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 happen to agree with you that todays men/women are not being catechized as previous generation, that is as true in Protestant circles as it is in Catholic circles.”
That isn't really what I said. I said that catechesis could always be better.
In my own limited experience, looking at the catechesis my parents received (decades before the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council), and then my older brothers (about a starting before Vatican II and ending shortly thereafter), the catechesis that I and my younger sister received, and then what folks get now, I'd say this:
It wasn't terribly good in the 1930s when my parents were young, it wasn't that great when my older brothers were in school starting in the 1950s, it was truly bad when I was in school a decade later, but that at least where I live, today, it's improved markedly for anyone who makes any effort at all.
In the Catholic schools in my archdiocese, the level and sophistication of genuine Catholic catechesis has never been higher. Of course, the difficulty is that lots of kids aren't very interested, but that's another story. In our parishes, it's more uneven, but many parishes have good, solid religious education programs for kids not going to Catholic schools.
It's been improving really since about the time I finished high school. It all bottomed out and started getting better once the Catholic schools got rid of me!! LOL!!
I'm enjoying watching all these well-catechized men entering the priesthood, and now seeing the vanguard of this group moving into the episcopacy.
sitetest
The truth is the truth and no mad man howling at the moon in Geneva or Worms or their echos centuries later will change it.
You asked for slurs that have been used against the Catholic Church on FR and I gave you some.
I love ya dawg!
great post and yes, I don’t consider myself “Protestant”, yet I don’t have a hissy fit when called one, or a Prod or Proddy, etc. I am simply a Christian
AND AT SUCH POTENTIAL RISK
THAT
one option amongst several arguably possible options [interpretations of the critical PHRASE (no less)] considered more than plausible by reasonable folks of different persuasions . . .
sounds more than a little foolhardy, to me.
As well as paragon ARROGANCE.
It's hard to imagine people being in the Lord's Presence and being unbelievers. It also happened at Mt. Sinai
lol. I’m the hairy tick. Ok,no, Quix is
Counting on flattery as usual, I see.
Not at all, just trying to see if anyone else could decipher what you wrote.
I note that you put this in quotes. Can you direct me to the post where this quote was first written?
If you cannot, if a Catholic did NOT say it in so many words (which is what quotes mean) then it is a thing worse than mind reading to say it is what we say and to present it as a quote.. If it is not true of one, it is not true of any.
That would make it dishonest.,p>And to suggest even for a minute, no matter how indirectly that I meant or thought any such thing would be a falsehood. (Of course those who enjoy "blessed assurance" get a free pass on falsehoods, I suppose.)
But, many non-Catholics invent things and say we believe them. So also they invent things we said and intended and complain (with an air of righteousness remarkable in the totally depraved) about them. There's a consistency here. Made up beliefs and made up quotes, fantasy charges everywhere.
For those of you in Rio Linda, which seems to include a great many of the non-Catholics here, I use "feelthy papists" to make a joke of the whole issue of what we are called. So also with "Mackerel Snappers" and Papist Conventicle.
For those of you in Rio Linda, this thread was started to question (and it's a legitimate question) the propriety of those in communion with the See of Rome using the name "Catholic" for themselves. It was not started by a Catholic. This makes claims or suggestions that this is an issue which only concerns Catholics hard to believe.
As one of the better examples of the desire to fight proving too strong for reason I(no wonder they mistrust reason, if their lack of temperance renders it so weak a tool for them) I offer this:
In arguing against our claim to BE the primitive Church; RnMomof7 writes
A church called Roman Catholic was no where to be found, ...Now it is only their side which urges, insists upon, the propriety of the name "Roman Catholic," for us. We reject it because it is over-specific.
It is as if some crime were committed by Jones, and somebody comes up to a man named Smith and says, "Jones! We KNOW you did it, because it was done by a man named Jones!"
Though at first Smith laughs and says, "But my name is Smith!" his accuser continues to insist that his name is Jones and he's guilty.
The arguments sometimes get surreal.
Yes, I know. There I go again using logic and philosophy which I am ALWAYS doing except for when I am ALWAYS relying on feelings.
That is a disgusting accusation revealing a peculiar and baseless defensiveness that paints the papacy as some poor put-upon waif when in fact it is a wealthy, powerful bureaucracy with untold riches, powerful allies and its own standing army.
I doubt anyone on FR other than Roman Catholics like yourself uses the term, "feelthy papists."
We do use the nomenclature, "Roman Catholics," however, which is a valid name for that particular denomination.
I defy you to show where I was reading minds. No offense but if you’re going to make wild accusations, get ready to be called on them. I know what I was doing when I wrote. Except that I did expect that I might be read by somebody capable of linear thought. Maybe I erred there.
Well let's look at these two
The great Babylon seems to imply a culture and/or a religion of idolatry and evil. It permeates the whole earth, is secretive and stealthy. It has its hands into everything, has great power. It kills the saints.
The synagogue of Satan has to be the "seat" of Satan. This too is a kingdom, but isn't it likely to be a spiritual kingdom? Or it exists inside people, people with the mind of anti-Christ.
Looking at them this way, it seems to me to cut across all cultures and religions and is in the hearts of people, like a mafia of evil-doers. Just my opinion.
Hmmmm I think I’d choose a different option.
No like ticks.
It is not an accusation of any kind.
I’m not disagreeing with you. Are you saying that you think those terms are INAPPROPRIATE to use in describing the Catholic Church?
Pictures of the truth. As Mad Dawg points out, we need to be careful with out imagery. Although many here wouldn’t believe a ‘filthy papist’ like Mad Dawg could EVER get anything right. I’m kind of surprised myself! ;>)
Right or wrong, I see a relative newcomer using an offensive term with the implication that this is what Protestants call you.
post 3198
Feelthy Papist (please note that while a lot of non-Catholics on this thread refuse to give us the name we think is proper to us, while many more persistently charge us with believing things we do not believe and doing things we do not do, nevertheless they don't actually call us "feelthy Papists," at least not to our faces, though they find many other terms and ways to express contempt and hostility.
I wrote and you quoted:
How many people do you suppose think that we think that you have called us "feelthy papists" out loud and in front of God and everybody?
YOU responded:
That is a disgusting accusation revealing a peculiar and baseless defensiveness that paints the papacy as some poor put-upon waif when in fact it is a wealthy, powerful bureaucracy with untold riches, powerful allies and its own standing army.
Now, let's go carefully here. It's really not that hard. You can do it.
The first thing we notice is that what I wrote was a QUESTION! One clue would be the question mark. And the other would be the syntax.
Now, if it's a QUESTION, it is not a STATEMENT, right?
And if it's not a STATEMENT then we know it's not an accusation.
See? Easy!
Now let's look at the question. Let's break it down together:
How many people [for example lurkers] think that we [the Catholics] think that you [the non-Catholic adversaries] have called us [Catholics again] 'feelthy papists' [etc.]
The "do you suppose" part is asking you to consider the question.
So we could rephrase it like this:
Do you really think there are a lot of lurkers who think that we Catholics are accusing you of calling us nasty names? How many would you say?"Okay, now let's sum up:
(1) It can't be any kind of accusation, disgusting or not, because it's a question.
(2) To the extent that it suggests anything it asks you to consider that most lurkers have the sense to see that we do NOT think you call us nasty names.
Consequently the charge that it is an accusation is totally ridiculous.
I just said it’s likely to cut across every culture and every religion and to exist in the hearts of people. I don’t know what it is nor does anyone else.
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.