Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Ain't that the truth! The man who can't make a post without a supporting cast has the gall to complain about someone else pinging people.
AMEN!!! (for doc E)
Bless you for your kind words. Alas, I measure up to your affirmations too little, imho.
Nevertheless, The Author and Finisher of my Faith and of me—is STILL ON THE JOB, Praise His Name. And He will present me before The Father blameless as He has promised to do.
Health and wholeness, Dear Sister . . . May God heal your kidneys or give you new ones via His Providence.
And may your son find deliverance and wholeness as well.
Wrong again.
From fox news: (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286153,00.html)
The mainstream media has all but ignored the recent Associated Press report that the three major insurance companies for Protestant Churches in America say they typically receive 260 reports each year of minors being sexually abused by Protestant clergy, staff, or other church-related relationships.
In light of the sex abuse scandal that rocked the Catholic Church beginning five years ago, religious and victims’ rights organizations have been seeking this type of data for years. It has been hard to come by since Protestant Churches are more de-centralized than the Catholic Church.
Responding to heavy media scrutiny, the Catholic Church has reported that since 1950, 13,000 “credible accusations” have been brought against Catholic clerics (about 228 per year.) The fact that this number includes all credible accusations, not just those that have involved insurance companies, and still is less than the number of cases in Protestant churches reported by just three insurance companies, should be making front page of The New York Times and the network evening news. It’s not.
I'll ask you to read post 1,018 to see the difference.
This has been your side's only defense and it's been dismantled.
RCC numbers include primarly priests.
Protestant numbers include, as you said yourself, "clergy, staff, or other church-related relationships" which we've seen when we read the actual article includes janitors, church workers, and members of the congregation.
So your comparison is ridiculous. But it is all you've got.
Well, that doesn't sound very Christian. :) I obviously can't speak for all "Protestant" missionaries, only my own. All I can tell you is that we don't practice anything like that. I am very sorry to hear that what you described has and is happening. That is certainly not what Christ had in mind with the Great Commission.
Yes, especially so since the topic of conversation was which side uses more "plain meaning". :)
“You’ll note my disclaimer of Cromwell, too. He was no friend to the Calvinists.
But Richard Harris swiping away the idols on the altar in the DVD of “Cromwell” is stirring.
IIRC he even turned the altar around to transform it back into a pulpit facing the congregation.
All in all, a terrific scene.”
Does it include blowing up ancient Buddhist rock carvings, too? Sorry, I mistook one religious fanatacism masquerading as a political system for another.
Cromwell’s wholesale genocide of the Irish people must also be thrilling.
This worship of the book is more and more resembling the tactics of the Moslems.
~Feel the love!~
Never fear, I’m sure someday those churches will once against be despoiled and desecrated for your enjoyment.
We have been told so in prophecy. So enjoy!
The TR priest in our area who died recently read souls.
I could be in confession and he would at once tell me what I needed to confess and who was impeding me, who I needed to avoid in charity and for my own sake, and how much more I needed to pray.
Not if someone wants to be called a Chirstian. :)
1 Peter was specifically written to mend those disagreements, and bring the followers of +Peter (and +james) and those +Paul into one fold. The rift between +Peter and +Paul was significant and serious.
Thanx, Quix. We’re all in process! I’m not what I was ‘yesterday’ and I’m not what I want to be, but God knows.
Christ never said His ministry and the ministry of His disciples was intended for the Gentiles to be come "New Israel" (new elect).
Jewish Christians considered Gentile Chritsians in the light Judaism: like Judaism considers Noahite Gentiles, not equals to the Jews.
But Paul went one step beyond simply making the equality sign between them; he actively deconstructed Judaism in his gospel and then tried to sell that as something Christ communicated to him but not to the people hwo faithfully followed Him.
No such attempt is made in the Gospels. Nowehere do the Gospels indicate that Christianity was to be a separate religion from Judaism, or that the Chirstians would not be the Law observing Jews. The idea of taking the message to the Gentiles is an after-taught, out of desperation, and something specifically prohibited by Christ Himself in the Gospels.
Paul literally turned the whole thing upside down and made a whole new religion, claiming, of course revelation after the fullness of Christ came and passed, that Christ was sending him subliminal messages to that effect. We will find out one day if Paul was lying or not, and if we have all been deceived.
He had a gift of knowledge. What a wonderful gift.
That rift was mended at the Council of Jerusalem in 49 AD after which Peter decided to concentrate on the circumcision [Jews] and Paul on the uncircumcision [Gentiles]. There was no rift after that --
LOL? We do not deny the Filioque in the Divine Economy (a theological concept you are apprently not familiar with). The Filioque is dead wrong when it comes to the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit as expressed in the Creed.
Cromwell didn't walk into a Roman Catholic church and knock over the idols, so you shouldn't feel so threatened.
He walked into a Protestant church that had turned the pulpit around to once again become an altar and he knocked over the idols on the pulpit.
Watch the film. It's a great scene.
"Any references to the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son does not imply heretical teaching that there is a double origin of the Spirit.
That is made perfectly clear from the proceedings of the Council of Florence refrenced above:
The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit" [Council of Florence, Session 6—6 July 1439]
And has that pronunciation of dogma been rescinded in the Catholic church?
What dogma? The Catholic Church does not, and never did teach double origin of the holy Spirit. That is something taught only by heretics.
There is nothing to expand. The Creed deals with the origins of the Holy Trinity. There is also nothing to stop the Church from teaching those who are not undergoing catechisis the difference between the origin of divinity (the monarchy of the Father) and the Divine Economy of our salvation, in which the Holy Ghost is sent by the Father through the Son.
Catechism and Creed are two different things. You can expand all you want as an expansion, but not change the Creed.
This presumes that there is no authority at all besides an ecumenical council; in one swoop, you invalidate not only the papacy, but also the Roman patriarchy
It does not invalidate the papacy. It is latter-day Roman Catholicism that completely invalidates the council authority. In the Undivided Church of the first millennium, the pope was an integral part of the councils but not the sole or even the final authority. The 'authority" of the pope to proclaim dogma without a council is a Vatican I aberration.
I disagree with the Orthodox concern that somehow the Filioque Creed risks doctrinal confusion, because, as I wrote K, the creed plainly states that the Son is begotten of the Father.
Well, apparently it does.
But the decieved will never think of that possibility.
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.