Skip to comments.Intended Catholic Dictatorship
Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
The ultimate intention of Catholicism is the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire. That has always been the ambition, at least covertly, but now it is being promoted overtly and openly.
The purpose of this article is only to make that intention clear. It is not a criticism of Catholics or Catholicism (unless you happen to think a Catholic dictatorship is not a good thing).
The most important point is to understand that when a Catholic talks about liberty or freedom, it is not individual liberty that is meant, not the freedom to live one's life as a responsible individual with the freedom to believe as one chooses, not the freedom to pursue happiness, not the freedom to produce and keep what one has produced as their property. What Catholicism means by freedom, is freedom to be a Catholic, in obedience to the dictates of Rome.
The Intentions Made Plain
The following is from the book Revolution and Counter-Revolution:
"B. Catholic Culture and Civilization
"Therefore, the ideal of the Counter-Revolution is to restore and promote Catholic culture and civilization. This theme would not be sufficiently enunciated if it did not contain a definition of what we understand by Catholic culture and Catholic civilization. We realize that the terms civilization and culture are used in many different senses. Obviously, it is not our intention here to take a position on a question of terminology. We limit ourselves to using these words as relatively precise labels to indicate certain realities. We are more concerned with providing a sound idea of these realities than with debating terminology.
"A soul in the state of grace possesses all virtues to a greater or lesser degree. Illuminated by faith, it has the elements to form the only true vision of the universe.
"The fundamental element of Catholic culture is the vision of the universe elaborated according to the doctrine of the Church. This culture includes not only the learning, that is, the possession of the information needed for such an elaboration, but also the analysis and coordination of this information according to Catholic doctrine. This culture is not restricted to the theological, philosophical, or scientific field, but encompasses the breadth of human knowledge; it is reflected in the arts and implies the affirmation of values that permeate all aspects of life.
"Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church.
Got that? "Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church." The other name for this is called "totalitarianism," the complete rule of every aspect of life.
This book and WEB sites like that where it is found are spreading like wildfire. These people do not believe the hope of America is the restoration of the liberties the founders sought to guarantee, these people believe the only hope for America is Fatima. Really!
In Their Own Words
The following is from the site, "RealCatholicTV." It is a plain call for a "benevolent dictatorship, a Catholic monarch;" their own words. They even suggest that when the "Lord's Payer," is recited, it is just such a Catholic dictatorship that is being prayed for.
[View video in original here or on Youtube. Will not show in FR.]
First, in this country, freedom of speech means that anyone may express any view no matter how much anyone else disagrees with that view, or is offended by it. I totally defend that meaning of freedom of speech.
This is what Catholics believe, and quite frankly, I do not see how any consistent Catholic could disagree with it, though I suspect some may. I have no objection to their promoting those views, because it is what they believe. Quite frankly I am delighted they are expressing them openly. For one thing, it makes it much easier to understand Catholic dialog, and what they mean by the words they use.
Secondly, I think if their views were actually implemented, it would mean the end true freedom, of course, but I do not believe there is any such danger.
“Whoo boy, you’ve stepped in it now.”
Look out,here comes the wacky KJV worshipers!
But Paul was "all things to all men" (1 Cor 9:22) and aimed to "please all men in all things" (1 Cor 10:33) by his own admission, telling them what they wanted to hear as long as they acquiesced to his story. At other times, Paul says you have to confess "with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead" (Rom 10:9).
So, here you have to meet certain requirements (conditions) in order to be saved, hence it is not an "unmerited" gift. In other situations, you may be an unbeliever as long as you are married to a believer and that's enough to save you! So, here, again, we have a conditional salvation which doesn't qualify as a free gift.
In Romans 11:14 he says "if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them." Again, conditions have to be met, the requirement must be satisfied or nothing. No free gift.
Or what about this: "To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. (1 Cor 9:22) Here, Paul is not only implying that it is through his work that some are saved but that it is he who so, through his work, save them!
Then to the Ephesians (2:8) he changes the story and says they have been saved through grace and faith. However, in 1 Thess (2:16) he suggests that preaching (which is works) saves. At other times he says God had saved the elect before the foundation of the world, so the rest was just going though the hoops so to say. A mixed message, at best.
But speaking of narcissistic, how narcissistic is it for a loving God to demand that the people he saves believe and worship him? And to condemn those who don't? Where is mercy in that? Protestantism is narcissistic because the Protestant God is narcissistic. So, at least in that there is consistency.
though = through
Haven’t really followed this thread in a while, but saw this.
“The focus was not on appeasing, atoning, paying off some angry, insulted, God, or satisfying Divine Justice, but on the belief that by dying and resurrecting Christ cheated and defeated death.”
My understanding of this mysterious issue is that of satisfying Divine Justice, illustrating the holiness of God and destructiveness of sin, in which sin is such the antithesis of life that an atonement corresponding to its effects must be made for the sin to be put away, by means of innocent life-blood, And thus “cheat” death of its just prey.
While sins were forgiven before there was the sacrificial system was instituted, and Jesus forgave sins before He died and rose, this was enabled under the rubric of the atonement. And it is an “everlasting statute” for Israel “to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year.” In which not only were sins symbolically transferred to a scapegoat, which would be led away into the wilderness by the hand of a fit man (you don’t want that goat coming back), but the HP was “to kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people,” “to make an atonement in the holy place,..an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.” (Lv. 16:15-22,34)
In the NT this is referred to as a ransom in the person of Christ, and as must you know, it was not Paul who first referred to His word as that, but Mt. 20:28 and Mk10:45, but which i think you say was added later.
How it all works i know not, but what matter is that it works, thanks be to God.
Kolo: In the Greek and Arab Churches the Memorial Service asks for God's mercy on the soul of the deceased and is somewhat different from the Slavic panikhidas
Actually, they are not different. The text is the same. I didn't express myself properly and your comment is spot on. What I was trying to say, but it didn't come out that way, was that the service, which is otherwise all about gratitude to merciful God, ends on a hopeful note rather than a petition, beginning with the hopeful May. At the the Dismissal the priest chants
May He Who has power over the living and the dead, Who Himself rose again from the dead, Christ our true God, through the prayers of His Most holy Mother, of the holy and God-bearing Fathers, of all the Saints, assign to the abodes of the Righteous the soul(s) of His departed servants. Give him (them) rest in Abraham's bosom, and number them among the Just, and have mercy on us, for He is good and the Lover of men.
Sorry this has taken so long but work has consumed me.
Do you really think that, after identifying the servant as Jacob, Israel all along, all of a sudden “Isaiah” in chapter 53 drops Jacob, thatis Israel, as his servant, and introduces another one? Just curious.
Isaiah’s four Servant Songs present Gods ultimate plan of salvation: Isaiah chapters 42, 49, 50 and 52-53.
In Isaiah 42, Isaiah presents two servants. Isaiah 42:6-7 describes an individual who is a “light of the Gentiles,” and who opens the eyes of the blind; and Isaiah 42:18-20 describes a ‘blinded servant’ who sees many things yet does not understand. The Scriptures showing the contrast and distinction between God’s two servants follow:
The servant that gives light: Jesus
Isaiah 42:6-7 “I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.”
Lk. 2:30-32 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
The blinded servant: Israel
Isaiah 42:18-20 “Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. (19) Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD’S servant? (20) Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not.”
Isaiah 6:9-10 “And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. (10) Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.”
Zechariah 3:8 testifies that the Branch, the Messiah, is God’s servant. “Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.” Isaiah identifies the Branch as Jesus, 11:1-2 “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.”
Jesus quotes this Isaiah passage as identifying himself as the servant; In Matthew 12:18-21, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.
In the second song of Isaiah 49:1-13, although Israel is named again as the servant (v.3); the writer switches immediately to one greater than Israel. Here, it is revealed that the Messiah has a two-fold task.
1. Bring Israel back and gather the nation to himself (v.5-6). “ And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel
2. . God says: “ I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
These two themes are picked up in the gospels in the song of Mary (Lk. 1:54) and in the statements of Simeon concerning the baby Jesus (Lk. 2:30-32).
The third servant song in Isaiah 50:4-11 identifies the servant as Jesus. Here the servant says, “I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting” (cf. Mt. 26:67, Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, and in 27:26-30 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head.)
The fourth song of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 again identifies the suffering servant as Jesus. Here the servant suffers and dies for the sins of his people (53:5); that he will be led like a lamb to the slaughter (v.7). all this was in the Lords will (v.10). (John 12:38, That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?; Matt 8:17, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses. and Matt 27.)
My understanding is that the early Church saw it as an act of extreme mercy, not justice, that Christ would die for our sins. As St. Isaac the Syrian observed, mercy is an antithesis to justice. God was under no obligation of any higher necessity to undergo the extreme condescension of becoming a human, suffering and being murdered, but made that choice out of love.
The Gospels compare Christ to the Passover Lamb. If you recall, the Passover Lamb is not about atonement for the sins and therefore cannot be equated with the Temple sin sacrifice.
Rather, the Passover Lamb was killed so that those kept in slavery could be freed. By analogy, Christ dies so that those held in bondage by death due to ancestral sin of Adam and Eve could be freed (i.e. saved). Hence Easter is called Pascha in the East, meaning Passover.
James reminds that mercy triumphs over judgment. The early Church simply did not hold a juridical view of Christ's sacrifice, some individual fathers notwithstanding. In the west, the juridical view predominates after the 11th century, focusing on the satisfaction of the Divine Justice, which is about as off target (namely the Passover Lamb) as it gets.
In the NT this is referred to as a ransom in the person of Christ, and as must you know, it was not Paul who first referred to His word as that, but Mt. 20:28 and Mk10:45, but which i think you say was added later.
I don't remember, but it doesn't sound right. The early Church held that Christ offered himself as ransom to the devil (Origen, 2nd century) so all the OT righteous could be released from hell. Death agrees to the exchange and then realizes it cannot hold Christ because he is God. This renders death effectively powerless, and Christ comes back to life, leaving death trampled down and defeated.
IIRC, the NT writers seem to agree that Christ was ransom, but they don't agree if it was for some or for all.
OK, good. I didn't think there was any disagreement about sinning after departing or in our eternal destination (assuming it's not hot :).
As +Isaac the Syrian said, "'Among all His actions there is none which is not entirely a matter of mercy, love and compassion: this constitutes the beginning and the end of His dealings with us'"
Does "us" mean all people? If it does, then is what +Isaac goes on to say about justice the equivalent of what we call God's righteous anger (unlike typical human anger) or wrath? If God's justice is people getting what they deserve, then I would think we would be in agreement and are just using different terms.
+Isaac goes on to say: "'Everyone has a single place in His purpose in the ranking of love, corresponding to the form He beheld in them before He created them and all the rest of created beings, that is, at the time before the eternal purpose for the delineation of the world was put into effect... He has a single ranking of complete and impassible love towards everyone, and He has a single caring concern for those who have fallen, just as much as for those who have not fallen'"
Did +Isaac distinguish what might be called "saving love" from other love God shows His creation? Given His omnipotence it doesn't seem to make sense that God could have equal love in all aspects for the saved and damned alike.
On God's Mercy and Justice, +Isaac says this: "'Mercy is opposed to justice. Justice is equality of the even scale, for it gives to each as he deserves... Mercy, on the other hand, is a sorrow and pity stirred up by goodness, and it compassionately inclines a man in the direction of all; it does not requite a man who is deserving of evil, and to him who is deserving of good it gives a double portion. If, therefore, it is evident that mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, then justice belongs to the portion of wickedness. As grass and fire cannot coexist in one place, so justice and mercy cannot abide in one soul. As a grain of sand cannot counterbalance a great quantity of gold, so in comparison God's use of justice cannot counterbalance His mercy. As a handful of sand thrown into the great sea, so are the sins of the flesh in comparison with the mind of God. And just as a strongly flowing spring is not obscured by a handful of dust, so the mercy of the Creator is not stemmed by the vices of His creatures"
Very different from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", isn't it!
Well, I'm honesty not sure. :) One interpretation of the above would be universal salvation since everyone would seem at some point to be "deserving of good", thus God's mercy (double portion) would outweigh all his sins. But that can't be right. Another interpretation is that salvation is fully earned and is determined by whether it is evident (presumably by works) that EITHER mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, OR justice belongs to the portion of wickedness, since both cannot abide in one soul. But that doesn't sound right either, so I must not be getting his point. :)
So far I have seen only aorist used; not future tense.
I see this passage we were talking about as indicating the future:
This is a supplication for something to be done both in the future and on an ongoing basis. His word is truth and as we grow in our maturity in His word, so we continually grow in our sanctification.
But since you mentioned it, the veracity of the Bible is a matter of faith, not fact.
I would say perceiving the truth of scripture is a matter of both. I can't imagine even an avowed atheist scientist asserting that there is no historical fact anywhere in the Bible. After that we go right to eyes and ears, etc.
Why should I believe a self-appointed apostle [Paul] on his word?
I'm actually torn on how to answer this. :) On the one hand none is with excuse so you should believe. OTOH, according to the model I follow, it appears that it is simply not your time yet for faith (or its restoration), so there is no reason you "should" believe. I'll have to think about this. :)
I agree that what makes God God is his (presumed) eternal nature which obviously humans can never have. They will still fall short of God's glory, so what is there to glorify?
I would say that it is what we call the remnant of sin. Believers still have sin now, but will not in eternity going forward.
Only God can have free will and never commit sin. Which means, your perfected man will not have free will. How "perfect" (complete) is that?
Perfection for me would certainly include losing all desire to sin forever. If free will for us is only defined as including having the free will to sin then I want no part of it. :)
“Does “us” mean all people?”
Yes. +Isaac in saying this is declaring the same faith that so many other Fathers, especially the Desert Fathers, taught, namely,
“God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honor Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God’s goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind.” +Anthony the Great, The Philokalia
“If God’s justice is people getting what they deserve, then I would think we would be in agreement and are just using different terms.”
“Getting what they deserve” isn’t a matter of God’s justice. It is a matter of how we react to God’s love.
“I say that those who are suffering in hell, are suffering in being scourged by love.... It is totally false to think that the sinners in hell are deprived of God’s love. Love is a child of the knowledge of truth, and is unquestionably given commonly to all. But love’s power acts in two ways: it torments sinners, while at the same time it delights those who have lived in accord with it” +Isaac the Syrian
I don’t think we are in agreement, FK.
“Did +Isaac distinguish what might be called “saving love” from other love God shows His creation?”
No, not at all.
“Given His omnipotence it doesn’t seem to make sense that God could have equal love in all aspects for the saved and damned alike.”
For Orthodox Christians, it is fundamental that God loves us all equally and that His love falls on us as the rain falls on the earth without distinction as to stony ground or fertile soil.
“One interpretation of the above would be universal salvation since everyone would seem at some point to be “deserving of good”, thus God’s mercy (double portion) would outweigh all his sins. But that can’t be right. Another interpretation is that salvation is fully earned and is determined by whether it is evident (presumably by works) that EITHER mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, OR justice belongs to the portion of wickedness, since both cannot abide in one soul. But that doesn’t sound right either, so I must not be getting his point. :)”
Very early on, some Christians, Origen, +Gregory of Nyssa for example, believed, at least for a while, in universal salvation. But The Church rejects this. +Isaac the Syrian’s writings have been used in modern times to theorize about a sort of universal salvation in arguing that hell will pass away (but I wonder just what those folks mean when they speak of hell), but I don’t believe that +Isaac was preaching universal salvation. He was far too intent on God’s respect for man’s Free Will choices to believe that.
I suppose it is true that everyone, at some point, inclines to God and turns from wickedness and it is certainly true that God’s mercy will ALWAYS outweigh a man’s sins. But if a man chooses not to accept the uncreated energies of God, His mercy and grace and love, God respects that choice. The result is not that God stops loving the sinner or that His mercy and grace no longer fall on the sinner. Rather, as +Isaac says, that love torments the sinner; God’s love, like his Word, is like fire and that same fire of God which comforts and warms the man who loves God, will destroy the man who hates God.
So if the bible contains error, where does your doctrine come from?
“So if the bible contains error, where does your doctrine come from?”
There are a number of sources. The bible is certainly one of them, the writings of The Fathers are others. The devotional and liturgical practices of The Church throughout the past 2000 years and the declarations of the ecumenical and local councils are among the others. Iconography is a source of doctrine.
As for the bible being a source, well you know, R, the canon of scripture wasn’t “closed” until the late 4th century at the latest and even then a number of the books we now include, like Hebrews and Revelation were not universally accepted. The decisions made about what was in or out of the canon of the NT were made based not on other scripture but rather on the the liturgical and theological practices and teachings of The Church which were (and to us still are) considered a sure guide to the true Faith.
Outstanding! This makes perfect sense because in order for someone to accept the false "angry God who hates theory" it would mean God would have to be MOVED from love to anger and hate- and we know He cannot be moved from LOVE
The Fathers are like that! Too bad more people in the West don’t know them.:)
Nowadays the writings of the Fathers are so readily available that one has to wonder why more Christians, of whatever persuasion, don’t read them and that more priests and ministers don’t look to them for grist for the sermon mill. +BXVI certainly does.
Here’s an interesting factoid about +Isaac the Syrian. He was a member of the Assyrian Church of the East and thus, arguably, a Nestorian, though his writings are completely and sublimely Orthodox and he is, obviously, a saint of both the Latin and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
I know, that's why I said "eternity going forward". I figured everyone knew what I meant. :)
FK: Since we often speak of the deceased as being at home with the Lord, I would use the two phrases you quote above synonymously
You yourself said that one can not know if another person is saved or not. Saying that the deceased is "at home with the Lord" contradicts your statement by implying that one does know.
Yes that's true, but I think it is a commonly understood social grace to make the presumption out loud, especially at the time of loss. At those times I think it more Christian to be comforting to the loved ones rather than making fine theological distinctions. :) And, when we talk about someone in general ("Jim went to be with the Lord three years ago and ...") I think it's just a matter of showing respect for the outward signs of salvation that were observable during the lifetime. But theologically, you're right that we say we cannot be absolutely certain.
Earlier you said the bible contains errors... do not the fathers also contain errors? They do not even agree with each other on many items...
Big deal. What can here on earth match the guaranteed limo ride to heaven to cause one to change his ways?
Frankly, nothing. :) But what must be remembered is that it is NOT the threat of temporal punishment or the assurance of salvation that motivates us to change our ways. What motivates us is God's unmerited grace given to us which changes our hearts. So, the motivation to change our ways is already there before we are even aware of our assurance of salvation.
FK: Of course we would say that our sinning matters to God. God says He hates sin.
That's like a billionaire living in a dump and saying he hates it! Why doesn't he make the sin just go away?
Good question. He could, He doesn't, and I have no idea. For some reason it simply serves His purpose that some number of the elect spend time here on sinful earth first. I truly look forward to learning the answer.
FK: We have to make the distinction that post-conversion sins do not cancel the salvation of the elect because of the promises of Christ. If Christ was a liar, then those sins could cost us our salvation. But this doesn't make those sins meaningless. They have consequences and God will definitely and many times painfully discipline those He loves.
Baloney, FK. The Bible is full of examples that God ordered destruction of children.
I don't see any contradiction. God determines the times of death for the saved and lost alike. When God ordered the deaths of children we cannot know if it was as a matter of judgment or salvation. God only disciplines believers, so if the children were young enough then having them killed could not have been a matter of discipline.
Religious nuts tell us that God sends hurricanes to tsunamis to "punish" the world.
I am one who cringes when I hear pastors claiming to know for sure the reasons behind such things as what we call natural disasters or epidemics or famines, etc.
Even some Church Fathers believed these were 'pedagogic" punishments for a "greater" good. Killing innocents for a greater good...beginning with the Flood...and still no improvement.
Well, since the Fall there have been no true innocents aside from Christ. In any case, though, I think instruction could have easily played a part in it. Surely the fear of God among the Israelites and others grew as the stories spread, at least for a time. Now, accounts such as the Flood help to show us the nature of God. But I don't think it was an exclusive reason. As for improvement I'm not sure how we are supposed to judge that. Sure, we still sin just as they did in the OT, but all of God's actions in the OT led to the coming of Christ. That is certainly an improvement. :)
In God's eyes Andrea Yates and Hitler could be as "innocent" as Mary.
In terms of their natures at conception, they ARE all equally "innocent". All have need of a Savior and none is deserving. If we want to compare them all we can do is make reasonable guesses based on the confessions they have made backed by the fruit they have borne. That makes Mary look very good and the others not so much. :) Of course God alone holds the discretion to save whomever He wants.
Saying it's a relationship does not describe Protestant mindset. Everything is a relationship, FK. It's how we deal with the world. Protestant mindset is defined and shared by other Protestants in an organized manner and shared tenets of faith. That makes it as religion.
I have to disagree because I think it's axiomatic that there are plenty of professing "Christians" who go through the motions of performing "religious acts", but really have no direct relationship with Christ on a personal level. (I am talking about people belonging to all Christian faiths, including Protestants.) They go to church because they "have to" or they say they believe in Christ because "why not, if it's real that's the side to be on". These are people who do not really bear the fruit of a changed heart because there is no relationship. Anyone can PRACTICE a religion, but that is different in my mind from LIVING a faith.
In addition, describing Christianity as a religion puts it in the same bucket as any other of the world's religions. I would say this is wrong because a core tenet of Christianity is its exclusivity as the one true faith in the one true God. The Bible describes many who had a direct and personal relationship with God Himself, and so also do Christians today. I am unaware of another faith that makes the same claim in the same way. That's why I make the distinction.
“...do not the fathers also contain errors?”
They certainly do, R! Orthodoxy makes no claim that any individual is infallible. It’s one of the main differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
And the Fathers disagree among themselves on various matters. But there is a consensus of teachings among the Fathers on many subjects and that consensus is among the foundation stones of the Faith.
So then the EO has no infallible authority huh?
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.