Authority perceived is authority achieved. Same with uniformity. As far as "truly" goes, don't let perfect become the enemy of good.
Interesting. Based on the few posts I've yours I'm seeing on this page, your logic seems to be "don't sweat the small stuff". So what then was the point of rebelling against the Catholic Church if you're not striving for perfect?
What seems to be the problem is a discomfort with responsibility and freedom resting upon the individual rather than the institution.
Well, no offense is intended here but considering the individual's questionable abilities and absolutely lousy track record, I certainly understand the reluctance.
Just shows your lack of understanding.
I don't know you. You don't know me. I interpret that statement as rude and aggressive. That may not be what you intended but that's how I'm interpreting it.
My promise to you is this: If you shoot your mouth off to me again, I'll report your post to a mod. I usually try to be polite and courteous. Certainly that is how I've addressed you. I expect the same in return. It isn't too much to ask, sir.
Typically I would've reported this post already but there is a possibility that you truly meant no harm, in which case I apologize.
Just as an additional thought tell me what doctrine the thief on the cross believed!
Doctrine concerning what, exactly?
What one believes about communion is not really important. It is what God says it is and if a person has the wrong understanding of that it is not a big deal.
It was apparently important enough for Our Lord to talk about, for the Holy Spirit to inspire St. John to include in his gospel in chapter 6 and for the Early Church to talk about at great length.
My objection comes from the fact that when someone pointed out what they saw as flaws in your post your defence was that it was only part of it. When it is only half the story you should not be surprised when people object.
And as I explained, I believe your concern is unwarranted. My posts have been topical and followed the basic trajectory of this thread without ever really going off topic.
You seemed to be saying that protestants were against using latin as if someone using latin proves anything.
*sigh* This is another example of the usual abject lack of Protestant unity. It isn't hard to find Protestants objecting to a perceived lack of vernacular language inherent to the Catholic Church.
And yet I point out one instance of probably the most famous Protestant in history co-opting Latin to give his man-made invention more scholarly cachet and the response is that Protestants don't oppose Latin.
Honestly, the way it looks (and this may not be official policy among all Protestants at all times in all places in all of history) is Protestants reserve the right to criticize the Church of the time for a perceived lack of vernacular language but feel totally within their rights to abandon vernacular language whenever it suits them. If you believe that to be a mischaracterization, I would be interested to hear how you view the matter.
nope that is just you reading more into what was said than is there. Of course one it can be one is wrong and one is right. Don't see why you would exclude that as a possibility from what was said.
Since I'm reacting to another member's opinions, would it be possible for you to allow him to speak for himself please?
