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?

[Mad Dawg]

It’s hard to impossible for me to imagine Him exalting in an image of Himself still on a cross.

What I'm saying is look (or imagine) and say to yourself, "This is the omnipotence and bliss of God in action."

In the words of Fr Guido Sarducci: It's a mystery!

In the words of Cane Pazzo (Mad Dawg): It's a WONDERFUL mystery that, as God's grace grows in me, may finally kill my deisre to have everything come out my way ... and that's just a fraction of the mystery that it is.)

I'm not against "empty" crosses. Don't get me wrong. Here where I am right now I have two crucifixes. One is the sort of classic with "realistic (but not gory) "corpus". The other has Christ standing, robed and crowned as priest and king. All worth contemplation.

[Quix]

Thanks for your kind reply.

I think I understand your perspective.

[Mad Dawg]

I may debate the meaning of grace & election, but I was saved 35 years ago with reference to neither. I didn’t need to define grace, just experience it!

Yep. Theology is a good thing and it's good that God calls some to go deeply into it. But it's not necessary for everyone. God's grace is way more than what we think about it, just as He does not require that we get every thing right about Him to receive His love.

[Mad Dawg]

Well, I do think there are some who use idols and images as something to sort of hang onto...it’s a need somehow.

There is no created thing (I think) that cannot be perverted. We Catholics are aware of this. Time for the old, wry joke:

An elderly lady is on her knees before a statue of The Blessed Mother. In her hands is a well-worn Rosary. Her lips move silently.

Suddenly our Lord appears beside her. "My child," He says, "Your decades of piety have touched my heart. I want to give you the consolation of a vision."

Her brows furrow; her lips continue to move.

"My child," says the Lord. "I am here to share the love of my heart with you."

Her brows furrow deeper; her face is a study in concentration; her lips continue to move.

"Do you not hear me?" asks the Lord.

Her eyes open and her head turns. She snaps, "Be quiet, can't you? I'm talking to your mother!"

Yeah. We are MORE than aware of the perversions ...

[blue-duncan]

“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.”

The problem with this example is Saul of Tarsus. I think we should stick with the only example given in the scriptures.

[Mad Dawg]

JUST IMAGINE, PRETEND, that I was the fellow who’d put YOU on such a cross and tortured you to death. Would YOU then TREASURE a brass reminder of Quix’s treatment of you?

No offense, please?

That's the human way of looking at it.

By contrast, looking back, as it were, in the light of the Easter miracle - or even looking back (in our imagination) from the consummation at the End, even the fall of Adam is called "happy" because it led to so great a redemption and so great a redeemer. (In the great Easter Hymn, The Exsultet, we sing "Oh happy fault, Oh necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer."

Aside from the Mystery I have already mentioned, there is also this: to contemplate a crucifix is to see the great cost of my redemption AND the willingness of God to pay that cost in Christ. Emotional roller coaster: I needed this dreadful thing, and He was happy to do it for me.

I don't think this is worth going to the mat for, but I am happy to praise the crucifix.

Besides, if you did that, and somehow my side of the deal led to everlasting happiness for both of us, I might cherish the reminder ogf a great battle leading to a greater triumph....

[markomalley]

PREACHING about

CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED

is exceedingly different, to me, than even gazing meditatively at a crucifix.

That Old Testament prohibition is fiercely in my bone marrow.

If you were to agree that crosses are inappropriate as were pictures of Jesus hanging on a wall. In other words, if you were of a mind to do away with ALL religious imagery, I would understand it and appreciate where you're coming from, even if I didn't agree with it.

But upthread you stated that you didn't have an issue with a cross. You said upthread:

Q>>>I can imagine Christ exalting in the empty tomb or a symbol thereof.

Q>>>I can imagine Christ exalting in an empty cross.

And nowhere have I read that you had a problem with the standard images of Jesus hanging on peoples' walls, like this one:

I assume that your concern comes from the prohibition that was put in place regarding graven images (Ex 20:4, particularly look at Deut 4:16-4:19). But are not the above examples, an empty cross, a representation of an empty tomb, or the standard image of Jesus that hangs on so many folks' living room walls, graven images? (Keep in mind that the phrase "graven image" comes from a single Hebrew word, pecel) And if we were to really take it to an extreme, shouldn't we consider the words of Deut 5:8, You shall not make to your self a graven thing, nor the likeness of any things, that are in heaven above, or that are in the earth beneath, or that abide in the waters under the earth..

See, Quix, I know people who hold those beliefs. And they are very sincere in wanting to serve God. And I understand where they're coming from, even though I do disagree with them.

Somehow they lost the context of Deut 5:8, which explains it all.

6 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 7 You shall not have strange gods in my sight. 8 You shall not make to your self a graven thing, nor the likeness of any things, that are in heaven above, or that are in the earth beneath, or that abide in the waters under the earth. 9 You shall not adore them, and you shall not serve them. For I am the Lord your God, a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon their children unto the third and fourth generation, to them that hate me, 10 and showing mercy unto many thousands, to them that love me, and keep my commandments.

If you look at verse 7, it clearly identifies what God is talking about: You shall not have strange gods in my sight. And then in verse 9, You shall not adore them (who? strange gods), and you shall not serve them (who? strange gods).

Back to the crucifix, I don't gather that Jesus is a "strange god." So I don't see any type of OT prohibition on showing images of Him, whether as an infant, a child, a grown man, or in the midst of his passion and death, as being something prohibited in the Torah.

But perhaps you are referring to something else in the Old Testament. If so, could you enlighten me?

Thanks.

[Mad Dawg]

If you do not allow me to buy you a copy of the Catechism (the most op-to-date, offishul version I can find, with the words of Torquemada in red, and encouraging picture of the Inquisition in the margins) I will take very great umbrage. VERY great. Umbrageous umbrage. Such an umbrage as ten men of this age could not take.

We ARE talking about the catechism, aren't we?

[markomalley]

I also prefer to read the most authoritative current version.

The version of the Catechism cited above is the version at the Vatican website. The original document was promulgated in 1993 and was extensively revised in 1997 and that is the version that is still in publication.

One word that I want to give you on the Catechism is that it is a textbook. It endeavors to present a summary of Catholic teaching in a single volume, written so as to be very accessible to the majority of people.

The beautiful thing about the Catechism, in my mind, is its extensive footnoting.

Let me give you one short example:

The fecundity of marriage

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which "is on the side of life"(150) teaches that "each and every marriage act must remain open 'per se' to the transmission of life."(151) "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."(152)

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.(153) "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."(154)

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.(155)

2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood."(156)

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.(157) These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:(158)

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.(159)

2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny."(160)

2372 The state has a responsibility for its citizens' well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. the state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.(161) It is not authorized to intervene in this area with means contrary to the moral law.

---

150 FC 30.
151 HV 11.
152 HV 12; cf. Pius XI, encyclical, Casti connubii.
153 Cf. ⇒ Eph 3:14; ⇒ Mt 23:9.
154 GS 50 # 2.
155 GS 51 # 3.
156 Cf. HV 12.
157 HV 16.
158 HV 14.
159 FC 32.
160 GS 51 # 4.
161 Cf. HV 23; PP 37.

So, for example, you will see that footnote 150 references "FC 30" -- meaning paragraph 30 of Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. You will see that footnote 151 references paragraph 11 of Pope Paul VI's Encyclical letter, Humanae Vitae (HV 11), while footnote 152 references paragraph 12 of that same document as well as Pius XI's 1930 encyclical letter, Casti connubii. And so on and so forth.

And, if you were to take a look at these documents, you would find, in some cases, they reference earlier documents and so on and so forth.

The point being, that while the Catechism is a tremendous reference, like any textbook, it is a summary. Accurate? Yes. Authoritative? Yes. With the full depth and all the context? Be sure to work the footnotes.

[stfassisi]

“”I think Mary was on the earth right?””

Perhaps you ought to form a crew to destroy the images on Mount Rushmore as well as other so called american hero’s statues and images. I wonder if you think artists and sculpture artists are destined for hell as well because some make images of people in heaven and earth?

I would imagine you would be especially outraged by the statue of the pagan goddess lady liberty in NY Barbour donated by pagan freemasons

None of these images/statues probably do not offend you, but somehow a statue or image of The Blessed Mother does in according to how you interpret scripture?

[MarkBsnr]

Like all his other attributes they are beyond are limited understanding. The point is of course...to maintain our relationship with Him on a one to one basis....aside from idols.

Certainly. But His revelation to us is about our salvation. This sets Him apart from man's beliefs of any of the pagan gods. Odin, Jupiter et al really were angry and jealous gods who killed people when angry and jealous. It was all about these pagan gods and the common man was their plaything. Christ gave us a new revelation of God's love for us which is completely different, and for the most part, completely in opposition to, previous beliefs. Jesus brought God to man in love for all mankind.

[stfassisi]

NY Barbour = NY harbor

[RegulatorCountry]

You should see the old Moravian names up in those same hollers, too. Elsewhere in the world, they’d likely be considered Jewish. Zimmerman, Meier/Meyers, Schauss/Shouse/Shows, etcetera.

There was a substantial Catholic population in very early Maryland, as I mentioned. The early economy went through many cycles of boom and bust, which led to migration. Maybe that would be the beginning point.

[MarkBsnr]

I find it interesting that when I ask you for a description of what the High Priest did in front of the cherubim created over the Ark, you eventually after several exchanges give me a single snippet of Paul.

And which Paulian verse did you give me? 2 Timothy 2:15 which says:

Be eager to present yourself as acceptable to God, a workman who causes no disgrace, imparting the word of truth without deviation.

This is no answer.

[Mad Dawg]

Templar Inquisition of 1185

Link, please?

[MarkBsnr]

You are mistaken again...My initial claim was and still is that people were first called Christians in Antioch, Syria...And they were...And I posted ancient maps to prove it...

What started it all was your claim that the first Christians 'hung out' in Antioch. Which is untrue. The first Christians hung out in Jerusalem, immediately after Pentecost. Then you started this wobbly exchange, straining to somehow make sense. Antioch eventually developed a large Christian community, and the monicker Christian was first used there, but the fact is that the first Christians hung out in Jerusalem. Most of them in Jersalem never made it to Antioch, since it was several days' journey by sea and most new Christians were dirt poor subsistance farmers or artificers and unable to travel.

[MarkBsnr]

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all (2 Pet. 3:16); yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them (Ps. 119:105, 130).”

Again, please notice that the NT instructions say one thing and the OT instructions indicate another. Why do you pick the OT instructions over the New? Remember that we have Jesus labouriously instructing His Church for three long years, setting Peter up as the steward (the keys, remember?) and we have Paul telling Timothy that the church (not Scripture) is the foundation and pillar of Truth. “Evangelicals believe that Scripture is comprehensible enough so that, with the aid of the Holy Spirit and by using a sound hermeneutic that allows Scripture to interpret itself, anyone who desires to do so can understand God’s message.

But there is no NT basis for that. The NT teaches (in the case of the eunuch) that it is the Church that is required for instruction in the Faith.

[Judith Anne]

I have to admit that I was in a hurry and left out a couple of words in that sentence...I intended to say that most if not all Catholics here who post any amount of scripture are former Protestants...

I am a former nothing.

[MarkBsnr]

No, you said that the first Christians were in Antioch. Never said any such thing

You said that the first Christians hung out in Antioch. I corrected you and said that they first hung out in Jerusalem immediately after Pentecost.

But I have said scores or maybe hundreds of times that people were first called Christians in Antioch

Acts says that they were first called Christians there. Not that they first hung out there.

[Mr Rogers]

“All Scripture is breathed out by God...” - 2 Tim 3

” So far as the grammatical usage goes, one can render here either “all scripture” or “every scripture.” There is no copula (estin) in the Greek and so one has to insert it either before the kai or after it. If before, as is more natural, then the meaning is: “All scripture (or every scripture) is inspired of God and profitable.” In this form there is a definite assertion of inspiration. That can be true also of the second way, making “inspired of God” descriptive of “every scripture,” and putting estin (is) after kai: “All scripture (or every scripture), inspired of God, is also profitable.”

Inspired of God (teopneustov).
“God-breathed.” Late word (Plutarch) here only in N.T. Perhaps in contrast to the commandments of men in Titus 1:14.”

http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=2ti&chapter=003&verse=016

Matthew Henry isn’t my favorite commentator, but I like what he says about this section:

“III. He directs him to keep close to a good education, and particularly to what he had learned out of the holy scriptures (v. 14, 15): Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned. Note, It is not enough to learn that which is good, but we must continue in it, and persevere in it unto the end. Then are we Christ’s disciples indeed, John viii. 31. We should not be any more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, Eph. iv. 14. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines; for it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace, Heb. xiii. 9. And for this reason we should continue in the things we have learned from the holy scriptures; not that we ought to continue in any errors and mistakes which we may have been led into, in the time of our childhood and youth (for these, upon an impartial enquiry and full conviction, we should forsake); but this makes nothing against our continuing in those things which the holy scriptures plainly assert, and which he that runs may read. If Timothy would adhere to the truth as he had been taught it, this would arm him against the snares and insinuations of seducers. Observe, Timothy must continue in the things which he had learned and had been assured of.

1. It is a great happiness to know the certainty of the things wherein we have been instructed (Luke i. 4); not only to know what the truths are, but to know that they are of undoubted certainty. What we have learned we must labour to be more and more assured of, that, being grounded in the truth, we may be guarded against error, for certainty in religion is of great importance and advantage: Knowing, (1.) “That thou hast had good teachers. Consider of whom thou hast learned them; not of evil men and seducers, but good men, who had themselves experienced the power of the truths they taught thee, and been ready to suffer for them, and thereby would give the fullest evidence of their belief of these truths.” (2.) “Knowing especially the firm foundation upon which thou hast built, namely, that of the scripture (v. 15): That from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures.”

2. Those who would acquaint themselves with the things of God, and be assured of them, must know the holy scriptures, for these are the summary of divine revelation.

3. It is a great happiness to know the holy scriptures from our childhood; and children should betimes get the knowledge of the scriptures. The age of children is the learning age; and those who would get true learning must get it out of the scriptures.

4. The scriptures we are to know are the holy scriptures; they come from the holy God, were delivered by holy men, contain holy precepts, treat of holy things, and were designed to make us holy and to lead us in the way of holiness to happiness; being called the holy scriptures, they are by this distinguished from profane writings of all sorts, and from those that only treat morality, and common justice and honesty, but do not meddle with holiness. If we would know the holy scriptures, we must read and search them daily, as the noble Bereans did, Acts xvii. 11. They must not lie by us neglected, and seldom or never looked into. Now here observe,

(1.) What is the excellency of the scripture. It is given by inspiration of God (v. 16), and therefore is his word. It is a divine revelation, which we may depend upon as infallibly true. The same Spirit that breathed reason into us breathes revelation among us: For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men spoke as they were moved or carried forth by the Holy Ghost, 2 Pet. i. 21. The prophets and apostles did not speak from themselves, but what they received of the Lord that they delivered unto us. That the scripture was given by inspiration of God appears from the majesty of its style,—from the truth, purity, and sublimity, of the doctrines contained in it,—from the harmony of its several parts,—from its power and efficacy on the minds of multitudes that converse with it,—from the accomplishment of many prophecies relating to things beyond all human foresight,—and from the uncontrollable miracles that were wrought in proof of its divine original: God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will, Heb. ii. 4.

(2.) What use it will be of to us. [1.] It is able to make us wise to salvation; that is, it is a sure guide in our way to eternal life. Note, Those are wise indeed who are wise to salvation. The scriptures are able to make us truly wise, wise for our souls and another world. “To make thee wise to salvation through faith.” Observe, The scriptures will make us wise to salvation, if they be mixed with faith, and not otherwise, Heb. iv. 2. For, if we do not believe their truth and goodness, they will do us no good. [2.] It is profitable to us for all the purposes of the Christian life, for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. It answers all the ends of divine revelation. It instructs us in that which is true, reproves us for that which is amiss, directs us in that which is good. It is of use to all, for we all need to be instructed, corrected, and reproved: it is of special use to ministers, who are to give instruction, correction, and reproof; and whence can they fetch it better than from the scripture? [3.] That the man of God may be perfect, v. 17. The Christian, the minister, is the man of God. That which finishes a man of God in this world is the scripture. By it we are thoroughly furnished for every good work. There is that in the scripture which suits every case. Whatever duty we have to do, whatever service is required from us, we may find enough in the scriptures to furnish us for it.

(3.) On the whole we here see, [1.] That the scripture has various uses, and answers divers ends and purposes: It is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction of all errors in judgment and practice, and for instruction in righteousness. [2.] The scripture is a perfect rule of faith and practice, and was designed for the man of God, the minister as well as the Christian who is devoted to God, for it is profitable for doctrine, &c. [3.] If we consult the scripture, which was given by inspiration of God, and follow its directions, we shall be made men of God, perfect, and thoroughly furnished to every good work. [4.] There is no occasion for the writings of the philosopher, nor for rabbinical fables, nor popish legends, nor unwritten traditions, to make us perfect men of God, since the scripture answers all these ends and purposes. O that we may love our Bibles more, and keep closer to them than ever! and then shall we find the benefit and advantage designed thereby, and shall at last attain the happiness therein promised and assured to us.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc6.iiTim.iv.html

Scripture is the breath of God. All or Every - either or both - scripture is God-breathed. “then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” - Gen 2