W
Whadyamean
Guest
“Abecedarian!” Love it!
Well, the last line made sense to me. The other statements and analogies did not. They just don’t work for me because they require, for me, assuming too much. Sorry. Thanks for your effort.
- Status
Well, the last line made sense to me. The other statements and analogies did not. They just don’t work for me because they require, for me, assuming too much. Sorry. Thanks for your effort.
P
PRmerger
Guest
You really can’t understand the difference between someone saying, “My dad is with me in spirit” and “My dad is sitting next to me on the couch.”“Abecedarian!” Love it!
Well, the last line made sense to me. The other statements and analogies did not. They just don’t work for me because they require, for me, assuming too much. Sorry. Thanks for your effort.
Really?
W
Whadyamean
Guest
Wow. I truly expected more from you. “Danger-feild.”
Well, yes, but as Joseph Heller said in Catch 22, “Ripeness is all.” You are just fishing.Do you not believe that if one has been decieved that many have been deceived and if deceived you are under obligation to reveal that deception for the betterment of all…selfish to keep it to yourself.
C
Carlan
Guest
Anyone who was baptized into the Catholic Church has the privilege of calling himself a Catholic. But with it comes certain responsibilities: if you want the honor of being called a Catholic then you must espouse the teachings of Catholicism.
Happy New year, to you PR and to all, Peace, Carlan
W
Whadyamean
Guest
You highlighted “ancient” not bothering to notice that I was quoting PRmerger’s words. Perhaps this is an issue to take up with that poster. That was a discussion about the Divine Presence in the Tabernacle as going back to the ancient Hebrews. I’m sure PR would be happy to chat with you about it, PR being a very responsive and thoughtful poster.
Yes, the Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow for those in time.
Don’t know what it has to do with me, but it is admirable that you are concerned, albeit possibly unnecessarily, about your Protestant friends
I guess being a physician you tend to use such terms. Perhaps you are referring, amongst other EFC, to Eusebius, who, confessing about his Church history, admitted that he magnified what made the Church look good, and diminished what did not.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Right back at 'cha, dear Carlan. :hug1:
C
CMatt25
Guest
So in other words “anyone” (just using QMs here to quote you, PR) who is baptized into the Catholic Church is a Catholic. But other Catholics don’t have to follow this teaching and call them such?Anyone who was baptized into the Catholic Church has the privilege of calling himself a Catholic. But with it comes certain responsibilities: if you want the honor of being called a Catholic then you must espouse the teachings of Catholicism.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Who are these “other Catholics” that you speak of?So in other words “anyone” (just using QMs here to quote you, PR) who is baptized into the Catholic Church is a Catholic. But other Catholics don’t have to follow this teaching and call them such?
C
CMatt25
Guest
Other Catholics besides some of the ones on this thread.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Anyone who wants the privilege of being a Catholic has to have the responsibility of espousing Catholicism.
I mean, really, who would argue with this paradigm?
It makes good old fashioned common sense, doesn’t it?
C
CMatt25
Guest
No PR. It makes little sense to me if on the otherhand “anyone” baptized into the Catholic Church is a Catholic.
Either a) one is a Catholic by virtue of the indelible character placed upon their soul at the time they become a member of the Catholic Church thru Baptism/Confirmation/initiation.
Or b) one is not and is only a Catholic if they espouse Catholicism as you put it, and otherwise can not identify as such.
Not exactly certain though for those subscribing to the latter if the litmus test for “anyone” to be considered a Catholic by them is 100% espousing or 90%, 75%…
The irony is if (a) is the Church answer but Catholics choose (b) as their own answer, those folks who might be critical of other Catholics picking and choosing, are themselves not espousing all teaching. But oh well.
C
Carlan
Guest
Gosh Matt, I am not following you here, sorry.
If one of God’s children is Baptized by the Trinitarian formula outside of the Apostolic Church’s complete doctrine and one which has not preserved unity under the Vicar of Christ on earth, the successor of Peter, he is still a Christian but he is not in communion with the Apostolic Truth… such as the Orthodox and Protestant Churches.
A person baptized in the Apostolic Church and has rec’d confirmation, but in disobedience does not agree with all the Truth revealed will always remain a Catholic but one operating off the track( a cafeteria Catholic so to speak). I expect God will deal with such a one accordingly.
Peace, Carlan
R
roger_pearse
Guest
No he didn’t. It’s an atheist myth! Look up the original words (not in Gibbon’s deliberately mistranslated version) and see for yourself.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
P
PRmerger
Guest
I think you keep getting stuck on this fictional paradigm of “You people tell * he can’t be Catholic but the Church says he is!”
No one here is saying that isn’t Catholic. All we are saying is that if wants the privilege of being a Catholic, then he needs to espouse the teachings of Catholicism.
Thus if Catholic (who, no one here is saying isn’t Catholic) wants the title, then live the title. If he’s living/believing like a Protestant, then, in honesty, he ought to embrace the title of Protestant.
Seems like common sense to me.
*A: someone baptized into the Catholic Church.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I agree, it’s semantics.I think you keep getting stuck on this fictional paradigm of “You people tell * he can’t be Catholic but the Church says he is!”
No one here is saying that isn’t Catholic. All we are saying is that if wants the privilege of being a Catholic, then he needs to espouse the teachings of Catholicism.
Thus if Catholic (who, no one here is saying isn’t Catholic) wants the title, then live the title. If he’s living/believing like a Protestant, then, in honesty, he ought to embrace the title of Protestant.
Seems like common sense to me.
*A: someone baptized into the Catholic Church.
Here’s my own favorite:
Picture somebody who proudly announces he is a vegetarian. He was born to vegetarians, he grew up vegetarian, he attends the local meetings, subscribes to the magazines, etc.
All well and good --until he announces that, as a proud vegetarian, he is going to eat a beef wellington every Friday.
Say what?
“I am a vegetarian, born vegetarian, and IF I WANT TO EAT MEAT EVERY FRIDAY AND STILL CALL MYSELF VEGETARIAN, YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT MY DEFINITION OF VEGETARIAN. Because, after all, 6 days of the week I adhere to the commonly defined notions of ‘vegetarianism’, so I’m only altering one little item one day a week. The MAJORITY of the time I 'follow the rules” and so I’m ENTITLED to call myself ‘vegetarian’ even though that one action I do regularly, eating meat once a week, is completely and totally against the entire FABRIC of vegetarianism."
Now, this person may be born a vegetarian. He may have lived much of his life a vegetarian. He may indeed, for 6 days of the week, follow vegetarian principles. . .
But with this complete and utter jettisoning of the rules on a regular basis (even only ‘one day a week’) he is trying to claim that he is something (vegetarian) while regularly doing something (eating meat) that is totally antithetical to what he CLAIMS TO BE.
At BEST, he is a vegetarian PART-TIME. He is a NON VEGETARIAN the other times.
But trying to call himself a vegetarian full time as he chows down on the beef burger regularly is wrong.
Same thing with a Catholic who dissents from one --or several–dogmatic teachings.
They are Catholics who follow their faith on a ‘part time’ basis. When they dissent from Catholic teachings, they are DISSENTING Catholics. If they dissent from enough teachings, then they may be baptized Catholics but they have rejected their faith to become non-practicing Catholics or Catholics who reject the faith and are thus ‘protesting’ Catholics. And we know from history that "protesting Catholics’ are the forerunners of today’s Protestants.
Martin Luther WAS Catholic. To the end of his days he would have been a baptized Catholic BUT he rejected Catholic dogma and self-embraced his own LUTHERAN teaching. It would be semantics to claim him as a 'Catholic" DURING THE TIME HE DISSENTED even though he was baptized as one, for he freely rejected his faith. We might have Catholicism indelibly on our souls, but we CAN (and sadly many do) reject that faith and mark ourselves as something else.
All I (personally) would ask of a Catholic who dissents on a teaching is that he --or she --not try to pretend the dissent is ‘allowable’ or that he or she is such a good Catholic in other areas that it ‘cancels out’ dissent. That isn’t true. Until fairly modern times, people had enough intellectual integrity to be upfront, or even proud, about dissent while acknowledging that what they believed was NOT what their faith taught. They wanted the faith to accept it, but they knew and acknowledged that they were not in line with their faith belief.
NOW, however, it seems that some would want anybody with the Catholic ‘print’ (baptism certificate only required) to be ‘allowed’ to dissent from Catholic teaching and have the DISSENT accepted as an ‘alternate Catholic belief’, and have the person’s essential Catholic identity not impacted one WHIT by his or her dissent. They aren’t ALLOWED to be called non practicing or dissenting Catholics, oh heavens no, how hateful. All that matters is that they are CATHOLIC, so they can teach or proclaim their dissent and be held up as "Catholics’ even if they don’t believe a shred of Catholic teaching. That’s pretty sad.
D
David_Castlen
Guest
Derrick,
May I give you some advice: Get the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Read it slowly; take your time. This (The Catechism of the Catholic Church) is the Church. You will be shocked at some of the heresy you may hear from Catholics and Catholic teachers. I know what the Catholic Church believes, I do not know what Catholics believe.
I, too, was a Baptist. It was very hard for me to leave. I had a loving Church. They love Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior with all their hearts. But history is not on their side. It was hell for me to go. I have no big complaints about these wonderful Christians. You are doing the right thing - becoming a Catholic. Be cautious. Read the Catechism
Dominus Vobiscum
C
CopticChristian
Guest
You highlighted “ancient” not bothering to notice that I was quoting PRmerger’s words. Perhaps this is an issue to take up with that poster. That was a discussion about the Divine Presence in the Tabernacle as going back to the ancient Hebrews. I’m sure PR would be happy to chat with you about it, PR being a very responsive and thoughtful poster.
Yes, the Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow for those in time.
Don’t know what it has to do with me, but it is admirable that you are concerned, albeit possibly unnecessarily, about your Protestant friends
I do not know what my formal education has to do with what you believe to be true. Do I know how to learn? Yes. Do I read? Yes. Have I stopped learning? No.
You state you know Korzybski. General Semantics is the forerunner of NLP and Neurosemantics. The basis of all of this thought is to put it into action and use it, not learn it, and I do that.
You may want to read “Virus of the Mind”…52 weeks on the Amazon.com hot 100…The New Science of the Meme…by Richard Brodie…Thoughts are transmitted in time…Western Philosophy is a thought process transmitted in time…
I was not aware that anyone considered Eusebius an Early Church Father. I thought he was a historian. Concerning making things look good consider Protestant bible translations that are changed to fit a theology…like the NIV…
You don’t have to be a Physician to understand “memes”, General Semantics, NLP or Neurosemantics…A person with understanding of thought and these processes would have done the following…
I wonder if he is referring to “virus” as a physician?..then the Question…
Tell me, in consideration that you have formulated thoughts as virus and infections of thought, explain how you arrived at this notion…is this some sort of medical training I am not aware of…
and then the answer would have been as I described:shrug:
You may want to read “Virus of the Mind”…52 weeks on the Amazon.com hot 100…The New Science of the Meme…by Richard Brodie…Thoughts are transmitted in time…Western Philosophy is a thought process transmitted in time…
Your Calcaneus, metatarsals and attached bones and ligaments then would not have been raised from the floor, knee flexed, neck flexed, and those parts placed in a stoma…as you did.
C
Carlan
Guest
Yes, you said it Tantum ergo:thumbsup:I agree, it’s semantics.
Here’s my own favorite:
Picture somebody who proudly announces he is a vegetarian. He was born to vegetarians, he grew up vegetarian, he attends the local meetings, subscribes to the magazines, etc.
All well and good --until he announces that, as a proud vegetarian, he is going to eat a beef wellington every Friday.
Say what?
“I am a vegetarian, born vegetarian, and IF I WANT TO EAT MEAT EVERY FRIDAY AND STILL CALL MYSELF VEGETARIAN, YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT MY DEFINITION OF VEGETARIAN. Because, after all, 6 days of the week I adhere to the commonly defined notions of ‘vegetarianism’, so I’m only altering one little item one day a week. The MAJORITY of the time I 'follow the rules” and so I’m ENTITLED to call myself ‘vegetarian’ even though that one action I do regularly, eating meat once a week, is completely and totally against the entire FABRIC of vegetarianism."
Now, this person may be born a vegetarian. He may have lived much of his life a vegetarian. He may indeed, for 6 days of the week, follow vegetarian principles. . .
But with this complete and utter jettisoning of the rules on a regular basis (even only ‘one day a week’) he is trying to claim that he is something (vegetarian) while regularly doing something (eating meat) that is totally antithetical to what he CLAIMS TO BE.
At BEST, he is a vegetarian PART-TIME. He is a NON VEGETARIAN the other times.
But trying to call himself a vegetarian full time as he chows down on the beef burger regularly is wrong.
Same thing with a Catholic who dissents from one --or several–dogmatic teachings.
They are Catholics who follow their faith on a ‘part time’ basis. When they dissent from Catholic teachings, they are DISSENTING Catholics. If they dissent from enough teachings, then they may be baptized Catholics but they have rejected their faith to become non-practicing Catholics or Catholics who reject the faith and are thus ‘protesting’ Catholics. And we know from history that "protesting Catholics’ are the forerunners of today’s Protestants.
Martin Luther WAS Catholic. To the end of his days he would have been a baptized Catholic BUT he rejected Catholic dogma and self-embraced his own LUTHERAN teaching. It would be semantics to claim him as a 'Catholic" DURING THE TIME HE DISSENTED even though he was baptized as one, for he freely rejected his faith. We might have Catholicism indelibly on our souls, but we CAN (and sadly many do) reject that faith and mark ourselves as something else.
All I (personally) would ask of a Catholic who dissents on a teaching is that he --or she --not try to pretend the dissent is ‘allowable’ or that he or she is such a good Catholic in other areas that it ‘cancels out’ dissent. That isn’t true. Until fairly modern times, people had enough intellectual integrity to be upfront, or even proud, about dissent while acknowledging that what they believed was NOT what their faith taught. They wanted the faith to accept it, but they knew and acknowledged that they were not in line with their faith belief.
NOW, however, it seems that some would want anybody with the Catholic ‘print’ (baptism certificate only required) to be ‘allowed’ to dissent from Catholic teaching and have the DISSENT accepted as an ‘alternate Catholic belief’, and have the person’s essential Catholic identity not impacted one WHIT by his or her dissent. They aren’t ALLOWED to be called non practicing or dissenting Catholics, oh heavens no, how hateful. All that matters is that they are CATHOLIC, so they can teach or proclaim their dissent and be held up as "Catholics’ even if they don’t believe a shred of Catholic teaching. That’s pretty sad.
Peace, Carlan
P
PJM
Guest
I, too, was a Baptist. It was very hard for me to leave. I had a loving Church. They love Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior with all their hearts. But history is not on their side. It was hell for me to go. I have no big complaints about these wonderful Christians. You are doing the right thing - becoming a Catholic. Be cautious. Read the Catechism
Hi David,
The above Latin translates into 'the Lord be with You"
Should you decide to take this prudent advice may I suggest you use the latest version of the Catechesim. The teachings are ALL the same but it is MUCH easier to read for a lay person. "United sated Catholics Bishops Catechism for Adults" and is available on their web site:
www.usccb.org/ catechisms
The number and varity of myths, misnomers, and misrepresenations about the CC is LENGEND. Catholics have always been the “bulls-eye” on the target called “Faiths.”
If you’d like to know what we Catholics actually believe and Why and How we can believe it check out my BLOG where a great many Lessons on our Catholic Faith are posted. If you have ANY questions’ PLEASE send me a private message.
God Bless you, and WELCOEM to the FORUM!
Pat
PJM on the Forum
W
Whadyamean
Guest
I am sure from the agility of your posts that this is so!
Then you are indeed a rare being
Thanks, I will look up your red letter recommendations. I appreciate such leads.
True, but the ECF’s may have done some shenannigans of their own, eh?
Of course other than physicians can understand “memes,” etc. I have heard other doctors, authors, and lecturers refer to both thoughts as infecting viruses and even parasites. As it read, my statement was a speculation. It was stated as a “guess.” It wasn’t definitive.
That is the most entertaining way I’ve ever heard that said! Well done!Your Calcaneus, metatarsals and attached bones and ligaments then would not have been raised from the floor, knee flexed, neck flexed, and those parts placed in a stoma…as you did.
- Status