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?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

the one in the graveyard

That photo of mary on the cross in place of jesus Christ was from a cemetery in Nicaragua and first posted by Alamo-girl. If you have more questions, ask her.

The other photo was posted on a Christian website and is from the Santa Maria Maggiore bascilica in Rome.

[MarkBsnr]

Would you say that this concept is correct from Catholic doctrinal teachings as the good Dr. E. kept insisting upon?

[Alamo-Girl]

All that I can say about the photo is what I saw including the artist's title. We did try to authenticate that it came from a Nicaraguan cemetery, but anything further would require a trip down there.

As to whether the photo/title and/or statuary is acceptable or offensive with regard to Catholic doctrine, I believe should come from someone who can speak for the Catholic Church.

[MarkBsnr]

That photo of mary on the cross in place of jesus Christ was from a cemetery in Nicaragua and first posted by Alamo-girl. If you have more questions, ask her.

If I recall correctly, the female figure was not on the Cross, and not in the place of Jesus, but off to one side. You kept insisting that the female figure was on the Cross and represented Catholic doctrine. Would you now admit that neither is the case?

The other photo, claimed by the antiCatholic site wayoflife.com (a non Christian site) to be from the Santa Maria Maggiore basilica, is not supported by the first couple of dozen pages of Google Images. Do you have a reliable source which does not lie about Christ and Christianity that would confirm the accuracy of this photo?

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, my bad "artist's title" should be "photographer's title" - we found no mention whether the statuary had a name plate or engraved title.

[MarkBsnr]

All that I can say about the photo is what I saw including the artist's title. We did try to authenticate that it came from a Nicaraguan cemetery, but anything further would require a trip down there.

Artist's title?

As to whether the photo/title and/or statuary is acceptable or offensive with regard to Catholic doctrine, I believe should come from someone who can speak for the Catholic Church.

Very good. An analogy might be claiming that Joseph Smith spoke for the Presbyterian and Methodist churches. Or Sidney Rigdon for the Baptists.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Please ping me to one of your lengthy posts on this thread that gave a sourced other than scriptural.

Happy to oblige. I didn't know you were a fan of my many (Scriptural and non-Scriptural) links, so I'll add your name to the list.

Ping to MY POST #4,889, posted only hours ago.

And as God would have it, the link is a really good one by Augustus Toplady, author of the beautiful hymn, "Rock of Ages"...

ARMINIANISM: THE ROAD BACK TO ROME

Thank you. I'll check back tomorro

You're quite welcome. We'll look forward to your "checking back," God willing. We know your tendancy to prematurely bid the forum eternal farewell, opus-wise.

[MarkBsnr]

Er, my bad "artist's title" should be "photographer's title" - we found no mention whether the statuary had a name plate or engraved title.

Very good. Thank you for the clarification.

[LowOiL]

If I recall correctly, the female figure was not on the Cross, and not in the place of Jesus, but off to one side. You kept insisting that the female figure was on the Cross and represented Catholic doctrine. Would you now admit that neither is the case?

The viewer can look at the shadows cast to determine where the statues are. Shadows cast on the cross and shadows from the cross cast on Jesus's image. I think the viewer can easily judge exactly where they are positioned. IOW's Right where you see them.

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome, dear brother in Christ!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thank you for your post, Alamo-girl.

And your comment is #5,000!

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! And you're quite welcome, dear sister in Christ!

[MarkBsnr]

The viewer can look at the shadows cast to determine where the statues are. Shadows cast on the cross and shadows from the cross cast on Jesus's image. I think the viewer can easily judge exactly where they are positioned. IOW's Right where you see them.

Are we looking at the same picture? There is no image of Jesus in this picture. It is a very narrow shot looking up at a female figure with her right hand grasping the very end of the right crossbeam looking to the right of the photo. She has her left hand over her heart and is looking distressed. What shadows are you talking about?

[Quix]

INDEED.

THX.

[LowOiL]

Are we looking at the same picture? There is no image of Jesus in this picture. It is a very narrow shot looking up at a female figure with her right hand grasping the very end of the right crossbeam looking to the right of the photo.

Yes we are looking at two different pictures here. My bad for not specifying more accurately.

This is the picture I was talking about. Blown up about 300%

As I said, one can look at the shadow detail to get a good idea where the statues are located in respect to each other. They both appear to be attached to the cross. The shadows from the building also cast the same direction.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

If I recall correctly, the female figure was not on the Cross, and not in the place of Jesus, but off to one side.

No, you recall incorrectly. The figure on Mary was on the cross. As Alamo-girl suggested, anyone can see the photo in google images by typing in Mary on cross Nicaragua photography by Ivan.

These points were asserted, proven and settled weeks ago. But that doesn't stop RC apologists from denying what transpired and reasserting a false pretense of reality, as you have done here...

The other photo, claimed by the antiCatholic site wayoflife.com (a non Christian site) to be from the Santa Maria Maggiore basilica

WayofLife.org is not an "anti-Catholic website;" it is a Christian website. And there is no reason to doubt the photo's authenticity other than wishful thinking.

There is another statue of Mary on the cross at the Church of the Mother of God of Polish Martyrs in Warsaw, but I haven't looked for a photo yet.

And as I recall. Gamecock found a half-dozen representations of "Mary on the cross" from various RC websites. If Gamecock's around maybe he could post them again...and again.

[Quix]

Grossly blasphemous, imho.

[Forest Keeper]

I mean, you start talking like that, you might end up using the wrong fork!

LOL!

[Forest Keeper]

They are currently and privately discussing that very proposal on a Catholic/Orthodox Caucus.

Thanks much for the link. I read the thread and while it doesn't look like any decision was made I hope some amicable resolution can be reached soon.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

So you've given up the argument now and instead attempt to criticize my grammar? Lol. That does comport with the papist's general lack of a sound defense of their faith.

comport
verb
comport with something (Formal) - suit, fit, agree with, coincide with, accord with, square with, be appropriate to, correspond with, tally with, harmonize with. "This conclusion does not comport with my opinion."

We snicker at Calvin and laugh at his words. We have no fear of him.

Well, Tarzan, at least you're reading him. It may help, God willing.