Catholic, but not Roman

[elvisman]

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!

**No substance? I backed up everything I said with Scripture. It’s a pity you don’t know your Bible - then we could have a REAL debate . . .

 

[elvisman]

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.

Like I’ve said before - I back up everything I say with Scripture, Tradition and Church history.

If my posts are so “angry” that you felt the need to step in - please supply the quotes.

 

[josie_L]

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…

Officially, the schism didn’t end with the excommunication in the 11th century (albeit there was some just cause for the legates’ anger) but rather in the 15th century, i.e., after the Council of Ferrara/Florence, here is Mark of Ephesus’s own words:

“The Latins, having no cause to condemn us for our dogmatic teachings, call us “schismatics” because we declined to humble ourselves before them, which they imagine is their due. But let this be scrutinized: would it be just for us to grant them that courtesy and not accuse them of anything with respect to the Faith? They initiated the cause for the split. They openly made an addition (Filioque to the Symbol of Faith), which before they were pronouncing secretly. **We were the first to break away from them, but it is better to say that we separated them and cut them off from the common Body of the Church. ** Why? Do tell me! Because they have the right faith and made the right addition (to the Symbol of Faith)? Who would say such a thing unless his head became damaged! **But (we broke away from them) because they demonstrate an impious and wrong-headed view and hurriedly and thoughtlessly made the addition. Thus, we turned away from them as from heretics and for this reason disassociate ourselves from them. **The venerable canons say thus: ‘He is a heretic and is subject to the laws against heretics if he — even only in a little way — turns from the Orthodox faith.’[37] If the Latins in no way deviate from the Orthodox Faith then, it seems, we cut them off in error. But if they completely deviated, and this in their theology about the Holy Spirit — sinning against which is the greatest of dangers — then it is clear that they are heretics, and we cut them off as heretics.”

holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch1.html

Edit: You do realize that since the filioque is a legitimate theological view than Mark of Ephesus and co. have put asunder the body of Christ for nothing.

God bless.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I just added a couple of folks to my “ignore” list and the last three posts are invisible…gosh that feature is liberating!

 

[elvisman]

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.

PLEASE show me which post I “yelled” at anybody.
Bearing false withness doesn’t suit you my angry friend.

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.

**I only use facetious comments when the person is on the attack. If most of you anti-Catholics who post here were more civil - there wouldn’t be the need to be sarcastic. It’s better that yelling, though . . .

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…

IMO?
Well, there’s your first mistake. Stick to the facts and toss the opinions out the door . . .

 

[elvisman]

I just added a couple of folks to my “ignore” list and the last three posts are invisible…gosh that feature is liberating!

AWESOME.
Now we won’t have to read your angry rants and can have a nice discussion.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So quiet…

 

[josie_L]

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.

And don’t forget “intellectually honest” which is why I like to back up what I say with ECF quotes, i.e., it makes it easier for people to see I’m not talking B.S., moreover, I’ve been conditioned as a result of my history degree to always footnote.

p.s. I was one of those who got angry at Edwin, and I did so because he kept making commenting about Catholics in a generalized manner a little too often, i.e., “You know you Catholics . . .”. I am sorry for having spoken to him angrily though.

p.p.s. I stand by what I said earlier about Elvisman.

God bless

Josie

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Ahhhhhh…

 

[elvisman]

And don’t forget “intellectually honest” which is why I like to back up what I say with ECF quotes, i.e., it makes it easier for people to see I’m not talking B.S., moreover, I’ve been conditioned as a result of my history degree to always footnote.

p.s. I was one of those who got angry at Edwin, and I did so because he kept making commenting about Catholics in a generalized manner a little too often, i.e., “You know you Catholics . . .”. I am sorry for having spoken to him angrily though.

p.p.s. I stand by what I said earlier about Elvisman.

God bless

Josie

Don’t worry about this guy. I challenged him to supply the quotes where I "yelled" or became angry and he couldn’t do it.

If you feel he has become irritable or angry - it’s only because he can’t back anything up. Remember - empty barrels make the most noise . . .

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Just seein’ names, no post, drink it down… What is the latin for “ignore?” ignorare?

 

[GKC]

Just seein’ names, no post, drink it down… What is the latin for “ignore?” ignorare?

Neglegere, maybe. But remember, it was my daughter who was the Latin teacher.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Whatever it is, it’s a nice feelin’ baby! Some days I get down on the craziness in Anglicanism…other days like today seeing some of the posters in this thread, I feel a whole lot better about it! Give me some Schofield!

Do you know he’s retiring? I guess I mentioned it. Anyway, hope we get someone good to fill his chubby yet awesome shoes!

Neglegere, maybe. But remember, it was my daughter who was the Latin teacher.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Whatever it is, it’s a nice feelin’ baby! Some days I get down on the craziness in Anglicanism…other days like today seeing some of the posters in this thread, I feel a whole lot better about it! Give me some Schofield!

Do you know he’s retiring? I guess I mentioned it. Anyway, hope we get someone good to fill his chubby yet awesome shoes!

Was there a health issue?

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No. He’s been bishop since 1987. He’s getting up there in age and yes he has horrific blood pressure due to his “girth” and the stress lady Katharine and her pschotic possey put on the poor guy. He’s been over-worked and he eats like a long shoreman. He’s also just mentally ready to leave I think. He’s done his duty…

I sat down with him for a couple of hours not too long ago. What a wonderful man and an inspirational figure…

Was there a health issue?

GKC

 

[Soldier_X]

I only use facetious comments when the person is on the attack. If most of you anti-Catholics who post here were more civil - there *wouldn’t *be the need to be sarcastic. It’s better that yelling, though . . .

Gurney’s no anti-Catholic. If anything, he’s an honest seeker who wants to follow God faithfully, and he desires to raise his children in a godly home. Anybody with common sense could easily have been rattled by recent events in the Catholic Church. This is true of all churches, but I mention the Catholic Church because it was his former Church home! But Gurney is very sincere and genuine, and I can assure you that he’s no anti-Catholic. Most of us aren’t…even lame Anglicans like yours truly. This is a dude who can bring it, and he knows what he’s talking about.

 

[elvisman]

Gurney’s no anti-Catholic. If anything, he’s an honest seeker who wants to follow God faithfully, and he desires to raise his children in a godly home. Anybody with common sense could easily have been rattled by recent events in the Catholic Church. This is true of all churches, but I mention the Catholic Church because it was his former Church home! But Gurney is very sincere and genuine, and I can assure you that he’s no anti-Catholic. Most of us aren’t…even lame Anglicans like yours truly. This is a dude who can bring it, and he knows what he’s talking about.

Maybe on other threads - but judging by his posts on this thread, he’s brought nothing but complaints.
I haven**'t been impressed at all because he hasn’t been able to refute anything I’ve said without becoming angry and vitriolic.**
His points - when he did make any - were rather weak and shabbily-researched . . .

Oh, well - onto the topic!

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I started this thread to lay out my “third way” Catholic position.

Clearly, the moderators here have made up their minds about this “third way”, and have moved the post to a “non-Catholic forum”. Because of this decision to move this thread to the non-Catholic section, which I object to (like an already sea-sick passenger on this boat), and more because hooligans have derailed it, I would like to ask the moderators to kindly fire the bullet, and put this thread out of its misery.

 

[curlycool89]

There would of course be a point in it. Our actions, the actions of every man, our very lack of charity, especially mine, deserve eternal torment. God, as a loving Father, sent his Son to die for us. Christ entered into hell, and broke its gates. I think that, for one who wills to be with God, he would never be forever in hell.

This is not a matter of revising Scripture, of of not taking it seriously. I take it very seriously. Far more seriously than your interpretation of it.

Because ignoring it is more serious? Show me someplace where Christ says “you know that parable about hell being uncrossable? Well, I lied”. He never retracted it. Jesus actually mentions hell more than he mentions heaven in the Gospels, and you know that there’s a reason for that. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, He assigns those who did not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned, ect. to hell. Look at verse 46:
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 25:46[/BIBLEDRB]
It says “everlasting” (sometimes translated as “eternal”) punishment. Not temporary, not “without parole for 25 years”, but forever. You can’t get much clearer than that.

St. Paul also affirms that certain people will “not inherit the kingdom”, which was his way of saying “will not go to heaven”.

Now I want to address the bold point. That is true, but there is about a paragraph sized explanation to go with that. First of all, “wills” is not merely what you want (including the heresy of OSAS), but what you do. If you break Gods commandments then you are not willing to be with God. If you sin and refuse to go to confession, then you are not willing to be with God. If you understand that the Catholic Church is the one established by Christ but refuse to look into it, then you’re not willing to be with God. What you seem to want is for God to be like you, but the fact is that you need to want to be like God.
It’s called humility and the ability to admit that you’re wrong. When everything you see in this world seems to encourage people to have to world revolve around them it can go to your head, but the fact is that that is wrong.

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.

That would be because what you are proposing is not Catholic. That’s why it’s in the “not Catholic” section.

I started this thread to lay out my “third way” Catholic position.

That’s because there’s no such thing as as “Catholic third way”. In Catholicism, it’s the Church’s way or the highway. You either accept the Church and all doctrines, or you’re not Catholic. That’s just the way it is.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Because ignoring it is more serious? Show me someplace where Christ says “you know that parable about hell being uncrossable? Well, I lied”.

Since I don’t understand this verse at all the same way (when I read it plainly, I get a completely different message from it than you do, apparently), I wouldn’t expect Jesus to say that he lied.

I’d expect him to say that he lied, if he meant what you did by Hell.

We just don’t see eye to eye on this at all.

The problem is that both of us consider the message of the parable to be clear. Maybe it isn’t, and we just think it is. But if it is clear, then one of us is being stupid, or purposefully missing the message. Either way, it’s not conducive to good dialogue.

Let’s just stop talking together about this question, and agree to pray for one another.