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?

[Quix]

INDEED.

[Quix]

MOST PROTTY’S DON’T ACCEPT

Most Roman Catholic/Vatican et al “proofs” as remotely valid, authentic, relevant etc.

[Quix]

INDEED.

Though sometimes it seems to be on all sides of some arguments.

[Quix]

Nice to see some Roman Catholics et al finally found some.

It has seemed that some Vatican edict had demanded they all be shattered.

Good on you.

[Quix]

Anointed Holy Spirit wisdom in that, imho.

Thanks tons.

[Quix]

I don’t know why that

TAKING THINGS PERSONAL

is such a hard concept for some.

There’s even some Scriptural exhortations about avoiding taking unnecessary offense.

Perhaps an essay by you would help on the education front.

[Quix]

NOT necessarily so at all.

BTW,

This is NOT a sub-office of the Vatican

regardless of how hard and with how much

!!!!CONTROL!!!! phreaque !!!!!DEMANDINGNESS!!!!

y’all try to make it so

by abjectly relentlessly and ruthlessly

!!!!!DEMANDING!!!!!! that the rest of us—here, including the RM!!!

conform things to y’all’s sensibilities.

What absolutely over the top insufferable outrageousness.!

And that some seem to do so with such regularity and seemingly such straight faces and fingers . . .

makes it all the MORE outrageous.

Obviously displaying oceans full of humility!

[Quix]

Maybe I can find a white hanky and a bit of sugar somewhere.

[Quix]

ABSOLUTELY! SERIOUSLY!

I’d sign such a document in a flash.

Well earned and worth every penny.

And very contributive to Christianity and the USA.

[esquirette]

“. . .there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic dogma.”

[Quix]

I TOTALLY AGREE.

Still wish I had income enough to hire some communications researchers.

[Dutchboy88]

"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.

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.

As kind and respectful as Mad Dawg appears on the surface, lurking in there is a rejection of the rigidity of Calvin's bright line rejection of Rome's near-dialectic. If asked, was Calvin correct about the Scriptures not supporting the extra-biblical traditions established (immaculate conception of Mary, the papal role of Peter, transubstantiation, relics, indulgences, final unction, etc.), it would be interesting to find out if his answer is digital or analogue. Ask him about his tag line.

And, make no mistake, you are a gentleman Mad Dawg, that is not in question.

[Quix]

REALLY?

I thought chain yanking was a new Olympic sport!

[Petronski]

Correct.

[Quix]

That is such a huge difference between the camps, most of the time.

And yet, the one camp seems utterly blind to it.

Most Fascinating.

[Quix]

You mean it wasn’t her halo?

Oh, Dear! Was I ever misinformed!

[Quix]

I don’t get what you seem to get from Paul’s writings at all.

I believe wmfights narrative is much truer to history.

[Forest Keeper]

The Southern Baptists Convention says the following about confession’s of faith ....... “(3) That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so.” This leaves the door open to many error’s IMHO.

Yeah, it's kind of hard to argue with that. I think the intent was directed toward local independence ("the right") rather than saying it would be GOOD to have a hundred different and even contradictory confessions running around out there. I think that if an SBC church drew up something that was very contradictory to the BFM, that they would be tossed out. Anyone has the right to say anything they want, but they don't have the right to call themselves SBC while doing it.

It's good to see you again too. I hope all is well with you and yours. :)

[Quix]

INDEED.

[the_conscience]

Calvin believed that every man was unable to believe in God until the Reformed Holy Spirit hijacked his soul, and thereafter, was unable to not believe in God. This is true slavery by force.

WOW! That's shocking! Where did he say that? Why did the Holy Spirit need to be Reformed?