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]

Haven't gotten beyond pondering some more.

Just printed your post off again . . .

The INSTITUTION stuff is sociological and psychological as well as Biblical.

i.e. I see in The Gospels Christ's hostility to the INSTITUTION the religious leaders of that day had turned RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD INTO.

That's human--human nature--perverse, fallen man human nature. It is pervasive.

It pollutes and eventually saturates virtually all INSTITUTIONS of man.

The only exceptions I've seen are where very humble leadership at the top insists on abject humility and to some degree periodically shakes things up more or less from top to bottom in some way(s) that insure the fresh air of Holy Spirit to blow through the place and clean things out, AGAIN.

And if that leadership dies or moves on, the rot tends to set in unless somehow he's been very anointed and skillful in insuring a similar replacement steps in.

That's in religious, secular, business, NGO's, colleges, any type of INSTITUTION.

HOWEVER, IT SEEMS TO BE FAR WORSE IN RELIGIOUS institutions . . . and perhaps military &/or political institutions depending.

Overwhelmingly politically managed RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS seem to be the very worst.

I don't know that the ORGANIZATION of the INSTITUTION matters much.

It CAN matter significantly.

It's just that the HUMAN NATURE THING IS SOOOOO POWERFUL, IT VIRTUALLY OVERRIDES ANY TYPE OF ORGANIZATION.

And . . . gives avenue even for demonic pollution on top of that--which really entrenches and worsens the whole thing.

Certainly Paul makes clear that there are

PASTORS, TEACHERS, PROPHETS, EVANGELISTS, APOSTLES . . . PER:

Ephesians 4:10-12 (King James Version)

10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

So, yes, I would agree that Pastoral leadership is fitting.

PASTORAL SERVANT LEADERSHIP. Thankfully, my current church emphasizes this uncommonly well in attitude and behavior. Not perfectly but way above average.

In my experience and observation . . . the issue becomes one of AUTHORITY and how is AUTHORITY administered, expressed.

HUMILITY GROUNDED authority saturated in Christ's Blood, Spirit and Christ's humility is DIFFERENT in expression, core, foundation, spirit, attitude

than ORGANIZATIONAL, STRUCTURED, HIERARCHICAL, POLITICAL, ADMINISTRATIVE expressions of authority by sin polluted humans.

I think the PURPOSE outlined in the above verses is critical:

FOR THE EDIFYING OF THE BODY OF CHRIST.

NOT for the Lording over; not for even heavy handed brow beating thereof . . . NOT FOR the mangling, herding, coercing, pressuring, !!!!DEMANDING!!!! . . .

FOR humbly edifying, leading as a shepherd leads sheep . . . Don't see a lot of that in far too many churches. . . . modelling . . . being an example . . . encouraging, building up, EQUIPPING . . . in spiritual muscles, graces, understandings, knowledge, wisdom, . . . HUMILITY, facilitating RELATIONSHIPS WITH GOD SUCH AS HIS SPIRIT ANOINTS AND EMPOWERS . . . .

My reading of the Gospels and of Paul's letters . . . AND OF ACTS . . . is . . . that

I CORINTHIANS 12-14 are the verses outlining the NEW TESTAMENT MODEL FOR A PROPER CONGREGATIONAL MEETING.

I COR 14:
26-33So here's what I want you to do. When you gather for worship, each one of you be prepared with something that will be useful for all: Sing a hymn, teach a lesson, tell a story, lead a prayer, provide an insight. If prayers are offered in tongues, two or three's the limit, and then only if someone is present who can interpret what you're saying. Otherwise, keep it between God and yourself. And no more than two or three speakers at a meeting, with the rest of you listening and taking it to heart. Take your turn, no one person taking over. Then each speaker gets a chance to say something special from God, and you all learn from each other. If you choose to speak, you're also responsible for how and when you speak. When we worship the right way, God doesn't stir us up into confusion; he brings us into harmony. This goes for all the churches—no exceptions.

Certainly Pastoral preaching is a priority.

However, I've come to believe that the Pastor's relationship with his staff and the other 'social stars' in the church IS WHERE MOST PASTORAL LEADERSHIP RISES OR FALLS; WINS OR CRASHES AND BURNS. That's where the tone is set as Christ-like or not. That's where people learn that the sermons are lived out in his life--and therefore practically LIVEABLE in their's also--or that it's all a phony charade.

That's where diciples are made or the game is played and a differnt destructive kind of disciple is made.

I mostly don't think it matters GREATLY whether the Pastor is a sort of exalted lay leaders as in some congregations and denominations on a kind of rotating basis . . . Don't the Bretheren still do things that way? . . . or a more formally ordained and formally sanctioned Pastoral hierarchy--at least when things are healthy.

I do think that the more structured, more formally ordained and sanctioned leadership structures TEND TO GO TO ROT FASTER AND MORE DESTRUCTIVELY AND STAY THAT WAY MORE TENACIOUSLY.

I think that's partly because EGOS get wedded to roles and titles . . . and that pride and arrogance is a very insideous and horrifically destructive force of great cleverness, slipperiness etc. etc. very skillful at wrapping itself in robes of pseudo-righteousness and parading about in all manner of "Biblical" [really UN-] justification, finery and !!!!AUTHORITY!!!!

My experience and observations of proper BIBLICAL AUTHORITY as demonstrated by Christ and Paul . . . is

moment by moment
DAY BY DAY
virtually situation by situation

AUTHORITY IN CHRIST'S SPIRIT AND BLOOD.

THAT insures that the leader is constantly seeking God's face for what is the most fitting role for him in that moment, in that situation--REGARDLESS OF TITLE, REGARDLESS OF STRUCTURE, REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING BUT GOD--ANYTHING BUT GOD'S EXPRESS ORDERS, INSTRUCTIONS, LEADING AND ANOINTING FOR THAT MOMENT AND THAT SITUATION.

OTHERWISE, leaders get cushy and fossilized and rigidly structured in their own notions, their own self-righteousness; their own glory; their own ROLES AND TITLES. AND WOE THE PERSON WHO DOESN'T PAY PROPER RESPECT AND KOWTOWING.

Leaders who are constantly pressed into the keen awareness that they are also human; they are also merely part of the priesthood of all Believers; they are also responsible for getting fresh manna from The Lord for this moment, this situation, . . . tend to be less likely to build their personal kingdoms instead of God's kingdom.

I don't have a lot in me to write at length about the relationship between churches at the moment.

I'll just note that I don't see in Scripture any evidence that a hierarchical structure of any formal nature or rigidity is Biblical at all.

I believe Apostles and the like plant churches and give wise oversight to churches . . . maybe exercising discipline on occasion . . . ALL OF WHICH COMES OUT OF THEIR MOMENT BY MOMENT POWER AND ANOINTING IN GOD'S SPIRIT VS OUT OF A TITLE AND A POSITION.

Paul spoke in authority out of his anointing and his spiritual RELATIONSHIP with Christ on a moment by moment basis. He did not speak out of his PhD. He did not speak out of his training by Gamaliel. He did not speak out of his history of leadership as a pharisee. He did not, per se, even speak out of his Damascus Road experience except to note that he, too, had seen Christ, personally.

I personally don't believe that in a sense, he even spoke out of his authority as the founder of different churches on his journeys. In a sense he did. He spoke out of fatherly founder sort of pastoral oversight leadership.

HOWEVER, THE POWER, POTENCY, AUTHORITY OF THAT SPEAKING DID NOT REALLLLLLLY COME FROM THE FACT THAT HE'D FOUNDED THOSE CHURCHES. HIS AUTHORITY ALWAYS CAME OUT OF HIS ANOINTING MOMENT BY MOMENT BY HOLY SPIRIT AND OUT OF HIS MOMENT BY MOMENT VIBRANT DIALOGUE WITH THE RISEN CHRIST VIA HIS SPIRIT. ALWAYS.

I believe anything less in any group is DEAD RELIGION.

AND FAR TOO OFTEN, IT'S DEAD, STINKY, DESTRUCTIVE, POLLUTING, INFECTING, HORRIFIC, DEMONIZED RELIGION.

I also believe that increasingly in these END TIMES past a certain point in the rush toward Armageddon . . . there won't be ANY OTHER KIND OF TRUE, HEALTHY, BIBLICAL, ALIVE CHRISTIAN GROUP--THAN WHAT I'VE DESCRIBED ABOVE. The other kind will be obliterated or wholesale in the enemy's camp--regardless of label that was on the door.

[Quix]

ping to

RNMomOf7;

to my post #5,061

above.

[Mad Dawg]

I just realized how ridiculous this all is.

Why are we spending a MINUTE defending ourselves and the Faith from people whose principle line of attack is to charge that we believe something we do not believe.

If they want to go whisper among themselves about the horrible things it amuses them to pretend we do, we won't be able to stop them.

It must be a major tenet of some theological systems that when Jesus said "take up [your] cross daily" he meant his hearers to understand that THEY would never experience anything like crucifixion, and that if they ever did, it would be a sinful idolatrous act of pride, or somesuch."Take up your cross daily" just means to "Lug it here and there as kind of a nuisance, but don't worry about that pesky self-denial thing. I don't know what I was thinking when I said you'd have to do that too ..."

They accuse us, repeatedly, falsely, and ignorantly, of not reading or studying the Scriptures which we preserved for their perversion and editing. And then when our art shows that we have not only heard, read, and marked but also inwardly digested them they get their knickers in a major twist and insist that we defend ourselves against the charges arising more from their thoughtlessness and arm's-length relationship with the Gospel than from anything else.

Paul was SO prideful!
Galations 2:20 -- "I have been crucified with Christ."

He was even worse than prideful. He encouraged and tempted us to pride as well:
Romans 8:17: -- "and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him... "

How dare, how DARE anyone think that it would be okay to portray that in art! IT's an OUTRAGE. It's InconCEIVable! After all, no one but Jesus was ever crucified. The Romans used lethal injection for all their other executions.

Brother and sister Catholics: They suckered us again. Our religious art merely portrays what our Lord and "the Apostle" said, and yet they try to use our cleaving to Scripture against us, while at the same time charging us with NOT reading Scripture enough!

It's bizarre, bizarre but harmless.

[Judith Anne]

I just finished the Rosary and the Divine Mercy Chaplet. It’s a beautiful new day that God has given us. (That’s why they call this, ‘the present’)

;-D

[Iscool]

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.

Like I said; if you guys would study the scriptures like you study your catechism, you'd soon find out that God isn't interested in great theological minds...You'd find out your church traditions are meaningless to God...God wrote everything in the scriptures that was necessary for our Salvation...

Your religion is full of false Christs...You have written records of a few men that go back to the early years of Christianity whose writings disagree with scripture and you follow them like they are pied pipers

So what??? Paul warned us about heretics all over the place...What evidence do you have that your church fathers weren't some of these heretics???

[netmilsmom]

Nice compilation!
You rock!

[netmilsmom]

>>Your religion is full of false Christs...What evidence do you have that your church fathers weren’t some of these heretics?<<

LOLOLOLOLOL!
Keith Olberman says that Scott Brown is an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, Tea Bagging supporter of violence against women, and against politicians with whom he disagrees.

Name calling comes from desperation.

[Judith Anne]

For some reason, that post of wagglebee’s looks fine on my ping page, but on this page it “shrinks.”

Is it my computer?

[sitetest]

I’m getting the same effect.

[wagglebee]

I have the same problem.

[esquirette]

“You are asking if God’s will is challenged if you or I reject God’s grace.”

I am asking if the choice for Christ is inside or outside of God’s will. This is not a compound question that presumes anything like, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

The predicates are established: We have established that there is something that is called a choice. Mortals make the choice. One element only needs to be addressed.

Is that mortal’s choice within or without God’s will?

[Petronski]

Kindly substantiate it now.

Done and done.

*lolz*

[Judith Anne]

Same thing, but only within the post.

[Petronski]

You have written records of a few men that go back to the early years of Christianity whose writings disagree with scripture...

No no no no no.

Those writings disagree with YOPIOS.

So what?

[Petronski]

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

Such is your claim.

[wagglebee]

The photo is not of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore and it is not from a Christian website.

[John Leland 1789]

So, you have any proof for your statement about Czechs forming Churchs in 45 AD? your Question was “There were people and groups in N-W EUrope that did not know of the See of Rome”. That is flat out, historically, WRONG.

---

You are telling me that you know absolutely that there was never a Christian who travelled from the eastern Mediterranean region to central Europe in the 1st century. You are making a statement that you have such superior knowledge that you can say that no man ever carried the Gospel north of, say, Greece or Macedonia in the first century.

I contend that you are not capable of that knowledge. It is not difficult to understand and see the migration of peoples in general over those regions in the 1st century, from reading Durant and Wells. Place with that even the Scripture evidences that the spread of the Gospel was rapid and expansive (Acts 2:5; 1 Thessalonians; Colossians 1:6), it is more logical to assume that believers had travelled north of into Europe than to believe that none had.

That is, unless it is neceassary to deny that Christians had already gone into Europe before priests and bishops of the “SEE” for eccleastical power reasons.