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?
lol. That's good. That's how it is with Calvin. When you actually read him you don't see the ogre Rome has painted him to be for five centuries.
Instead you find 1) the razor-sharp mind of a lawyer who knew both sides of the argument and used the evidence of Scripture to destroy the opposition, and 2) the tender heart of a man who understood he was lost and then found by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone for God's glory alone.
Calvin must be speaking a lot of truth for Rome to detest him so very much.
Or, again, it is Calvin who has given us the formula which has become in many Reformed circles a household word for thankfulness, resignation, and hope. The necessary consequences of the knowledge that God governs all creatures, including the devil himself, for the benefit and safety of his people, are "gratitude in prosperity, patience in adversity, and a wonderful security respecting the future." 2 ...No treatment of the subject of God's sovereignty has surpassed in depth of thought, in reverence of approach, and in eloquence of expression that which we find in the last three chapters of Book I of the Institutes. It is sufficient to be reminded of one or two of the classic statements which we find in these chapters to appreciate anew the intensity of Calvin's faith in the all-pervasive and over-ruling providence of God. "So it must be concluded," he says, "that while the turbulent state of the world deprives us of judgment, God, by the pure light of his own righteousness and wisdom, regulates these very commotions in the most exact order and directs them to their proper end." 1
-- You dispute that?
I am told I have to have someone to corroborate MY seeing something 40 years ago?
The normal person of responsibility checks things out and acknowledges where assertions might be less than slam dunks. But here all the old myths are pulled out of the attic -- like the genius who suggested that Dominic was a cruel inquisitor though the Inquisition didn't get going until decades after Dominic had entered the larger life. There's not even the least effort to verify the charge before it is hurled, yet I am supposed to think there is no hostility and contempt?
I think if one and the same person makes two contradictory charges with equal aggression, a number of conclusions can be immediately drawn: First, the person is looking for any old stick, since the object is to beat the dog. That is, making an accusation against a Catholic is far more important than seeing if the accusation makes sense or has any basis in reality.
And then there's the general lack of courtesy, of which this thread is an example. Really. As I have said more than once, if I wanted to get all fussy, I could complain about the names "Holiness," "Baptist," "Presbyterian," "Episcopal," and "Orthodox." Are "Orthodox," "holiness" or "Apostolic" any less general than "Catholic"? But I already have a life of which being outraged at people who disagree with me about religion is not a huge part.
I could go on. My noting hostility and contempt is not projection, it is a conclusion reluctantly drawn from observation.
Note: That I am not claiming particular virtue for all on our side. Some of us also seem to have gone over to the dark side of the force and seem to fight not for resolution but simply to express hostility.
And I really don't care who started it.
Any old stick, even a non-existent one. The illusion of having an opportunity to say something hostile is just too much to resist.
I do dispute it. I have never in my life called anyone that, nor have I ever heard anyone call you that, nor have I seen anyone here on FR call you that, except for the remark by Mr Rogers, and I don’t intend to say that he called you that maliciously either.
Compared to what actually HAS been said about Catholics here, the term "feelthy Papist" is incredibly mild.
But before you post, read it twice and make sure it says what you think it says. I never thought you did; I never said you did.
No, but I would consider sending a raspberry your way... ;-D
Is stream of consciousness ramblings considered logic and philosophy in the Romish world?
No, neither you nor Mr. Rogers have ever said this thing, but others HAVE said things far worse. And the slurs against Catholics pale when compared to what is said about Jews who don't condemn Pope Piux XII.
No, I do my best to forget.
Bottom line is nobody on Fr has ever called you that, except yourself.
I know, but you were inquiring about terms used against Catholics and BOTH of those terms have been used by FReepers to describe the Catholic Church.
Is ramblings considered what?
Well I could think back across all the threads and find slurs against other churches. The Presbyterians take a lot of hits as do the independents.
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.
You say you dispute my statement. My statement has two parts:
(1)They don't actually call us they don't actually call us "feelthy Papists," at least not to our faces,
If you dispute THAT, then you claim that you DO actually call us "Feelthy papists. (But you just said you never have done so.)
(2) they find many other terms and ways to express contempt and hostility.
If you dispute part 2, then you claim that 'they' do NOT find many other ways to express contempt and hostility.
Now in your last to me, you said I have never in my life called anyone that...
So you do not dispute part 1. You agree with part 1 How am I doing so far?
So you must dispute part 2. Well, I made my argument and agreeing with me on one part of the statement does not show why you dispute the statement.
Am I allowed to suspect rope-a-dope at this point?
No, just an insignificant sect that believes it alone speaks for Presbyterians and all of Protestantism for that matter.
It is hard to understand but we need to remember that some seed feel on ground and quickly sprouted ...then died ..
There are so many that hear an external call, but never the internal one.. They try to do it on their own and end up walking away
Remember Paul's observation that they went out from us because they were never a part of us..
NO, that was the old bottom line, one with which I repeatedly agreed.
But then your side hinted that I was projecting and said outright that I had made a disgusting accusation.
You guys MOVED the bottom line by accusing me of what I had not done
And now when it appears that you all were so quick to take offense (the wicked flee when no one pursues -- look it up) that you took offense where none was offered, NOW it's, "Well, koff koff, uh, bottom line is that even though we're wrong as can be and have been incredibly careless and irresponsible in throwing around accusations and have pretty much proved Dawg's point for him by mugging him for something he didn't do NOW we'll just sort of insist on the obvious and hope that nobody notices how unfair and hostile we really were. "
No deal. You all try to tell me what to say and how to say it and then mug me for something I didn't say. I know at least one Calvinist around here is unable to admit she did anything wrong ever in her life, but I'm not letting this go unremarked upon.
You guys were so eager to take me down an score a point that you blundered. And you want us to think that you care more about truth than about power and victory. As the immaculate Doctor says, Repent.
And we know who's driving the bus. 8~)
Oops! Well I guess I called those abbreviations wrong. Guess it was my turn to mistake otherwise good intentions.
Hadn’t seen ph here before, or it’s meaning. That’ll teach me to not say anything until I know what they are...never pays to assume....and I did just that.
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.