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?

[MarkBsnr]

How do you know that this book (whatever it is) is used to teach converts?

It could be true. Some years ago I helped with a totally awful RCIA class taught by a SPirit of Vatican II deacon who boldly taught "fundamental option" despite it's being condemned (WITH explanation) in Varitatis Splendor

One problem with this argument is that since the police force in NY City occasionally kills people (with documentation) with bullets, it is possible that they occasionally subsitute flamethrowers for bullets. On occasion. Therefore the argument is that since there are some awful RCIA classes being taught verbally in heretical fashion, then it is possible that this rather unknown tome could be taught in RCIA class as well.

I'm not sure that it follows, logically, or in reality.

[MarkBsnr]

I believe that this is the same Fr. OBrien who is now the head of Notre Dame and who invited Obama to speak, and wound up inadvertently, causing Archbishop Burke to lose his job.

However, I did not find the quote listed. Would you be kind enough to point out the page for me please? I am not accusing you of manufacturing the quote. I am very curious. And very intent on ridding the Catholic faith of heretics and apostates.

Thank you for your help.

[Natural Law]

"A Roman Catholic priest represents the Roman Catholic position until it doesn't suit their argument and then he won't. Until he does."

A Catholic Priest represents the Catholic position only as long has he represents the Catholic position. When he deviates he is on his own.

Unlike your dire church of condemnation a Catholic priest does not have the power to point a crooked finger and declare, a priori, salvation or position of the Church. His role is to communicate and teach the positions of the Church and to serve his flock. Sometimes they get it wrong, but when doing so they do not speak for the entire Church or alter the Catechism of the Church in the process (like Calvin and Luther did).

[Mad Dawg]

Well, my MAIN point is that, lamentably, even if something is used in RCIA it can still be not only lousy but even wrong. I’m trying to impeach the text as representative of Catholic thought.

[Quix]

Not necessarily, at all.

That’s too much of a logical stretch, imho.

[Quix]

1. The histories of Durant, Wells and others well documenting the surging human migration of those three centturies. Migration was not static at all. There was migration of millions from the Mediteranean region to ALL areas of the then known world, including Europe, as far as the British Isles and further north.

2. People were traveling during those centuries from northern and central Europe to the Mediteranean region. They were merchants and others. Travel was no more static than general migration.

3. There was no centralization of Christian ecclsiastical power in Rome in either the first or second centuries. The was no over-arching “SEE” there.

4. The spread of Christianity during the first century is described in the Scriptures themselves as being rapid and expansive. Two passages are in 1 Thessalonians and Colossians, letters written to two cities with the Meditterannean Sea to the south. It is easy to assume logically that their exapnsive evangelism was to the north and to the west.

5. Although it is not stated in the Scriptures, Paul may have actually made it to Spain, which he did state as a plan of his. Looking at a map of the Atlantic coastline, and knowing that there was both commercial and migratory movement between Spain and the British Isles by sea, long before there was a Roman “SEE,” It is a logical assumption that the fruit, or the fruit of the fruit of Paul’s ministry was already in the British Isles in the first and second centuries.

6. A straight line can be drawn from Antioch (merely to pick a point where the Bible describes a missionary movement)to almost any point in central and northern Europe (EVEN WHAT IS NOW THE CZECH REPUBLIC), and the the reading of Durant and Wells will reveal that during the first century there were already migratory and commerical movements along those lines.

7. It would be unreasonable to assume that the migrations northward from the Med. Sea included no persons who received the Gospel in the Med. area, Syria, Byzantania, Palestine, etc., long beforethere was any centralized ecclesiastical power in Rome.

6. Christians of that day were fervent and soul-winning and missionary in their intent.

###########

INDEED. Works for me.

[xone]

bump

[MarkBsnr]

Not necessarily, at all.

That’s too much of a logical stretch, imho.

Interesting. We say that St. Peter was martyred in Rome, after having established the See of Rome. Nay, says the sola crowd, since it does not say that in the Bible.

We say that Scripture is insufficient since Jesus gave us much more than simply Scripture - as a matter of fact Jesus gave us no Scripture. Nope, say the sola crowd, since it does not say that in the Bible.

One of the things on this forum is that I have been able to identify many things that are assumed or believe by the sola crowd that simply are not and pass them on to the True Believers (tm). Who will accept or reject them as they will. Because all Christians recognize that the Faith is of the individual, and not of the Stockholm Syndrome.

[xone]

ph

[Cronos]

Judith to Mr Rogers: I really enjoy your posts.

--> you're just saying that because you like posts that have a meaning/point. That's being prejudiced against screeds and circular reasoning.

[Cronos]

why not just eat a Milky Way and pretend they are both in the candy bar???

Sure, since you aren't in the Christian Church, you can believe what you wish.

Your church is man-made

incorrect -- the man-made groups are those that name their theology after Calvin par exemple.

[Cronos]

And what was their noise about India? Is it not reasonably well accepted that Thomas went there?

STRAWMAN ALERT!

St. Thomas went to India - the Marthomites are spiritual descendents. The Marthomites were in contact with Rome as trade winds meant that even in the years BC, Rome was trading with southern India (Kerala) and there was a colony of Jews in Kodungallur (that's why St. Thomas went there).

The Marthomites were under the see of the Catholicos of Ctesiphon-Seleucia.

you haven't answered my earlier question -- do you believe that the Naimans were not in conact with the CAtholicos of Ctesiphon-Seleucia? and I'll add this -- do you believe that the MArthomites were not in contact with the CAtholicos of Ctesiphon-Seleucia?


To say that India never heard of Rome is hilarious -- historically hilarious.

[Cronos]

All history that says it existed earlier is fabricated

Ah, more conspiracy theories. Did the aliens come down and change history too? What do the voices in thine head say?

[Cronos]

Abandon the field to vicious anti-Catholic liars?

I agree -- we combat LIES. Many non-Church posters like Mr Rogers etc. do not resort to lies but state their case in a calm way -- one can debate with such people, even if one can't agree. How can you agree with people who lie, distort facts and just bluster about, spouting lies and then not retracting them when their falseness is pointed out? Leaving them to their devices means they harangue lurkers.

[Judith Anne]

Your posts were of an accusatory nature in which you claim that Catholics control God.

I agree with Mark, esquirette. Your posts do tend to sound like a prosecuting attorney with a recalcitrant witness. If you will recall, I made a joking post to that effect earlier, asking if the prosecuting attorney wanted to cross examine the Defender of the Faith.

And we all are Defenders of the Faith, obviously.

[Cronos]

that men save themselves by what they do and not by what Christ did, according to God's will, and not their own.

Does the Orthodox Presbyterian group teach that??? Very strange. We Catholics believe the opposite, that Christ saved us. THe OPC doesn't seem quite correct, what with this and their worship of Machen.

[Cronos]

Good post Mark — so, Gamecook, why DO Presbyterians worship Calvin?

[Cronos]

Consider that it was designed to be observable from 30,000 ft. 500 years before the invention of aircraft. It is a tribute to God, not those inside the building.

But, Calvin says that things should be a tribute to MAN, since God is according to Calvin, enslaved by a plan to man.

[Judith Anne]

Abandon the field to vicious anti-Catholic liars?

True, few of the anti-Catholic posters have the reason and humor of Dr. Rogers. It does look as though they come to the poker game with loaded weapons.

Abandon the field to those who hate the Catholic Church so much they cannot bring themselves to use Her name?

I've noticed that. Yet very few of them will identify a denomination, they try to force Catholics into the position of guessing from their theology (or lack of it).

Pretend the slanders of Ven. Pius XII, Ven. John Paul the Great, Benedict XVI, Pere Ratzinger et al. just are not happening?

And some of them do seem to take a lot of pleasure in their slanders. I have noticed that some of those posting the worst remarks align themselves with viewpoints originally espoused and promulgated by the KGB.

To what end?

What was I thinking? (*slaps forehead*)

[Cronos]

That’s interesting, but we were talking about the average person standing inside who sees a huge painting of Mary and a cross tucked away in the corner.

NO, the post was NOT talking about this "average person" -- the post was insinuating that The Church worships Mary, not Christ. Any other statement is a prevarication trying to deflect away from the original intent, now that the original statement has been conclusively proven false.