Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who are the Catholics: The Orthodox or The Romanists, or both?
Me

Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by 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?


TOPICS: Catholic; General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: 1holyapostolicchurch; apostates; catholic; catholicbashing; catholicwhiners; devilworshippers; eckleburghers; greeks; heathen; orthodoxyistheone; papistcrybabies; proddiecatholic; robot; romanistispejorative; romanists; romanistwhinefest; romannamecallers; russians
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 5,521-5,5405,541-5,5605,561-5,580 ... 12,201-12,204 next last
To: Mr Rogers

I LOVE the older orthography. A Million years ago I was teaching 6th grade religion and we got side-tracked onto the orthography of the 16th and 17th century. The kids had a ball making up pseudo olde Englische.

The NAB does a little more interpreting than I think a real translator should do you can have tsedekah or dikaiosyne in the original and they might translate it as holiness. Wazzup with THAT?

I’m trying to do something else. can you easily find out what Tyndale did with Col 1:24? If not, it’ll keep ....


5,541 posted on 01/21/2010 12:47:17 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5490 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Any Christ in your Christianity? You post none.


5,542 posted on 01/21/2010 12:49:03 PM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5478 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
"If trinkets and statues and pictures of Mary on the cross are wrong, then rather than denying the obvious, shouldn't Roman Catholics be trying to correct their fellow Roman Catholics and the errant theology that leads to this blasphemy?"

How do we know that this picture isn't something you slapped together out of $0.11 worth of scrap materials in your garage? You don't seem to get that the Catholic Church is NOT a theological police force like Calvin created in Geneva.

5,543 posted on 01/21/2010 12:49:18 PM PST by Natural Law (God always answers your prayers. Sometimes the answer is "no",)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5537 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Pyro7480; Hegewisch Dupa; Natural Law; markomalley; Judith Anne; Petronski; ...
Here you have posted a picture of a piece of ARTWORK by an Australian artist named Rose Holdaway and it is for sale on her website.

NOWHERE does Rose Holdaway so much as even hint that she is a Catholic and the art is some sort of cross with a picture of the Blessed Mother affixed to it. NOBODY would conclude that it shows her being crucified.

Some years ago an "artist" put a Crucifix in a jar of urine and called it "Piss Christ", do you think this was a "Catholic belief"? Would you post a picture of this and say it came from a Catholic website?

5,544 posted on 01/21/2010 12:53:21 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5537 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother; Mad Dawg
And of course, my Scriptural quotes are taken directly, by gosh, from the USCCB site (which I keep open) and the by gosh NAB.

hangs head

5,545 posted on 01/21/2010 12:53:39 PM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5486 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

5,546 posted on 01/21/2010 12:53:42 PM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5537 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Once their side insists that our eyewitness testimony is not admissible without corroboration, they throw the door open to all sorts of doubts and questions.


5,547 posted on 01/21/2010 12:54:42 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5543 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Well there you go...I'm sure they didn't consider your crew as Christians either...But then you don't get to decide, do you

As the ones who were given the gift of Christ's direct ministry, teaching, and Church, yes we do.

From what I see of history, your religion did it's best to kill them off (unsuccessfully) and stole their name...

Lasik optical surgery is increasingly common.

5,548 posted on 01/21/2010 12:56:43 PM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5489 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; John Leland 1789; Mad Dawg; wagglebee; Cronos; Petronski; Judith Anne; vladimir998
>>One big difference is that the KJV was based upon the Stephenus Greek text from the 16th Century for the NT and the ben Asher Masoretic Hebrew (from the 10th Century). For stylistic purposes, it also copied a lot from the Douay.

Show us the evidence...

Look at the inside front cover of your KJV Bible, for starters:

The
HOLY BIBLE
CONTAINING THE
Old and New Testaments
TRANSLATED OUT OF
THE ORIGINAL TONGUES AND WITH THE FORMER
TRANSLATIONS DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED

The Douay Rheims was one of those prior translations:

Regarded from the point of view of scholarship, the Rheims-Douai Bible is seen, despite its stilted prose, as a particularly accurate version of The Bible; It deserves mention in the history of the English Bible because it was one of the versions consulted by the translators of the King James Version (the Authorized Version), especially for the New Testament.

Source: Cambridge Encyclopedia Vol. 21

As far as the Greek source:

The Textus Receptus 1550 Greek text is best known as the basis for the King James Version or Authorized Version completed in the year 1611.

Source: Stephen's Textus Receptus (1550) Greek 2.0 (on logos.com)

The Stephens Text (or Stephenus) is just another name for the Textus Receptus, btw.

I apparently was in error on the OT assertion and apologize for that. It was the ben Chayyim 1524 Rabbinic Bible (published by Daniel Bomberg) that was used as the basis:

In 1516, Daniel Bomberg published a text of the Old Testament under the name "First Rabbinic Bible." This text was followed in 1524 by a second edition that had been compiled from ancient manuscripts by a Hebrew scholar and converted Jewish Rabbi named Abraham Ben Chayyim. Today this work is called the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, and is the text that underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible. The word "masoretic" comes from the Hebrew word "mesor" meaning traditional. The Masoretes were the scribes that were given the responsibility of guarding and keeping the text of the Old Testament, and keep it well they surely did, as we shall soon see.

Source: AV1611

Another class of Bibles, and these distinctively Jewish, are those that are known as Rabbinic Bibles, or Miḳra'ot Gedolot. The first of these was published at Venice 1517-18; the editor was Felix Pratensis. It contains the Pentateuch with Onḳelos and Rashi, the Former and Later Prophets with Targum Jonathan and Ḳimḥi's comments (the anti-Christian passages omitted); Psalms with Targum and Ḳimḥi; Proverbs with the commentary known as "Ḳaw we-Naḳi"; Job with the commentaries of Naḥmanides and Abraham Farrisol; the Five Scrolls with the commentary of Levi b. Gerson; Ezra and Chronicles with the commentaries of Rashi and Simon ha-Darshan. To these were added the Jerusalem Targum to the Pentateuch; Targum Sheni to Esther; the variant readings of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali; the thirteen "articles of faith" of Maimonides; the 613 precepts according to Aaron Jacob Ḥasan; and a table of the parashiyot and Hafṭarot according to the Spanish and German rites. This edition is the first in which Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are divided into two books, and Nehemiah is separated from Ezra. It is the first also to indicate in the margin the numbers of the chapters in Hebrew letters (Ginsburg, "Introduction," p. 26). The ḳeri consonants are also given in the margin.

The edition was not, however, pleasing to the Jews, perhaps because its editor was a convert. Elijah Levita, in his "Masoret ha-Masoret," severely criticizes the Masoretic notes. This edition was replaced in 1525 by the second Bomberg text, which was edited by Jacob b. Ḥayyim of Tunis under the title . This text, more than any other, has influenced all later ones; though readings from the Complutensian and from the Soncino edition of 1488 have occasionally found their way in. It is peculiar as being the first to insert the letters פ and ס for the purpose of indicating the open and closed sections, and to designate the ḳeri by the letter ק. Here also the first attempt is made, though incompletely, to collect the Masorah, both "Magna" and "Parva." As in the best manuscripts, the larger Masorah is printed above and below the text (Hebrew and Targum in parallel columns); while the lesser Masorah is printed between the columns. Besides the elaborate introduction to the Masorah by Jacob b. Ḥayyim himself, an index to the Masorah, Ibn Ezra's introduction to the Pentateuch, Moses ha-Naḳdan's treatise on accents, the variations between the Easterns and the Westerns and between Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, it contains the Pentateuch with Targum, Rashi, and Ibn Ezra; the Former Prophets with Rashi, Ḳimḥi, and Levi b. Gershon; Isaiah with Rashi and Ibn Ezra; Jeremiah and Ezekiel with Rashi and Ḳimḥi; the Minor Prophets with Rashi and Ibn Ezra; Psalms with Rashi and Ibn Ezra; Proverbs with Ibn Ezra, Moses Ḳimḥi, and Levi ben Gershon; Job with Ibn Ezra and Levi ben Gershon; Daniel with Ibn Ezra and Saadia; Ezra with Ibn Ezra, Moses Ḳimḥi, and Rashi; Chronicles with PseudoRashi; and the Five Scrolls with Rashi and Ibn Ezra. This Bible was reprinted, with readings inserted from the edition of Felix Pratensis (Venice, 1525-28).

The third edition of the Bomberg Rabbinic Bible (1546-48) was edited by Cornelius Adelkind. It was practically a reprint of the second, except that the commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah was omitted; while that of Jacob ben Asher on the Pentateuch and that of Isaiah di Trani on Judges and Samuel were inserted. This third Bomberg edition was repeated in the fourth edition by Isaac b. Joseph Salam and Isaac ben Gershon (Treves). Part of the Masorah omitted in the third edition has here been reinserted. The fifth edition was a reprint of De Gara's (Venice, 1617-19, by Pietro Lorenzo Bragadini, and revised by Leo di Modena). It was, however, expurgated by the Inquisition. The sixth edition, by Johannes Buxtorf (Basel, 1618-19, 2 vols.), was a reprint of the 1546-48 copy. To this was added the editor's "Tiberias," a Masoretic work. The seventh Biblia Rabbinica was published at Amsterdam, 1724-28 (4 vols., fol. 1), under the title "Ḳehillot Mosheh." It contains, besides the Hebrew text, the Targum on the whole Bible; Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Levi ben Gershon, Obadiah Sforno, Jacob b. Asher, Ḣizkuni, and 'Imre No'am on the Pentateuch; David Ḳimḥi on the Prophets and the Chronicles; Isaiah di Trani on Judges and Samuel; "Keli Yaḳar" on the Former Prophets, and "Keli-Paz," by Samuel Laniado, on the Later Prophets; Meïr Arama on Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Song of Solomon; Jacob Berab on Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and some other Later Prophets; Samuel Almosnino on the Later Prophets; Isaac Gershon on Malachi; "Torat Ḥesed" by Isaac ben Solomon; Ya'bez on Psalms, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles; Joseph ibn Yaḥya on the Hagiographa; "Mizmor le-Todah," by Samuel Arepol, on Psalm cxix.; "Ḳaw we-Naḳi" on Proverbs; Menahem Meïri on Proverbs; Moses Ḳimḥi on Proverbs, Ezra, Nehemiah; Naḥmanides, Farissol, and Simon ben Zemaḥ Duran on Job; Saadia Gaon on Daniel; Yalḳut Shim'oni on Chronicles; Moses of Frankfurt's annotations, entitled "Ḳomaz Minḥah," on the Pentateuch; "Minḥah Ḳeṭannah" on the Former Prophets; "Minḥah Gedolah" on the Later Prophets, "Minḥat 'Ereb" on the Hagiographa; the introduction of Jacob b. Ḥayyim of Tunis; and the tract on the accents by Moses ha-Naḳdan.

Source: Jewish Encyclopedia

Apparently, it was that second edition that was used.

My error should be an understandable error, since:

The two rival authorities, Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, practically brought the Masorah to a close. Very few additions were made by the later Masorites, styled in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries Naḳdanim, who revised the works of the copyists, added the vowels and accents (generally in fainter ink and with a finer pen) and frequently the Masorah. Considerable influence on the development and spread of Masoretic literature was exercised during the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries by the Franco-German school of Tosafists. R. Gershom, his brother Machir, Joseph b. Samuel Bonfils (Tob 'Elem) of Limoges, R. Tam (Jacob b. Meïr), Menahem b. Perez of Joigny, Perez b. Elijah of Corbeil, Judah of Paris, Meïr Spira, and R. Meïr of Rothenburg made Masoretic compilations, or additions to the subject, which are all more or less frequently referred to in the marginal glosses of Biblical codices and in the works of Hebrew grammarians.

Source: Jewish Encyclopedia

If the Jews say that ben Asher & ben Naphtali brought the Masorah to a close, who am I to argue? (and the time frame would be the 10th century)

So, shoot me! (I was working from memory)

5,549 posted on 01/21/2010 12:58:00 PM PST by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5512 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Mad Dawg
Be not downhearted or discouraged . . . after all the bishops push the darned thing at everyone every Sunday.

Here's a great site where you can compare the Greek AND the Latin Vulgate to just about every translation:

Parallel Greek New Testament

And here's a bunch more, searchable in multiple translations simultaneously: Unbound Bible

No NAB because the bishops have it under copyright and won't let anybody else use it. But you can just keep that window open . . . < g >

5,550 posted on 01/21/2010 1:01:22 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5545 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
Have you run across C.S. Lewis's volume of the Oxford History of English Lit? He has a lot of fun with the 16th century spelling. He makes it perfectly understandable while keeping the flavor of the original.

He really was a very talented scholar!

5,551 posted on 01/21/2010 1:06:39 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5541 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
So, Calvin is never quoted at your group? You aren’t Presbyterians? As it seems that Presbyterians do bring up Calvin and OPC do worship him. You don’t? What kind of Presbyterian is that?

Obviously some Presbyterians who don't worship these fine fellows.


5,552 posted on 01/21/2010 1:06:40 PM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5492 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Oh, look! Not only do they worship the Reformers, they place them above Jesus!

(that makes just as much sense!)

5,553 posted on 01/21/2010 1:12:25 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5552 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Presbyterians don’t have “bishops,” Mark.

I know that. That is why there is no connection between Prebyterians and the Apostles (and Christ) except from afar. In this particular illustration to other Christians about the pagan priestesses of Presbyterianism, I used the term bishop which more closely corresponds to Christian hierarchy rather than presbyter, which in Christian hierarchy is the priest.

5,554 posted on 01/21/2010 1:12:27 PM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5498 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; Iscool
From what I see of history, your religion did it's best to kill them off (unsuccessfully) and stole their name...

Shoot and move -- so do you consider Gnostics to be true Christians?

I think that the noble Iscool thinks that they are the only ones.

5,555 posted on 01/21/2010 1:13:32 PM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5495 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
The long faces on those fellows remind me of some writer (Mark Twain?) who said that a particularly gloomy Christian didn't have a religion, he suffered from it.
5,556 posted on 01/21/2010 1:13:41 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5552 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Cronos; wagglebee
From a Roman Catholic's website, what is this picture telling us?

Yet again and again and again. No attribution. What website is this from?

"Meeting place? You mean "church?"

Let us not devolve into whatever it is that you guys call wherever it is that you keep your pentagrams.

5,557 posted on 01/21/2010 1:16:45 PM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5499 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
"The long faces on those fellows remind me of some writer (Mark Twain?) who said that a particularly gloomy Christian didn't have a religion, he suffered from it."

Those boys have a serious case of Croiser Envy.

5,558 posted on 01/21/2010 1:17:39 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5556 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

Here’s my post with the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2421970/posts?page=5513#5513


5,559 posted on 01/21/2010 1:19:41 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5557 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
If I were meanspirited and nasty, I might suggest that those men were trampling "IHS"
5,560 posted on 01/21/2010 1:19:47 PM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5553 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 5,521-5,5405,541-5,5605,561-5,580 ... 12,201-12,204 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson