Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
That's like saying there were "problems" on the Penn State coaching staff.
And, yes, OBW, there was "faith" during the times of medieval Romanism -- it was a faith in the Virgin Mary -- our so-called Redeemer and Queen.
Now be a good "Christian" and let me see you "prove your faith" by bowing down before "Our Lady" and kissing her feet. If not, then you will have a very long "time out" in the basement of the nearby castle.
Do you get the picture? I think you are missing all the wonderful "incentives" that existed during the dark ages in order to prove how very obedient and submissive the common man was to his Church leaders -- from the ravenous local priests to the Holy See in Rome.
|
I have attended one RCC mass in my life. It was recently. And I will admit that I would not generally repeat it.
But it was not as advertised by Lee and so many others. Declare that the method of communion "re-crucifies" Jesus every week. Declare that Mary is their savior. But that is not what they said. Yes, I heard the Hail Mary! But I also heard the priest clearly declare, in English, before communion, that it was the one sacrifice of Jesus on the cross that saves us.
It was just one mass. It was in a heavily Hispanic city (San Antonio) in a somewhat unusual parish (downtown). But it leads me to believe that much of what we have declared about it is based on a redefinition of "what it means" when certain things are said or done. Probably not all. And it doesn't make it all simply OK. But you can make that statement about every congregation in the world, including every LRC assembly of every type there is.
Do we glorify our common Father by simply denigrating any one of them so severely? Surely there are things to "discuss." But remember, even the Protestant revolution was as much about politics as religion. Martin Luther was not intending to revolt. Just to discuss. It was a German government willing to stand up to the political pressure of the RCC that started Protestantism, not just the religious disagreements.
In fact, with that one step, we ceased discussing among ourselves and began splintering and throwing bombs at each other. I'm not suggesting that the RCC was any better for that fact. That they were the one people were leaving is not a star in their crown.
It
all stinks when we speak of it in this manner. We all need to return to an agreement of oneness in which we can have differences, and will continue to discuss them, even for years on end. The RCC didn't get where it was over night. And neither did Protestantism's splinters. But unlike the days before the Protestants, rather than moving the church together, slowly, we now declare new ways are it and just leave the others behind and throw bombs at them.
Some improvement. I'm not going back to the origins of any kind. I just would like to see a return to spiritual civility. And misrepresenting the less evangelical practices and teachings of the more liturgical groups is not civility. And it is a misrepresentation of what they are doing and teaching. Why do you think that the RCC is so nearly demonic? Because Protestantism said it was so. And more specifically, the LRC (although they are not alone in it).
I do not suggest that you return to the RCC. I think it is a poor choice. But it is not simply a rejection of faith. That is what you are sounding like.
And I don't believe that it is true.