Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2015 21:04:11 GMT -5
Ellie, if 2x2ism was a normal Christian movement, you would be correct. But it is not. 2x2ism is a movement which is exclusive in terms of its doctrine. How can a marriage not be under great strain when the 2x2 spouse thinks the other spouse is not going to heaven. Furthermore, how can the non-2x2 spouse have any respect for the 2x2 spouse who believes 2x2ism has apostolic succession despite all evidence to the contrary, that 2x2 ministers are authorities on Scriptures when they lack even basic training, that 2x2s are unable to read and understand the Gospel message, that 2x2s completely misread the stories of the 12+70, that 2x2s are a cult of sycophantic worker worshipers.The fact that there are divided homes is a great testament to the love of the non-2x2 spouse for putting up with a spouse who is so confused they are not amenable to reason. Most people would just divorce the 2x2 spo use and rid themselves of the pain of having to deal with such an idiot. Thank you Ellie, it is true what you stated that, "The party who no longer identifies as belonging to the fellowship may choose to respect their partner and let their partner be responsible for their own choices and actions. The partner attending fellowship meetings may choose to show the same respect."
That was the way it was in my home, -we each respected each other's right to decide our own belief.
Whereas, it seems that Mr. Simpleton only sees it as a one way street, calling the 2x2 spouse "so confused they are not amenable to reason" and calling them an "idiot."
I certainly did not see my own 2x2 spouse as "confused" or an "idiot!" In fact he could have run rings around simpleton's drivel and not even have had to breath hard in order to do so.Who came up with the term 'Divided Home'? Only a 2x2 would start referring to someone else's marriage with an offensive term like that. If I had a spouse that was 2x2 and they used the phrase 'Divided Home', I'd be more than pleased to give them a division of assets as well.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 8, 2015 0:03:50 GMT -5
Thank you Ellie, it is true what you stated that, "The party who no longer identifies as belonging to the fellowship may choose to respect their partner and let their partner be responsible for their own choices and actions. The partner attending fellowship meetings may choose to show the same respect."
That was the way it was in my home, -we each respected each other's right to decide our own belief.
Whereas, it seems that Mr. Simpleton only sees it as a one way street, calling the 2x2 spouse "so confused they are not amenable to reason" and calling them an "idiot."
I certainly did not see my own 2x2 spouse as "confused" or an "idiot!" In fact he could have run rings around simpleton's drivel and not even have had to breath hard in order to do so. Who came up with the term 'Divided Home'? Only a 2x2 would start referring to someone else's marriage with an offensive term like that. If I had a spouse that was 2x2 and they used the phrase 'Divided Home', I'd be more than pleased to give them a division of assets as well. "Divided home" is not uniquely a 2x2 expression. I've heard a US First Lady telling people that she lived in a divided home.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 8, 2015 1:11:52 GMT -5
catholic church. even our overseer has stated in my hearing that there will be others saved in other churches Carol Gray Matt 25:1 We often think of the 10 virgins and think of our fellowship as the wise only. But who are the unwise? And is it true that they cannot be or are not saved? The unwise are those who do things a little different, but who might well be saved, and probably are. They are in other churches. Jim Atcheson "The elect" - who are the elect? Is this restricted to us here in this tent? To those who attend conventions elsewhere, or to those who we meet with on Sunday? I think it is not restrictive like this. There are true Christians in every church and denomination, but not all of them. In the same way, not all of us here in this tent will see heaven. Normal Borthwick When are we saved? My mother used to speak about not knowing salvation until gaining that other shore. I'm glad today to tell you that we can know that we are saved Today. Even right now we can know, as God has given us this assurance, this guarantee. And whose guarantee will you take for real? A 5 year warranty on your car? Or Gods eternal warranty? Harriet Stormont Someone once asked me why we don't have temples for our Sunday morning meetings, and if we really considered it wrong to do so. It caused me to think deeply about this. Is this a tradition, or a commandment? Is it a dictate of scripture or a whim? Well, we know that there's a certain amount of evidence of people in NT days meeting in homes. Tatsuo Asaka When I left my family religion which was not Christian, I wondered about the salvation of people in non Christian groups. I had school friends who went to the Christian church, but they went to several different ones. Could they all be right? I concluded that it is not really any different that people have different names, and likes. Does that make them not people because they do not have the same name? The basics are the same. Nilton Bonfim What are the essentials? What does God require of us? And what is incidental. We have a saying "nice to have". It means nice but not essential. There are some things we sometimes think of as essential, like the church in the home, like the ministry we have. But I see these as nice to haves. Without them there could still be a relationship with Christ. Salvation is dependent on these things. They are not wrong, they are right, but so are many other things. Mary Barbour When I was little I wondered about our neighbour. She was very kind, but not religious in any way. I was always naughty, but she was nice. Many times she showed me kindness. How could our Saviour, Jesus our Lord look with favour on me the sinner and not on her the good person. Later I wondered about other Christians. I don't mean the fanatics, I mean just those honest people who have a loving relationship with the same God we have. Some said they could not be saved as they don't go to our meetings. Well I'm certain that’s not true.... Pyungun Ahn The only thing that saves us is Gods grace. What we might do isn't really part of it. We will change, and God expects different intentions of us after He saves us, but it’s not that behavour that saves us. When God came to earth as a man, Jesus the Son of God, God the Son, he paid the only price that could be paid. There's no other payment required. Estelita Atienza Cor 12: 18 God hath set them members as it pleased him... What has God set us members in? Members in our meeting? our family? No, members in Gods eternal family. There are members in this that we don't know though. Members that we might not want to be there. In our own thoughts we put walls round what God has done. We box Him in, and we should not do that. God as done as it pleased him, not as it pleased us. He knows who is in that family, and we do not. Arne Foss We sometimes get asked when our church started. In the east people are always asking about history. While we don't want to dwell on who did what in the beginning, don't want to blow up the names of some making them bigger than they were, and bigger that they would want to be, we still have to acknowldege those men in Ireland back in the last century who started it all, who held the first conventions, the first meetings. Without those beginnings we would not be standing here today. There's scripture to back this up. But there is none that says its wrong not to meet in homes. So, can we really condemn other Christians for having a temple? Yes under certain specific conditions it could be wrong. If they worship the temple, and think that God Only dwells in that pile of stone, then that might be wrong. But if they use it merely as a convenient meeting place, then we can't. Carol Gray talking about the virgins, that's so funny!
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Nov 8, 2015 2:54:08 GMT -5
Ellie, if 2x2ism was a normal Christian movement, you would be correct. But it is not. 2x2ism is a movement which is exclusive in terms of its doctrine. I agree with rational’s earlier comments. Christianity is exclusive. This is not a 2x2 specific issue. And some people 2x2 or otherwise respect a person’s right to choose their own beliefs and be the judge of their own choices.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 8, 2015 4:24:10 GMT -5
Thank you Ellie, it is true what you stated that, "The party who no longer identifies as belonging to the fellowship may choose to respect their partner and let their partner be responsible for their own choices and actions. The partner attending fellowship meetings may choose to show the same respect."
That was the way it was in my home, -we each respected each other's right to decide our own belief.
Whereas, it seems that Mr. Simpleton only sees it as a one way street, calling the 2x2 spouse "so confused they are not amenable to reason" and calling them an "idiot."
I certainly did not see my own 2x2 spouse as "confused" or an "idiot!" In fact he could have run rings around simpleton's drivel and not even have had to breath hard in order to do so. Who came up with the term 'Divided Home'? Only a 2x2 would start referring to someone else's marriage with an offensive term like that. If I had a spouse that was 2x2 and they used the phrase 'Divided Home', I'd be more than pleased to give them a division of assets as well. 'Divided Home'? offensive? -compared to your calling a 2x2 spouse "so confused they are not amenable to reason" and calling them an "idiot?"
Your sense of what is "offensive" seems a bit warped.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 8, 2015 8:40:03 GMT -5
Who came up with the term 'Divided Home'? Some give credit to Jesus. Paul hinted at it in 2 Corinthians using the phrase unequally yoked.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Nov 8, 2015 9:02:28 GMT -5
Who came up with the term 'Divided Home'? Some give credit to Jesus. Paul hinted at it in 2 Corinthians using the phrase unequally yoked. More bible verses from Atheist Sunday School Matthew 12:25King James Version (KJV) "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand"
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 8, 2015 10:32:16 GMT -5
Some give credit to Jesus. Paul hinted at it in 2 Corinthians using the phrase unequally yoked. More bible verses from Atheist Sunday School 8-) Matthew 12:25King James Version (KJV) "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand"Someone has to keep reading and remembering the bible in case we end up in a Fahrenheit 451 situation!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2015 12:32:29 GMT -5
Ellie, if 2x2ism was a normal Christian movement, you would be correct. But it is not. 2x2ism is a movement which is exclusive in terms of its doctrine. I agree with rational’s earlier comments. Christianity is exclusive. This is not a 2x2 specific issue. Christianity is the glue of Western Civilization. Of course it has to be exclusive, exclusive to our Civilization. Otherwise it would be difficult to maintain our psychological defense against other civilizations which physically threaten us. Or do you not even accept a modicum of Huntington's thesis? 2x2ism's exclusivity within the body of Western Civilization (Christendom) creates division and disloyalty. It is treasonous.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 9, 2015 13:57:44 GMT -5
I agree with rational’s earlier comments. Christianity is exclusive. This is not a 2x2 specific issue. Christianity is the glue of Western Civilization. Of course it has to be exclusive, exclusive to our Civilization. It is exclusive in determining that only the believers will not be condemned to hell.Of course. As long as people keep beating their chest and proclaiming that their god is better/stronger/the only one there will be problems. As long as people follow without thinking there will be issues. Any religion's claim of exclusiveness created division and conflict in all civilizations.Only if you redefine the word.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2015 14:24:44 GMT -5
Christianity is the glue of Western Civilization. Of course it has to be exclusive, exclusive to our Civilization. Otherwise it would be difficult to maintain our psychological defense against other civilizations which physically threaten us. Or do you not even accept a modicum of Huntington's thesis? Of course. As long as people keep beating their chest and proclaiming that their god is better/stronger/the only one there will be problems. As long as people follow without thinking there will be issues. Do you have any sense as to geopolitics? Or are you so ignorant as to believe that wars are fought primarily because of religion? Geopolitics is real. I can give you the names of some books if you want to learn.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 9, 2015 15:39:59 GMT -5
Of course. As long as people keep beating their chest and proclaiming that their god is better/stronger/the only one there will be problems. As long as people follow without thinking there will be issues. Do you have any sense as to geopolitics? None at all. I'm sorry - I don't have 3 (three) degrees, one from an ivy league university. Given that I didn't mention war you must have me confused with someone else. Oh. I thought it was a belief. Tony Blaire will be relieved.Hmmm. I am a little leery of learning too much. I have seen some unbecoming results in others.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 9, 2015 17:48:28 GMT -5
I agree with rational’s earlier comments. Christianity is exclusive. This is not a 2x2 specific issue. Christianity is the glue of Western Civilization. Of course it has to be exclusive, exclusive to our Civilization. Otherwise it would be difficult to maintain our psychological defense against other civilizations which physically threaten us. Or do you not even accept a modicum of Huntington's thesis? 2x2ism's exclusivity within the body of Western Civilization (Christendom) creates division and disloyalty. It is treasonous. Catholicism and Anglicanism and all of the other denominations of Christianity by their very nature of feeling that they are the only true church, create divisions amongst people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2015 17:51:59 GMT -5
Catholicism and Anglicanism and all of the other denominations of Christianity by their very nature of feeling that they are the only true church, create divisions amongst people. Spoken like a true troll. You know this is false. Even just a quick check of the internet will tell you that these are false claims. I've spent numerous posts explaining why these are false. But you continue on with this nonsense. The answer is obvious. You are a troll of 2x2 extraction. You are paid to create Controlled Opposition.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Nov 10, 2015 6:45:02 GMT -5
I agree with rational’s earlier comments. Christianity is exclusive. This is not a 2x2 specific issue. Christianity is the glue of Western Civilization. Of course it has to be exclusive, exclusive to our Civilization. Christianity is exclusive when it endorses Jesus as the only way to heaven. For what reasons does Western Civilisation needs a psychology defence against a physical threat? What does this psychological defence do? What are these physical threats? Which civilisations as a whole are physically threatening Western Civilisation? If you want to converse about such theories with a person of limited education from a country without Ivy League institutions you will need explain very clearly. In simple language, what is Huntington's thesis?Division is a product of exclusivity. Christian exclusivity creates division.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2015 13:15:05 GMT -5
For what reasons does Western Civilisation needs a psychology defence against a physical threat? What does this psychological defence do? What are these physical threats? Which civilisations as a whole are physically threatening Western Civilisation? If you want to converse about such theories with a person of limited education from a country without Ivy League institutions you will need explain very clearly. In simple language, what is Huntington's thesis? You seem to be from a country which in fact does have internet access to the http://WWW. Perhaps you might use that resource to educate yourself about Mr. Huntington's thesis regarding The Clash of Civilizations.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 10, 2015 18:23:47 GMT -5
But it doesn't. You are wrong. I know you are wrong because I am anglo-catholic, my wife is catholic, my relative is a priest in the Vatican. I know the doctrine very well. You are dead wrong. I am sure you can read so I will just re-post what the Catholic church states regarding this topic: Catechism of the Catholic ChurchPART ONETHE PROFESSION OF FAITHSECTION TWOTHE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITHCHAPTER THREEI BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRITARTICLE 9
The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.
...
In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.
To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
...
Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
From the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH So this is what the Catholic Church claims. 'The Church' is defined as are the requirements for salvation. But you know, you can present facts to people and they simply ignore them. I am sure this is not the case for you. Perhaps you can present the doctrine you know so well that contradicts this catechism. You might have missed this. Let me know when you find the RCC doctrine that refutes these articles from the catechism that salvation is only through the Catholic church.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 10, 2015 22:44:06 GMT -5
Catholicism and Anglicanism and all of the other denominations of Christianity by their very nature of feeling that they are the only true church, create divisions amongst people. Spoken like a true troll. You know this is false. Even just a quick check of the internet will tell you that these are false claims. I've spent numerous posts explaining why these are false. But you continue on with this nonsense. The answer is obvious. You are a troll of 2x2 extraction. You are paid to create Controlled Opposition.
What you mean is that you have "spent numerous posts" trying to convince us that what you say is true, when it is actually only your of own opinion.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 11, 2015 0:33:15 GMT -5
Spoken like a true troll. You know this is false. Even just a quick check of the internet will tell you that these are false claims. I've spent numerous posts explaining why these are false. But you continue on with this nonsense. The answer is obvious. You are a troll of 2x2 extraction. You are paid to create Controlled Opposition. The internet is a great tool. It actually tells anyone who looks that you are wrong. You have posted many many words stating some BS regarding your knowledge of the doctrine of the Catholic but so far - nothing. The answer is indeed obvious. You do not have the facts to support your claims and seemingly have no regard for the truth. Just post the Catholic Doctrine that supports your premise. =========================================================== Catechism of the Catholic Church PART ONE THE PROFESSION OF FAITH SECTION TWO THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH CHAPTER THREE I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT ARTICLE 9 The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. ... In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them: Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood. "Outside the Church there is no salvation" ... Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2015 21:38:01 GMT -5
Spoken like a true troll. You know this is false. Even just a quick check of the internet will tell you that these are false claims. I've spent numerous posts explaining why these are false. But you continue on with this nonsense. The answer is obvious. You are a troll of 2x2 extraction. You are paid to create Controlled Opposition. The internet is a great tool. It actually tells anyone who looks that you are wrong.You have posted many many words stating some BS regarding your knowledge of the doctrine of the Catholic but so far - nothing. The answer is indeed obvious. You do not have the facts to support your claims and seemingly have no regard for the truth. Just post the Catholic Doctrine that supports your premise. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_ecumenismHow hard was that? You could have checked out the ecumenical relations yourself at anytime....but you didn't. Why? Because you are a 2x2 troll.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 15, 2015 22:05:39 GMT -5
The internet is a great tool. It actually tells anyone who looks that you are wrong.You have posted many many words stating some BS regarding your knowledge of the doctrine of the Catholic but so far - nothing. The answer is indeed obvious. You do not have the facts to support your claims and seemingly have no regard for the truth. Just post the Catholic Doctrine that supports your premise. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_ecumenismHow hard was that? You could have checked out the ecumenical relations yourself at anytime....but you didn't. Why? Because you are a 2x2 troll. No, I did not post a wikipedia page. The Catholic church is based on Catholic Doctrine, which I quoted. You have claimed you are very familiar with Catholic doctrine and that I was in error. Actually, it would be the Catechism of the Catholic Church with which you are finding fault. The solution is simple: Just post the Catholic Doctrine that supports your premise.The Catholic Doctrine is not based on Wikipedia. Fostering unity among the christian denominations and offering salvation are two very different things. Remember - the claim is that the doctrine of the Catholic church does not change. And the Catholic church has claimed for centuries it is the only way to salvation. But then, you knew that didn't you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2015 22:08:27 GMT -5
No, I did not post a wikipedia page. The Catholic church is based on Catholic Doctrine, which I quoted. You have claimed you are very familiar with Catholic doctrine and that I was in error. Actually, it would be the Catechism of the Catholic Church with which you are finding fault. The solution is simple: Just post the Catholic Doctrine that supports your premise.The Catholic Doctrine is not based on Wikipedia. Fostering unity among the christian denominations and offering salvation are two very different things. Remember - the claim is that the doctrine of the Catholic church does not change. And the Catholic church has claimed for centuries it is the only way to salvation. But then, you knew that didn't you. How do you contain such cognitive dissonance in your head without exploding? You do realize that ecumenical relations means non-exclusivity, don't you? This isn't the first time that I've seriously had to question if you are older than 18.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 15, 2015 23:35:15 GMT -5
How do you contain such cognitive dissonance in your head without exploding? Oh, it is easy for me. I do not believe in god, heaven, or hell. I do not believe, for example, the following statement of the Catholic Church: The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as 'the pillar and mainstay of the truth.' This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Only those who knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. I know that it doesn't mean that at all and I am surprised that someone who claims extensive knowledge of Catholic doctrine does hold that belief. While ecumenical relations does mean that the goal is for churches to work more closely, for the Catholic church it is to bring all of the churches that it feels have gone astray back into a single organization.Well, thanks for the compliment but remember I do know that there is a vast difference between the doctrine of the Catholic Church and a Wikipedia page. The Catholic Church sees itself as one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, founded by Christ himself. Its teachings state the proper Church of Christ is identical with the Catholic Church. Ecumenism takes as it starting point that Christ founded just one Church, not many churches; hence the Catholic Church has as its ultimate hope and objective - that through prayer, study, and dialogue, the historically separated bodies may come again to be reunited with it. Nothing to do with salvation. Truthfully, I think you have confused ecumenical relations with religious pluralism. A common mistake. Ecumenical relations, as promoted by the Catholic church, does not mean non-exclusive. It is more a desire to reconcile christians from a variety of denominations into unity with the Catholic Church. Bringing the christians home, as it were.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 11:26:47 GMT -5
How do you contain such cognitive dissonance in your head without exploding? Oh, it is easy for me. I do not believe in god, heaven, or hell. I do not believe, for example, the following statement of the Catholic Church: Truthfully, I think you have confused ecumenical relations with religious pluralism. A common mistake. Ecumenical relations, as promoted by the Catholic church, does not mean non-exclusive. It is more a desire to reconcile christians from a variety of denominations into unity with the Catholic Church. Bringing the christians home, as it were. Are you aware that it is the year 2015 anno domini? Vatican II was in 1962 anno domini. Perhaps you should read the RCC's position on ecumenical relations after Vatican II. It might explain why the RCC has communion with the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 17, 2015 14:26:16 GMT -5
Oh, it is easy for me. I do not believe in god, heaven, or hell. I do not believe, for example, the following statement of the Catholic Church: Truthfully, I think you have confused ecumenical relations with religious pluralism. A common mistake. Ecumenical relations, as promoted by the Catholic church, does not mean non-exclusive. It is more a desire to reconcile christians from a variety of denominations into unity with the Catholic Church. Bringing the christians home, as it were. Are you aware that it is the year 2015 anno domini? Vatican II was in 1962 anno domini. Perhaps you should read the RCC's position on ecumenical relations after Vatican II. It might explain why the RCC has communion with the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East. As the Catholic Church, and I, have pointed out many times the doctrine of the church does not change. You can point to all of the ecumenical relations positions you wish but you still have not shown where the doctrine of the Catholic Church states that there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Given that you equated ecumenical relations with religious pluralism I would think that perhaps it is you that should read up on the Catholic Church's position and perhaps try to understand the goals. While I understand that Vatican II was awhile ago there are not a lot of 'official' pronouncements from the Catholic church regarding this. There was the release from ARCIC (I) but that was in 1981. ARCIC (II) started in 1983 but there has not been a lot of output. Or course, ecumenical relations with the anglican church has hit the skids since Robinson was installed as bishop. And the Catholic church has stated that Catholics should not receive communion from an Anglican minister. Hmmmm. And does the Catholic church believe that Catholics should receive communion from Orthodox priests? So, tell me, has there been an official document published in the last 10 years? The last one I was able to find was from 2000 - Dominus Iesus. If I am not mistaken that document mostly explained that the sole true Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 14:39:38 GMT -5
Or course, ecumenical relations with the anglican church has hit the skids since Robinson was installed as bishop. And the Catholic church has stated that Catholics should not receive communion from an Anglican minister. Hmmmm. And does the Catholic church believe that Catholics should receive communion from Orthodox priests? You really have no interest in finding this information for yourself do you? Are you intellectually lazy? Roman Catholics are permitted by the RCC to receive Communion from the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Church of the East. EWTN has the resources about this, as do many other places. And like I've mentioned to you at the very beginning of constant nonsense of yours, you can confirm what I said by visiting a RCC and looking at the leaflets in the pews which spell out exactly who can receive communion.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 17, 2015 19:54:43 GMT -5
Or course, ecumenical relations with the anglican church has hit the skids since Robinson was installed as bishop. And the Catholic church has stated that Catholics should not receive communion from an Anglican minister. Hmmmm. And does the Catholic church believe that Catholics should receive communion from Orthodox priests? You really have no interest in finding this information for yourself do you? Are you intellectually lazy? Roman Catholics are permitted by the RCC to receive Communion from the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Church of the East. Yes, but with strick restrictions: Canon 844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid. Canon 844 §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed. I like to go directly to the source before the spin is applied. You seem to be having trouble differentiating between the doctrine of the Catholic church and leaflets put in pews. But let's get back to your original claim - the exclusiveness of the Catholic Church. Can you point to the doctrine that states that salvation can be gained outside of the Catholic Church?
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Nov 17, 2015 21:18:12 GMT -5
"OH",Simpleton...You have stirred the pot again? You have brought up a very sound subject? But?.In typical 2x2s reaction if they feel they can't understand,or disagree on a point,or it needles them a bit,or to close to home,they don't know how to debate, they just attack. You saw it through life in 2x2s at any situation if someone pointed out scripture to delete a 2x2ism as not correct-"IT WAS ATTACK,because a 2x2 would be ignorant of a biblical answer". Now we both left to pursue a fuller christian life,which,praise God,He found us. We let family and friends the good news. "WOW"? What a reaction? One sister said we had placed ourselves in the hands of damnation.. We decided this move seperately yet our answers were in unison at that moment. NOW FOR A DIVIDED HOME? Your chosen new home of worship,fellowship,teaching and communion,would accept your spouse as sadly a loyal follower of a closed belief,but deep down was unaware of the heresy of the seriousness of exclusivism,but would never reject her/him,or withold prayer, an encouraging hand,practical help,Pastoral or any other need that arose. . "NOW?" The workers and (un)friendlies,"THE SPOUSE REGARDLESS TO ANY CHRISTIAN COMMITMENT,PERSUASION,DEVOUTNESS__? "IS UNSAVED AND GOING TO HELL">"NO MORE/NO LESS". Of course they will be lovely and dribble all over her/him if the met,unless of course him/her put out a theological challenge.Then him/her would feel a judgemental cold shoulder. So if you want to allow 2x2s to pretend they are your friend "NEVER MENTION THE GOD NAME". PS.Simpleton, I notice they are comparing visual beams again with the RCC?
|
|