Catholic, but not Roman

[Paul_Rimmer]

The problem of course is to answer who has the authority to define what those essential beliefs are? If it is not the Pope then who is it?

Christ himself. As he did not define what it means to be “Christian” (a term not used during his lifetime, as far as we know) or “Catholic”, there is a necessary uncertainty over what these terms mean. My definition, though narrow by some standards, is broad when compared to the Catholic Church UAR. If the list is incomplete or contrary to what Christ would have meant, then I hope Christ is forgiving, understands my uncertainty, and brings me into Heaven in spite of my errors.

I just don’t believe that the level of certainty some Catholics UAR believe in is possible.

Have you read the Roman Catholic Catechism? It is an incredible, incredible document. I was utterly amazed and shocked when I read it for the first time as a protestant.

I have read it through entirely. I am less impressed by it than you are. I did not find it a very inspiring document in many ways, It is definitely complete; it covers almost every imaginable issue. In terms of clear explanation, use, and plain beauty, I wouldn’t call it twice incredible. I reserve that title for Augustine’s “Confessions”, Aquinas’s “Summa Theologica” and Benedict XVI’s “Jesus of Nazareth” and “Introduction to Christianity”, among many other works. But maybe that’s just me.

Catholics NUAR as you call them are not Catholics but are dissidents and schismatics…etc…

Very well. I see we’re not going to come to the same understanding about these things through this medium of communication. Thanks for clarifying very strongly your position.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Can I ask you why you have rejected the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation?

Definitely, but not now. I think I’m going to back off of this series of messages, and this presentation, until I have read that book GKC suggested to me. Once I’m done with it (a very important issue, indeed, and one I have much more trouble addressing), I’ll come back to transubstantiation.

Through a lack of proper enquiry many men have rejected Catholic teaching. But they have not actually rejected Catholic teaching, they have rejected an absurd caricature of Catholic teaching, a straw man. So I urge you to properly look at transubstantiation again and be sure that you properly understand it from a Catholic perspective before you reject it out of hand.

My understanding and defense of transubstantiation comes almost completely from the source of the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. It is brilliantly presented there, and when I say I disagree with it, that does not mean that I think it is a silly or stupid idea. I think it is one of the most brilliant theological innovations of all time.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I thought that you had doubts about a physical resurrection? Did I mis-read your OP?

I personally have no doubts in the physical resurrection. I think it’s required to accept that Christ truly and bodily rose from the dead in order to be Catholic.

I think that good Christians, Catholic and non-Catholic, can disagree about this point.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

To state: I strongly object to the decision of this forums to move my document into the “Non-Catholic Religions” section. I find that action to be blatantly anti-Catholic.

 

[elvisman]

I typically have plenty to say. The color scheme is annoying, and I have in fact been skipping your posts because of it.

**Then keep on skipping friend . . . **

 

[elvisman]

Would you then venture to say the many, many Catholics who don’t believe in the real presence and Do NOT accept many of the non-negoiable teachings of the Church are really no better than high-church protestants wanting to be called Catholic?

Yup. In fact, I would say in many cases - they’re worse because they already have the truth and throw it out.

At least Protestans don’t have the full truth - the Deposit of the Faith (2 Tim. 1:14). Many of them simply reject it without knowing.

 

[elvisman]

Thumbs up. It has gone on long enough!!

The only thing that has gone on long enough is your anger . . .

Now - stick to the topic

 

[elvisman]

It’s a pity you’re not reading his posts because of a color scheme (I love it by the way), he’s really good!!

You are FAR too kind, Josie - but thanks!

 

[elvisman]

Then ignore him,if it bothers you so much.

Remember, my friend - it’s the ones who have nothing to say that complain about aesthetics . . .

 

[Nicea325]

Remember, my friend - it’s the ones who have nothing to say that complain about aesthetics . . .

That is true my friend.

 

[GKC]

This is true. I differ on this non-essential point. I also respect those who would say that Christ instituted all seven sacraments. I think a case can be made for that, and was eloquently made, by Cardinal Newman.

So do I, in the overall scheme, as one says in the Confession that God is the maker of all things.

Still, within His ministry, I see two Dominical sacraments, of seven total.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Oh come now, elvis. The people who are disagreeing with you, namely me, had plenty to say, right? It wasn’t just about asthetics, was it? I thought I was very specific about what I disagreed with in your post(s).

Remember, my friend - it’s the ones who have nothing to say that complain about aesthetics . . .

 

[GKC]

IOW? Women’s Ordination?

Thank you for the clarifications on DT/PP. I’m waiting to hear from some of the other posters, on the RCC view.

I’m not sure I understand the question. Matter would be invalid, in an attempt to ordain a woman, yes, regardless of form or intent. But it was not an issue in Apostolicae Curae.

You may find some posters with opinions on the Old Catholic/PNCC issue, but you will not find a RCC view, per se.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I thought it was the Catholic legates of the pope who dropped the excommunication bull on the Patriarch of Constantinople so how is it the Orthodox broke away from the Catholics? Interesting…

And your simple dismissal of people’s posts for criticizing your insane font color choices is your way of getting out of the argument that you don’t have strong points. You speak in generalities with no substance. You speak in a few Catholic talking points with no meat in the bun and when your opponents make solid arguments, you diss them off and just answer that they must not have any points to be made if they criticize your fonts? Weird…

Hardly worthy of the King and Graceland!

Like I’ve always said – when they finally complain about the** color****s is about the point when they’ve run out of things to say . . . **

Just parroting the teachings of the only Church Christ established and gave his blessing to.

See my first comment above about running out of thingd to say . . .

I don’t avoid them. We were all ONE until they broke away in the 11th century.

Doctrines have developed, but they, in and of themselves are not the truth. The Truth is the Church who declares them (John 16:12-15, 1 Tim. 3:15**) because it is the Body of Christ (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 12****).**
**Do you ever actually **READ the Bible – or do you just shoot from the hip?

 

[GKC]

To state: I strongly object to the decision of this forums to move my document into the “Non-Catholic Religions” section. I find that action to be blatantly anti-Catholic.

Remember that we are guests here and we do do not steer the ship.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m filled with vitriole? Dude, you seriously need to go back and read your own posts. They are the angriest, most judgmental, high-horse talking-down to people rants I’ve seen or else I wouldn’t have stepped into this thread. You weren’t even talking to me, you were blasting other people. I felt it necessary to call you out. And so I have. But you’re too stubborn and stuck in Catholic talking points and your sense of superiority over others, thinking yourself to be on the same level with St. Paul p) and that the Bible gives you the power to judge everyone that you’re in too deep to listen. You know full well that I’m not the angry one, you are. The psychological term is called “projection.” You look at your own bad qualities or issues and project them onto someone else when they call you on it. I guess I’m the projectee here.

And you’re right, God is calling. He’s always calling. If you didn’t know that, maybe you’re the one who needs to go back to squares. He’s calling you, too, King. Maybe He’s trying to send you a message that if you want to represent the Church, you need to do it with kindness, charity, love, and balancing positive with negative, and less with the reformed smoker mentality. Cheers.

**The Church IS the truth *(read my last comment – BETTER yet, read the BIBLE . . .) ***God reveals the truth but some are blinded by there own pride:

John 6:63-66
“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. ***And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” ***
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Finally - you’re right – some people*** try***** to follow their conscience and they sincerely want to do God’s will but reject the very MEANS by which he dispenses truth and grace – the Church.**

I’m not acting as if everyone was an idiot. I’m saying plainly that some are filled with spiritual pride because they reject the truth in favor of their own inventions. I don’t judge them (that is only foe Gos to do. I judge their actions because the Bible tells me so (Eph. 5:11, 1 Cor. 2:15, Titus 2:15, 1 Tim. 5:19-20). If what I’ve said makes you feel like an idiot - that is something you must deal with - not me.

Finally - the fact that you’re diatribe is so filled with vitriol tells me that God may be knocking.
Answer** the door, my angry friend.**

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Please Josie, these posts lack substance, just a few generalities. I’d expect more from you. You’re just sticking up for your own here. Intellectual honesty…please! And the venom and anger and pedestal-superiority stuff is ripe…come on…that’s not your style so I’m surprised you’d stick up for and be impressed by it?

It’s a pity you’re not reading his posts because of a color scheme (I love it by the way), he’s really good!!

 

[josie_L]

Please Josie, these posts lack substance, just a few generalities. I’d expect more from you. You’re just sticking up for your own here. Intellectual honesty…please! And the venom and anger and pedestal-superiority stuff is ripe…come on…that’s not your style so I’m surprised you’d stick up for and be impressed by it?

Well, Scott, I have read many of Elvisman’s posts and they are very instructive, needless to say, I agree with what he’s said, and I am more than willing to back him up with or without mentioning the Orthodox. I also don’t care for your denunciations of his character, i.e., he is not being mean or arrogant but firm and assertive about his faith.

p.s. I also expect/ed more from you.

God bless

Josie

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well when he yells at people, rants and raves, talks down to them and is condescending, you don’t see that because you agree with his theology. I am not denouncing his character but his approach to witnessing to the faith and being an apologist for his religion. Do you think blasting people and starting posts always with “hmmmmm” and saying stuff like “if you did your homework…” and “why is it that you cannot see reality” and “WRONG again!” as well as “once again you took my post out of context (imagine that!)” and he accuses everyone who disagrees with him of spiritual pride. Enough’s enough. You can’t see through it and I think it’s cronyism. I don’t like it. I often disagree with Contarini (Edwin) but recently some posters blasted him unfairly and I stuck up for him. Maybe that’s what gets one into trouble here, being intellectually honest and calling out something that’s uncharitable and wrong.

You can return the “I expected more from you” remark til the cows come home. I don’t happen to like your cut and pasting stuff but overall you’re a fairly charitable, pleasant, nice person who is sincere in her faith. I still believe that about you. You’re a nice person. But you’re just sticking up for someone because they agree with your theology and history and I don’t think it’s right. If someone ripped on you I’d be just as mad. The idea that Elvis’s posts are “instructive” is just folly IMO. Perhaps the rainbow color spectrum and insults and “spiritual pride” comments are the blocking out the good content. As for what you expected from me, you expected me to stay Catholic and with your worldview. When I haven’t, well…

Well, Scott, I have read many of Elvisman’s posts and they are very instructive, needless to say, I agree with everything he has said, and I am more than willing to back him up with or without mentioning the Orthodox. I also don’t care for your denunciations of his character, i.e., he is not being mean or arrogant but firm and assertive about his faith…

p.s. I also expect/ed more from you.

God bless

Josie

 

[elvisman]

**Oh come **now, elvis. The people who are disagreeing with you, namely me, had plenty to say, right? It wasn’t just about asthetics, was it? I thought I was very specific about what I disagreed with in your post(s).

**Oh - you were specific - and I addressed your points. Problem is - you’re having trouble dealing with the truth.