Who are the Catholics: The Orthodox or The Romanists, or both?

Me

[kosta50]

I think your statements summed it all up. For the restricted caucus limited only to the Latins and those in communion with the Pope of Rome, the proper designation would be Roman Catholic Caucus. Claiming that "Catholic" represents the Churches in communion with the Pope of Rome is simply incorrect. There is one Catholic Church based on the apostolic authority established by the Aposotolic succession of her bishops and the valid sacraments, of which there are the particular Orthodox Catholic Churches (official titles) and churches in Communion with the Latin Bishop of Rome, aka the Pope of Rome.

[Religion Moderator]

Thank you. Peaceful dialogue among like minded believers is the objective of the “caucus” designation on the Religion Forum.

[RobbyS]

Well, the Term “Catholic” is what in the English-speaking counties has come to be called “Roman Catholic,” or less nicely “Church of Rome.” The Orthodox who are not in union with Rome do not . I think. call themselves “Catholics.” thought they think of themselves as their Church as “catholic.”They refer to us as Latins, and speak of the bishop of Rome as the Latin patriarch. I alsothink they think of as “heretics.” any church body that does not confine its doctrines to what was pronounced in the first seven ecumenical councils, the only ones they recognize as such. We are more tender to them than they are to us, as regards what is the “true” Church. We can in emergency communicate in their churches, but it does not work the other way around.

[RobbyS]

Well, the Term “Catholic” is what in the English-speaking counties has come to be called “Roman Catholic,” or less nicely “Church of Rome.” The Orthodox who are not in union with Rome do not . I think. call themselves “Catholics.” thought they think of themselves as their Church as “catholic.”They refer to us as Latins, and speak of the bishop of Rome as the Latin patriarch. I alsothink they think of as “heretics.” any church body that does not confine its doctrines to what was pronounced in the first seven ecumenical councils, the only ones they recognize as such. We are more tender to them than they are to us, as regards what is the “true” Church. We can in emergency communicate in their churches, but it does not work the other way around.

[Romulus]

the person in authority here on FR, who has yet to admit to his or her involvement, took offense at such lese majeste coming from an Orthodox Christian about the Cardinal Achbishop of Vienna.

Well I don't. I would hesitate to volunteer an opinion about a spat between Orthodox hierarchs, but only because I can't think of a controversy comparably high-profile to the Medj business. The high profile of the debate, plus its being just over your own back fence so to speak, makes it fair game IMO.

Of course, I am not an Important Person, notwithstanding my designation as "Major Domo Romanist". Indeed, a Truly Important FR Person has declared that he doesn't care WHAT I post.

[Romulus]

My personal preference would have been to have a new thread started...This thread has turned into a nonsensical exercise about whether or not Catholics should even be able to retain the name Catholic.

Would this be a good time to suggest a parallel thread over who can call himself "Orthodox"? Perhaps a friendly troll could oblige.

[the_conscience]

I agree. In fact, if many in the ecclesial assemblies knew where the Latins got so many of their beliefs and that some of them are in a sense "toned down" from the way we Orthodox live out those doctrines and dogmas (Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us!), I expect we'd be the target of much more vitriol. On the other hand, if they did understand such things, maybe then they would also understand that most of what they think are "papist magic", in fact are practices from the earliest days of The Church and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Papacy their ecclesial ancestors rebelled against.

With your claim that your assembly is the One True Church I would think you would have a duty to do so, at least from my perspective.

I also think this thread has been instructive that the term Catholic assigned to the churches associated with the Pope is fraught with all kinds of difficulties. You believe you have a claim based on apostolic succession and I believe I have a claim from God himself.

[Salvation]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2421970/posts?page=168#168

Thank you. Quite an interesting discussion here.

[boatbums]

In fact, I am certain that there are some who are petitioning our Heavenly Father for the right to help push all Catholics into the fiery pit

I am quite surprised to read you wrote what you did. I no more believe true Christians, who are not Catholic, would rejoice in or want to participate in the eternal damnation of someone than would I believe a true Christian, who is Catholic, would. What a horrible, horrible thing to say. Tell me you were not serious, please?

[Romulus]

I believe I have a claim from God himself.

The problem is that God himself, speaking through the scriptures makes it plain that authority is transmitted apostolically. What you claim for yourself is no different from what was claimed by Mohammed and Joseph Smith.

[the_conscience]

Of course I disagree and believe that Mohammed and Smith are a product of the Roman heresy that believes in continuing revelation instead of a closed canon.

Go ahead and show me from Scripture the notion of apostolic succession.

[trollcrusher]

Just wanted to add my support here on this thread for IrishCatholic and his comment that was deleted unnecessarily by the Mod.

Just a bit too overzealous on the Mod’s part in my opinion as the comment by IrishCatholic was not inflammatory in nature.

In my opinion, the Mod just zeroed in on the “J*ck Ch*ck” name and *BOOM* comment was deleted.

Not attempting to pick on you Mod, as you see fit to do what you need to do, however, I think that the flow of the debate between IrishCatholic and the others was understood by all parties involved.

Thanks and best wishes to you.

Ad Jesum Per Mariam

trollcrusher

;-)

[dangus]

because you don’t find Catholic theology consistent with your own interpretations

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

Doesn't reading someone's mind imply making an unsubstantiated inference? Is it unreasonable to infer that he finds Catholic theology inconsistent with this interpretations of the bible? Isn't the real issue that the_conscience has read MY mind to presume that I believe in MY theology for any reason other than that I find it to be biblical?

[dangus]

Clerical celibacy isn’t theological. It’s a matter of discipline. No-one is born a priest. It’s a chosen vocation, so a requirement such as celibacy isn’t a matter of morality or theology. The authority of a bishop to impose such discipline is quite biblical. We can debate the prudence of such a requirement, but no-one claims the Pope is inerrant (incapable of being wrong or holding false opinions on prudential matters or foolish or sinful actions).

You can vehemently, passionately and urgently disagree with the pope on this matter and still be a good Catholic.

[Quix]

THANKS SOOOOO TREMENDOUSLY FOR THE VOICE OF SANITY; REASON AND HISTORICAL ACCURACY WITH THIS VERY LOGICAL POST:

AND ALSO, If I understand you well—for standing on the side of resisting extreme selfl-righteous arrogance on the part of a fiercely rabid clique or so of Latins in their !!!!DEMANDS!!!! that all other posters conform to their heretical notions of what constitutes the Universal Church of Christ.

#############

I gather you didn’t realize what a can of worms you were opening by accepting the Roman Papacy’s self-proclamation of its adherents as “the Catholic Church” in denominating the caucuses here at FR.
It is the uniform understanding of the Orthodox that we constitute the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (I refer you to the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848).

I, myself, am scrupulous to refer to those in communion with the Pope of Rome as “Latins” (or “uniates” if they use an Eastern, non-Latin-rite liturgy) as the Orthodox Fathers have done since the time of the schism, a scrupulousness for which some Latin posters used to take me to task, expecting me to credit their confession’s claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church by calling them “Catholics”. Those complaints largely ceased when someone posted a commentary by a Jesuit on a homily of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew (given I believe at Rome) in which his commentary was given in the Patriarch’s voice and repeatedly addressed the Pope and his followers (the commentator actually writing the remarks included) as “you Latins”.

I’m not sure what one can do about it, in as much as the Latin church’s self-proclamation has passed into common usage in the West, and Latins don’t seem to like being called Latins, papists (well there are a few here at FR who have embraced that label either in a screen name or a tag-line), Romanists, or anything but “Catholics”, and if the Latins and uniates want to have their own caucus apart from others whom their ecclesiology regards as being in schism, I suppose they should have one.

[MarkBsnr]

What's wrong with "'MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH' Caucus"?

It's your caucus you can choose any of those.

Magnanimous of you. I'd prefer Christian caucus for we Christians. That eliminates all the non Christian yahoos who fondle snakes or rub the heads of their own created gods that they keep on the hall stand for luck when they walk by. If you create your own god from the image in your own mirror, you do not have the right to call yourself Christian.

[MarkBsnr]

How about we go all the way and post the Athenasian Creed. That is an even more encompassing Christian creed.

The Text of the Athanasian Creed

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved is must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

I think that this leaves out a few of our separated brethren...

[Quix]

WRONG.

I've not observed hereon

a similar

obsession with !!!!CONTROL!!!!, heretical Arrogance gone to seed; !!!!DEMANDING!!!! all others comply with their notions of reality regarding what constitutes proper appreciateion for their craziness about the Universal Body of Christ; outrageous brittleness to the max; outrageous personal assaults to the max almost 24/7; almost daily TPC baiting and assaults on same . . . . on and on the horrors have gone week in and week out year in and year out . . . almost with impunity.

NO other group comes close to matching the

Vatican Affiliates/ Papal Submissives/ Roman Catholics/ Latins--particularly through their more rabid cliques hereon.

They've earned every shred of negative response they get 100's of times over and then some.

I'd suggest such folks learn to deal with it redemptively but I know that given the fact that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, such is extremely unlikely so I won't waste my fingers going on about it.

[CTrent1564]

Mohammad married a Christian woman, whose Uncle was a monk and proponent of the Nestorian heresy, which denied among other things, Mary was the Theotokos, the God-Bearer or Mother of God. Thus, his heretical understanding of Christologly was a result of embracing Nestorianism, which was condenmed at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. For the record, many of your Protestants from various Protestant ecclesial communities embrace the same heresy as many Catholic and Orthodox posters can attest to on this site.

As for Joseph Smith, he was born in Vermont and like many there, were either congregationalist or did not belong to any organized religion. His uncle claimed one in the family would be a prophet and it seems that Joseph Smith, using his King James Bible [He was a King James Only type] got involved with a Methodist movement but rejected them believeing that he could take is King James Bible and studiy it for himself and determine the Truths of God and Salvation, etc.

Nope, Smith is Protestantisms baby and Mohammed and Islam can be rightly be seen as being a product of Nestorian heresy which rejects that Mary was the Mother of God in that she gave birth to a Divine Person [Christ] who had both a fully Divine and Human nature, without any confusion or negation of the other.

[Quix]

Thanks.

I always appreciate your capacity to slice through to truth and reality on a number of points and issues.

Praise God for that.