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?

[annalex]

saying “I thirst,”

Yes, exactly. This is how mariophobia is dangerous to one's health. Pretty soon on forgets that the Incarnation tells us something about God we would not know otherwise.

In this icon, Our Lady of Perpetual Help, we see infant Jesus startled by the angels that bring the instruments of His torture to Him. This is a moment when divine serenity is disturbed. Think about it.

[Natural Law]

"No, the Catechism is not the same Level as Scripture..."

Not all Scripture is the same level. There exists a hierarchy in which the actual words of Christ are supreme, followed closely by the accounts of the eye witnesses. Other works such as the Old Testament and the Paulian letters offer context and clarity. The Old Testament was satisfied by the death and resurrection of Christ. The letters of Paul and other subsequent documents, including the Catechism and Encyclicals offer clarity and insight.

Please refer to my post #4297 for the details of the Catechism on this.

[Quix]

I’ve resisted all these years because I really do NOT enjoy such . . . prose . . . almost regardless of the topic. It’s just dreary to me.

However, in the interest of Christian charity and unity hereon, I’m willing to read the document IF

MadDawg; MarkOMalley; and Betty Boop; will agree on which would be the best, most authentic, most validated, most official version—and send me the link to it on the net.

Absolutely no guesstimate on a timeline to complete the task. I don’t want to be rushed or pushed or dogpiled about it.

However, I will read it as earnestly and fair-mindedly; as objectively as I’m able, by God’s help, to do.

[Alamo-Girl]

I think they want you to read The Catechism of the Catholic Church

[Quix]

I’m fairly confident they will agree with the same link.

However, I need them to formally do so in a post to me, please.

Given various givens, I’m not about to wade through that much of such prose and then have some . . . individual . . . in their camp claim I read the wrong one. At least this way, 3 folks I highly respect and trust would be very likely to affirm that I read the right one.

[annalex]

This is the link: I. The Apostolic Tradition

This is the entire book in English

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

It would be nice if questions regarding the actual beliefs of the Church were first filtered through this magnificent tool. It is a lot of fun to get these question as they pop, disheveled, in your (plural-inclusive) heads, but if you want efficiency and precision, there you go first.

[Alamo-Girl]

As you wish, dear brother in Christ!

[annalex]

There is the Catechism and there is the Compendium, much shorter. A Reader's Digest version.

The links in the recent posts are good. There are others differing in formats. St. Borromeo's one is more easily searchable, but what we gave you has the magical .va domain.

There are older catechisms, designed for young people and children. The most recent of these known in America is Baltimore Catechism. Those on occasion sacrifice precision for simplicity.

Have questions, ask anyone. This is a reliable resource:

Catholic Answers

[Quix]

GREATLY APPRECIATE YOUR KIND HELPFULNESS AND UNDERSTANDING

AS ALWAYS.

LUB

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome, dear brother in Christ!

[Natural Law]

"It would be nice if questions regarding the actual beliefs of the Church were first filtered through this magnificent tool."

Thanks, I have posted this link several times in this thread and excerpted it many times as well. I agree it is a magnificent tool.

[Running On Empty]

Jesus Himself asked Thonas to touch the wounds in His hands. It would seem that even in His resurrected state He showed His wounds to alleviate Thomas’ doubt.

Also, why would He ask Saul: “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?” In His resurrected state He would seem not to be able, anymore, to suffer persecution for our sake. Yet this is what He said. It was because Saul was persecuting the members of His Body, the believers. Their persecution, He indicates, was also His, as He was living as He had promised, to those who believed in Him.

At no time did He turn away from the Cross—not when He was with them (us) and also not when He was resurrected.

Yes, He is risen. Yes, He will come again, in glory—when the vine is ripe—to gather His Church for all eternity. But—until then—the Body of Christ, member for member, suffers in His name.

“Take up your Cross and follow Me.”

[Quix]

I prefer to deal with folks I respect on this forum.

I also prefer to read the most authoritative current version. If I’m going to bother, I’d rather not bother with merely the Readers’ Digest version. That would allow too much quibble ground for some mentalities hereon.

Thanks for your kind helpfulness.

[Quix]

Well said and Biblically plausible.

However, I do not construe any of that to support crucifixes vs empty crosses.

[Alamo-Girl]

Not all Scripture is the same level. There exists a hierarchy in which the actual words of Christ are supreme, followed closely by the accounts of the eye witnesses. Other works such as the Old Testament and the Paulian letters offer context and clarity. The Old Testament was satisfied by the death and resurrection of Christ. The letters of Paul and other subsequent documents, including the Catechism and Encyclicals offer clarity and insight.

Then what is your testimony concerning Paul's certification?

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. – Galatians 1:11-19

And the Torah?

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. – Deuteronomy 4:2

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

[Forest Keeper]

Harley: As far as what is blasphemy against the Spirit, I have yet to find a commentator that has given a clear definition.

Well, here is what Calvin had to say (Institutes, Book III, Chap. III, Section 22:)

22. Here, however, it is proper to consider what the dreadful iniquity is which is not to be pardoned. The definition which Augustine somewhere gives, - viz., that it is obstinate perverseness, with distrust of pardon, continued till death, - scarcely agrees with the words of Christ, that it shall not be forgiven in this world. For either this is said in vain, or it may be committed in this world. But if Augustine's definition is correct, the sin is not committed unless persisted in till death.

Others say, that the sin against the Holy Spirit consists in envying the grace conferred upon a brother; but I know not on what it is founded. Here, however, let us give the true definition, which, when once it is established by sound evidence, will easily of itself overturn all the others.

I say therefore that he sins against the Holy Spirit who, while so constrained by the power of divine truth that he cannot plead ignorance, yet deliberately resists, and that merely for the sake of resisting. For Christ, in explanation of what he had said, immediately adds, "Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him," (Matth. 12:31.) And Matthew uses the term spirit of blasphemy for blasphemy against the Spirit.

How can any one insult the Son, without at the same time attacking the Spirit? In this way. Those who in ignorance assail the unknown truth of God, and yet are so disposed that they would be unwilling to extinguish the truth of God when manifested to them, or utter one word against him whom they knew to be the Lord's Anointed, sin against the Father and the Son. Thus there are many in the present day who have the greatest abhorrence to the doctrine of the Gospel, and yet, if they knew it to be the doctrine of the Gospel, would be prepared to venerate it with their whole heart. But those who are convinced in conscience that what they repudiate and impugn is the word of God, and yet cease not to impugn it, are said to blaspheme against the Spirit, inasmuch as they struggle against the illumination which is the work of the Spirit.

Such were some of the Jews, who, when they could not resist the Spirit speaking by Stephen, yet were bent on resisting, (Acts 6: 10.) There can be no doubt that many of them were carried away by zeal for the law; but it appears that there were others who maliciously and impiously raged against God himself, that is, against the doctrine which they knew to be of God. Such, too, were the Pharisees, on whom our Lord denounced woe. To depreciate the power of the Holy Spirit, they defamed him by the name of Beelzebub, (Matth. 9: 3, 4; 12: 24.)

The spirit of blasphemy, therefore, is, when a man audaciously, and of set purpose, rushes forth to insult his divine name. This Paul intimates when he says, "but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief;" otherwise he had deservedly been held unworthy of the grace of God. If ignorance joined with unbelief made him obtain pardon, it follows, that there is no room for pardon when knowledge is added to unbelief.

I'd say that whatever this is, it counts as a clear definition. :) This doesn't sound too bad to me, however, it doesn't exactly send a dozen roses to the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. :) That is, unless he is saying there can be real knowledge ("convinced in conscience"), but without true faith.

[HarleyD]

HD-“Why exactly did God “chose” the nation of Israel?”

Mr. R-To be a light to the world, and fulfill the promise to Abraham....Gen12...Gen 17...

Tell me in the passages you've recited where does it tell Abraham that he is going to be the "light of the world". All I see is that God will establish His covenant with Abraham. Why did God specifically choose Abraham and not his brother, especially when we know that God shows no partiality?

God tells us why He selected Israel:

Deu 9:4-6 "Do not say in your heart, after the LORD your God has thrust them out before you, 'It is because of my righteousness that the LORD has brought me in to possess this land,' whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out before you. Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations the LORD your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Know, therefore, that the LORD your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stubborn people.

God selected the nation of Israel not because they were so good (which we know they weren't), but simply to illustrate the wickedness to those around them.

Christians tend to be a bit smug in thinking we're "good" or we're doing "good things". Left to our own devices we would be just as bad (and sometimes we are) as anyone else. People should think hard and long when we believe that we're actually reflecting the "light of God". I'm not saying that we're not the light of the world, but everytime God lights our candle we want to blow it out.

Also, to punish the evil people living there, who had been storing up wrath for 400+ years.

You've never answered the question in full. Why didn't God simply allow the nation to go in and preach to them? Children were being born every day. The old were dying. Couldn't God have changed their hearts with the message of the gospel? Please remember that Nineveh was far worst. And since we're chatting, how about this scripture:

Mat 11:21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

Now if the "mighty works" done would have brought repentance in Tyre and Sidon, why then didn't God perform them there if God wanted them to repent?

You take hardening the heart to mean changing it from positive (receptive) to negative (rejection). I take it to mean making manifest what was already there -

However you take it, the verse plainly states that God is making it harder for the Jews to repent. Now if you keep insisting that God wants all men to come to Him, why would God make it more difficult?

As sometimes happens, different camps can read into this what they already believe.

With all due respect, before I became Reformer several years ago I would read this passage over and over again and it would make no sense. I'd look up commentary after commentary and it doesn't fit. I could pull out a number of verses from John, Romans, and the Old Testatment (and have) and they simply will not make sense from an Arminian (free will) position. I'm not reading anything into it. Actually, I'm reading the text for what it states; God is making it MORE DIFFICULT for Israel to repent until some time. There is no way around this fact.

The question I've always had was if God wanted people to repent, why would He make it more difficult? Wouldn't it seem logical that He would make it more easier?

If you wish to interpret it that God takes someone who would repent, and prevents them, I cannot stop you.

There isn't anything to "interpret". That is what the scriptures in Romans state as well as Matt 11. I can accept it as part of the nature of God or reject it, ignore the passage and consider God to be something other than what is revealed.

There are General Baptists and Particular Baptists, to use an old phrase.

There are all sorts of Baptist from Free Will Baptists to Reform Baptists.

God does not kidnap,

God is in the birthing process, not the kidnapping process. I wouldn't say that God "kidnap" Paul but I would say that He had chosen him. So does Paul...

Gal 1:15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace,

According to Paul, God had set him apart before he was even born although God didn't call him to His grace before he had done many vile thiings.

and scripture is quite explicit - God wants all to repent. All do not.

And none will unless God makes it happen.

Job 37:7 He seals up the hand of every man, that all men whom he made may know it.

[NoGrayZone]

bookmark

[RnMomof7]

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

Amen

[Iscool]

So naturally you are opposed to photography and sculpture, right?

Doesn't matter what I'm opposed to...The question is, what's God opposed to...And He told us what He's opposed to...

I'm an old sinner just like you are...