white bathrobe, but they lift up the Lamb provided by God. They do not adhere to silly man-made traditions, rituals, ceremonies and idolatry, "...which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence."
Beware, my friend, of the god in the mirror that so many of the antiCatholics have begun to worship.
Mark, my FRiend, if only you were as literal with the Bible as with these remarks. Okay, the biblical “heretics” do not revere the man in the high-end, Prada-like, handmade, custom, red-leather, expensive shoes. They are so much like Jesus’.
The man is still errant, he is still wrong-headed, he is still teaching and implying false doctrines about being the Vicar of Christ. The Bible-thumpers here will stick with Jesus...you guys can have the man in red shoes & white bathrobe.
Culture is dictated by Theology, my FRiend. Notice in Paul's letter to the Corinthians, (I Cor.) the scolding they got for the fellow sleeping with his mother/step-mother(?) is based on the biblical understanding of appropriate morality for believers. Ooops, doctrine.
Then, notice this just in on another thread at the FR...
"An increasing number of Catholic colleges and universities have seen the addition of student-run homosexual advocacy and support groups and resource centers.
“The Jesuits, who have been historically regarded as in the vanguard of Catholic intellectual activity and social activism, might be the determining factor in LGBT acceptance,” writes Meyer, who says that Fordham “leads the way.”
"Meyer writes that Jesuit universities are not beholden to the local bishop, so therefore have more freedom.
“The Jesuits traditionally do not report to the local bishop but rather to their own officers in Rome,” writes Meyer.
“There is no one in the chain of command in the Catholic Church who can have anything to say about what happens at Boston College,” John McGargh, assistant professor of theology at Boston College, told the Edge."
Cultural? Really? Many of the distinctions between small congregations which the poster called "splintered fragments" are much smaller than this. This looks to be a disintegration.
—— This looks to be a disintegration. -——
Church teaching is public and unified.
The existence of non-practicing Catholics, or nominally Catholic institutions doesn’t change this fact.
The existence of non-practicing Catholics, or nominally Catholic institutions doesn’t change this fact.
The body of true believers, called the Bride of Christ in Scripture, is unified and Scripture is authoritative. The existence of non-practicing or nominally Protestant believers does not change that fact either.
Touche’.
So says the Church of One. Nattering is just noise. Your bigotry is yours.
May wish to review the posting rules around here, my FRiend.
—— The body of true believers, called the Bride of Christ in Scripture, is unified ——
What Protestant church is “the pillar and foundation of truth?”
To which Protestant denomination, dating back to Christ, should Christians take their disputes, as Christ commanded? How would we recognize this church that Christ founded? Or should we take our disputes to any member of the body of believers?
To which collection of books should Christians look to as Scripture? The Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox canon? But isn’t an extra-biblical authority required to determine the Canon of Scripture? And wouldn’t this authority have to be infallible, for Scripture to be inerrant?
What, calling out bigots is against the rules? This is not a caucus thread - if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I find it fascinating that RCs see Jesus’ words in John 6 as literal (but not certain descriptions of Him Jn. 1, 2, 8, 10, 15, etc.), while Genesis 2, 3, the tower of babel, Balaam's donkey, Jonah and the fish, Joshua's long day, etc. are fables. Why does Rome sanction such?
As for why we see Jn. 6 as figurative, see one of the recent debates like here and here and links.
"The body of true believers, called the Bride of Christ in Scripture, is unified and Scripture is authoritative.Amen sister!
However, Rome overall counts and treats such nominal or worse RCs as members in life and in death, even notorious public sinners who would be forbidden to have church funerals by canon law if they would be a scandal to the faithful. Evidently they are not, or the faithful are the majority liberal.
Once people actually internalize that the “church”, the body of Christ is not some earthly “institution” or “organization” they learn a whole new appreciation for the “peace” in Christ.
Apparently, there are plenty of nominal Catholics. Generally, the Church let’s the weeds grow along with the wheat. It isn’t the Church’s job to condemn.
But regarding public sinners and scandal, the clergy have been lax for some time.
Comprehensive doctrinal unity has never been realized, but both sola Scriptura and sola ecclesia have produced unity to a limited scope. But the essential unity of the Spirit (Eph. 4:3) is what only those in the body of Christ can realize, which is greater than their differences as they walk in that Spirit.
This was the subject of a recent debate: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2992144/posts?page=392#392
Believers can take their disputes to the local assembly at which they worship and they have Scripture as the authority to guide them in settling disputes.
The Bible as it stands is Scripture, which includes all of the OT as recognized by Jesus and His disciples, and at least the writings of Paul, as recognized and stated by Peter.
The matter of the canon has been addressed many times in the past. If you wish to rehash it again, fine, but the 66 books of the Bible are it.
But isn’t an extra-biblical authority required to determine the Canon of Scripture? And wouldn’t this authority have to be infallible, for Scripture to be inerrant?
No, because then that places them in authority over Scripture and that cannot be because then they cannot appeal to Scripture to give themselves authority. Their authority is all then self-declared and self-declared authority is meaningless.
No body of men can be infallible because it is composed of fallible men and there is no promise of infallibility given to men by Scripture to make anyone infallible when they speak.
The claims of infallibility of a certain body of Catholics is just just a delusion and deception. They aren't infallible simply because they declare themselves to be. It's a power grab, plain and simple, attempting to put their claims of authority beyond any dispute.
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.