Recent Posts

So now I'll have to accept you as an infallible Pope, guided by the Holy Spirit?

Something tells me she isn't going to be wearing a miter any time soon.

Already did.

So now I'll have to accept you as an infallible Pope, guided by the Holy Spirit?

[This would be a doctrine issue]

Which kinds and terms of union you would *not* accept as legitimate? Which ones, if accepted by hierarchy, would lead you to not follow them into a false union?

From the RC POV, the terms I would not like would be:
1. Doing away with venial sin and Purgatory. - This would be a doctrine issue
2. Requiring communion of both kinds (including wine).  - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
3. Doing away with devotion to the Sacred Heart. - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
4. Adopting the Orthodox rules for fasting during Lent (They are too severe for me). - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
5. No kneelers, no pews and no organ music in Church. - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
6. No genuflecting, only bowing and kissing the Church floor is allowed.  - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue

The majority of the things you stated are jurisdictional issues.  I would imagine that if there was a union, those issues would continue to be under the purview of the Bishop of Rome.  As far as the Purgatory thing is concerned, you could always become a "toll-house" Orthodox, it is pretty similar. 

The question was hypothetical, saying what terms would you find difficult to accept. If the Bishop of Rome had agreed to the 6 terms mentioned, I would find them difficult to accept. Of course, it is highly unlikely that the Roman Church would be required to adopt these terms as many of them are jurisdictional issues as you have pointed out, but I did not understand that to be the  question asked.

Well I have quoted scripture. It is a great shame that you consider his word nonsense.

I don't consider Scripture nonsense. I consider your far-fetched and ridiculous exegesis nonsense. Most of the times the passages of Scripture that you quote aren't even relevant to the point you're trying to make.

So please explain how the verses I have quoted are not relevant to my point that the Spirit is given to individuals. Please explain in what way my point is far fetched and ridiculous rather than just call it nonsense.  The verses are:
Luke 11:13
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”
John 20:22
And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
Acts 1:5
for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
Acts 1:8
But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
Acts 2:4
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 4:31
And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.
Acts 5:32
And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”
Acts 10:44
[ The Holy Spirit Falls on the Gentiles ] While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
1 Corinthians 6:19
Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?
Ephesians 1:13
In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Since scripture says that all scripture is Spirit breathed it is through scripture that the Spirit has chosen to speak. The scriptures are full of references to the Holy Spirit being given to individuals. Here are just a few.

I'm not denying that the Holy Spirit fills individuals. I'm only denying that you speak with the authority of the Holy Spirit. That's all.

Well I've quoted scripture to you. Scripture has the authority of the Holy Spirit. So which bit is nonsense and far fetched?

Again a church service with bishop under a parasol with the name of a beer in Serbia. Now it's just the ceremony of Slava, not Liturgy. But see, what's the name of the beer! Can't imagine faces of our ancestors seeing the ceremony of Slava under a parasol advertising a Turkish beer. We're really strange nation.

That's because there is no original Hebrew text.

JamesR,

The UK has had more experience of terrorists of various faiths and none. We cannot judge over 1 billion people as a single monolithic entity.

I'm not doing that; I'm only pointing out the stupidity in the UK's reasoning. Terrorists should be tried as terrorists no matter what their beliefs are. But UK has this strange taboo with treating Muslims as miserably as everyone else, and so always caters to them.

Don't worry.  If they were Irish they'd have shot a few more just to be sure.

Look this thing started as I supported the EO view on the Eucharist.  Turned into a hit piece because I have other issues with the church.

This thing started you wanted to know why some Protestants have non-traditional beliefs. You are also a Protestant with non-traditional beliefs so the discussion is legit.

Michal, if you think I'm a protestant, you need to brush up on the knowledge of Christian faiths.   There are many Christian faiths that are not "protestant".   Messianic Jews for instance.  Ebionites were not protestants.  Anabaptists are not protestant or Catholic. 

Ebionites are long dead. And Messianic Jews or Anabaptists are Protestants whatever they think about themselves.

"Messianic Judaism is a syncretic[1] religious movement that arose in the 1960s and 70s.[9] It blends evangelical Christian theology with elements of religious Jewish practice and terminology.[14]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism

Many Messianic Jews say that they are a sect of Judaism that accepts the Messiah.  Not protestant.

I can say I'm a dead ringer for Angelina Jolie too. But that doesn't mean I'm going to find Brad Pitt cooking supper when I get home tonight.

Sayin' don't make it so.

The Septuagint is a translation.

The Septuagint is the Old Testament.

The books of the Old Testament weren't written in Greek.

The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic originals of the Old Testament.

Doesn't really matter. The Hebrew (or Aramaic) text is not the normative Old Testament.