What do you prefer to be called?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NovusAugustus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Martin 🙂

After St. Martin de Porres (My birth date falls on his Feast Day)

MJ
 
House_Harkonnen said:
No. The Catholic Church has been titling itself “Roman” since at least the Council of Constance, one hundreds years before the Reformation.
We have therefore come together with our venerable brothers, cardinals of the holy Roman church,* and our court to this city of Constance at the appointed time. Being present here by the grace of God, we now wish, with the advice of this sacred synod, to attend to the peace, exaltation and reform of the church and to the quiet of the christian people.
Click to expand...
Certainly – “Roman” to distinguish from the Eastern Churches. Keep in mind that the East-West schism wasn’t a full schism until after the Council of Florence in the mid-15th century (at which point the term “Catholic Church” would refer to only those in full communion with Rome). In fact, the Council of Constance was not, at the time, called an Ecumenical Council … it was called a General Council, because it was only a council of the west.
 
The designation Roman in the term Roman Catholic was first coined by protestants in a pitiful attempt to denigrate those Catholics who loyalty and fidelity is to the Vatican and the Pontiff.

I am Catholic.
 
jimkhong said:
Thanks, Understand the origin of Quaker butwhy Society of Friends.
Click to expand...
George Fox had no intention of organziing another religious body…the Society of Friends grew out of a time when one was required to attend “church”…required to “tithe”…required to have one’s child baptized and engage in the "rituals’ of the “church”.

George felt he was called to proclaim the sufficiency of Chirst in all things. He called the people of his day to a holiness and way of life that while it had basis in scripture…this type of “personal holiness” was not taught.

“Society” rather than “church” was used to point to the “testimony” of Friends that no building was the Church. The Church is not made up of brick and mortar…but flesh and bone.

Friends considered themselves members of The Chruch by virtue of their baptism into the Body of Christ by His Holy Spirit. One need no priest or minister to come to know God…God was know Inwardly, and this “inward knowledge of God”…the “Light Within”…“Light of Christ” was enough to lead us to God.

They called themselves “Friends” because that is what Jesus called his disciples. “Up until now you have called me master, and rightly so, but now I call you Friends.”

While the Society of Friends do not beleive they are The Church…they are members of The Church…all who profess Christ and live “in the Light” are His People.

They also called themselves “Children of the Light”, “Publishers of Truth”, and a few others before “Friend” seemed more appropriate.
 
Publisher said:
They called themselves “Friends” because that is what Jesus called his disciples. “Up until now you have called me master, and rightly so, but now I call you Friends.”

They also called themselves “Children of the Light”, “Publishers of Truth”, and a few others before “Friend” seemed more appropriate.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Publisher. I like that.👍
 
Publisher said:
Friends considered themselves members of The Chruch by virtue of their baptism into the Body of Christ by His Holy Spirit. One need no priest or minister to come to know God…God was know Inwardly, and this “inward knowledge of God”…the “Light Within”…“Light of Christ” was enough to lead us to God.
Click to expand...
I understand, but I’m curious … is it customary for baptism to be performed by a minister?
 
Peter_J said:
I understand, but I’m curious … is it customary for baptism to be performed by a minister?
Click to expand...
The Baptism we profess, and no other, is with the Holy Spirit…He alone is the One who baptizes us into His Body by the “immersion” in His Spirit. Friends do not practice outward ordinances or sacraments. They are but types and shadows of the Inward Reality of the One Baptism that we receive from the hand of Jesus Himself…our True Baptizer…or symbolic of the True Communion we have with God by His very Presence in our midst.
 
hn160 said:
The Reform Churches were the followers of Calvin. In Prussia about 1817, the King of Prussia, Frederick William III wanted a unified Church in his lands. Since he was of the Prussian Reform Church and the majority of his subjects Lutheran, he thought that in national interest he would force the union of these two churches with a Calvinist outlook. The Reform Church saw the Lutherans as being too Catholic in that Luther didn’t go far enough.
The Church of England, the Church of Scotland are Calvinist Churches.
In America, the United Church of Christ ( UCC ), Presbyterian Churches, Reform Episcopal Church and some others are Calvinist Churches. The Reform Church in America merged with the Congregational Church to form the UCC. In doctrine and practice, there is a difference between Calvinism and Lutheranism.
Click to expand...
The Church of England is not Calvinist, although there is some Calvinist influence on its Articles of Religion. Interestingly, although the Articles on predestination clearly show some Calvinist influence, they are quiet careful not to go beyond the predestinarian theology of Aquinas and the other mediaeval divines.

The Church of Scotland is more distinctively Calvinist due to the pre-eminence of John Knox, who had been at Geneva. While there were Geneva exiles in the Church of England, there were always other parties involved.
 
Publisher said:
The Baptism we profess, and no other, is with the Holy Spirit…He alone is the One who baptizes us into His Body by the “immersion” in His Spirit. Friends do not practice outward ordinances or sacraments. They are but types and shadows of the Inward Reality of the One Baptism that we receive from the hand of Jesus Himself…our True Baptizer…or symbolic of the True Communion we have with God by His very Presence in our midst.
Click to expand...
OIC.
 
NovusAugustus said:
As I have learned and read more about the Reformation, I have noticed that many of the names given during its course were not exactly given in good faith. Is there any name you don’t like your community to be called, and why?

As a Catholic, I prefer to be called Catholic rather than Roman Catholic. It is not a completely inaccurate name, but when I have heard it–for example once from a history professor–the phrase often drips with disdain, as if in an attempt to communicate the foreign and distant nature of the Church.
Click to expand...
Roman. I want to be connected with the Church that was started by Christ and where Peter rules the roost!😃

But to be honest anything as long as my name is in the book. You know the real Book. The one that says you made it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top