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?

[Religion Moderator]

Do not accuse other Freepers of lying. That is a form of "making it personal" because it attributes the intent to deceive.

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[Cronos]

The "RC website" you posted this time is a BLOG! Doesn't it ever get old? lol. Doesn't it ever get old to nitpick and ignore the truth?

But back to the important question about the Orthodox Presbyterian Cult (which isn't Orthodox or even Christian) -- why does it worship Machen? Some break-away cults (cult-lets?) of the OPC like the APC or the BPC or the EPC-RF seeming consider Machen a saint or a demi-god, so what is he? The OPC seems to be confused.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping, dear brother in Christ!

[Cronos]

Mark, Mark, Mark — you’re talking Greek to Iscool

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You call Mary a “mediator.”

I ask you for your definition of a mediator.

Your nonsensical reply is “What does Calvin do?”

Calvin is not a mediator. What is a mediator? If you can’t tell us, just say so.

[Cronos]

no, I'm serious -- the thread was posted by a non-Orthodox/Catholic based on the usage of a term to categorise posts on FR. This was twisted to somehow infer that that categorisation of the term worked in the real world (outside this forum). For the first 3000 odd posts, this thread was illogical. Finally, we Apostolic Church members moved the terminology argument to a closed caucus thread and are there able to debate the point without having anyone jumping on and saying "so don't the xxyy's look down on you yyxx's?"

Since then, the thread has moved away from the original, inane argument to a thread equally divided between serious dialogue and debate (like yours or MD's or Stfrancis' or Mr Rogers) and inanities

[Cronos]

INDEED

[Cronos]

The OPC prays to the depictions of the Reformers.

The OPC kneels to the depictions of the Reformers.

The OPC asks for blessings from the Reformers.

And, of course, it's bit murky whether the OPC or the BPC or the APC worship Machen as God.

Now you say Calvin is not a mediator

So, does the OPC belive Calvin is God, then?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

DR.E: What does a mediator do?

VLAD: What do think a mediator does?

lol. I guess that's what passes for intelligent discussion in the RCC. Seems more like fourth grade recess.

I asked you the question. For you to ask me the same question without you answering it merely emphasizes your lack of an answer.

The RCC and you call Mary a mediator. I don't. But you say Mary is a mediator so one would assume you know what you're talking about and the definitions of the words you use.

So what does a mediator do?

If you can't tell us what a mediator does then perhaps you should find out so as not to repeat the aforementioned error Rome has taught you.

[Cronos]

Valid point, rewording the original post if you wish to delete the original (I think this version expresses my view far better too :) :

However, most Catholics I know act like the Catholics here...

you mean they have gotten so fed up of false accusations of what Catholics believe and they rigourously defend The Church?

you know what's strange -- I was a very luke-warm Catholic until I started looking into the FR religious forum. When I started seeing all the accusations made about The Church, I looked up, read The Bible in more depth again and again and found those accusations false. Then I saw posters post things like "And this in the face of the fact that worldwide there are people who are demon-possessed, worshippers of unclean things still standing at the front of altars controlled by the “SEE”, opening their mouths and having something called “His Body” put in their mouths every Sunday morning." and things that say that the Pope is a Nazi and things that are from blogs portrayed as Church websites and I asked myself "why do they attack The Church with:
1. incorrect statements
2.Statements, links etc. that can be easily verified as false

And I realised that they have either been misled by their teachers (which is the overwhelming majority of the cases, I believe) or they are there to make Catholics stronger in their faith.

So posters like you, Quix, Dr. Eckleburg; Iscool, etc. have actually made us Catholics stronger in our beliefs as you have pointed out how true our beliefs ARE (by your posts which supposedly say what our beliefs are, but are incorrect and force us to learn more about our faith) and have shown us how The Church is guided by God.

And Catholics outside this website are now learning more about what They believe and are no longer being led astray by Jimmy Swaggert-esque bouffants, but KNOW the little lies (like "Easter" supposedly being related to 'Eostre' -- completely forgetting that in other languages, like Polish, it isn't called Easter, but "Great Night" or Pascha) that are used to led people away from The Church.

We also KNOW that our beliefs are not man-made. If a historical Pope was bad, or some priests were bad that doesn't have an impact on The Church, on our beliefs or doctrine. In contrast, any mega-c crumbles when the errors of it's "preacher" are pointed out -- because THAT is man-made.

The attacks on Christ's bride, have only made Her stronger.

So, in conclusion, you seem to be an instrument that is strengthening the beliefs of Catholics in this little small part of the world that is the FR religion forum.

[Cronos]

Valid point, rewording the original post if you wish to delete the original (I think this version expresses my view far better too :) :

However, most Catholics I know act like the Catholics here...

you mean they have gotten so fed up of false accusations of what Catholics believe and they rigourously defend The Church?

you know what's strange -- I was a very luke-warm Catholic until I started looking into the FR religious forum. When I started seeing all the accusations made about The Church, I looked up, read The Bible in more depth again and again and found those accusations false. Then I saw posters post things like "And this in the face of the fact that worldwide there are people who are demon-possessed, worshippers of unclean things still standing at the front of altars controlled by the “SEE”, opening their mouths and having something called “His Body” put in their mouths every Sunday morning." and things that say that the Pope is a Nazi and things that are from blogs portrayed as Church websites and I asked myself "why do they attack The Church with:
1. incorrect statements
2.Statements, links etc. that can be easily verified as false

And I realised that they have either been misled by their teachers (which is the overwhelming majority of the cases, I believe) or they are there to make Catholics stronger in their faith.

So posters like you, Quix, Dr. Eckleburg; Iscool, etc. have actually made us Catholics stronger in our beliefs as you have pointed out how true our beliefs ARE (by your posts which supposedly say what our beliefs are, but are incorrect and force us to learn more about our faith) and have shown us how The Church is guided by God.

And Catholics outside this website are now learning more about what they believe and are no longer being led astray by Jimmy Swaggert-esque bouffants, but KNOW the little lies (like "Easter" supposedly being related to 'Eostre' -- completely forgetting that in other languages, like Polish, it isn't called Easter, but "Great Night" or Pascha) that are used to led people away from The Church.

We also KNOW that our beliefs are not man-made. If a historical Pope was bad, or some priests were bad that doesn't have an impact on The Church, on our beliefs or doctrine. In contrast, any mega-c crumbles when the errors of it's "preacher" are pointed out -- because THAT is man-made.

So, in conclusion, you seem to be an instrument that is strengthening the beliefs of Catholics in this little small part of the world that is the FR religion forum.
The attacks on Christ's bride, have only made Her stronger.

[Forest Keeper]

Who wants a God who isn't in control of His creation?

Ah, what a fine and fitting excuse you give us to link to Some Thoughts on Predestination -- by Benjamin B. Warfield

An excerpt:

............ I say that it is more accurate to say that we will not admit that we are controlled. For we are controlled, whether we admit it or not. To imagine that we are not controlled is to imagine that there is no God. For when we say God, we say control. If a single creature which God has made has escaped beyond his control, at the moment that he has done so he has abolished God. A God who could or would make a creature whom he could not or would not control, is no God. The moment he should make such a creature he would, of course, abdicate his throne. The universe he had created would have ceased to be his universe; or rather it would cease to exist-for the universe is held together only by the control of God.

Even worse would have happened, indeed, than the destruction of the universe. God would have ceased to be God in a deeper sense than that he would have ceased to be the Lord and Ruler of the world. He would have ceased to be a moral being. It is an immoral act to make a thing that we cannot or will not control. The only justification for making anything is that we both can and will control it. If a man should manufacture a quantity of an unstable high-explosive in the corridors of an orphan asylum, and when the stuff went off should seek to excuse himself by saying that he could not control it, no one would count his excuse valid. What right had he to manufacture it, we should say, unless he could control it? He relieves himself of none of the responsibility for the havoc wrought, by pleading inability to control his creation.

To suppose that God has made a universe-or even a single being-the control of which he renounces, is to accuse him of similar immorality. What right has he to make it, if he cannot or will not control it? It is not a moral act to perpetrate chaos. We have not only dethroned God; we have demoralized him.

Of course, there is no one that thinks at all who will imagine such a vanity. We take refuge in a vague antinomy. We fancy that God controls the universe just enough to control it, and that he does not control it just enough not to control it. Of course God controls the universe, we perhaps say-in the large; but of course he does not control everything in the universe-in particular.

Probably nobody deceives himself with such palpable paltering in a double sense. If this is God's universe, if he made it and made it for himself, he is responsible for everything that takes place in it. He must be supposed to have made it just as he wished it to be-or are we to say that he could not make the universe he wished to make, and had to put up with the best he could do? ............

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Don't RCs ever wonder how a mortal (Mary) in heaven now supposedly possesses divine characteristics like the ability to see "almost an infinite number" of people at the same time?

Doesn't it occur to them that Scripture never tells us Mary nor any human being has such abilities either before or after death? Why, it's as if she has become...God.

The papacy's error is rooted in its incorrect understanding of justification. We do not become righteous; Christ's righteousness is counted for our own. "Mary's sacrifice" saves no one and she is not answering prayers in heaven.

Solo Christo.

[Iscool]

The “ick” refers to your remark, which I take was meant as a joke.

Thank you...

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thanks, FK! Warfield's great, isn't he? Imagine what Princeton must have been like then.

"To suppose that God has made a universe-or even a single being-the control of which he renounces, is to accuse him of similar immorality. What right has he to make it, if he cannot or will not control it? It is not a moral act to perpetrate chaos. We have not only dethroned God; we have demoralized him."

Amen!

[Iscool]

However if your reason for using the KJV is that you believe that it's the closest English version to the original text as possible, I suggest reading James White's book (cited above) and reconsidering.

Been there, done that...I've been all over and up and down the issues...

I'll stick with the King James...

[Iscool]

I believe there is some confusion here between sacrifice and suffering. We weren’t saved by His suffering, but rather redeemed from the slave market of sin by His sacrifice.

Agree...

[Iscool]

Totally off topic, but request prayers for this family in AZ...

Tragic...Will pray...

[Natural Law]

"The papacy's error is rooted in its incorrect understanding of justification."

What is your fascination with all things Catholic that you would spend so many waking hours pounding away with so many, many misconceptions. One would think that if you were sincere in your concern or in a desire to understand Catholicism or even had an affinity for the truth and truthfulness you would post a point and ask for a Catholic response instead or hurling an accusation wrapped in lies and insults. What boggles the mind is that even when you get an articulate and well supported response you reject and ridicule it and counter with the most dubious of sources.