What is the Gospel?

[Nihilo]

I'm not sure, but you are under the influence of religion and short, therefore, on faith.

My faith's never felt stronger or more healthy and vibrant. :idunno:

 

[Nihilo]

Jesus demonstrated His love.

'Seems nonresponsive. Would you believe in Jesus Christ if the Catholic Church is His, legitimately; if the Catholic Church does trace all the way back to Jerusalem on Pentecost in AD 33 or thereabouts, would you believe in Jesus Christ then? :think:

 

[Nihilo]

I agree that the imposition of celibacy is not right. It should be a choice.

It is a choice. You don't have to be a priest.

 

[Nihilo]

I'd say that is obviously wrong. I have nothing against Christians being Catholics though.

I didn't ask your opinion. You asked mine, and I answered you.

 

[Sonnet]

'Seems nonresponsive. Would you believe in Jesus Christ if the Catholic Church is His, legitimately; if the Catholic Church does trace all the way back to Jerusalem on Pentecost in AD 33 or thereabouts, would you believe in Jesus Christ then? :think:

Even if provable - men remain fallible. I cannot see that I would ever be interested in one group or another. I am sure there are genuine Christ-followers in RCC.

 

[Sonnet]

I didn't ask your opinion. You asked mine, and I answered you.

I didn't ask you if we are supposed to be Catholic.

 

[musterion]

It's hard to define it objectively if there is no God but perhaps pleasing one's self at another's expense might suffice.
If God does exist then it's breaking His laws I guess.

So you don't believe in sin as it exists, as offense against your holy Creator. You're just another who will redefine it to whatever suits you, to allow you to excuse it at your will while standing in judgement of others. Nothing new here at all.

 

[Sonnet]

So you don't believe in sin as it exists, as offense against your holy Creator. You're just another who will redefine it to whatever suits you, to allow you to excuse it at your will while standing in judgement of others. Nothing new here at all.

Where did I say that I am looking to excuse it?
I fail daily.

Since I do not know if God exists or not it is difficult to be objective about what sin actually is. I can only give you my opinion.

 

[Sonnet]

It is a choice. You don't have to be a priest.

Married priests shouldn't be a problem. Give them the choice.

 

[George Affleck]

It's hard to define it objectively if there is no God but perhaps pleasing one's self at another's expense might suffice.
If God does exist then it's breaking His laws I guess.

The Land of If does not exist.
No one lives there except in their imagination.
Not making a decision is making a decision.

"If" means "I don't believe".

 

[musterion]

Where did I say that I am looking to excuse it?
I fail daily.

Since I do not know if God exists or not it is difficult to be objective about what sin actually is. I can only give you my opinion.

Your conscience didn't evolve. It was placed there.

 

[Nihilo]

Even if provable - men remain fallible.

No argument. But the Lord is infallible.

I cannot see that I would ever be interested in one group or another.

Shrug.

I am sure there are genuine Christ-followers in RCC.

I am too.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Y'ever going to answer my question, written thrice now to you, about why you're not Orthodox? The last time I asked, you answered me with a diatribe about why you're not theologically Catholic, which does not apply to the Orthodox churches at all. Why aren't you Orthodox. Why not. I get your anti-Catholic argument, but none of that argument applies to Orthodoxy.

Eastern Orthodox is really just as bad as Romanism, Nihilo. I assume you know that I am a former Jesuit, so I am a wee bit informed on these matters.

Persons of the Reformed persuation should note the following from the EO service book is required to join the EO church:

The Bishop questioneth the convert from the Reformed Confession after this wise:

Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the declaration of our Saviour Christ himself: "who proceedeth from the Father": doth not suffice; and that the addition, of man's invention: "and from the Son": is required?

Dost thou renounce the false doctrine, that the predestination of men to their salvation, or their rejection, is not in accordance with the Divine foreknowledge of the faith and good works of the former, or of the unbelief and evils deeds of the latter; but in accordance with some arbitrary destiny, by reason of which faith and virtue are robbed of their merit, and God is held accountable for the perdition of sinners?

Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the bread and wine are not transmuted into the Body and Blood of Christ, and are merely emblems of the Body and Blood of Christ?

Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the Reformed teachers, who reject five Sacraments: Chrismation, Confession, Marriage, Anointing with Oil, and the Priesthood itself, which administereth the other Sacraments, and presume to administer Baptism and the Eucharist, never having received, through the laying-on of hands by a Bishop, that Ordination which hath been transmitted from one to another, even from the holy Apostles?

Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the Reformed teachers who receive not the traditions of the Holy Church, reverence not the Saints, and deprive the dead of spiritual aid, and the living of consolation, in that they reject prayers for the dead?​

Add to that collection of grievous errors above, the EO assertion of the notions of theosis and denial of the filioque (as we have discussed, please keep up), one wonders why anyone would align with EO.

The question I have asked over and again remains, why are you not covenanted with Roman Catholicism? You bob and weave in your answers but have yet to be specific. As you can see, I provide detailed reasons, yet you remain coy. :AMR:

AMR

 

[Nihilo]

I didn't ask you if we are supposed to be Catholic.

I see that now. My bad. And nonetheless, we are supposed to be Catholic. In fact, we believers are already all Catholics in heart, we are not all in body though.

 

[Nihilo]

Married priests shouldn't be a problem. Give them the choice.

There's that opinion again.

Pope Francis is currently looking into permitting married priests in areas of the world where there is a serious dearth of priests, FYI.

 

[Nihilo]

Eastern Orthodox is really just as bad as Romanism, Nihilo.

That's awfully convenient AMR, for you to conclude that the two oldest Christian traditions of Orthodoxy and Catholicism, who both can trace their beginnings to the first century, are apostate and wrong, and that the notions invented in the 1500s are correct.

I assume you know that I am a former Jesuit, so I am a wee bit informed on these matters.

You should be anyway.

Persons of the Reformed persuation should note the following from the EO service book is required to join the EO church:

Which "EO church?" There are multiple Orthodox churches, that, while in communion with each other, do not act or function as a unified ecclesial community.

The Bishop questioneth the convert from the Reformed Confession after this wise:

Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the declaration of our Saviour Christ himself: "who proceedeth from the Father": doth not suffice; and that the addition, of man's invention: "and from the Son": is required?

Dost thou renounce the false doctrine, that the predestination of men to their salvation, or their rejection, is not in accordance with the Divine foreknowledge of the faith and good works of the former, or of the unbelief and evils deeds of the latter; but in accordance with some arbitrary destiny, by reason of which faith and virtue are robbed of their merit, and God is held accountable for the perdition of sinners?

Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the bread and wine are not transmuted into the Body and Blood of Christ, and are merely emblems of the Body and Blood of Christ?

Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the Reformed teachers, who reject five Sacraments: Chrismation, Confession, Marriage, Anointing with Oil, and the Priesthood itself, which administereth the other Sacraments, and presume to administer Baptism and the Eucharist, never having received, through the laying-on of hands by a Bishop, that Ordination which hath been transmitted from one to another, even from the holy Apostles?

Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the Reformed teachers who receive not the traditions of the Holy Church, reverence not the Saints, and deprive the dead of spiritual aid, and the living of consolation, in that they reject prayers for the dead?
​

Add to that collection of grievous errors above, the EO assertion of the notions of theosis and denial of the filioque (as we have discussed, please keep up), one wonders why anyone would align with EO.

Because they are ancient, and not a modern innovation on the one ancient Christian faith, is my first thought. They believe in Apostolic succession, which Reformationists deny and discard, and they believe the Scripture literally regarding the Eucharist, as opposed to Reformationists who read symbolism into scriptures where there is no symbolism, and ignore that the whole Church from the start believed and taught the Real Presence of the Lord in the Eucharist, just as He said.

The question I have asked over and again remains, why are you not covenanted with Roman Catholicism? You bob and weave in your answers but have yet to be specific. As you can see, I provide detailed reasons, yet you remain coy. :AMR:

AMR

I've already told you it's personal and filial. I've not bobbed nor woven.

 

[Right Divider]

That's awfully convenient AMR, for you to conclude that the two oldest Christian traditions of Orthodoxy and Catholicism, who both can trace their beginnings to the first century, are apostate and wrong, and that the notions invented in the 1500s are correct.

The age of something has NO relevance as to whether it is true or not. That is a fallacy.

You probably also think that they are true because they have a large group of followers. That is another fallacy.

 

[Nihilo]

The age of something has NO relevance as to whether it is true or not. That is a fallacy.

Nor did I advance that argument. It's still a fact that Orthodoxy and Catholicism trace all the way back to the first century, and everything else, not so much.

You probably also think that they are true because they have a large group of followers. That is another fallacy.

I think Catholicism's true---that Catholicism is Christianity itself---because of Scripture, and because Catholicism is most faithful to Scripture, among all the variety of options today. It just so happens Catholicism is also the oldest option. I'm not going to hold that against Catholicism, that it's the oldest.

 

[Right Divider]

Nor did I advance that argument. It's still a fact that Orthodoxy and Catholicism trace all the way back to the first century, and everything else, not so much.

You are correct, their errors can be traced all the back to the first century.

I think Catholicism's true---that Catholicism is Christianity itself---because of Scripture, and because Catholicism is most faithful to Scripture, among all the variety of options today. It just so happens Catholicism is also the oldest option. I'm not going to hold that against Catholicism, that it's the oldest.

Utter nonsense.

The RCC only uses the scripture in a perverted way to try to justify their false doctrines. This is why the added unbiblical books to the "bible" and why they "translated" a "bible" for themselves that could twist verses in such a way as to attempt to justify their false doctrines.

 

[Nihilo]

You are correct, their errors can be traced all the back to the first century.

Which means that according to you the Church immediately plunged into darkness shortly after the Lord and His Apostles departed. Hurray for you and that cynical view of yours. I don't buy it. :down:

Utter nonsense.

Then so is your view utter nonsense.

The RCC only uses the scripture in a perverted way to try to justify their false doctrines. This is why the added unbiblical books to the "bible" and why they "translated" a "bible" for themselves that could twist verses in such a way as to attempt to justify their false doctrines.

False doctrines like that the Church is to be overseen by overseers, bishops, or elders? :juggle: