Posted on 02/26/2011 10:21:36 AM PST by Natural Law
It's my understanding that, according to the rules, statements like this in the article would exclude it from the "Caucus" designation.
As the rules state on the Religion Moderator's homepage...
The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
That thread also contains these words:
Words with Different Meanings
So it should not remain a sola fide caucus
I wouldn’t say, “Faith is not enough.” To say, “Faith is not enough, you must have the sacraments” is like saying, “It’s not enough to buy the car; you also have to buy the engine.” If you’re not buying the engine, you’re not buying the car.
Fireman: “You simply have to put your trust in me. Will you?”
Woman in burning building, “Yes, I absolutely do!”
Fireman: “Then I want you to jump out of the window, and have faith that we will catch you safely.”
Woman: “That’s OK. I believe in you.”
Fireman: “Then jump.”
Woman: “No, thanks.”
Fireman: “But if you don’t jump, you’ll be burned in the fire!”
Woman: “You said all I needed to do was put my trust in you. I trust you.”
Likewise:
Jesus: “Whosoever shall believeth in me shall have eternal life”
Protestants: “We believe in you.”
Jesus: “This is my body. Take and eat of it. This is my blood, take and drink.”
Protestants: “No, that would be a work. All we need to do is believe in you.”
Jesus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whosoever does not eat of my flesh and drink of my blood shall not have life within you.”
Protestants: “No, you must mean that symbolically.”
Jesus: “My flesh is real flesh, and my blood is real blood.”
Protestants: “No, we believe in you.”
Yeah, whatever... this caucus door is blown off the hinges, already, Natural Law, so sorry, but I wasn’t ever much for caucuses anyway.
Maybe a few “Hail Marys” and “Our Fathers” are in order.
Sorry, Natural Law, but the purpose of a "caucus" is to discuss an issue of interest to the caucus WITHOUT it having a title, content, or comments that specifically mention and challenge other groups.
In other words, if a Catholic had written an article on "Faith" and you posted it, labeled it a caucus, and then discussed it, then that would be ok.
As you can see, in the short exerpt above Protestants are specifically mentioned and taken to task no less than 4 times.
This clearly cannot be a "caucus" if the article itself argues against another group. That is a violation of the rules.
Additionally, saying that this article is directly advanced to oppose another caucus is also a violation.
Your comparison to the Paul/James thread is specious. That thread does not discuss Roman Catholicism.
This thread's stated purpose is to compare "differences between Catholics/Protestants viewpoints."
Are you and Natural Law unfamiliar with the rules stated on the Religion Moderator's homepage...?
"The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus."This is just about the most grievous example ever posted breaking the caucus designation rules.
God forbid the former and one of the later will suffice. 8~)
Perhapps Protestants should not refer to books of the Bible, Fathers of the Church, saints, doctrine, dogmas, etc. on Protestant threads, then, Huh?
Can’t have it both ways. (They can refer to Catholicism, but Catholics cannot refer to Protestant beliefs.)
Hmmmm.
Perhaps
Amen, x. Your example was even more compelling than mine.
You and I have had frequent exchanges, some actually pleasant despite our differences, Natural Law. I know you to be an intelligent individual who is quite capable of understanding that a “Caucus” is intended for likeminded believers to discuss their commonly held beliefs in peace, amongst themselves, and that beliefs outside that Caucus are not to be compared or disparaged.
So, I can only conclude that you want to undermine and eventually destroy the practice, by continually posting these threads that do not befit the designation.
For the life of me, I just don’t grasp why. We have open threads, wherein freedom of speech is given full reign, within certain defined bounds of civility. Differences can be aired there, and are, raucously, but no individual attacks. We have Ecumenical threads for discussion of differing beliefs, with much more civility. We even have Devotional threads, for nothing but reverential discussion. Then, we have the Caucus, where coreligionist can associate and converse, an intentional exclusivity without rancor or dissention. We all benefit from this array of options.
It’s the embodiment of our Constitution. Freedom of speech, association and religion, all under those various designations. It’s kept a certain degree of peace here. The Caucus was indeed originated by the RM at the behest of Catholic FReepers.
So, why are you at war with it? I’d really like to know.
Can’t have it both ways. (They can refer to Catholicism, but Catholics cannot refer to Protestant beliefs.)
It's difficult to tell if Roman Catholics are honestly this ignorant of the rules or just trying to get around them.
Read the rules posted on the Religion Moderator's homepage. They are clear, concise and easily applicable.
Or at least they should be unless other motives are involved.
They are not to speak of those things in opposition to them. Any protestant article that does that cannot remain a caucus. In fact, even comments to the thread that do that should be removed or the thread cannot remain a caucus.
Obviously, since the Protestant Church is out of the Catholic Church in the 1500’s, then the Fathers and many of the saints are also part of Protestant history.
The issue is using a Catholic belief as a foil or as a point of opposition.
In this article that is the standard practice.
In the article the other day about Sola Scriptura, there was not a single mention of anything Catholic.
Here. This might help.
On Caucus threads Roman Catholics are free to tell us what Roman Catholics believe about "books of the Bible, Fathers of the Church, saints, doctrine, dogmas."
On Caucus threads Roman Catholics are NOT free to tell us what Protestants believe about "books of the Bible, Fathers of the Church, saints, doctrine, dogmas."
Do you understand the difference?
This is a Catholic / Orthodox Caucus thread. Get out!
Salvation, that's such a weak argument that it should be seen as argumentative. The Sola Fide article does not once reference Catholics, Catholicism, Orthodox, or anything of the like.
It would be like my saying that the Catholics can't have an "Assumption of Mary" Caucus, because our bibles also contain Mary.
Can I propose something to everyone?
There are certain topics which need caucuses. From the Catholic point of view, for instance, sometimes it’s nice to talk about some Marian feast without having a hundred flamers to pop on to accuse of us idolatry. But doctrinal discussions specific to denominations are by their nature going to support one sect against another. And I’d rather not see people gaming some system by “mentioning someone without mentioning them.”
So I’d like to offer a truce: let’s VOLUNTARILY keep doctrinal threads open, while we take care to respect caucus threads.
346-5510
This seems a bit more than arbitrary given that any and all topics Protestants have developed explicitly to oppose Catholic teachings qualify for Protestant caucus discussion, but even the discussion of preexisting contrary beliefs cannot be Catholic caucus discussion topics. You are aware that the Church addressed the question of faith alone more than a thousand years before there was a single Protestant?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.