I bet blue-duncan can read every word on your G.E.D.
Posted on 01/03/2010 10:30:30 PM PST by Gamecock
I bet blue-duncan can read every word on your G.E.D.
Amen!
"For by the Scripture as our guide and teacher, God not only makes those things plain which would otherwise escape our notice, but almost compels us to behold them; as if he had assisted our dull sight with spectacles." -- JOHN CALVIN "Commentary on Genesis" Vol. I
No. Both denominations believe in the Triune God; both hold the Scriptures as their rule of faith and practice; and as esquirette pointed out, both subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Lol. I know what you mean. But they make it fairly easy, so I nap between comments. 8~)
An just who exactly considers it a slur?
Perhaps the ROMAN Catholic Dioceses of Great Britan?
And then there is the ROMAN Catholic Diocese of Albany! By all means stay away from Albany if you think the term Roman Catholic is a slur!
Or maybe you should contact the The ROMAN Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles. (scroll all the way to the bottom) Maybe he doesn't know that the name Roman Catholic is a slur!
Of course, being in Missouri you may want to start your crusade a bit closer to home, perhaps with the the priest at All Saints ROMAN Catholic Church or even at the Saint Ferdinand ROMAN Catholic Church.
I know! All of these self described Roman Catholics didn't get the memo from Rome telling them that that the term Roman Catholic is a slur! May you should go right to the top and address the issue with the Pope himself!
The belief that the Holy Spirit speaks through the RC Church magisterium is found no where in scripture, there is no infallible source for that belief but the mouths of those claiming it for themselves. It is a dogma made up of whole cloth (or should that be hole cloth?) where men declare it so.
To take that belief seriously is your version of faith alone (in men alone) or Sola Ecclesia Romanus
I prefer to set my belief on the Rock that is Christ..
Darn. I'm not sure that's what I did.
I think sometimes one can get clues from the most astonishing places. In Rudyard Kipling's Kim the protagonist is taken under the care of a Catholic priest for a while. It's been a long time since I read the book, but something happens, like Kim has to go to school and the priest wants to maintain his religious affiliation. He says something like "he's a Catholic, no, better say 'Roman Catholic' or ... [the Anglicans will try to fudge it somehow]" As I say, it's been a long time, and it's an assumption that Kipling knew what he was talking about. But I think we can take it as reliable because it doesn't move the plot, it's a detail added to give plausibility and atmosphere.
If that line of thought is right, then we can see "Roman Catholic" as something we grudgingly accept but don't think is correct.
And here's another aspect of this: Most of what Protestants and other adversaries get on our case and in our face about are not ROMAN (or "Latin Rite") things, specifically. The contentions are about matters common to all in communion with the Holy See. It's not the "Latin Rite" but the Catholic teaching that is the problem - because there is no "Latin Rite" teaching.)
I also note that there are some who find the idea of calling us "Catholic" somehow offensive. And the other day one of our adversaries told me he found "protestant" offensive!
I'm thinking it might be good to lighten up, and, as I said, personally I prefer "feelthy papist." It's easy to say, and it doesn't require a theological concession of any kind, unless you count silliness a concession.
I am not competent to give an official answer. But I'll bet a dime no official would call me on it.
I'm thinking maybe you are thinking of the whole heretic barbecue thing. I don't know what to say about that except to say we tend to discourage that these days. And usually it was done by the secular folks, with admittedly varying levels of support from the ecclesiastical folks.
Then there's excommunication, as Bishop Tobin of the Church of Providence recently did to that Kennedy thug, and as many of us wish would be done to Stretch Pelousy. Excommunication is, I believe, usually thought of as "medicinal." Of course, in the extremer cases, it is done to protect the Church by making very clear that the behavior or teaching in question is a grave wrong.
But also, we hold that to receive the Blessed Sacrament while on is in a state of mortal sin is perilous. So IF somebody like Stretch has been told by competent authority more than once that she is misrepresenting Catholic thought and doing and supporting stuff that is REALLY bad,
AND
IF she persists, now advisedly, in the doing and the teaching,
THEN for HER good, somebody, some bishop somewhere with something resembling a spine (but, it would have to be HER bishop, really, and I suppose she "belongs" to San Francisco) has got to say, "Stretch, honey, no sacrament for you until you straighten up and show me you've straightened up.
I think part of the problem with actually doing this is that there are priests who wouldn't mind defying their bishop and supporting Stretch. So it comes down to how big a fight the bishop is ready to have.
IMHO the longer the bishops dither, the more they seem to say to the moral heretics that it's really okay. That's unfair to them and IMHO bad pastoring.
But it's not my job so I don't know all the issues.
You just made my day!
Hey, and back at you.
I appreciate your concern for my eyes. I have found that the thickness of my glass lenses is directly related to my age; but then, when I have trouble reading Kay is gracious enough to read to me.
Now to your statement; “Protestants just have their own opinions. Any unlearned person no matter his ignorance and lack of education, even if he can't read, is still his own authority and above all of those Church Fathers, above even their own Protestant denominations founders.” That is true for all faiths as you pointed out in the examples of Augustine and Aquinas. Dogma, in any tradition, is just institutional opinion that demands adherence. All creeds, traditions, pronouncements of Councils, church fathers, or dogma are man’s interpretation and understanding of the truths of scripture. None of them save or have the authority of the inspired scriptures and ultimately, it will only be whether the individual has trusted Christ alone for salvation that has eternal significance.
Don’t you have to show (or did you and I missed it) that the book (brief and exotic - I just skimmed “The Assumption of the Virgin — Latin Narrative of Pseudo-Melito”) was condemend BECAUSE of its teaching on the assumption? There’s plenty to condemn in that book even if one believes the Assumption.
Pretty smart guy!
I suppose it's because so many RC's are unfamiliar with Evangelical churches that it's hard for them to imagine that Spirit filled Christians don't blindly follow their clergy. Instead, what you will find is Christians searching the Scriptures making sure what their pastors say is found in them. They call this a heresy of personal interpretation. I'm sure part of that is because independent thinking is not smiled on.
My wife was RC. She was surprised Baptists bring Bibles to church. Now she understands, and yes I'm going to have to get her a new one soon. Her Bible is getting worn out.
As far as the RCC goes at best it is a co-belligerant on some social issues, but not an ally. It is to autocratic and liberal in it's structure and beliefs. Look at how upset RC posters get with Christians who say the Bible should be the rule of our faith. FWIW, I think where they really fell apart was when they decided it was better to kill the Donatists then recognize the validity of their disgust with traitors to the faith.
Um, while celibacy and chastity are different, celibacy includes chastity. Celibacy includes renouncing both marriage and sex (including sexual thoughts).
A married person who has sex with his or her spouse is chaste, but not celibate. An unmarried person (e.g., priest) who has sex with anyone is neither chaste nor celibate.
"Catholic" refers to the Church Universal -- i.e., all those who place their faith in Christ whom the Lord has saved. I'm an evangelical Christian, and I believe in "the holy catholic church," for example.
"Roman Catholic" refers to those who find doctrinal clarity with the Vatican.
Neither term is offensive; it just brings clarity to use the more specific terms.
As I've written before here, the Vatican itself refers to "The Roman Pontiff" and the "Roman Church." The Vatican itself. If it's good enough for the Vatican, why would it not be good enough for those who follow its leadership?
When was that?
The Church Herself refers to Herself as the Catholic Church.
Oh Jeez! They call the Pope that because he is the bishop of Rome, for crying out loud. He is not MY bishop, he is my Pope. MY bishop is the Bishop of Richmond.
The history of the pontiff thing has been gone over before. I think before Xty became legal there was a sort of Chief Mojo Guy in Rome who was the pontifex maximus. So when the successor to the emperors made Xty the official religion, the Bishop of Rome got the title.
This is just to show that what they call the POPE doesn't really show anything.
I'd have to know the context of their saying "the Roman Church" before I could assess it one way or another.
"Roman Catholic" refers to those who find doctrinal clarity with the Vatican.
Well, it doesn't bother me, but it would bother some Maronite and Byzantine Catholics who "find doctrinal clarity with the Vatican" but consider themselves NOT ROMAN in anyway.
I used to be an Episcopalian. I grew up on the sort of vaguely visible maybe kind of Church. I get the "Catholic but not Roman Catholic" thinking. In fact one my Church history profs said, "We think we're Catholic and the Pope isn't!"
And we teach that all the Baptized are members of the Church. That's why while we loosely talk about "conversion" and such, the technically appropriate way to talk about a baptized person "becoming a Catholic" is "entering full communion." The Baptized are, in our view, already in incomplete communion.
why would it not be good enough for those who follow its leadership?It only bugs me because it does not reflect our thinking about what we are. Yeah I'm Latin Rite. Big woop. What matters to me is that I am in Full Communion with the (what we call) Catholic Church.
The ONLY value I can see in all this back and forth is that maybe just maybe somebody will get that we have a definite ecclesiology which differs importantly from that of most Protestants.
Amen!
If RC's understood that they'd be Protestants.
de Transitu may be the earliest source for the Assumption in Latin, but what difference should that make?
As you probably know, it only takes one heresy for a document to be condemned. Scanning quickly through de Transitu (at the link), I can spot at least two.
One is that the document has Jesus saying that Mary is worthy to be assumed bodily because she never had sexual intercourse. That's absolutely false and heretical.
Another is that the document speaks of Mary's soul and body being taken to heaven separately, while Mary's body is animated and able to speak while her soul is separated from it. That's not possible either.
So, yes, de Transitu appears to have been justly condemned, not because it taught the Assumption, but in spite of it.
Apparently outside FR, most people didn't get the memo. Ultimately this is just more RC bullying and deflection...
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.