You wrote:
“The first thing that your statement brings to mind is Bill Clinton…”
Your analogy falls flat because Bill Clinton was simply lying. He had had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. He penetrated her with a cigar and had oral sex with her. Go ahead and tell your kids that’s not sex if you REALLY believe that’s the case.
I, on the other hand, didn’t lie. I am not a “Roman Catholic”. I never have been. I never will be.
“The Roman Catholic Church sees itself as “The Catholic Church” — “the universal church”, hence it often simply calls itself “Catholic” as a way of pretending it is “the only church that matters”.”
No. The Catholic Church calls itself the Catholic Church because it is the Catholic Church. It has never said it is the only Church that mattered. Mattering, a minor thing, is not the same thing as being the Catholic Church, a major thing.
“However, if you are under the authority of the Pope of Rome, you are a Roman Catholic” whether you wish to call yourself that or not.”
Wrong. I am not Roman. I am Catholic.
“ I have friends who are Marionite Catholic, but they have never denied that they are Roman Catholic, so I have no idea what your problem is.”
You. Your friends allow you to use that term because they are charitable enough to overlook the fact that you don’t know any better. I don’t claim to be that charitable.
“However, it was and is dishonest to pretend that you “have no horse in this race” when it comes to defending Stepinac.”
I am more objective than you and your buddies here. How many forged documents did I use? NONE.
“You are not St. Jerome, Vlad. Of course St. Jerome never called himself “a Roman Catholic”, there was only one Christian church when he was alive prior to any split with Constantinople.”
Incorrect. Again, we see that you have no idea of what you’re talking about. Ever hear of the Donatist Church? No, apparently not. There were other churches – with valid sacraments no less – long before 1054 when the Eastern Orthodox went to schism. A contemporary of St. Jerome, St. Augustine, made this brilliant point:
“And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house.” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]
“He was, was however the person who translated the Bible into Latin from Greek and Hebrew, and as a result, the whole Christian church no longer spoke a common theological language as it had when the language of Christian theology was Greek. (”Kyrie Eleison” is still a leftover in the Latin Mass from the original Greek.) St. Jerome is only revered in the Western Church and not in the Orthodox Christian Church.”
Again, you have no idea of what you’re talking about. 1) Jerome was not the first man to translate the Biblical into Latin. Clearly you have never heard of the Old Vulgate. 2) There is no reason to assume all Christians EVER spoke a common language. The earliest Christians knew Aramaic, perhaps Hebrew. Some may have know Greek, but not necessarily all. Also, so what if a different language other than Greek was used? I guess Old Church Slavonic should never have been developed? 3) Also, don’t be so quick to discount St. Jerome. He may be revered only in the West (although clearly some Eastern Orthodox – including modern bishops – are sure to call him a Saint: http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7103.asp) but that doesn’t lessen his importance. Some saints have no cult in the West, but are giants in the East.
“Once again, “orthodox” is simply an adjective. However, if I say that I am “an Eastern Orthodox Christian”, the common understanding that I belong to the “Holy Orthodox Catholic Church” whose Patriarch is Bartholomew. So when you say that you attend a Divine Liturgy in the Russian Orthodox Church in Communion with Rome (yes, there is such a church!), you and I both know that this church is no longer an authentic “Russian Orthodox Church” if it reports to Rome.”
No, not at all. At one time ALL Russian churches considered themselves in union with Rome and did not feel threatened in their orthodoxy. Yes, that was before 1054, but it will happen again.
“If you and your church ultimately report to Pope Benedict in Rome, Vlad, then you are Roman Catholic, period.”
No, that just makes me Catholic. Period.
“Get over it and quit pretneding to be what you are not — “an objective observer”!”
I said I am more objective than you are. And I still am. I also clearly know history better than you. Deal with it.
I’m not sure what all the facts are here, or who is more or less correct. BUT, anyone who thinks that a person in communion with Rome is a Roman Catholic and argues with you about is just plain wrong. To personally attack you on that, and to lead an attack against the Church on highly questionable grounds, makes me put less credibility in what they say.
That said, it’s a subject I intend to research a bit more.
The fact is I could care less about you or what you choose call your religious affiliation, Vlad — except that you refused to admit that Stepinac is considered “a Saint” in YOUR Church which answers to the Pope in Rome, commonly referred to as the Roman Catholic Church by non Roman Catholics. That’s it, period. Instead, you chose to take this off-topic into a game a narcissistic game of “Where’s Waldo?” about your religion, rather than answer a simple question directly and show that you have a vested interest in the outcome of the argument. This behavior is blatantly dishonest, and hardly a ringing endorsement for your own personal Faith — regardless of what you choose to call it.