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

Me

[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?

[wagglebee]

So, does this mean that the ONLY Catholic beliefs you reject are papal supremacy/infallibility and the Filoque? Are you going to become a member of the Orthodox Church?

[Kolokotronis]

" 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."

Trust me, we've got them in spades and commenting on them by you folks is fair so far as I am concerned.

"Indeed, a Truly Important FR Person has declared that he doesn't care WHAT I post."

At least you can post, my friend. Maybe that Truly Important FR Person is the same one who got his/her panties in a knot over our comments about the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna. Interestingly, I just got a regular mail from some Orthodox Freepers who think that the oh so sensitive Catholic TIFRP used the latest threats about exposing FR as an anti-Catholic site to get her/his way and impose her/his warped and incorrect view of the ecclesiology of The Church on these threads. Since that TIFRP remains anonymous, we likely will never know.

[Quix]

I disagree.

You and others of your persuasion and I have had fierce exchanges. I’m not ignorant of the differences.

However, once we thrashed things out or at least about sufficiently to pretty thoroughly understand where we each were on some key points, we accepted it and went our ways with whatever degree of respect we were ablt to own for the others—in my case, I respect you both considerably.

I nor the rest of the TPC’s have had to put up with a dozen or two dozen rabid Orthodox fiercely brittle, prickly, personally assaultive shrilly attacking, baiting, !!!!DEMANDINIG!!!!, !!!!CONTROLLING!!!!! even the words we post—insisting that we KOWTOW AND COMPLY with THEIR construction on what constitutes the Universal Church of Jesus Christ—at alll—much less almost 24/7.

[MarkBsnr]

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".

Your usage is correct; and I have done what I can to instruct and inform. What the Latins prefer is to be called Catholic, except when differentiating in some fashion from the Orthodox, and then Latins or the particular rite is correct. There are some poorly catechized folks that need instruction. Some with, and some without a maul.

[Quix]

INDEED.

[Quix]

INDEED.

[Quix]

WRONG.

SERIOUSLY WHOLESALE WRONG.

[MarkBsnr]

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.

Correct. I wish that we could ensure that our folks are properly instructed, so that the wandering gypsies would have less success dividing and conquering.

[Quix]

Maybe I read it too quickly but I didn’t notice anything heretical in it.

[Kolokotronis]

"You and others of your persuasion and I have had fierce exchanges. I’m not ignorant of the differences."

Quix, there are a number of you folk who have contested with us and against us about matters of The Faith for years. I KNOW you, and the others, understand the differences. But there are others on your side of the 16th century divide who define themselves not by a confession or systematic theology or even biblical literacy, but rather by being "not Roman" and expect us Orthodox to pile on because we are "not Roman", or otherwise give us a pass for that reason. I think its important that those people ought to appreciate that being "not Roman" isn't the issue. I don't worry about you guys understanding!

[Quix]

Plenty true.

I hope you realize that’s not, per se, my attitude

nor my stance.

[kosta50]

But these sort of attitudes give very strong practical evidence that although we may share one, holy, catholic and apostolic church in spite of the schism between us, nonetheless, we are, at this point, two separate groups

Yes, and so are those Latin rite groups who broke communion with Rome, the SSPX. and Sedevacantists, and Old Catholics, etc. With these, as with the Orthodox, this is an inhouse disagreement.

In all fairness, the one particular poster you mention is every bit as harsh at times when it comes to some things or issues Orthodox. That same poster has on numerous occasions defended the Church of the West against those who berate Catholics for their devotion to Mary and accuse the Church of the West  of idolatry. That same poster has on more than one occasion reminded everyone that most of the heresies came from the East and that the orthodoxy of Rome was the saving grace of the Church in the first millennium.

[Kolokotronis]

"I hope you realize that’s not, per se, my attitude nor my stance."

Of course I do! :)

[MarkBsnr]

The Athenasian Creed developed the last of the three major Creeds. It should not be heretical, since it developed in parallel with the development of Church doctrine.

[boatbums]

TC for short? Gotta have a short version.

Just, God forbid, don't ever, EVER, call some Catholics the RCC or RC short version...they go quite apoplectic when one does. Some don't even KNOW it's an abbreviation! ;O)

[John Leland 1789]

I would like to see the posts (’cause I would be one who has missed them), of any . . .

Presbyterian,
Lutheran,
Methodist,
Pentecostal,
Charismatic,
Independent,
Bible,
Unaffiliated,
Nondemoninational,
or at the bottom dregs, Baptist, . . .

. . . that state that . . .

salvation,
glory,
walking with the savior,
serving the Lord,
knowing Christ fully,
Heaven, or
present or eternal joy

. . . are locked up in their label or in being a member of their denomination or of one of their local assemblies.

And even the most severe Landmark Baptist posting on here, who also would use Matthew 16:13-19 to conclude their successive line of churches to be the true ones (Like the Vatican affiliated churches, LDS, and many Cults and Isms use the same text) . . .

Never considering that the prophecy of the Church of Matthew 16:18, 19 perhaps has not even been fulfilled YET, and that Church has not even been seen on this earth YET !!

Because that Church has to do with Israel in its RESTORATION - - - the Millennial Church led by the Apostles, the whole foundation of such having been rejected by the leaders of the Jews during Christ’s earthly ministry, and in their sin against the Holy Spirit and final obduracy by the end of the Acts period.

PETER didn’t even understand the necessity of redemption by the Cross when the Matthew 16 Church prophecy was made(!) . . .

People who love to get their OVERPOWERING ECCLESIATICAL AUTHORITY OVER OTHER POEPLE from Matthew chapter 16 can’t handle the remainder of the SIXTEENTH CHAPTER of Matthew, where PETER, the “FIRST POPE” REBUKES CHRIST for His suggestion that He will go to suffer and die at Jerusalem (cf. Luke 18:31-34 !!!).

But, you see, denying these power-hungry the use of Matthew chapter 16, means THERE IS NO LABEL OF FINAL AUTHORITY named or coined by man on this earth in any church system, denomination, or ecclesiastical “Mafia” that is recognized as being -— IT!

Leaving us with only THE LORD JESUS CHRIST and THE BIBLE. And then the Holy Spirit in His leadership of godly, spiritual saints in local assemblies. This is all quite enough, though.

[Kolokotronis]

Thank-you, Kosta mou, but for the likes of the Catholic, position abusing Admin Mod and the non Catholic, and privately surprisingly rude RM who are responsible for all of this, and their devotees, I doubt whatever you or I have tried to do in the interests of The Church here will make any difference at all.

[Quix]

INDEED TO THE MAX:

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

would like to see the posts (’cause I would be one who has missed them), of any . . .

Presbyterian,
Lutheran,
Methodist,
Pentecostal,
Charismatic,
Independent,
Bible,
Unaffiliated,
Nondemoninational,
or at the bottom dregs, Baptist, . . .

. . . that state that . . .

salvation,
glory,
walking with the savior,
serving the Lord,
knowing Christ fully,
Heaven, or
present or eternal joy

. . . are locked up in their label or in being a member of their denomination or of one of their local assemblies.

And even the most severe Landmark Baptist posting on here, who also would use Matthew 16:13-19 to conclude their successive line of churches to be the true ones (Like the Vatican affiliated churches, LDS, and many Cults and Isms use the same text) . . .

Never considering that the prophecy of the Church of Matthew 16:18, 19 perhaps has not even been fulfilled YET, and that Church has not even been seen on this earth YET !!

Because that Church has to do with Israel in its RESTORATION - - - the Millennial Church led by the Apostles, the whole foundation of such having been rejected by the leaders of the Jews during Christ’s earthly ministry, and in their sin against the Holy Spirit and final obduracy by the end of the Acts period.

PETER didn’t even understand the necessity of redemption by the Cross when the Matthew 16 Church prophecy was made(!) . . .

People who love to get their OVERPOWERING ECCLESIATICAL AUTHORITY OVER OTHER POEPLE from Matthew chapter 16 can’t handle the remainder of the SIXTEENTH CHAPTER of Matthew, where PETER, the “FIRST POPE” REBUKES CHRIST for His suggestion that He will go to suffer and die at Jerusalem (cf. Luke 18:31-34 !!!).

But, you see, denying these power-hungry the use of Matthew chapter 16, means THERE IS NO LABEL OF FINAL AUTHORITY named or coined by man on this earth in any church system, denomination, or ecclesiastical “Mafia” that is recognized as being -— IT!

Leaving us with only THE LORD JESUS CHRIST and THE BIBLE. And then the Holy Spirit in His leadership of godly, spiritual saints in local assemblies. This is all quite enough, though.

[Quix]

SIGH.

. . . imho, their arrogance gone to seed.

[Quix]

YEA!

Thx.

In all the convoluted shrill postings, it’s usually comforting to have a reality check.

Thanks.