P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Is it in scriptures that one should avoid truth if one doesn’t want to suffer the consequences? 
npatrol:
npatrol:
- Status
A
Ag_not
Guest
What part of ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No’’ did you not understand
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
R
RubyT
Guest
View Poll Results: Are Roman Catholics too sensitive and overly-agressive with non-Catholic Christians?
Yes 10 16.67%
No 31 51.67%
Sometimes 19 31.67%
Say what??? Where are you seeing 50% say yes??? Sometimes is not a yes. ROFLOL
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
It might be if you apply “private interpretation”.
R
RubyT
Guest
The same yes or no he doesn’t understand in the poll? LOLWhat part of ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No’’ did you not understand
R
RubyT
Guest
Don’t you mean underdog interpretation lol.It might be if you apply “private interpretation”.
S
swariffin
Guest
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I was thinking more of a “Reformed” interpretation.Don’t you mean underdog interpretation lol.
npatrol:Baptism: very little difference.
Confession and Absolution: The confessions go into some of the differences. But Lutherans maintain public and private confession and absolution.
Marriage, confirmation, Holy Orders are extremely important rites, and means of grace, though we don’t enumerate them as sacraments.
Jon
U
underdog
Guest
Jon,
How about this source?
On the Eucharist
Luther regarded the Mass as an abomination, all the worse because at its heart was the most important of all Christian ceremonies: the re-enactment of the Last Supper. Luther stripped away all the extra rituals but left the core event, the taking of bread and wine. You will notice that both wine and bread were part of the Lutheran communion. He, like the Hussites, could find no Biblical justification for excluding the faithful from the full commemoration.
Very early on, however, the question was raised as to the nature of what transpired at communion. The Catholics taught that the bread and wine were, at the moment of the elevation of the Host, miraculously transformed by the Holy Ghost into the actual body and blood of Christ. This transformed substance retained the appearance of bread and wine, but its essence was truly changed. It was no longer bread and wine.
Luther rejected this, but he had some difficulty describing what exactly did happen. His position by about 1524 was that of consubstantiation: that the bread remained bread, the wine remained wine, and the body and blood of Christ were present. Both were there together. Other reformers (e.g., Zwingli) argued that the bread remained only bread, the wine only wine, and that communion was only a commemoration and nothing more. Luther would not go that far. For him, the communion meal had to retain its essentially miraculous nature.
idbsu.edu/courses/reformation/luther/23.shtml
U
underdog
Guest
If you read the posting closer, I have combined the “yes” and “sometimes” as one.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Oh yeah…we’re “over-sensitive and very aggressive” whenever we disagree with errant doctrines of men and are not easily misled by the likes of you, but we’re all warm and fuzzy if we let you bash our most holy faith and do your best to deceive our Catholic brothers and sisters and lead them away from the original, New Testament, “full Gospel”, Christianity.
I suppose you would be all warm and fuzzy if a Catholic like me did precisely the same thing to your friends on an n-C forum? :dts:
This of course is not true at all at all, because God has already shown throughout history that truth that He reveals does indeed belong to that community He reveals it to. Unless of course the 5000+ years of Judaism do not count in your mind?!
I think you are Reformed, a banned member returned under a new name and making the self same arguments he did.
This is where you can read my opinion of that practice.One of the worst of all “witnesses” for Christ…
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I was thinking more of a “Reformed” interpretation.
E
EVANGELION
Guest
Actually, I find Catholics to be the most level-headed and understanding of all Christians. They also are historically the Christian Community that was founded by Jesus and his Apostles, so I guess that does give them some claim of being the guardian of Christian truth, whatever one considers that to be.
E
EVANGELION
Guest
Why was Reformed banned in the first place? Is Underdog the same as Reformed?
C
CWBetts
Guest
You only think so because we don’t have patience for anti-Catholic proselytizers.
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
W
withwind
Guest
Truth belongs to God - what kind of truth? twisted truth and full truth. What belongs to God is for us to share, when one share with errors in it, others need to correct him. Whether you are Catholic or non-Catholic, sharing and discussing with prejudice, impatience, pride, ignorance, etc … won’t help anyone.
Are you yourself over-zealous in sharing His Truth?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Only the moderators know the specific actions that caused Reformed to be banned. This was the second Catholic forum I saw him banned from.
I saw him violate many guidelines of the forums, answered questions with questions, ignored responses to his posts, changed the topics of threads at will (many times his own) for the purposes of avoiding a discussion, was disrespectful of the Catholic faith, posted links to anti-Catholic websites, posted with a lack of charity towards others, started topics in the wrong forums, and attemtped proseltized Catholics away from the Church. I’m surprised he lasted as long as he did on this forum.
Underdog displays many of the same characteristics in detail and presents the exact same arguments.
His avoidance of direct questions adds to suspicisions, of course to be truthful with those direct questions would come with consequences as circumvention of a banning is against the rules.
This has nothing to do with the above, but I remember when Reformed started a thread on the topic of sola scriptura. After a couple of pages he excused himself from the thread and said the discussion was rigged.
If he can’t refute a point made, he leaves the thread and starts another, continuing to use those arguments that he couldn’t defend on the threads he left.
If it’s not in the Bible, he rejects it. Like the writings of the early Church fathers. On the other hand, anything written by John Calvin or any anti-Catholic author, in the last 500 years, was held in high esteem by Reformed. Seems he believed Christians from the last 500 years knew how to practice Christianity better than those who learned from the Apostles themselves.
npatrol:- Status