...
THE DEADLINESS OF RELIGIONISM
Slam.
Dunk.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
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 know. I know.
And froth at the mouth and fingers . . . writhe in agony on the floor screaming, wailing and whining as though they were mortally wounded that we’d used the wrong label or didn’t kowow the required 100 times or maybe that we didn’t kiss the soles of their feet enough or maybe that we didn’t submitt to their !!!!CONTROL!!!! sufficiently . . .
the list of heretical impossible demands is endless. About the time one thinks one’s at least SEEN the end of it, they invent dozens more items for the list.
ENOUGH ALREADY YET. WHAT AN OUTRAGE.
Takes me a long time to get outraged—more than 10 years in this case . . . however, it does happen on occasion.
Shouldn’t you at least rebut my claim before going off on your assertions?
You didn’t address ex cathedra pronouncements as theological innovations and continuing revelation.
...
THE DEADLINESS OF RELIGIONISM
Slam.
Dunk.
Are you trying to imply something, Mark? How does one identify such people?
“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.”
I disagree with both premises that underlie your assertion. First of all, I'm not sure that groups that are declared in schism from the See of Rome should be welcome generally in Catholic Caucus threads. That's anyone. SSPX, SSPV, SSPII.V. The Old Catholics are not only schismatics but the Utrecht folks have become heretics, ordaining women and such. Old Catholics in the new world are about as Catholic as independent Baptists, or worse, crazy New Agers.
I certainly would have a big problem with having Old Catholics of any stripe in our caucus threads, except as well-behaved, invited guests.
The SSPX have an argument to be included in Catholic Caucus threads, in that they explicitly recognize the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff, even as they stand in disobedience. It is a little paradoxical that even while they stand in disobedience to him, the SSPX have a stronger theology of papal jurisdiction than most Catholics (to say nothing of the Orthodox).
As well, unlike the Orthodox, they don't think that the pope is in schism from the True Church (even if they're not entirely sure about the rest of the Church), and thus don't believe that they are in schism with the pope.
But second of all, there is a critical difference between some of these groups and the Orthodox. In a funny way, it is because of our high view of Orthodoxy that makes this NOT an entirely in-house argument. Here it is:
The Catholic Church does not recognize the jurisdiction of the episcopacy of these schismatic groups. The SSPX bishops are certainly bishops, but they are episcopi vagantes. They have no jurisdiction. Bishops and priests of the SSPX don't have faculties to absolve sin in the confessional, nor to witness marriages.
Why? Because even when they were excommunicated, even though their bishops (at least) are in schism, they are in schism WITHIN the structure of the Catholic Church in communion with the See of Peter. They are truly an in-house matter.
But the Catholic Church recognizes the jurisdiction of the Orthodox episcopacy. We recognize the validity of absolution when your priests hear confession, the validity of sacramental marriage when your priests perform marriages. There is more to a particular church than a bishop or a group of bishops. There are the juridical and canonical structures. The Orthodox have these. The particular churches of Orthodoxy are actual, particular churches. The SSPX and others like them are not.
But as you Orthodox have lectured us CATHOLICS over and over, you are not us and we are not you. There is still quite a bit, in your view, to be overcome for us to be in communion.
And realistically, when I look at these threads, I see two different groups. Closely related, but different. God make it so that one day we will be truly united, but frankly, I don't actually believe that will happen short of the time when Jesus comes again.
As well, the idea of “Roman Catholic Caucus” isn't right, either.
It denigrates the dignity of Catholics in communion with the See of Peter who are not in the Latin Church. There are particular churches in communion with the See of Peter that are NOT Roman. There are posters on these threads who are Catholics in communion with the See of Peter who nonetheless are not Latin Catholics. To call them “Roman Catholics” is inaccurate, and for those who should know better, it's a little insulting, maybe.
In fact, I would say that a “Roman Catholic Caucus” thread would be restricted to Latin-rite Catholics. A suitable topic might be the discipline of celibacy within the Latin church. The initial poster might want to limit the discussion to those who live in the only particular Catholic church that lives with a universal law of celibacy. Just an example of a possible reason for such a thread.
But a Catholic Caucus thread should be for ALL folks in communion with the See of Peter.
“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.”
Well, the poster accused all Catholics generally of worshipping our bishops. I gave him several opportunities to clarify or tone down his disgusting remarks. He actually reiterated and strengthened them. Last time I checked, folks who worship anyone but God are idolaters. Idolaters are certainly heretics. In fact, true idolaters are apostates
In what way could you share a caucus with us evil Catholic idolatering apostates??
Frankly, to me, that looks like talking out of both sides of one’s mouth.
"Oh, we're such close brothers, we Orthodox and you Latin apostates. We shouldn't have separate caucus threads!!"
LOL.
The reality is that we are two groups. Our two groups are generally known as the Catholics and the Orthodox.
I don't have any problem with the idea of Catholic/Orthodox Caucus threads.
But I also think that Catholics have a right to Catholics ONLY Caucus threads, just as Orthodox have a right to Orthodox ONLY Caucus threads.
sitetest
Love you dearly, Bro.
And enjoy the smiles you persistently bring.
Happy computing.
Thx.
Don't give up hope. We who are of the Faith will make all the difference.
Doesn't exactly roll of the tongue. Perhaps we should have a thread dedicated to finding an acronym that is easy to remember and soothe our delicate FRiends feelings.
the_conscience:
Your claim has been refuted. Mohammed was indeed married to a woman who was a member of Nestorianism, which at its core denied the title given to Mary as the Mother of God, a heresy embraced by many of the Prostants on this board regardless of which Protestant ecclesial community they belong to.
Joseph Smith was indeed born in Vermont in the early 19th century, a state with No Catholics at all, and primarily a Congregationist or Unitariansism, or Christian Universalisism. Smith took the principle of Sola Scriptura to its ultimate logical conclusion which was he picked up his King James Bible and determined for “himself” what were the salvific truths contained in the Scripture. When the Methodist did not buy into what he was preaching, he ulitmately set up his on Church based on his interpretation of the Bible.
No Mormonism is a pure American creation, individualism taken to its logical conclusion the principles of it are rooted in the Protestant notions of sola scriptural and the notion of the “priesthood of the individual believer” having the ability to determine for himself what are the truths contained in Scripture.
No, to rebut an argument you have to actually engage what your opponent claimed and not just assert new claims. Asserting new claims is not rebuting your opponents claims.
No external identification necessary. The sanctimonious dripping of their own sacred pearls of wisdom onto the marble floors of their own temples herald their passage through the corridors of oblivion.
Would be OK with me.
However, CAWTRB is fine, too.
It could also stand for
?Christians? Associated With The Roman Bishop
Goodness, I feel a nap chasing me. Tired already.
Shower first.
Your statement from an earlier post is in quotes
“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.”
My statements were in response to your statement above and are factually correct. I am not making any claims, those are facts. Most Universities are on break at this time so perhaps you are trying to make posts to impress your rhetoric or philosophy professor. Regardless, the statements that I posted regarding Mohammed and Joseph Smith are factually true.
And further more, the Canon of the Catholic Church, at least in the West, was closed in the 4th century at various Western Councils including Rome 382 AD, Carthage and Hippo in 393 and 397 AD, respectively. So whether you want to admit is or not, every time you cite the NT you are relying on the authority of the Catholic CHurch of the 4th century, guided by the Holy Spirit as the NT canon of 27 books that you have is a product of the Catholic Church.
And for the record, in the Catholic CHurch public relevalation ended with the death of the Last Apostle and thus there is no more public revelation until Christ second coming. The Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 66 and 67 clearly cite Catholic Doctrine on the point you raised.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.shtml
tsk, tsk,
I really wish that I wasn't serious. But do keep in mind that it is an exceeding small proportion. And, although their rhetoric doesn't usually reflect it, I imagine they would marginally prefer a Catholic to renounce his faith and join their specific group rather than experience damnation. But the last is strictly an assumption on my part.
Sorry that you are dismayed by that, but some people are that way (fortunately not many). But, hey, we had our Feeneyites...so it's not like I'm saying that we're any better than anybody else. (And, btw, Feeneyism was formally condemned by the Church)
The concept of Christ as the chief cornerstone, and the stones of the building as the Church was first taught by Christ in Matt 16:16-18 when He told Peter, "You are blessed, Simon, Son of Jonas. And on this rock [PETRA, giant rock, Lord Jesus Christ] I will build my Church [royal family of God]. Therefore, your name is now PETROS [part or chip of a rock]." This reference to Christ as the chief cornerstone is found in Eph 2:20; 1 Pet 2:4-8. Peter recognized that Christ, not the Church, is the rock. The Church didn't even exist in Matt 16. Christ is the link between the two walls, Israel and the Church. He is the ruler of both.
Great verses. It's the verse just several verses before Matt 16:23 where the situation is more fully described,:
"(Mat 16:23) But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."
I also understand the word used 'petra' also refers to a little pebble and in the Greek, adjectives are also used as nouns.
In my experience, the USCCB version of the Catechism is a colossal HTML trainwreck when viewed with Firefox.
Might I recommend a more legible source?
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
That’s because they’re neither theological innovation, nor continuing revelation. Try reading an ex cathedra pronouncement some time. Sure, Our Lady of Fatima pronounced the doctrine of Immaculate Conception to the children at Lourdes, but that happened after the pope had proclaimed the doctrine infallibly. And that happened only after the pope had determined that a unanimous concurrence among bishops and no historical opposition on theological grounds.
Sure, the Eastern Church has issues with the Augustinian language relating to original sin, so they word their notion that Mary was sinless differently, but they certainly don’t deny her sinlessness.
Not in Koine Greek it doesn't.
In Koine Greek (the language of the Gospel of Matthew), there are no gender distinctions, both petra and petros mean rock.
The Koine Greek for stone/pebble is lithos.
The distinctions drawn in brackets in this quote are FALSE.
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.