Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
I meant simply as a substitute for “Romanists”, not as an all encompassing term to cover all who identify as Catholic.
Re; Above graph. Not sure if accurate. I just came across it by coincidence.
I hope to find a moment to write a longer response to that.
I’ve read it.
I’ve also seen enough people with multiple personality disorder and “recovered” memory PTSD to know exactly what is true and what is not.
I’ve also seen enough damage to people from these two wildly confabulated claims to know truth from fiction.
There are more than enough self-proclaimed, self-authenticated prophets in the world. Those on this board are not the first and not the last.
Absolutely not.
Your actions speak for themselves.
That’s reasonable.
The Orthodox have been invited guests in the Catholic Caucus all along. And everything was going swimmingly until a critical remark ("uncanonical behavior we Orthoox have come to expect from Roman Catholic hierarchs") made and endorsed on the caucus resulted in an abuse report and this confrontation.
In the future, a caucus guest should ask himself if what he wants to say is something he would stand up and say in the midst of a closed door church service. If not, then it is inappropriate for that time and place - save it for an "open" thread.
I imagine Catholic Caucus posters will again extend their welcome, but if the guests cause a disruption, the posts will be pulled and they will be instructed to leave.
*lolz*
Why?
I could be wrong on the above, but that is how I've heard it used.
As to "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," I fully agree with you on a theological basis. However, the common usages of the words are as the R-M has them defined.
As for me, I'm perfectly happy to use the term "Papist Scum Caucus" (in deference to our "separated brethren" -- their opinion of either you or us is utterly irrelevant to me one way or the other), but our venerable R-M would probably not appreciate the tongue in cheek implied each and every time a thread was posted with that designation.
riiiight. You employed the evil pronoun with an adverb that implied motive when I never used that adverb for the reason why I used a particular definition. Thus you engaged in reading my mind. Bad pet.
Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire, which was the entire Roman Empire after the fifth century (the majority of the history of the Roman empire), which is why the Greeks associate themselves with the Roman Empire, which was my point. At the time of Christ, Latin was the official / native language of Romans, but Greek was more common in the empire as a whole. Hence, there were no Latin versions of the bible for a couple centuries.
If you have your proper noun dictionary maybe we can clear this up?
It will be extremely interesting to watch who’s constructions on reality are most confirmed in coming months and years.
I don’t know of a single Vatican Affiliate/Roman Catholic hereon who’s construction on that sphere of reality has much to respect about it . . . unless perhaps it’s some on my UFO ping list.
Nonsense, YOU are the one claiming that the term “Catholic Church” can refer to something other than the Catholic Church of which His Holiness Benedict XVI is the current pope; therefore, it is YOUR job to prove your point.
>> If that were the definition then neither the Romanists nor the Orthodox could be defined as Catholic since they’ve added to what was handed down from the apostles. Maybe something like Post-Catholic would be appropriate. <<
That is, according to Your Own Personal Interpretation Of Scripture. You CLAIM that the Catholic Church added to the bible, because you don’t find Catholic theology consistent with your own interpretations, but if, for example, the Nicene Council consisted of innovations rather than mere formulations, how is it that cultures far beyond the scope of the Nicene Council (India, Ethiopia, etc.) are if anything far, far further from Protestantism than the Nicene Churches?
Silly Protestant, you’re really just following new-age Gnostics and you’re too ignorant of history to know it.
You are attributing motives and name-calling, two solid indicators that your argument is failing.
Nonesense? You were eager to provide a dictionary definition earlier that you thought would support your position why not get out the proper noun dictionary and see what it says?
I did neither. Bad pet.
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.