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?

[esquirette]

Calvinism is a shorthand term for a doctrine. It is not an attribution of any discovery to John Calvin.

Charles Spurgeon said it best:

‘If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.” ‘

‘Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, “God is my rock and my salvation.” ‘

‘What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? ‘

‘Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.’

[Mad Dawg]

We simply do not believe-—we outright reject-—that a supra-church bishopric held any sway at all with the general number of believers in Asia Minor, Palestine, Eastern Europe before the last half of the 3rd century at the earliest, when certain bishops got hungry for power and control over multiplicities of local churches.

Do you have any clue why this irritates me?

Outside of the seeming irrational and irrelevant allergy to the old word "see", what we have here is the typical, usual, characteristic and BORING Protestant tactic of boldly and with colorful rhetoric rejecting something that was not said.

Also, it shows that we all know that catholic bishops are about nothing but power and dominion while the poor helpless heretics are just meek and mild little people only interested in being allowed to worship in their own way.

We can do better, if we want. Do we want?

It seems sometimes that the entire Protestant attack involves taking one point, excising it from its context, and rhetorically killing it -=- all the while not noticng that the thing does exist outside its context.

For example, over HERE we are attacked for saying that that what Apostolic Succession and the infallibility of the Church means IN REAL LIFE, rather than in the febrile deliria of our antagonists, is that forms, expressions, and pastoral relationships DEVLOP. And WHILE that attack is going on, somebody else is over THERE attacking us AS IF WE CLAIMED that the use and habits of the Church in the 21st Century Vatican is exactly what it was the week after Peter showed up in Rome.

Clearly this represents a deep seated need, so in charity I will concede second century Christians in what was later Bohemia neither knew nor assented to the canons of the Council of Trent.

You wanna try a little less rhetoric and a little more precision in your charge now?

---

In related news: Yes Bede mentions that Augustine of Canterbury found Christians in England when he landed. One of the murals in the Episcopal Cathedral in San FranSodom depicts that, as though that somehow justified Henry's later break with Rome. If they were interested in the TRUTH, they would have included a mural of the Synod of Whitby, in which English Christians renounced their heteronomous practices and recertified the primacy of the Church in communion with the Diocese of Rome.
(See how gracious I am. If "See" is somehow objectionable, I type Diocese." We aim to please.)

[esquirette]

Romans 9:14-24

‘14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

’ “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” ‘

‘16 It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” ‘

‘18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. ‘

‘19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” ‘

‘20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ “ ‘

‘21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? ‘

‘22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? ‘

‘23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? ‘

[RnMomof7]

Here in is the problem Dawg, Jesus taught against tradition as did the apostles.. so when Catholics point to a tradition that has no scriptural support one must ask, from where does that tradition come? If Catholics then claim apostolic succession is the reason why that tradition is true and valid.. we then need to look to see if the tradition of apostolic succession is supported in the known infallible word of God..

When we see it is not anywhere, we then need to ask if that tradition , from which all other traditional practices flow is indeed truly from God.. because we have a serious risk of making up our own traditions (traditions of men) and therefore building our own god to our liking.

I have no problem with tradition as long it does not become the center of worship.. or attributing a work of men to God..and finds some support in word or practice in scripture

[RnMomof7]

Thanks..I do have a strange sense of humor.. Dawg may be the only one who gets it)

[esquirette]

Post Script: God is also just, and seeks His own glory above ours. Thus, He must be the progenitor of our faith, not we.

[Quix]

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

That’s my read of history as well.

And, it is the most logical.

REVISIONISM . . . particularly on the part of the powerful . . . whether intellectual/educational power; political power or military power . . .

has been alive a LONG time.

Thanks for a great and UNRUBBERIZED historical post.

[Cronos]

He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord

Well, then that theology is far older than Calvin. That is the theology of The Church.

[esquirette]

“Assuming that the choice YOU make affects God is sheer egotism.”

Precisely. God saves whom He will.

That is the doctrine we call ‘election.’

[Petronski]

Thank you.

[RnMomof7]

Mr Rogers: Nope. The basic principle of Calvinism is the deceitfulness of God. It teaches that God, throughout scripture, over hundreds of passages, tells men to repent - while specifically preventing them from doing so. It calls Jesus a liar, for Jesus said “God so loved the world”, not “God so loved the elect”.

Cronos wrote :Well put. There is an inherent illogicality to it all and it also flies in the idea of a loving God, which is what we have.

Here is the problem, men can not repent themselves, mans repentance has no weight with God.

Rom 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth

; 2Cr 7:9 Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.

Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Repentance is a gift of God .... seeking it with tears as did Esau or Judas who tied to repent and could not find it.

Hbr 12:16 Lest there [be] any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. Hbr 12:17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

Mat 27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

Mat 27:4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What [is that] to us? see thou [to that].
Mat 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. 2Cr 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repeat convicts us of sin,

He must be at work IN us before we gave the DESIRE to repent

The work of God in us always precedes repentance

John 16: 7But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. 12“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

Have you not noticed, since we were saved that sin pierces our soul? What once might have gone unnoticed now burdens us?

[Cronos]

Precisely. God saves whom He will. That is the doctrine we call ‘election

And that doctrine is false, because it:
1. limits God and
2. makes him a liar since Jesus said “God so loved the world”, not “God so loved the elect”.

[wagglebee]

How about the ones like the "immaculate conception "and "assumption"

This has been explained innumerable times. The fact that you cannot or will not accept this is not our problem. You might want to ask yourself why NONE of the Reformers seemed to have an issue with it.

and statues etc..

I would be interested in your opinoin of some of these pictures:

Just give us the scripture for apostolic succession and we are all set then right?

I gave it yesterday, 2 Timothy 2:2. Again, the fact that you cannot or will not accept it isn't our problem. Could you point out where ANY of the Reformers said that apostolic succession was invalid?

[Religion Moderator]

When a newbie posts a strong preterist position (that Christians replaced the Jews in God's promises) or that Europeans are the lost tribes of Israel or that "Adam" means white - all of which are beliefs claimed by various white supremacist theologies - I require him to state his beliefs concerning Israel and other races.

If he refuses - as we had a group of about a half dozen do - I ban him. If his reply is weak, I flag his account.

There was no such reason for me to think the poster harbored a racist view. But by responding to the question concerning that particular phrase, the poster acquitted herself very well indeed. Otherwise I would have pulled the entire exchange.

Sometimes it is better to leave the exchange "on the record."

[Quix]

LOL.

Perhaps it depends on the definition of

“heard of”

and

how flexible “a hundred years” as a period is. LOL.

I find such an assertion illogical to the point of absurdity.

Then hilarious.

Then sad.

I realize that gossip has always been around . . . so has power mongering.

However . . . individuals and families were NOT really connected by the world wide web 2000 years ago.

[Theo]

Acts 26:20 doesn’t include the word “penance,” as you have it, in any of the standard translations I’ve consulted — ESV, NIV, KJV, Amplified, ASV, Young’s Literal, etc. Only one version — the Roman Catholic BIble (Douay-Rheims) — goes out of its way to include the word “penance” in that verse.

That kind of ruins your entire argument, when your key verse doesn’t say what you want it to say. Annalex — maybe *start* with an unbiased translation of Scripture, and develop your doctrine from *it*, rather than start with a preconceived doctrine and hunt around for verses in particular translations that seem to support your belief.

The truth is that Acts 26:20 is simply reinforcing James 2, that works follow faith, and that faith without works is dead.

In the end, I think the *result* of our interpretations may *look* the same — changed living. I’m saying, though, that Christ has accomplished everything necessary for salvation, and that those who are saved live lives that look different from those who are not saved. You seem to be saying that Christ’s sacrifice is insufficient, and that we must contribute to our salvation through works of penance. Such a perspective really seems to dishonor the Lord, withholding from Him the full weight of glory due Him.

[Quix]

NOPE.

Here and there, eventually.

And power has a way of consolidating more power.

Not very successfully, for a few hundred years, though.

It’s an interesting fantasy of revisionism and rubber history to construe it otherwise.

[wagglebee]

That makes sense.

[esquirette]

Cronos: You are the one who posted this statement:

“Assuming that the choice YOU make affects God is sheer egotism.”
______________________________________

Either you choose God or He chooses you.

You choosing God would not be in harmony with your previous statement.

[Theo]

I do have to question those who prefer a translation of a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic texts, rather than a direct translation of the original texts.

Seems like you’d get more errors translating from the Latin Vulgate, rather than from more accurate original texts.

Again, it seems that the only reason to do so is because it would support your already-determined doctrines. As for me, I want a translation that is accurate, so that my doctrine, my understanding of God and myself, may consequently be accurate.