I am starting to REALLY like the Catholics (OC plz read)

[Vic C.]

I've heard it said that God loves the sinner but not the sin.

I wonder if He makes any distinction regarding Catholics?

No, except that we got the nicest spots reserved for us in heaven. LOL.

Seriously though, what are you saying.. ....?

If God is no respecter of persons, should we be?

We should be, we are called to be, but often, we are not. :-?

 

[Free]

Further exploration will make this "orthodoxy" more narrow, as Catholics of the second century understood it.

What about the Catholics of 1054?

what are you asking of me? The Great Schism was largely over cultural and political issues, not theological.

But there were theological issues, the most important of which is regarding the filioque clause. My point was that there were points of divergence regarding orthodoxy within the early Catholic Church.

They weren't Catholic but Orthodox who broke away from the Catholic church in 1054.

If I remember my history correctly, it was the RCC that excommunicated the EO, and that in the middle of the liturgy.

 

[CatholicXian]

What about the Catholics of 1054?

what are you asking of me? The Great Schism was largely over cultural and political issues, not theological.

But there were theological issues, the most important of which is regarding the filioque clause. My point was that there were points of divergence regarding orthodoxy within the early Catholic Church

1054 is early?

 

[Free]

These differences were prior to 1054; that just happens to be the date of the Schism.

 

[Righteousone]

Well Free, you are wrong. The Orthodox broke away from the Catholic faith. Research it again.

 

[biblecatholic]

there was a split in 1054 and after the split the would be known as"orthodox" the main crux of the split was economic and political tensions although there was disagreement concerning the Holy Spirit. but without the other problems the church would have worked it out..also in 431 there was a split, the "oriental orthodox church" Nestorius and some other eastern bishops split... i forget why.....

 

[CatholicXian]

there was a split in 1054 and after the split the would be known as"orthodox" the main crux of the split was economic and political tensions although there was disagreement concerning the Holy Spirit. but without the other problems the church would have worked it out..also in 431 there was a split, the "oriental orthodox church" Nestorius and some other eastern bishops split... i forget why.....

Nestorius? The namesake of the Nestorian heresy? ... I could probably offer a few reasons as to the split then. ;-)

 

[biblecatholic]

there was a split in 1054 and after the split the would be known as"orthodox" the main crux of the split was economic and political tensions although there was disagreement concerning the Holy Spirit. but without the other problems the church would have worked it out..also in 431 there was a split, the "oriental orthodox church" Nestorius and some other eastern bishops split... i forget why.....

Nestorius? The namesake of the Nestorian heresy? ... I could probably offer a few reasons as to the split then. ;-)

I can't remember who he was or what his heresy was

 

[Catholic Crusader]

CCC 466: The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of God’s Son. Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the third ecumenical council at Ephesus in confessed "that the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man" (Council of Ephesus [431]: DS 250). Christ’s humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception. For this reason the Council of Ephesus proclaimed in 431 that Mary truly became the Mother of God by the human conception of the Son of God in her womb: "Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according to the flesh."


http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/

 

[CatholicXian]

there was a split in 1054 and after the split the would be known as"orthodox" the main crux of the split was economic and political tensions although there was disagreement concerning the Holy Spirit. but without the other problems the church would have worked it out..also in 431 there was a split, the "oriental orthodox church" Nestorius and some other eastern bishops split... i forget why.....

Nestorius? The namesake of the Nestorian heresy? ... I could probably offer a few reasons as to the split then. ;-)

I can't remember who he was or what his heresy was

Some people here would probably like him. He argued against the title "Theotokos" for Mary because he strongly divided the human and divine in Christ (he has kind of a schizophrenic Christology).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10755a.htm

 

[GuitarIntro]

Are the majority of people on this forum Protestant or Catholic?
What is the main difference? Don't both preach similar values and beliefs?

 

[BobRyan]

I have been watching quite a bit of EWTN lately and the Franciscan (I think that is spelled right) monks that come on late at night....

I like the fact that there preaching style is more about trying to understand different points of view and SHARING the Gospel message rather than FORCING it down peoples throats....

Plus the Orthodox and Catholic systems are the oldest Churches and there have been many Holy men, Saints and mystics like Augustine and the like which are very inspirational for me personally!

Last night the monk was explaining how Assisi used to see Christ in ALL THINGS. His blood on the roses, his tears in the rain, his cross in the trees, etc.... That is awesome and I am surprised that I have never heard that kind of preaching before and it made my heart glad!

It sure beats the brow beating protestant hellfire messages thats for sure!

If indeed you are open minded on this subject (and I hoe you are) then I suggest going to the number-one thread in this area "Purgatory" and observing the methods being used by the RC posters there and the degree to which they either accurately present Bible truth - or they try to get around Bible truth.

I believe that thread is truly "instructive" for any objective unbiased reader wanting to take an open and fair look at the RC position when it comes to "the difficult questions asked".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Are the majority of people on this forum Protestant or Catholic?
What is the main difference? Don't both preach similar values and beliefs?

As the Purgatory thread explicitly shows - the Protestant view embraces the Acts 17:11 position of doctrines proven "Sola scriptura" (strict accountability to scripture) while the RC position rejects it.

The "result" is easily seen on the Purgatory thread -- just peruse the last 5 or 6 pages and notice the degree to which the RC position either addresses "the details in scripture" or tries to avoid it.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

These differences were prior to 1054; that just happens to be the date of the Schism.

The Protesting Catholics of the 14th nd 15th centuries formed a schism so deep and wide we now call it "the Protestant reformation".

Might be a good idea not to miss that in addition to all the rifts and schisms that the RCC produced prior to that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I wonder if He makes any distinction regarding Catholics?

"No, except that we got the nicest spots reserved for us in heaven. LOL.

"Seriously though, what are you saying.. ....?"

"If God is no respecter of persons, should we be?"

Vic Responds:

We should be, we are called to be, but often, we are not. :-?

There is a Papal visit coming up -- let's see how the people of that country observe this Bible teaching.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[francisdesales]

As the Purgatory thread explicitly shows - the Protestant view embraces the Acts 17:11 position of doctrines proven "Sola scriptura" (strict accountability to scripture) while the RC position rejects it.

LOL!!! What an imagination. Must I prove you wrong on every thread you visit, where you find it necessary to pretend you have not already been refuted? Acts 17 does not claim that Paul must be strictly accountable to Scriptures, certainly not the Old Testament alone, which is clearly what the Bereans had.

The "result" is easily seen on the Purgatory thread -- just peruse the last 5 or 6 pages and notice the degree to which the RC position either addresses "the details in scripture" or tries to avoid it.

Apparently, Catholics do not have the patience of refuting you over and over again. Note that in the 10 pages preceding, you never refute the Catholic position, you just deny it without explaining why you hold your particular non-Scriptural beliefs...

Regards