Search results

.

Wasn't it Ambrose Bierce who said "Quotation: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another. The words erroneously repeated"? ;) Okay, I am sorry. This is my last post on CF ever. What a way to go out...with Bierce ^_^ I'm sure you will approve, the_cheat :P

Do you really not see the irony in your aggressive condemnatory posts in this thread? ^_^ I am sorry if my post came off in that way, that was not the intention. Words fail me at times, especially in English, which seems to me a very imprecise and inexpressive language. I am not saying...

I think it should be left to the local parish to decide, based on the level of interest in the community. I don't see it as being crucial, since it's the same worship no matter what the language. I couldn't vote, though, since basically the choices in this poll boil down to 1)Yes! 2)No...

As I understand the teachings, in baptism we are all members of the one Church of our Lord. So in that sense, yes, although many may not be in the full harmony and grace due to sins, errant beliefs, etc. I am not expressing this so well in English, but I hope I am making sense?

So it's not okay for Christians to condemn the action Robertson publically, because he is a fellow Christian, but it IS okay for you to condemn the actions other fellow Christians in this thread - publically? How does THAT make any sense?

I am thinking the same way. Why would one want to be taking instruction on Catholicism, attending a Catholic Church, partaking in communion there, espousing the same beliefs...and not be on the path to joining the Catholic Church?

Well expressed, thank you for citing sources :) I've never heard this angle from an apologist, although I have always attended apologist-heavy churches, but it seems like a sensible explaination of the confusion in this thread.

I have never heard this before. I want to know the truth of the Church's teachings on this matter. If you are not "pulling it out of thin air" you should have no problem simply citing a primary source, an offical Church document on this issue. PLEASE DO. I would appreciate it very much.

None of that explains this statement, though. [/i][/font]

Well, I've never misspoken on the level of CALLING FOR SOMEONE'S DEATH ON NATIONAL TV. And then tried to lie about it. (And it wasn't as though he was speaking candidly in an interview or something and was driven to stumble over his words - he was speaking on his own planned show!) I do not...

Yes, but this: [/font] Is what I am asking you to support with sources. It would seem to me to be inaccurate, because as we all know, the RCC allows Orthodox to take communion, and they do not acknowledge the Pope as supreme leader of the Church on earth.

Why would you expect the gas price to you to go down? Do you really think the Iraq invasion was fought for YOUR benefit and that of the majority of the US public?

This would carry a lot more weight if you cited an offical Church source :)

I voted for "because Iraq is not a threat to the US." I am not a pacifist. What I believe is a very stringent interpretation of just war theory, and Iraq simply did not represent a dire threat, and indeed was taking no agressive action toward other nations. Violence is only acceptable in...

It seems like kind of an arbitrary place to draw the line.

What is THAT supposed to mean?

Roberts has already done that. By denouncing his act publically we seek to reduce the damage of his words.

:hug: :hug: :hug: I am praying about this.