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]

Ahhhhhhhh . . .

So . . . the contention is that

The Vatican has NOT had 1600 yeears or so

affording lots of time to jiggle the books?

Actually, suspect the damage was done in the first 500 years . . . selectively destroying various inconvient truths and evidence.

Merely logical.

[Alamo-Girl]

You are quite welcome, dear brother in Christ!

[Quix]

My view is

that authoritarianism

was MUCH more in vogue in the first 500 years or so.

I’m not aware of a comprehensive

rule OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE over the areas in which the early Christians were running around relatively loose.

[Judith Anne]

Yes, and thank you for the links you sent to me in that post. I’ll be using them as well.

The word “tradition” was translated differently, in a couple of places, more like the “sacred tradition” — or oral tradition of Jewish law, carefully kept.

But others agreed with the word “tradition” and I’m not going to argue, don’t want to lose the “spirit of God” as the basis for the Law....;-D

I just recalled from my own personal reading of the gospels that Christ spoke about the law, how the Holy Inspiration for it had been lost, and how it was turned into a tool of power. And how he said “not one jot or tittle” of the law shall pass away...

Very nice chatting with you today. ;-D May God in His Mercy bless us both.

[Alamo-Girl]

I join in your prayer, dear sister in Christ, and thank you for this sidebar and your insights!

[Quix]

I am one of those who repudiates tradition as doctrine when it adds to or diminishes from a commandment of God.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. - Mark 7:7-9

It goes to this commandment:

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

God’s Name is I AM.

######

Thanks.

That’s an enormously fiercely held perspective of mine, too.

[Cronos]

Not really -- in your first post(#4676( you said: Any system which teaches that the serious intentions of God can in some cases be defeated, and that man, who is not only a creature but a sinful creature, can exercise veto power over the plans of Almighty God, is in striking contrast to the biblical idea of his immeasurable exaltation by which He is removed from all weaknesses of humanity.

To which I replied in post # 4760: Any system which teaches that the serious intentions of God can in some cases be defeated, and that man, who is not only a creature but a sinful creature, can exercise veto power over the plans of Almighty God, is in striking contrast to the biblical idea of his immeasurable exaltation by which He is removed from all weaknesses of humanity.

But, the view of The Church is NOT that God's intentions can ever be defeated by a creature like Man. God has a plan for mankind -- and His plan WILL come true, irrespective of whether John Smith accepts Christ or not. God's plan works. The presence of our free will in no way negates or even affects God's plan for mankind. Assuming that the choice YOU make affects God is sheer egotism.

We don't believe that, we believe tha the choices we make are known to God, but not predestined by Him and they in no way affect His Master Plan.

But, the view of The Church is NOT that God's intentions can ever be defeated by a creature like Man. God has a plan for mankind -- and His plan WILL come true, irrespective of whether John Smith accepts Christ or not. God's plan works. The presence of our free will in no way negates or even affects God's plan for mankind. Assuming that the choice YOU make affects God is sheer egotism.

We don't believe that, we believe tha the choices we make are known to God, but not predestined by Him and they in no way affect His Master Plan.

My post which you quoted hence was a reference to the fact that If you think that the choice you make affects God's plan, then that is sheer egotism

The debate was purely about the fact that your will and choice cannot change the overall plan God has for mankind. Your choice and your will affects you alone.


I ask: Can a human being thwart God’s will? If ‘yes,’ He is not sovereign, and something else is. If ‘no,’ then predestination is true. -- A human being's acceptance or rejection of God's grace (which saves the human being) in no way affirms or thwarts God's will. God's will is far more powerful than the choice a little mortal makes. Hence the question is a no-go.

[Cronos]

ll Gus, we are separated from Rome via (our) choice and many of us are not only not in full communion with Rome, but are not in commuinion at all with Rome...Again, our choice...

Well, it is your own free will and choice. That being said, if you do affirm what is in the Nicene Creed, I do consider you a brother in Christ

[Cronos]

ll Gus, we are separated from Rome via (our) choice and many of us are not only not in full communion with Rome, but are not in commuinion at all with Rome...Again, our choice...

Well, it is your own free will and choice. That being said, if you do affirm what is in the Nicene Creed, I personally do consider you a brother in Christ

[Judith Anne]

Does the council for the prosecution of the Church wish to cross-examine the Defender of the Faith?

[Cronos]

to insure that only “historical” “documents” supportive of their power-mongering

Ah yes, and now comes the conspiracy theories. 2012 has also been kept a secret, right?

[Alamo-Girl]

I figured it probably was, dear brother in Christ!

[Cronos]

Nah, just plain simple history — check your local bookstore. If one quizzically likes to rubberize your books with rubber or prophylactics, then fine.

[Judith Anne]

But one must never, NEVER, masticate anything with a phylactery. ;-D

[Quix]

OH DEAR!

It must be showing!

[I HOPE!]

LOL.

[Iscool]

Well, it is your own free will and choice. That being said, if you do affirm what is in the Nicene Creed, I do consider you a brother in Christ

As long as we stick to the small (c) in catholic...

[Quix]

I suspect you have lived long enough to know that

y’all’s side can stack your first 400 years of authors

against

my side’s first 400 years of authors.

Interestingly . . . many times, the same author is on both sides.

LOL.

[Judith Anne]

BTW, very nice to see you here today. ;-D

[Judith Anne]

I forgot to ping you to my discussion of the tradition mentioned in Mark 7, 1-13. I looked it up on my link to the parallel Greek NT, and the word was not invariably translated as “tradition.”

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B41C007.htm

As you can see for yourself, the word for tradition was also translated by some as “rules of the ancients” or “old laws.”

[Judith Anne]

So . . . the contention is that

The Vatican has NOT had 1600 yeears or so

affording lots of time to jiggle the books?

Actually, suspect the damage was done in the first 500 years . . . selectively destroying various inconvient truths and evidence.

Merely logical.

You can blame me. I don't mind. But, do you have any witnesses against me?