User Profile: Caleb-Texas


Member Since: June 15, 2011

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • April 16, 2014 at 2:33pm

    I don’t understand all the negative comments about Glenn Character. A man has to follow his properly form conscience according to the Gospel.

    This reminds me of one of the greatest movie script of all time: A Man for all Seasons:

    The Duke of Norfolk:

    Oh confound all this. I’m not a scholar, I don’t know whether the marriage was lawful or not but dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can’t you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!

    Sir Thomas More: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

    Glenn I may not always agree with your style or everything you say but darn it I respect you for standing for what you believe.

  • April 16, 2014 at 2:24pm

    It was brilliant until the Adedum

  • April 16, 2014 at 2:03pm


    The Council of Constantinople in 1727 proclaimed the truth of indulgences but did condemned the ideas that only the Roman Pope can grant them and the Council of Constantinople in 1838 only condemned the use of indulgences as way for enrichment but refer to them as most holy, most sacred, and most awesome.

    Understood in its proper context I don’t think indulgences are such an insurmountable wedge between the East and the West.


    I am an optimist and I am sure the Holy Father can move to a more reconciliatory articulation of our Faith if unity can be achieve. We should pray for that!

  • April 16, 2014 at 2:01pm


    What about councils like the Council of Chalcedon in 451, that declared:

    “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo, the then-reigning Pope Leo I. The matter is closed. Let him who will not listen to Leo be anathema.”

    The Letter of Clement I to the church of Corinth is a great example of the bishop of Rome exercising his authority over the Christian churches in A.D. 96.

    “But should any disobey what has been said by him [Christ] through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger.”
    Pope Clement I to the Corinthian church.

    3) Purgatory.

    I think the topic of purgatory is a question of how the west and east articulate their understanding of the final judgment rather than substantial theological discrepancy.

    For example the Synod of Jerusalem in A.D. 1672, in response to the western reformation, at the very least affirmed the validity of praying for the departed. At the other extreme the language sounds very familiar with the concept of purgatory.

    4) Immaculate conception.

    Big topic…and quite frankly I need to study on this.

    5) Indulgences.

    For full disclosure my research on Eastern Orthodox teaching on indulgences is very limited however to the best of my understanding historically Eastern Orthodoxy was not right out against indulgences.

  • April 16, 2014 at 2:00pm

    Dear Orthodox,

    The main challenge concerning the unity of the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church is that Eastern Orthodox churches are not monolithic in the way they articulate their theology.

    Absolutely. There are several things that have to be addressed before that can happen though.

    1) Removal of the Filioque from the Nicene Creed.

    I might be naïve but I don’t think the Filioque is such an immutable issue that cannot be overcome. Even the Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kalliston Ware who used to opposed the filioque now is more open:

    “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences”

    (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).


    Moreover there is strong biblical basis for the filioque:

    Matthew 10:20
    John 15:26
    Acts 2:33
    Gal 4:6

    2) Papal infallibility.

    I admit that Papal supremacy and infallibility might be a more difficult issue. However the Orthodox position does not have solid historical grounds.

  • April 15, 2014 at 2:28pm

    Here we go again…again!

    Instead of worrying about the end of time lets worry about our own end of time and be the best Christians we can be in the time we are given.

    Responses (13) +
  • April 15, 2014 at 1:51pm

    Jefferson in the same sentence as Voltaire and Ayn Rand…oh boy!

  • April 15, 2014 at 1:47pm

    Dear Half-Truths_are_Lies:

    Thank you for the link. It was most appreciated! However I find the idea of a great apostasy a bit disconcerting in that it contradicts Christ promise to his Church:

    Matthew 28:18-20:

    “And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me . . . and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age”.

    Luke 1:33

    “. . . and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

    Matthew 16:18

    “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”
    If you are interested in reading the Catholic position pertaining the so-called great apostasy this article does a great job:

    Hope this helps :-)

  • April 15, 2014 at 1:39pm

    Although the Orthodox churches do have apostolic successions and valid sacraments they are not whole because they have separated themselves from the Bishop of Rome, breaking a 1,000 year old unity among all Christian churches.

    There is a lot more that united us than separates us from the Eastern Orthodox Churches so both you and I should pray for unity. As John Paul II said that the church may breath with two lungs again!

  • April 15, 2014 at 1:37pm

    Dear OrthodoxPerspective,

    Distinctions, distinctions, distinctions…are important. If you noticed I did not say Roman Catholic Church but Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is just one rite within the Catholic Church amongst other rites that constitutes one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We can divide the rites into the Western Churches and the Eastern Churches that are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. The following information was taken from:

    Western rites:

    Roman (Latin rite which most Catholic celebrate), Anglican (former Anglicans), Mozarabic, (Spain and Portugal) Ambrosian (Milan), Bragan (Portugal), Dominican (the order of Preachers), Carmelite, Carthusian.

    Eastern rites:


: Maronite, Syriac, and Malankarese, EAST SYRIAC
: Chaldean and Syro–Malabarese.


    Albanian, Belarussian/Byelorussian, Bulgarian (although most Bulgarian Christians are Orthodox), Czech, Krizevci (Most Croatians are Roman Catholics), Greek (only a small proportion of Greek Christians are in union with Rome), Hungarian, Italo–Albanian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian (only a small minority are in full communion with Rome), Ruthenian, Slovak, Ukrainian.


    Coptic (most Copts are not in union with Rome) and Ethiopian /Abyssinian

  • April 14, 2014 at 7:05pm

    Dear drexal,

    I think we both can agree that Christ is the WAY to the Father and without his free gift of grace we cannot do anything much less make our way into heaven. It is our cooparation with that free given grace that allows our hearts and minds to be transform by his love and mercy.

    It is not biblical the idea that just by proclaiming Jesus as your lord and saviour you are garranteee enthernal life, no matter what you do or not do. On the contrary over and over we see in the Gospel that constant call for good works (Sermon on the Mount).

    Where do you read that baptism is not necesarry? When Jesus especifically call the Apostles to baptize all nations:

    Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

    Mathew 28:19

    and later we hear Peter saying:

    “Baptism which now saves you…”

    1 Peter 3:21

    Baptims is actually necesarry.

  • April 14, 2014 at 5:21pm

    Dear mcsledge,

    I don’t think that I have ever dialog with LDS member. So I guess there is a first time for almost everything!

    I think we both agreed that Jesus intention was established one Church and that that Church remained one through the ages until his return. Now the question is which Church did Christ founded?

    The only Church that can sustain its historical claim of apostolic succession, profession of one faith and one baptism is the Catholic Church. The Apostolic Fathers, early Christians and 2,000 years of history witness the continuity of her teachings and love for Christ. LDS has an immense historical challenge in proving that LDS teachings are in continuity with the teachings of the Gospels and that of early Christians. Moreover even the historical and archeological evidences for Joseph Smith discoveries are questionable at best.

  • April 14, 2014 at 2:05pm

    Simply becasue of what it claim to be…You only have to encounter the historical person of Jesus Christ and he will force you to make a decision. He did not claim to be just a mere wise person or just a prophet like most founders of other world religion. He claimed to be God and proof it by his empty tomb.

    If you have any free time and if you are seriously considering or just curious about the claim of Christianity I suggest you to read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis…it has a different perspective that you may like. :-)

  • April 14, 2014 at 1:41pm


  • April 14, 2014 at 1:22pm

    What a sad, sad, sad and ignorant comment. Quite the opposite it has been a saint making factory for more than 2,000 years.

    Go read about St. Ignatiious of Antioch, (Church Father and Martyr), St. Francis of Assisi, St. Maximillian Kolbe (WWII martyr), Fr. Kapaun (Korean War Chaplain) or simply read the gospel people like say Jesus and St. Paul…

  • April 14, 2014 at 1:16pm

    Prayers, prayers and prayers. How sin makes you stupid and selfish!

  • April 14, 2014 at 1:14pm

    The real question is what autority will the Anglican Church, which head is the Queen of England, a sate figure, has to kick him out? Same proble with the Episcapalian Church the most they can do is put it out for a vote amongst their Bishops…that is sad…putting unmutable matters to a vote.

  • April 14, 2014 at 1:12pm


    The Body of Christ is his visible and tangible Church, not an invisible fracture community of Christians that more often than not disagree with each others in important matters of salvation.

    Chirst pray for this unity:

    “I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity”.

    John 17:22-23

  • April 14, 2014 at 1:06pm


    “…is a homosexual means he is no priest at all”. I do agree if he is an active homosexual he is no Priest at all…ignoring other sacramental condition that you and I will disagree but I just wanted to find for once a point of agreement with you


  • April 14, 2014 at 1:03pm


    Although the abuse scandal in the Catholic Church was deplorable and justly exposed it has been strongly address and measures have been taken for it to never happen again. If you study the facts you will find that the abuse scandal was greatly amplified by people who have a axe to grind against the Catholic Church including the secular media. This in no way ameliorates the Church responsibility and guilt but from an objective standpoint of view the abuses were very limited and not widespread as your comment implied.

    A study by Prof. Philip Jenkins, a non-Catholic, shed some light on this issue:

    “My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination — or indeed, than nonclergy. However determined news media may be to see this affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported.

    Literally every denomination and faith tradition has its share of abuse cases, and some of the worst involve non-Catholics. Every mainline Protestant denomination has had scandals aplenty, as have Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, Hare Krishnas — and the list goes on. One Canadian Anglican (Episcopal) diocese is currently on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of massive lawsuits caused by decades of systematic abuse, yet the Anglican church does not demand celibacy of its clergy.


123 To page: Go