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?

[Cronos]

you made a 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” --> PROVE IT.

you can't toss out random statements without proof and then try to run away from the question or obfuscate it

[ArrogantBustard]

It's InconCEIVable!

[Mad Dawg]

That is the most astonishing shoot and move I have seen in a long time.

I contend that you are not capable of that knowledge.

No. Wrong. Not True.

NOW You contend that. Your original contention was not that we did NOT know. It was an assertion made as if of known fact. That was challenged, and evidently you realized it wouldn't hold up as originally articulated.

[Cronos]

you made a 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” --> PROVE IT.

you can't toss out random statements without proof and then try to run away from the question or obfuscate it

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. -- that's not the statement you made, you said “There were people and groups in N-W EUrope that did not know of the See of Rome”. Don't change the statement now after your statement has been proven false.

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.

Strawman alert -- that's not the statement you made, you said “There were people and groups in N-W EUrope that did not know of the See of Rome”. I pointed out that that statement was false, wrong, incorrect, historically silly.

[Mad Dawg]

Ahem.

< koff, koff >

[ suppressing laughter ]

Mind reading is a no-no on the Religion Forum. That's exactly where I was.

[Cronos]

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.

you mean we Catlicks don't believe all that mumbo-jumbo???

[John Leland 1789]

you made a 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” —> PROVE IT.

---

The “SEE” of Rome in the sense of Roman Catohlicism didn’t exist until the fourth century. All history that says it existed earlier is fabricated by the same “SEE.”

[Running On Empty]

Thanks for clarifying the meaning of Paul’s words:”..making up what is wanting in the sufferings of Christ”.

Sometimes the literal sense of Scripture is all that is accepted, leaving behind the moral, analogical and anagogical sense of it.

I disagree with one thing you wrote: “bizarre but harmless”.

Yes, it’s bizarre and also, it reveals the hearts and even the agenda of many. But it isn’t exactly harmless. It becomes a nest of untruths that told often enough masquerades as truth. It becomes what St. Teresa of Avila called the “noiseless file of the devil”. It is a trigger point for sarcasm, bitterness, wrangling and accusations rather than the kind of honest debate one would expect of people who call themselves Christians.

It all reminds me of the Screwtape Letters.

[John Leland 1789]

“Strawman alert — that’s not the statement you made, you said “There were people and groups in N-W EUrope that did not know of the See of Rome”. I pointed out that that statement was false, wrong, incorrect, historically silly.”

---

You can not say with any knowledge that there were not Christians in NW Europe without any knowledge of the “SEE” of Rome, because you don’t know that there were not.

There were churches in Rome, not one central diocese all through the first century, and many believers who traveled north had never been to Rome, and didn’t have any connection with any church(es) there.

[Admin Moderator]

Go ahead and try to post that again, it’s no big deal for us to delete a post.

[wagglebee]

Do you have any possible clue why it keeps shrinking?

[Mad Dawg]

Doubling down is not a proof.

[ArrogantBustard]

Ahhh ... but I was merely posting a comment suggesting the state or contents of my own mind.

If said state or contents perfectly mirror the state or contents of your mind ...

Hmmmmmmm ...

I'm sure the paranoid amongst us (whomever they may be ... I cannot know, as I am not a mind reader) could make much of that.

[Cronos]

Your religion is full of false Christs

is that Islamic mullah's talking about The Church? Do you believe that Christ was actually not crucified as the Koran tells you?

[Petronski]

The “SEE” of Rome in the sense of Roman Catohlicism didn’t exist until the fourth century. All history that says it existed earlier is fabricated by the same “SEE.”

I see that same fever-dream repeated by all the worst enemies of the Catholic Church.

Is it in a Catholic-hating handbook or manual somewhere?

[Cronos]

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

The mortal's WILL is due to God's will. The mortal's choice is known to God, but is not a forced act of God's will. The plan for mankind as a whole IS God's will.

[Cronos]

I am asking if the choice for Christ is inside or outside of God’s will.

And I repeat that that is an incorrect question, like saying "Is green up".

The Choice for Christ by an individual is not God forcing you what to choose.

[Mad Dawg]

We can talk as much as we like about how the Church, dogma and practice, "develop." But the minute we finish talking our antagonists will insist that if we want to claim the primacy of the Petrine Apostolate, we must PROVE that everything was exactly as it is now.

Evidently, they simply cannot wrap their minds around the whole acorn -> tree analogy. We're not asking that they believe it. If they want to believe that the primitive church had bouffant blow dry hair with ushers and soloists and a music director always feuding with the pastor, there's not a lot we can do about it.

In a gesture of maganimity, I will concede that the Christians of later Bohemia did not expect papal nuncios to jet into the clearing they made in the woods, step out of the plane in watered silk cassocks, and force everyone in sight to submit to a rubber chicken dinner made even worse with interminable addresses.

But even with this concession, I'm thinking that the primacy of Peter was important, though blurry.

[Mad Dawg]

Okay. Its really my fault. I forgot to put on my tin-foil hat, so my thoughts just kind of leaked out into the thought-O-sphere (registered, pat. pending)

[Cronos]

1. I've been Santa Maria Maggiore thrice and not seen this anywhere.
2. The only place where this picture IS on the internet is at http://www.wayoflife.org, that's where you picked up the picture.
a. There is no other backing website to corroborate this
b. This website doesn't give a zoom-out of this purported picture or describe where this is found in the basilica.


Hence, due to lack of evidence for a picture that is put out of context in one, non-Catholic site, with no details of where (enabling a third-party review) this is supposedly found, the picture is suspect.