Where's the credibility?

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 12 2004, 08:40 AM'] Okay..I understand, [i]if you use that narrow definition for the term "OSAS"[/i].

But I would appreciate it if you would refer to my beliefs about perseverance as either "eternal security" or POTE/POTS, because that is the technical term for it. [/quote]
Then, likewise, would you please stop refering to us as Romanist and Papists... It's deragatory... and you know it.

[ICTHUS]

[quote]Your hypocrisy shows - you yourself employ the most infammatory and uncharitable labels on Catholics.  And how do you justify that?  You don't, you are a contradiction in terms. [/quote] I only use such language after having been insulted by such as yourself and Ironmonk, as well as others.

[quote]Besides, I am only using the language that your Protestant brethren use. [/quote] You use the language that misguided Christians who misunderstand eternal security use. If you want to have an intelligent discussion with me on eternal security, I suggest you use the proper, Reformed terminology.

Edited December 12, 2004 by ICTHUS

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Dec 12 2004, 09:19 AM'] Then, likewise, would you please stop refering to us as Romanist and Papists... It's deragatory... and you know it. [/quote]
I try, HSMom, I really do. But it's incredibly difficult when there are arrogant, self-righteous geniuses like JS and IronMonk prowling about with the expressed purpose of trying my temper with their anti-Protestant garbage.

Edited December 12, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Benedict]

There is no 'heat of the moment' on a message board. You have all the time you need to take deep breaths, type your response, view the preview, take a few more deep breaths, edit it, and then post it.

I do it all the time on anti-Catholic boards.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Dec 12 2004, 12:28 PM'] I do it all the time on anti-Catholic boards. [/quote]
Point taken. However, "Protestant" /=/ "anti-Roman Catholic.

[Benedict]

I operate under the same definition of anti-Catholic as Dave Armstrong put forth: Anti-Catholics deny that Catholicism is Christian.

My faith is not named Roman Catholicism, nor my Church Roman Catholic. My name is Benedict. Just as I should be addressed by my name regardless of whether one considers me a blessing or not, so too should the Catholic Church be addressed by Her name, devoid of qualifiers, regardless of whether one agrees or not with Her catholicity.

Edited December 12, 2004 by Benedict

[hyperdulia again]

Icthus, did you leave civility and appropriateness when you left the Church of Christ?

Mulls, Eulogies are against Church law. You, your family, and your step-grandfather have my prayers.

[Justified Saint]

[quote]I only use such language after having been insulted by such as yourself and Ironmonk, as well as others.[/quote]

Here again you are dishonest. You are the author of threads and therein you begin by employing the most vituperative and vulgar of labels. All in the spirit of Calvin of Luther I suspect.

[quote]You use the language that misguided Christians who misunderstand eternal security use. If you want to have an intelligent discussion with me on eternal security, I suggest you use the proper, Reformed terminology. [/quote]

On what basis, by what right do you ask this? You except "proper, Reformed terminogloy" when you deride and mock every Catholic here with the most uncharitable labels.

[Benedict]

Dave Armstrong on the Reformed Protestant use of "Romanist", "Papist", and the insistance on terming the Church "Roman" Catholic:

[quote]I think proper, accepted terminology is very important. People have a perfect right to be called whatever they want to be called. This is understood in our humdrum daily lives, where we will ask a stranger what their name is, how to pronounce their name (if necessary), etc. We would never think of deliberately calling them names which are offensive to them (unless we are self-centered bigots).

Yet in religious matters, all of this is too often reversed. Not only are folks called names that they object to (and have for sometimes hundreds of years), but the people who do it try to justify it on absurd grounds. Examples of this are the derogatory, pejorative terms for Catholics, such as papist and Romanist.

I've never heard a Methodist object to that name. Often, Calvinists like "Reformed" better as a title, but I've never really heard one object to being called a Calvinist (and that word is used in many many of their own books). There are commonly accepted terms for groups, and they ought to be used. It is simple courtesy and charity.

We may call people a sort of alternate nickname (I do it myself) -- and this may be in a critical sense, or with an "edge" to it -- but it is important to note that such a nickname is not understood as their primary name or the one they themselves prefer to be called. Such alternate titles or nicknames shouldn't be routinely applied to large, historically and sociologically significant groups. Everyone knows what their real titles are. And that's the whole point about titles: they are based on common, accepted usage (much like dictionary definitions of words which are ultimately dependent on real-life usage.

It's true that sometimes we can legitimately war against a title, because a principle is at stake. Hence, I refuse to acknowledge the terms Enlightenment or the abuse of the term Dark Ages (when it includes even the late Middle Ages) because those are prejudiced, deliberately hostile terms which arose from secularist, anti-Christian schools of thought. I vigorously deny that the so-called Enlightenment was some great advance of civilization. It was quite the contrary.

But the terms Catholic or Reformed or Lutheran or Methodist are not such that they can be overthrown by the whim of personal opinion. I deny that Reformed are truly "reformed" from my perspective (which has to do with how Catholics define reform from within their own paradigm and ecclesiology -- the term is already inherently weighted against Catholic Tradition), but I accept the title because a title is a title. For that matter, I deny that Jewish Orthodox are orthodox (which means "correct belief"). But I use the term because that is what they call themselves.

Likewise, some Protestants may resent calling us Catholics because to them this implies that other Christians aren't "catholic" (in the sense of the Nicene Creed); yet this is our chosen title. We believe that our Church is uniquely universal, just as you believe that yours is truly, uiniquely "reformed" -- even over against Arminian fellow Protestants -- (whereas ours is supposedly not, in fundamental ways). Both schools claim unique characteristics for themselves which exclude others in some sense.

It's unavoidable. We all have beliefs, and someone else is bound to be excluded (or offended) by them. A different belief-system shouldn't, however, be immediately offensive (unless it involves hatred or some other sin). On the other hand, deliberate use of offensive terminology (based on the stated preference of a group so-called) is a different story. It is far more a matter of respect and politeness and diplomacy than of theology.

The use of terms like Romanist, papist, and (to a somewhat lesser extent), papalist, and the deliberate refusal to use the commonly-accepted and preferred Catholic, or to always (and for a particular polemical purpose) qualify it with the preceding "Roman" (which actually excludes some 21 non-Latin rites in the Church, and was originally derived from polemical Anglican usage in the 16th century -- in the attempt to be "catholic" without the pope) is, therefore, a condescending, uncharitable, impolite act, which offends the great majority of Catholics.

Why is it that Catholics are so often singled out by being referred to in ways that we have repeatedly objected to? To me, that is a dead giveaway that prejudice and some sort of strong hostility is in play, either consciously or unconsciously. No doubt many people do this out of force of habit, since it has been going on so long in their circles. But that makes it no less obnoxious for those of us who have to put up with this unnecessary, childish, and rather silly annoyance.[/quote]

[url="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_11_14_socrates58_archive.html#110098196591895359"]http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_11_14_...098196591895359[/url]

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='BurkeFan' date='Dec 10 2004, 06:31 PM']Which makes me wonder, is there time in the afterlife?[/quote]
From what i've heard:in a sense, yes there is. time, for a temporal being is an irreversible state of change. We *do* change in purgatory, therefore, we are 'within time.'

Once we reach heaven or hell, however, we become immutable. Time ceases to have any relevant meaning when we can no longer change. Therefore, there is no time in heaven or hell.

****disclaimer**** i'm not certain that this is official Church teaching, but i heard it from a reliable source and it seems to make sense. Take it with a grain of salt, though.

Peace,
Joe

[Theoketos]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 10 2004, 06:11 PM'] Yes but Temporal punishment in Purgatory still eventually ends in heaven. [/quote]
Yes, but we can relieve souls of that pain.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 10 2004, 04:59 PM'] Maybe the priest heard his last confession before he died. [/quote]
[font="Courier"]My brother-in-law lived a pretty shabby life and then made a huge effort to turn it around and did go to confession a few days before he died (in his early 20’s)
The Catholic priest that presided over the funeral was the one who heard his last confession and expressed his personal belief that we other faithful in heaven will see him, by what happened about 48 hours before his death…

There was no “promise” that my wife’s brother is in Heaven implied – but a strong hope. And the Priest did not go into detail about the last Confession, btw - he only briefly mentioned it …
This is my only personal experience with a similar situation.

I know there is a general pressure on any pastor to help the grieving to “be positive” and “we will see this person again” and “get over it” and be happy and all that...
But a Catholic Priest does need to be realistic to the Church teachings – and fortunately of the several funerals I’ve been to, my wife’s brother had the closest thing to the “guarantee” that you heard - simply a very strong hope.
All my own family’s funerals had expressions of hope that we will see each other in Heaven that is in accordance with catholic truth.


i hope i make sense here...[/font]