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?

[Natural Law]

"They miss so much of what God has to offer by studying their catechism instead of the words of God...

The Catechism IS the word of God every bit as much, and by the same process as the Bible. AND....we have the benefit of the best theological minds of all times, guided by the Holy Spirit and the Traditions of the Church actually explaining what the Words of God mean to each of us instead of having self interpret or follow the musings of self anointed reformers.

[Natural Law]

"So . . . the contention is that The Vatican has NOT had 1600 yeears or so affording lots of time to jiggle the books?

INDEED

The OLDEST Ploy

By THOSE who have LOST the argument............is

To babble and demand that YOU prove the NEGATIVE

SAM I AM

Green Eggs and Ham,

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I like your homepage.

"When there is a lack of honor in government, the morals of the whole people are poisoned. There is no such thing as a no-man's land between honesty and dishonesty. Our strength lies in spiritual concepts. It lies in public sensitiveness to evil. Our greatest danger is not from invasion by foreign armies. Our dangers are that we may commit suicide from within by complaisance with evil, or by public tolerance of scandalous behavior. -- President Herbert Hoover

Amen!

[Cronos]

I asked you:
Cronos: Even the Naimans were in contact with the CAtholicos of Ctesiphon-Selucia

Quix NOPE. Here and there, eventually. And power has a way of consolidating more power.

So you don't believe that the Naimans were in contact with the Catholicos of Ctesiphon-Seleucia?

That is a historical fact, not based on your presence there or not. If you wish to make historical pretenses, then go ahead.

I think it’s also an outrageously unlikely assumption that any of the far flung clusters of tribal and extended family sized groups of Christians would have been regularly in contact with power centers . . . or that they would have submitted wholesale thereto.

Read the history books and then rethink. They were in contact. Pure bluster doesn't make up for lack of knowledge.

[Cronos]

Answering questions with non-answers...

Quix: I don’t recall anyone mentioning above . . .

The “See” of Rome has had a LOT of centuries to insure

that only “historical”

“documents” supportive of their power-mongering

much survived . . . .

Judith: Got a source for that?

Quix: So . . . the contention is that The Vatican has NOT had 1600 yeears or so affording lots of time to jiggle the books?

Where is the source Judith asked for? Instead we get conspiracy theories...

[Cronos]

My view is that authoritarianism was MUCH more in vogue in the first 500 years or so.

Do you have any proof for this?

[Cronos]

No sides of authors -- look up unbiased history and you will see that the Naimans were in contact with the CAtholicos of Ctesiphon-Seleucia. Do you deny that?

[Cronos]

your Question was “There were people and groups in N-W EUrope that did not know of the See of Rome”. I have proven you wrong. Do you retract your earlier, incorrect statement?

[Cronos]

You made the false claim that people in the Caucasus etc. did not know of the Roman Church. That's incorrect. If you can't prove that false claim, then it remains false and unproven.

Do you retract that false claim?

[Cronos]

Many here do not seem to grasp that fact that when they make an outrageous claim, it then becomes THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to prove it.

Yes, that seems to be quite a lot of that going around here, and it shows a lack of knowledge in scripture, history and even geography. They seem to think that they can spout any rot without proof and that's ok.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Somehow this isn't getting through to you so I'll repeat it again. Of course men must believe to be saved. But no fallen son of Adam is able to believe or do anything righteous or God-pleasing unless and until God first regenerates him by the free gift of the Holy Spirit.

You agree we have choice, and that the ability to choose is founded in God's grace.

All men have a choice. But the ability to choose God is not merely "founded in God's grace," but 100% enabled by God's grace from beginning to end.

"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." - John Owen

And "prevenient grace" is a cop-out not taught in Scripture. God either saves his children completely, according to His good pleasure and purpose, or men save themselves by their prudent free will decision to believe, which leaves God in debt to men for their response.

And that is not reality. That is ego. It's Pelagianism which is where Arminianism leads.

ARMINIUS AND ARMINIANISM

The teaching of Jacobus Arminius came about as a result of his belief that the teachings of John Calvin, with respect to the role of God in salvation, were not correct. Although he had previously been a supporter of Calvin and had accepted the Dutch Reformed doctrines of the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation, predestination and foreordination, he changed his mind and taught against those beliefs. Chief among his beliefs was the idea that man chooses God of his own free will. He believed that man was affected by original sin and could not choose God in that condition, but that God grants to the individual a special grace that removes the effect of the fall and allows the person to make a choice of their own free will.

Arminian theology is a continuation or refinement of Pelagianism, the doctrine of the 5th century English Catholic monk. Jacobus Arminius would deny that he was a proponent of Pelagian heresy, because he did not teach against the concept of original sin as did Pelagius, but the fact remains that the two schools of belief are very similar and ultimately lead to the same actions by believers. The doctrinal error in Arminianism is that it substitutes an act of man that is of greater authority than the sovereignty of God and makes God subservient to the actions of man rather than man subservient to the actions of God...

[Cronos]

And thanks ever so much for the link to "Classical Arminianism." I'll file it with the RCC catechism and Ratzinger's "global encyclical."

That's so nice. Would be great to read those links eventually.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You might recall that one of them was posted to bolster a claim that a certain quote could be found on "thousands" of Catholic websites, only later did we discover that the quote was actually a total fabrication.

No, I don't recall that. You've tossed out this accusation before with no evidence. Kindly substantiate it now.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I’ve read enough of them to know they contradict Scripture, so how much good can they be?

[Cronos]

It is a pity Paul didn’t understand this principle of evangelism.

It's the same thing some "new life" movements have done in India -- publishing pamphlets that say "hindus -- you worship demons" and distributing them. That's hardly a way to spread the gospel or even GET people to listen to you. If you start off by insulting people, it's pretty good odds that they won't listen to anything you say after that, even the good stuff.

[Cronos]

Great post. And Rogers certainly doesn’t speak for this old Baptist. I suspect his Catholic pastor shares his views.

I don't think Mr Rogers claimed to speak for all Baptists, just his own viewpoint. And that is no reason to make false presumptions "his Catholic pastor"...

[Dr. Eckleburg]

If you think that the choice you make affects God's plan, then that is sheer egotism

The choice we make is God's plan.

If it weren't, it wouldn't be His plan, it would be our plan.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Rogers told us his pastor was raised as a Roman Catholic. 1000silverlings is correct, certainly from the RCC's pov which never removes anyone from its roster.

Kind of like the democrats - counting dead heads and those names which fled Rome long ago.

[John Leland 1789]

” I have proven you wrong.”

---

You haven’t PROVEN anything; you’ve only delivered the “SEE”s mail for them. Just because you say to me, “You are incorrect,” doesn’t make you correct.

The “SEE” does not want any believers to show up in NW Europe before its priests get there, but that does not mean they weren’t there.

[markomalley]

Yes, that seems to be quite a lot of that going around here, and it shows a lack of knowledge in scripture, history and even geography. They seem to think that they can spout any rot without proof and that's ok.

There are a lot of folks who are simply trolls, practicing their own little version of taqiyya.

We can have perfectly fine discussions about theology while sticking with the facts. Resorting to deceptions and plagiarisms are the best indications of a bankrupt argument. Those lies need to be confronted.

But once their calumnies have been exposed, DNFTT (IMHO)