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?

[GCC Catholic]

Thanks for the warning about Schaff... I’ll have to take him with a grain of salt now.

[MarkBsnr]

Thanks for the warning about Schaff... I’ll have to take him with a grain of salt now.

Indeed. If possible, he was more anti Catholic than Calvin ever was.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: It is simply impossible to worship the God of Abraham while denying Christ.

Cronos: A flaw in your argument -- Jews DO that and we can't deny that they worship the God of Abraham.

Cvengr: FK is correct on this one. Even the Jewish mechanism of worshiping God requires this. Consider how any priest must cleanse themselves prior to entering the temple to have fellowship with God, to worship Him. First there would be a burnt offering, pointing the object of our faith in the sacrifice being made to God for cleansing, pointing to Christ. ....

Thanks, and your analysis is spot on. I was just reading about the construction of the original Tabernacle and the note in my study Bible said: "... the tabernacle was a provisional symbol, rather than the full reality, of God's dwelling with man. It symbolized the heavenly temple of God:"

Heb. 8:1-6 : 1 The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. 3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. ...

Heb. 9:1-15 : 1 Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

6 When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7 But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! 15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

This pointed forward to the dwelling of God with man in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14 "dwelt among us"). There are tons of examples like this in the OT. Everything pointed to Christ. The God of Abraham is absolutely inseparable from Christ.

[Iscool]

Pardon me, I’m yawning...;-D

Oh that's alright...There's lots of folks who yawn at God's words...

[Natural Law]

"This is actually pretty much what I was taught as a child about the mass..."

You really need to get out more. The Baltimore Catechism was flawed and NOT the same as the Catechism of the Catholic Church as issued and maintained by the Vatican. It was a dumbed down version that sought to teach to primarily by rote, not understanding. If you are sincere about understanding and communicating the actual Catechism of the Catholic Church quote from here:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

[caww]

Well, I can see by this posted on Arminianism I cannot agree with. though there are some points I do.

Why is it seemingly important, for some, to be identified with them or Calvinism, or for that matter any ism that is or might be????

[Petronski]

Exodus 20:8

[Petronski]

She was yawning at your post, which did not contain God’s words.

[MarkBsnr]

There's lots of folks who yawn at God's words...

Are you claiming that your posts, which have been recently documented as either largely or surpassingly in error, are God's words?

[NoGrayZone]

"I have yet to see ANY SCRIPTURE that says we may do so.

So what? I have yet to see any tradition which unequivocally gives us permission to use musical instruments in Church.

I didn't say "tradition" to bow and pray to an idol, I said scripture. I don't CARE about tradition in any church.

If He says to not bow and pray to IDOLS, then you don't do it.

Again, back to scripture, where does He state we cannot play an instrument in church along with our hymns.

[Mad Dawg]

in fact one must wonder just how an angel becomes a "saint", as a "Saint " is one in Catholic speak ,that lived a holy life..and did a few miracles after they died..

Not exactly.

Saint means "holy". Certainly for the church to declare (not MAKE, mind you, just declare or acknowledge) a human to be a saint, the qualifications you mention are applicable, more or less.

Angels, however, being of a different order of creation, have different rules. The ones that aren't demons are holy. Therefore they are saints - 'holy ones'.

A little learning is a dangerous thing.

Further, any clue about what we say about the relationship between the Church and the "Israel of God" or "the new Israel?"

Your side doesn't realize that just as there is a kind of organic unity to your view, so also there is to ours. So you take your side's idea of Church and then try to apply that to our side's idea of angelology.

[caww]

This thread has certainly taught me much about the catholic faith I had not realized having not much association with that church. But I have to say that in this post, with the quote you listed, it is most disturbing to say the very least, as have others similar.

These threads do not permit me the comparisons I would certainly express of the same and similarities of beliefs and rites, that are both expressed and shown, within the catholic church, that once were practiced centuries ago and still are in various places in the world.

It seems to me the catholic church was derailed from the basic tenants of the Christian faith...and adopted “other” practices and incorporated them into their faith, adding more and more to them over these many years until Christ became an afterthought or something to tack onto the latest additions.

In many ways I am grateful for not having been exposed much to catholicism, so that in seeing these posts, references etc. I could draw conclusions based on those who actually practice their faith seriously. But I could not, nor would I recommend the catholic faith based on my observations here, and the references and authors given to support their beliefs. No matter what initials, names or c’s are used.

It's obvious catholics would not refer anyone to non-catholic churches as well. I understand this and will trust God will bring those out who he knows seeks the truth. But I also understand now why there are Christian missionaries who see the catholic church as their mission field.

This is simply what I have determined from this thread and the references used here. Thank you for your posts and all who did so. What an eyeopener it has been... indeed.

[Petronski]

Either it is the position of the Catholic Church, or the imprimatur is false.

That is not the meaning of the imprimatur. For example:

Please know that the presence of an Imprimatur does not mean that a book is an official text of the Church. It doesn't make the book the equivalent of an encyclical, say. It's not the approval of the work by the Pope or a dogmatic Council, and it's not a stamp of infallibility. It doesn't even mean that everything in the book is accurate, only that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic dogma.

Source.

[Iscool]

Are you claiming that your posts, which have been recently documented as either largely or surpassingly in error, are God's words?

Documented by a Catholic??? I post God's words in bold type with the chapter and verse noted before the words...If you haven't noticed that yet, now you won't have to wonder...

[Mad Dawg]

My point, that I seem to keep missing is that when someone says it was always believed and always accepted as truth..it just is not so..

It helped me to consider that Vincent of Lerins (SP? date? I have no idea!) was not a dope. From the time of Acts and of the Pauline letters there was disagreement. So he can't have meant that there was this sort of simpy-grin, kumbaya unity when he hauled out "semper, ubique, et ab omnibus."

(This is why super-human precision, refinement, and care are necessary to do this stuff well. Or good bourbon ...)

Our take is that IHS sure SEEMS to say, "This - my body," etc. And while Paul surrounds it with good stuff that central identification is never lost. The Didache, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr all seem to accept and to assert the core identification.

Then somebody says, "Ick! No thanks!" (this is how it was 'splained to me in my NOT transubstantiation thinking seminary.) So the distinction between what it IS and what it TASTES (feels, looks, etc.) like is introduced into the conversation.

Then the theologians come in to try to clean up the mess.

I was just talking about this Wed PM after RCIA (Catholic re-education camp) There was a kind of bubble of new thought in the 50's - 70's, new attempts to 'splain it. And I think every time philosophy comes up with a new "likely story" about what we mean when we say "thing" and "is", there will be wrinkles and ripples in Eucharistic Theology.

Fun stuff right now is that a Dominican I very much admire is at a University in Fribourg (sp?) exploring "sacrifice and sacrament" for his doctoral work. It would be so fun if you and he could meet and argue out bloodless sacrifice.

(P.S: thanks for the news about coffee and asthma. I'll just move my coffee maker and all my Tom Clancy books into the BR and never reappear!)

[Mad Dawg]

Sacrfice - roots are "do a holy thing." Interesting how we all think it means give something up, especially oneself. It's like the whole world knows that the truly holy thing, the thing done by God in Christ is to give oneself up.

So yeah, I'd say a sheaf offering or a griddle cake offering or whatever is a sacrifice and every one of us, when we offer our selves to God is a sacrifice - always by his grace - both as to the calling and as to the sanctifying.

[Iscool]

This thread has certainly taught me much about the catholic faith I had not realized having not much association with that church. But I have to say that in this post, with the quote you listed, it is most disturbing to say the very least, as have others similar.

It's obvious catholics would not refer anyone to non-catholic churches as well. I understand this and will trust God will bring those out who he knows seeks the truth. But I also understand now why there are Christian missionaries who see the catholic church as their mission field.

Then we are doing our job well...Hopefully there are many others who have come thru the veil to the Throne of Grace instead of hoping Mary and some obscure saints would do it for you...

[Mad Dawg]

Very fine quote.

Certainly there is something special about blood. We hear about blood crying out from the ground, but not sap, huh? ;-)

I didn't realize you were talking about sacrifices for forgiveness. I though it was sacrifices and offerings in general. I think the data on Cain and Abel is too vague to draw any conclusion with certainty.

[Forest Keeper]

There is a kind of inversion that happens in one's thinking about God. We say, "God is a Father, THE Father," and because we know something about fathers, that statement conveys meaning about God. It informs and directs our thought and influences how we read other statements about God.

But somewhere in there, the inversion happens and we begin to realize that our side, so to speak, of the comparisons is derivative and vague and that we learn what Fatherhood is from contemplating God, whose REALITY or (sort of) 'intensity of being' overwhelms the provisional and confused notions we form from our experiences.

Skipping a few steps here, and I ask you to remember it's been decades since I really immersed myself in Calvin, my criticism of Calvin would be that maybe he forgets that God will not be comprehended by our images and language. And consequently he is more rigid in his logical unfolding of his system than the nature of God allows.

If I'm following you then I would fully agree that if we assign our starting point to our own experiences, then we will fail miserably in attempting to comprehend God and His communication to us. If we presuppose that the starting point is God, then we are in much better shape.

As for Calvin, in relative terms while I suppose that the term "rigid" can be a fair adjective, I also see him seeking from the God POV. Charles R. Biggs, an OPC pastor, put together A Summary of Calvin’s Interpretation of Scripture. Here are some excerpts I "hope" are on point :)

I. Calvin’s Hermeneutical Method: Eight Exegetical Principles for Bible Study

...... (2) The Intention of the Author -- The constant search for the intention of the author is characteristic of Calvin’s commentaries. Calvin writes, “Since it is almost the interpreter’s only task to unfold the mind of the writer whom he has undertaken to expound, he misses the mark, or at least strays outside his limits, by the extent to which he leads his students away from the meaning of author [in the Bible].” Calvin underscores the seriousness of Biblical exposition: “It is presumptuous and almost blasphemous to turn the meaning of scripture around without due care, as though it were some game that we were playing” (Calvin, Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 1.4).

...... (6) Meaning Beyond the Literal Biblical Wording -- In dealing with the Decalogue, Calvin raises the issue of extending the meaning of a law beyond its literal meaning. He states as a general principle, “The commandments and prohibitions always contain more than is expressed in words.” But he seeks, “to temper this principle” so that it may not lead us “to twist Scripture.” He says, “We must if possible, therefore, find some way to lead us with straight, firm steps to the will of God. We must, I say, inquire how far interpretation ought to overstep the limits of the words themselves so that it may be seen to be…the Lawgiver’s pure and authentic meaning, faithfully rendered…Now I think this would be the best rule, if attention be directed to the reason of the commandment; that is, in each commandment to ponder why it was given to us.” In other words, Calvin looks beyond the literal meaning of a passage to the author’s goal. He uses as an example the fifth commandment, “Honor your father and your mother”: “The purpose of the 5th Commandment is that honor ought to be paid to those to whom God has assigned it. This, then, is the substance of the commandment: that it is right and pleasing to God for us to honor those on whom he has bestowed some excellence; and that he abhors contempt and stubbornness against them” (Institutes, 2.8.8). Calvin seems to follow the example of interpreting the Old Testament like our Lord Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7).

...... (8) The Scope of Focus on the Person and Work of Christ -- Commenting on Jesus’ words, “These are the Scriptures that testify about me” (John 5:39, NIV), Calvin writes, “We ought to read the Scriptures with the express design of finding Christ in them. Whoever shall turn aside from this object, though he may weary himself throughout his whole life in learning, will never attain the knowledge of the truth; for what wisdom can we have without the wisdom of God?” (Calvin’s Comm. John 5:39).

------------------------------

ONE of the reasons I unburden myself of this rant is that I THINK that these notions might help us to be more charitable and patient in dealing with one another's conversation about God.

Agreed, and it's a pretty good rant. :)

That we think it important enough to justify burning all this energy seems to me to suggest that God is definitely yanking each of our chains. That is merciful of Him and I am happy to see it in you and in me.

Amen, may we all grow closer to Him.

[Mad Dawg]

In the United States, and in many other countries, it is the custom of the law that a verdict should not be reached unless the defense has been heard.

I imagine that most of us here approve of that way of trying both fact and law. We think that even though the defendant may lie through his teeth, he ought to be heard and his testimony ought to be examined fairly. We ought not, we think, to start our enquiry assuming that he is lying.

It is remarkable to me that many patriots here on FR see absolutely nothing amiss, when they are invited to make up their mind about what Catholics actually are taught, in taking the bulk of their evidence and of the canons of its interpretation from our adversaries.

Still, as Job would say, "Surely you are the people, and wisdom will die with you." We have been separated for almost 500 years. It is not to be expected that TRULY understanding one another will be an easy thing. And yet, on the basis of our adversaries, you decide we are wrong. None so blind as those who will not at least take a look.