K
kalt
Guest
Keeping the commandments. So anyone who breaks one of the commandments is not a member?
- Status
K
kalt
Guest
This is ridiculous.
K
kalt
Guest
I’m not sure if you’re asking if the CC will unite with non-Catholic Christians. If so, it’s already done.
[838](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/838.htm’) "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324Not a perfect communion, but the communion you’re seeking, it seems.
P
pipper
Guest
Kalt, why is this redicolous?
Honestly…why?
I am converted from a fundamental denomination that raises snubbing to an art form, and was not expecting more of the same from loving Catholics.
Why did one and all snub my response which like I said was laborious and time comsuming to type out, even “no I do not agree” 5 words, would have been a response to my writing, but I did not get even that.
Just anything but the silence I recieved would have been better.
And yes I am sensitive because of my physical, and mental handicaps. Just yesterday when I was taken out to eat the hostess seated my dining companion and ran off for me to find the table on my own, leaving me just standing their like a lost puppy.
Just a tiny bit of sensitivity from fellow Catholics would be greatly appreciated.
Do you think that I, personally am rediculous?
K
kalt
Guest
The complaint is ridiculous, because that no one had anything to say about your post had nothing to do with your disability. In fact, there was no way for anyone to know that you are disabled.
Also, you are not the only disabled poster on this site.
Seated your dining companion and left you standing there. Did you expect to be escorted to your table one at a time? Why didn’t you go to the table when your companion went? You seem to be searching very hard for prejudice about your disability. You never know what someone else has going on. Do you realize that you’re talking to someone whose spouse suffered a spinal cord injury and can’t work, who later had cancer? That that someone has a degenerative neurological disease which makes posting her difficult at times? (Vision problems, muscle weakness, fatigue). We all have things going on. Live long enough and, unless you’re really lucky, life kicks you in the butt one way or another. I’m sure there are many other posters here who have some sort of disability. Where you insist there is prejudice and snubbing, you would likely find kindred spirits. But that’s not what this particular board is about. This seems to be more of a debate board than a support board. There is lots of spirited discussion going on here. Join in, but remember that you won’t always get a response to your posts.
Sometimes you post something and no one has anything to say about it. No big deal.
G
GKC
Guest
Pipper,
Occasionally I get ignored, too. On another board I have a knack for ending threads. It’s just the luck of the draw, as to which thread gets attention from whom.
Though I posted in this thread, it’s not one that interested me, generally. But I went back and read your #3. I think you are correct.
As I said before, hang in there. I know the challenges you face, from personal, close observation. Keep swinging. The value of your observations isn’t necessarily in the replies.
GKC
P
pipper
Guest
I did not go when my companion went, becuase he can ambulate very well, and he’s a very young man when I am 54, and he can walk a lot faster. And I walk very slowly with a cane, could not keep up. The hostess was rushing us and he felt obliged to keep up with her, I was abandoned and that was not the first time in that very same restaraunt. The only reason I continue to go there is they are the only place that serves decent food of that type
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Gabriel of 12;
I dont change nor do I have the authority to add or subtract from the Word of God. What I hold to in the “once and for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ” is 2000 years old. Your interpretation of the “once and for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ” is not even a hundred years believed yet, your interpretation is a new interpretation of an ancient text. I assure you that the Eucharist is not a repeated sacrifice over and over again as you wrongly interpret a 2000 year old biblical Catholic Christian teaching.
I refer you to Revelations 5:6 where the Once and for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ is “Standing” not sitting before God making an eternal sacrifice that never ends “once and for all” for past present and future generations from eternity. This is what is meant by once and for ALL. The lamb standing as though slain lives making atonement for our sins eternally. The Eucharist unites the eternal sacrifice being offered once and for all in time. This new invention that the Eucharist is a repeated sacrifice comes from heretics and non believers, this repeated sacrifice was never a Catholic Teaching,
What I would like to conclude here is; there is much more to reveal in the priesthood of Jesus Christ from His Kingly, High Priesthood sacrifice that he offers for us from eternity once and for ALL. The “for all” includes every people, tongue and nation in every age, as well as the only one sacrifice acceptable to God for the atonement of sins. God is not limited just to one age in time, God created time.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Gabriel of 12;
Ok, I get the just of what you believe although I only hesitate to agree with you. The Catholic church does not disagree with Jesus being our one mediator between man and God. What I as a Catholic have a problem with is trying to go to the Father without the “True presence” once and for all sacrifice (Eucharist) of Jesus Christ, where nothing unclean will not enter and where angels fear to tread. The New Covenant was established by Jesus for all humanity to become Children of God as the New Israel in the New Jerusalem.
K
kalt
Guest
Once this situation evolved, your companion, once he knew where you would be seated, should have returned to escort you.
But it didn’t have to turn out like it did. It could have been a good lesson for your companion and the hostess. He should have had the gumption to speak up and say that the group would have to move more slowly, and the hostess, once alerted to the fact that she and your companion were leaving you in the dust, should have apologized and moved more slowly. If your companion is uncomfortable speaking up, he could have just moved more slowly, too. If he had walked with you, what could the hostess have done? Also, a bright and friendly, “Sorry, you’ll have to move a little more slowly for me.” would have done the trick. Once seated, “Thank-you for slowing down for me.” (with a bright and honest smile) would work wonders with most people. If the hostess is still oblivious, speak (friendly and concerned, not angry) to the manager.
Why such inaction and victimhood? Human life is social–you need to communicate.
It doesn’t matter that you are disabled. They could have been leaving a child or an elderly person in the dust. Maybe most people have to race behind this particular hostess, and your speaking up would help lots of people, not least of all the hostess.
I hope you taught your young companion how to handle situations like this. I’m guessing that he is your son?
M
Mudcat
Guest
Hi Pipper,
Sorry for the delayed response. I had no real awareness of the events you brought forward and find that encouraging, though I may have to do a bit of research on how Lutheran and Calvinist-Reformed theologies were reconciled.
Well I suppose this statement is a bit more my bailiwick. As a Southern Baptist and a Southerner, I don’t have as much exposure to many of what you might term as “liberal” sects of Christianity. Within fundamentalism, the road as you have acknowledged is much more difficult.
Emphasis mine, I think you have hit the nail on the head in this regard. There are a plethora of issues that seem to make this appear to be highly unlikely. There is an element of elitism that seems to be built-in to people and I think at times we wrongfully use our doctrinal differences to help us feel better than another.
It will be a slow road that is for sure. But Rome wasn’t built in a day. I think short term efforts by various churches who are motivated by such purpose would likely just lead to the formation of new denominations.
I think in this respect, the only way we are likely to see successful forward movement is through small steps by individuals that will ultimately trickle through our respective churches.
Respectfully,
Mudcat
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Ok, Gab. If you type and then, quote and then ] in front of a quote you are answering and then and then /quote and then ] after the quote. It puts the quote in those nice neat little boxes and it makes it much easier to answer. Other wise I have to cut and paste a lot. I’d appreciate it.
Here is your original statement
You can understand my confusion.
And then there is of coarse the fact that the revelations of the Spirit, no matter how public they are now, were originally given to individuals and not the body of Christ as a whole.
continued
Here is your original statement
Then you say
Your original statement makes it sound as though you are saying that altho Jesus did abolish the law and the prophets, we can’t make up our own truth for scripture.
You can understand my confusion.
Isn’t this exactly what the apostles did, start the Christian church.
What would that be?
I thought you said above " the Holy Spirit does teach me and reveal to me truth from scripture" Are you saying the revelations of the Spirit to you personally are of no value?
And then there is of coarse the fact that the revelations of the Spirit, no matter how public they are now, were originally given to individuals and not the body of Christ as a whole.
So you are saying the Spirit does not continue to reveal the mysteries of scripture.
You seem to be disagreeing with the scripture I post here. Is that right?
continued
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
continuance
quote] The Eucharist suffices and fulfills the precepts of the law including the prophetic priesthood of Melchizedeck which the messiah would offer up his sacrifice in the form of bread and wine according to the order of Melchizedeck. The Eucharist of Jesus Christ fulfilled both Law and prophets, being excercised by Jesus himself because he “Lives” “on earth as it is in heaven”. To put it in short, you cant have a priesthood with out the “true presence” (Eucharist) of the One High Priest of God which is Jesus himself.
1Peter2:9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
2Cor 5:18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
So then, you disagree with Peter and Paul here?
Richard Kastner;
Heb 10:7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Again here is your original statement
12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Rev 5: 9And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
10And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
quote] The Eucharist suffices and fulfills the precepts of the law including the prophetic priesthood of Melchizedeck which the messiah would offer up his sacrifice in the form of bread and wine according to the order of Melchizedeck. The Eucharist of Jesus Christ fulfilled both Law and prophets, being excercised by Jesus himself because he “Lives” “on earth as it is in heaven”. To put it in short, you cant have a priesthood with out the “true presence” (Eucharist) of the One High Priest of God which is Jesus himself.
1Peter2:9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
2Cor 5:18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
So then, you disagree with Peter and Paul here?
Richard Kastner;
Heb 10:7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Again here is your original statement
To which I replied
To which you replied
So, you do disagree with Heb 10:11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
This verse states that Jesus The Lamb of God, because He paid the price for our salvation, is the only one worthy to open the scroll. It also states in v. 9& 10 that the Lamb has made the faithful kings and priests by His sacrifice.
Rev 5: 9And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
10And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Why does the eternal sacrifice need unification?
Isn’t it done over and over thousands of times a day?
I don’t know what you are saying here, please clarify.
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Ok, we need to clarify which covenants we are talking about. The covenant between God and Abraham is not generally considered the old covenant. It is the covenant between God and the children of Israel orally first and then on tables of stone written by God and given to the children by Moses That is considered the old covenant or testament.
Covenant or testament does not mean “a family relationship” The words are synonomus with contract.
Ex. 19: 5Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
7And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
8And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.
So you are saying that Jesus’ sacrifice has to be repeated over and over again. Isn’t this against what it says in Hebrews 10:10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Isaiah 59:1Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
2But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
Matt27:50Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Heb. 10:20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
The sacrifice of Jesus has made it possible for us to access the Father. This is not done by eating a piece of bread.
Jn. 6:53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
The flesh of which Jesus speaks here is THE WORD OF GOD.
Jn. 1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Jn. 5:39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
P
pipper
Guest
Thank you Mudcat (catfish?) for your responce. If you don’t mind I will speak to one part of your statements. In some cases the merger of two denominations will come too end with one large denomination, and two tiny denominations. In the case of the United Church of Christ a few of both the Congregational and Evangelical and Reformed churches stayed away from the merger. The E&R churches were themselves the uniting of two diffferent traditions, the Lutheran (Evangelical) and Calvinist/Reformed tradition, with the calvinist Congregational tradition.
The E&R were originally united in Gemany, and the Congregational churches were mostly in New England. They set their theological differences aside in the quest for Protestant Unity, to them Unity is more important than squabling over theology.
You probably aren’t too familiar with the UCC becuase they hardly exist in the deep South, they might have 10 churches in all of Texas where I live.
Now the United Methodist church we are all familiar with since they are very popular in the South, their headquarters are in Nashville.
The UMC was formed by merging two very simular churches. The Methodist Episcopal Church with the United Bretheren. Those two churches were only divided by national origin, the United Brethren came from Central Europe and origially had services in German, Czech etc. AKAIK none of the Methodist or UB stayed outside the union so they ended up with one denomination where previously there were three.
I find the Lutheran very interesting as well. Formerly they had seperate synods for each country they came from. There were seperate Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, and Finnish, and of course German Lutheran churches in the US, but as time went along they merged into the American Lutheran Church, and the Lutheran Church in America into the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America…ELCA. From probably more than a score of Lutheran churches to one.
Of course the Fundamental Missouri synod had to stick it out by themselves, along with a handful of other tiny fundamental Lutheran churchs.
Mudcat, I admire you a lot a evengelical/fundamental Southern Baptist having a strong interest in church unity is very inspriring to me. As you know Southern Baptists as well as other evangelical/fundamental churches including the “church of Christ” of my raising usually have very little interest in church Union, usually standing aloof from Ecumenical groups like the National Council, and the World Council. In fact the “church of Christ” has nothing to do with anyone but themselves.
M
Mudcat
Guest
Hi Pipper,
Thanks for your reply, and yes it’s the catfish. I came by the moniker offline a number of years back. I am a bassist… I play at church and in a couple of local bands (mostly weddings, parties, etc…). Had a bit to do with the mudcat living on the bottoms of rivers and lakes… and bass players living on the bottom of the music tonally speaking.
Well that was a twist. The all became Calvinists… hmmm, I bet Jacobus Arminius must have rolled over in his grave at least three times.
Thanks for the update.I appreciate the compliment and yes I am quite familiar with church of Christ churches. I also agree with your summation. I suppose I am a bit of an upstart in that regards.
I have participated in apologetic forums for a bit now and at the onset I was much more dogmatic than I am today. As you know, apologetics can get quite heated. I suppose I reached a point, where I realized… Here we are, arguing over some obscure bit of theology with such vehemence that we wouldn’t mind coming to blows over it. We are a bunch of ninnies. We sound like a couple of tax auditors arguing over a bit of tax code on capital expenses.
I suppose it was at the point, though I can’t specifically say when that point was, that I realized, there is more to it than that. I realized that this fellow on the other side of the discussion was just as much a follower of Christ as I was.
We were missing the big the picture.
Pipper, I look forward to your response, if you feel so inclined. And if not, I look forward to future discussion about something else.
Respectfully,
Mudcat
R
Robbinson
Guest
The phrase “accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and savior” is not in Scripture. That doesn’t mean that the idea isn’t, but I have heard definitions of what this means that certainly do not embrace most historic Christians. And of course you omit baptism, which Scripture actually does mention!
I don’t think that any definition that separates out some “true Christians” from the body of the baptized can possibly be straightforward.
You’re proving my point. Your apparently “simple” statement actually had hidden code language. You didn’t really mean that anyone who says “Jesus is Lord” is a Christian. You meant that anyone who means by it what you (and I) mean is a Christian. That’s why these simple definitions are never really simple.
If you don’t believe me that JWs and Mormons would subscribe to your original statement, I’m happy to start a new thread and ask them.
Absolutely no disagreement there!
Who’s “we”? Apparently you would, but I see no reason to share your unfounded expectation.
I think you are stereotyping Catholicism based on some of the unfortunate developments in post-Reformation Roman Catholicism. Why do this? In particular, why apply this expectation to an Anglican who can surely be expected *not *to share this Tridentine vision of uniformity? And at the risk of sounding patronizing, I have to wonder how familiar you are with Catholic ecclesiology of the last 50 years. Have you read any Yves Congar? Or for that matter the writings of the present Pope? In 2005 he said explicitly that unity did not mean uniformity. So where are you getting this from? Why impose this outdated and parochial stereotype on a discussion of Christian unity?
**
It’s certainly true that we can no longer claim to be immune to the deeply divisive dynamics of American Christianity. But some of us are struggling. And at least the divisions are new and unformed enough that we can still mount some kind of witness against them without the huge practical problems that we face trying to promote unity among all Christians. I am going to be a delegate to my diocesan convention this fall. I’m thinking about ways we can try to mount such a witness. Fortunately, I live in a diocese that is seriously committed to avoiding schism, however impossible that may seem at present. (Specifically, I would like to see us make some kind of meaningful statement of unity with the ACNA as well as TEC, particularly with those dioceses in each which predated the schism–i.e., Pittsburgh, Quincy, San Joachin, and Fort Worth in the ACNA.)
In Christ,
Edwin**
Thank you Edwin - I appreciate your perspective and what you are trying to do within the Episcopalian Church. As to my perspective on the gospel, I’ll restate it to avoid any ambiguity:
I believe the “core Christian doctrines” are that Jesus Christ it the Messiah, Lord and Saviour - that he died for our sins, was resurrected and will return and that he is God. I believe in the Trinity and in the inerrancy of scripture. I believe these core doctrines are shared by many Christians and bridge most denominational lines.
I believe that Baptism is a sacrament and commandment of Christ - but itself does not “save” - that is the work of the Holy Spirit. I believe baptism is a sign (visible) sign of our salvation and is a response, out of love and desire, to an express command of Christ.
As to other doctrines such as confession, rapture, infant v. adult baptism, nature of the Eucharist, etc., I think we, as Christians, spend WAY too much time arguing about them and if we spent 1/10 that time focusing on “love” (which is Christ’s cardinal rule and Paul’s greatest wish for us), the world would be a better place, and we, as Christians, would be a much greater example for nonbelievers with the hope of leading to Christ.
I love the Anglican and Catholic liturgy - but don’t believe there is one denomination with “The” truth. I’m a student of Church history (not a “student” any longer in years - I’m in my mid 40s
- I mean relatively well read on Church history and the writings of the early Church fathers - There is a lot of value there, and a lot of disturbing antisemitism that is anathema to the teachings of Christ (lest we forget that Jesus, all 12 initial apostles and Paul were all Jews). I don’t believe in the doctrine of “replacement Theology” (actually embraced by the Church in the past (thankfully - not now (but an indicator of the fallacy of “infallibililty”) which I think is actually a tool of Satan.To the contrary, Jesus, in his own words, said that he would not return until the leaders of Israel (perhaps the nation as a collective) call on the name of the Lord and Paul preached of his ultimate return of Israel (its like the prodigal son) and this is consistent with Zechariah - so the promises to Israel remain effective and unconditional. This teaching has been lost through history - was rediscovered by the puritans and, thankfully, is again being taught (at least in a sense) by the Church after Vatican II.
Blessings,
Brian
M
Mudcat
Guest
Hi ejb,
Sorry for the overlong and out of order posting of my reply, however, I do appreciate the thought.
My reading cue is a bit stacked, but I may give your referenced book a bit of “bump” on the list.
Thanks again,
Mudcat
- Status