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?

[John Leland 1789]

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.

---

Yes, in the villages of Sto. Nino, San Benito, and San Francisco (”Three Saints”/Sapac), Batangas Province, Philippines (villages where we worked for six years straight), there are are drunken, drug-addicted (that is, they are public drunks and drug abusers, openly before the villages), gamblers, who go to witch doctors and drink the blood of animals in rites similar to Voodoo rites in Haiti. Some of these are involved in calling up unclean spirits, and invite their possession.

These still attend the Catholic churches on Sundays and are allowed to take the “Eucharist.”

---

Now, what has that got to do with graffiti?

The fact that we observed such while living in those villages and we report it, does not incline us to violence or vandalism. It does incline us toward Christian evangelism. Which is what we were involved in there for six years, planted a church among believers in those villages, and when the church was indigenous and self-supporting with its own national pastor, we moved on.

You can check the records of the Philippines National Police and inquire as to whether any American has been involved in vandalizing any churches in Batangas Province.

If we know of such, we would do what we could to prevent it or stop it, and would never tolerate such.

Again, what does my mention of demon-possessed people being given the Eucharistic elements got to do with vandalism?

Unless you intended to print my comments out of context and leave the impression that I was inferring all Catholics to be demon possessed. That would be very hateful of you indeed.

[HarleyD]

Ha! Ha! you Take a BLOGSPOT...and portray it as official Church website?

Oh, come on. While this is not the "official" website of the Church, anyone who has done any reading on this subject knows full well there have been constant petitions to change (yes, change) the view of Mary. All one has to do is look how the doctrine of Mary has "evolved" into "Co-Redemptress". Here is what the official Catholic Encyclopedia states in part:

First, as is meet and right, comes the Lord's Prayer, addressed to Our Father in Heaven: and having, with the elect petitions dictated by Our Divine Master, called upon the Father, from the throne of His Majesty we turn our prayerful voices to Mary. Thus is confirmed that law of merciful meditation of which We have spoken, and which St. Bernardine of Siena thus expresses: "Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order; for by God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us."

...

O holy Mother of God. To thee we lift our prayers, for thou art the Mediatrix, powerful at once and pitiful, of our salvation. Oh, by the sweetness of the joys that came to thee from thy Son Jesus, by thy participation in His ineffable sorrows, by the splendors of His glory shining in thee, we instantly beseech thee, listen, be pitiful, hear us, unworthy though we be!

This is a motive the more for the enkindling, in private and in common prayer, throughout the coming month of October, of a holy emulation in celebrating and honoring the Mother of God, the mighty succorer of the Christian people, the most glorious Queen of Heaven. For Our own part, We confirm with all Our heart the favors and indulgences We have already awarded upon this point.

...

11. Now may God, "Who in His most merciful Providence gave us this Mediatrix." and "decreed that all good should come to us by the hands of Mary" (St. Bernard), receive propitiously our common prayers and fulfill our common hopes.

On the Rosary His Holiness Pope Leo XIII September 8, 1894

Frankly I don't understand why Catholics don't wish to admit they believe Mary to be co-equal with the Son, that she imparts grace, that the atonement is nothing more than Christ showing us how to live, that the inspired works in scripture is no more than any other writings, or that they actually do worship (yes, not venerate) relics and Mary.

But then, perhaps I do and I suspect they know also.

[Mad Dawg]

I feel very certain that ALL of us would stand in condemnation of it.

I do not share that certainty.

One thing I notice on the part of some on these threads is a persistence in saying that we beleive things we do not believe and do things we do not do. A related persistent behavior is the taking of some amateur web-site and presenting something from it as official Catholic teaching or practice.

I also note that several of our antagonists hove told me that they are offended by what we believe.

Now I can understand disagreement. I can understand thinking that we are terribly and profoundly wrong. That's fair enough.

But I think the persistent charges that we believe and do things we neither believe nor do, the embraced falsehoods, I think these indicate hatred.

The Apostle says that charity does not rejoice in evil. Here there are people who will not hear the good but who insist that we do some evil we do not do. I would not put anything past such people. This is not mere anger. What I think I'm seeing is anger cherished and nurtured until it blossoms into hatred. I am not going to be surprised if it bears fruit.

[HarleyD]

If God’s chief will is to have sons, not slaves, then he MUST give the potential sons the option of disobeying.

If we are sons of God, do we really want to be disobedient to God? Or would God truly want us to be disobedient to Him knowing it would bring about ruin and misery? Our will should be to do the will of the Father. Our failings to do His will only illustrates to us the mercy and grace of our God to pick us up and keep us going.

Indeed, if he wanted slaves, he could have skipped the Garden of Eden and the Fall altogether.

FK-your comment bears repeating- But He would rather have His children be slaves to righteousness with "A" will.

Kind of hard to argue that Cornelius did nothing approved of by God until AFTER conversion. God’s grace had sufficiently warned Cornelius that he was prepared to be saved. I suppose a PD would say that God had given Cornelius ‘saving grace’ already, or some such thing. But I think grace is grace.

People look at the redemption process as a one point in time experience. I would suggest it is actually a gradual experience. People may point to the Apostle Paul and say there was a point-in-time experience in which Paul came to know Christ. Yet Paul tells the Galatians he was chosen from the womb. So how would this square if Paul had simply made a choice. Paul never viewed his salvation that way.

The example of Abraham is much like the case of Cornelius except that God tells us at what points Abraham was justified. God tells Abraham to leave his country and Abraham does (Gen 12) all the while being under the protective care of God. Abraham gives Melchizedek a tenth of all he has and Melchizedek blesses him (Gen 14). God tells Abraham that he will make of him a great nation in which Abraham believes God AND AT THAT POINT was saved by faith (Gen 15, Rom 4). Abraham then goes on to be obedient to God by willing to sacrifice Isaac and is saved by his works (Gen 22, James). It is important to note Abraham was not saved by his offering to Melchizedek.

Like Abraham, when Cornelius prayed and gave alms I would place him in the same position as Abraham in Gen 14; which means that the scriptures are simply silent on what drove Cornelius to be devout which is documented of Abraham (Gen 12-13). According to scripture Abraham was not justified by faith until Gen 15 even though years and years had past. Does anyone really suppose that after the angel told Cornelius to send for Peter, there was a posibility that Cornelius could have kick-the-bucket within the three days it took Peter to get there?

Our salvation and sanctification process is a journey. It is a series of events brought about by God throughout our lives by God to give us to His Son (John 6:44, 6:65).

[Mad Dawg]

The basic meaning of husteron and the family is indeed "behind." But we are looking at a word in use for centuries.

To understand why it is wrong to insist that it mean "that which is behind" in Col 1:24, try this. We might say of somebody who had insufficient funds that "he came up 'short'," or "was short of funds." And we use "short" and "long" now as financial terms. Few, if any, think of a "short sale" as having anything to do with length.

Our antagonists may complain that this or that lexicon refers to the LXX. But the LXX can give us help on understanding how a word works in actual usage, and, just as the Coverdale and KJV Bibles influenced the development of English (Shakespeare makes jocular references to English Bibles) so the LXX probably influenced the usages of Koine Greek especially with reference to Jewish and Christian matters.

The burden, it seems to me, is clearly on those who go with the "behind" translation. They have to show why where in every other use in the NT the word indicates lack, here is does not. And if they form their theology from their Bible, and not the other way around, they can't say, "It MUST mean that."

[markomalley]

But wait a minute...The definition you posted has the phrase, 'that which is behind' in 5303...That's the word used in Col. 1:24...

Remember the instructions I showed earlier?

I'm going to highlight something in paragraph 6 that you need to pay close attention to:

Once again, note what it says about the punctuation mark :-. The instructions say that after that mark (:-), what you are reading are the different renderings in the AV.

Now here is the definition from Strong's again (but I highlighted something important:

Do you see the :- symbol I highlighted in both definitions? All the words after that symbol in each definition are the usages in the AV, not the definition of the Greek word.

This source from Moulton appears to be a different word, since it has other words connected with it...Plus, it appears to be a translation from the LXX which the KJV translators did not use...

Well...it is, just like geese is a different word than goose...but they mean the same thing.

If you were to look at the Textus Receptus (since that's the text you are comfortable with), you will see the following for Col 1:24

Νῦν χαίρω ἐν τοῖς παθήμασιν μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ ἀνταναπληρῶ τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία

The specific words you are concerned with are these ones: τὰ ὑστερήματα

Of course, you will note that ὑστερήματα is not the same as ὑστερήμα (the τα is added to show a noun in the plural accusative)

[markomalley]

Reading only the words of Leland that the writers used in the article, I do not see the severity of ANTI-abolition sentiment suggested by the writers-—but I would need to read more of the writings or speeches of Leland to which they refer before I make any further determination.

What is most interesting is that the article appeared in a peer-reviewed journal (one which you may have access to, but I haven't paid a subscription for). So the author may have been excoreated in subsequent issues.

But it does seem rather inconsistent with the rest of his life, as little as I know about it. An interesting mystery.

[markomalley]

So when we say that all you can do is keep posting “what you believe” to be the truth, it is not an attempt to diminuate anything, but it is a recognition that even if you have truth, your own expression of it is not infallible.

That is actually a very profound statement.

And, if you think about it, the statement explains why there are so many expressions of supposedly "Catholic" thought by people who are nominally good Catholics that are "just a little bit off"

Good thought.

[markomalley]

Remember though, Col 1:24 is referencing Paul’s sufferings, not his sacrifice.

That is a very orthodox Catholic thought.

In God’s Plan, each of us may have a different portion in His Plan.

True statement. As for myself, I consider the deeper ramifications to the "one body" St. Paul describes in 1 Cor 12 when pondering Col 1:24.

[Petronski]

Mary is the mother of one part of the Trinity...And she is NOT the natural mother of that part of the Trinity...It is not even conclusive that Mary was the natural mother of Jesus at all...

Wow. Just wow.

[Petronski]

Sorry but Easter is a Pagan holiday...Always has been...

Celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is NOT pagan.

[markomalley]

Actually, that's a FALSE statement. Roman Catholic/Vatican associated altars are ALWAYS on a stage. And your pagentry, ceremony etc. appears to be far more coreographed, costumed, scripted etc. for entertainment than even any mega church or TV evangelists production that I've ever seen. It's better to talk about the truth and facts in such matters. Roman Catholic et al/Vatican associated churches virtually always to always have their altars on a stage.

Not exactly, Quix, although I can see where you get that. What you call a "stage" is actually called a Sanctuary. It is separated from the Nave by a communion rail. And while the altar, itself, is almost always elevated, the sanctuary within which the altar sits, may or may not be elevated.

For example, above you see a picture of the Great Upper Church in the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington DC. You will note here that the sanctuary is highly elevated. I've sat in the back of that church before and will tell you, from first hand experience, that I could barely see what was going on in the sanctuary from the back (particularly gazing over and around the person in front of me...who seems to be invariably 6'8" or so)

The picture above is the crypt church at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC. You will note that the sanctuary is NOT elevated, only the altar.

Then you have the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in downtown Washington DC. There are only a couple of steps between the nave and the sancutary there.

The point being is that the design of the sanctuary is up to the architect and is based on the overall architecture of the church. You are right that the goal is for the congregation to be able to see the liturgy. But is that something uniquely Roman Catholic? And, for that matter, is the existence of an 'ordo' a uniquely Catholic thing? I would suggest that, before you criticize Catholics on this matter that you make an effort to attend a high-church Anglican service, an Eastern Orthodox (or, for that matter Oriental Orthodox) divine liturgy, and, perhaps even an LCMS service. You will find that, perhaps, we aren't the only ones deserving of your scorn. Or, on the other hand, you might re-think the idea of scorn itself.

[Quix]

Great post.

However, I can only take small amounts of that level of blasphemy at one time.

Congrats on your strength and courage in Him.

[Running On Empty]

“I’m not going to be surprised if it bears fruit”

You entire post here was long overdue in coming and I’m glad it’s finally here.

You have spoken for me and most likely for many.

And you have said it straightforward, with clarity, without nuance.

It was time for this post.

[Petronski]

Frankly I don't understand why Catholics don't wish to admit they believe Mary to be co-equal with the Son, that she imparts grace, that the atonement is nothing more than Christ showing us how to live, that the inspired works in scripture is no more than any other writings, or that they actually do worship (yes, not venerate) relics and Mary.

Why do we not "admit" such things?

Because they are not true.

They are anti-Catholic slanders.

[Petronski]

One thing I notice on the part of some on these threads is a persistence in saying that we believe things we do not believe and do things we do not do.

See, for example, post #6022, last two grafs.

[Petronski]

They’re already doing violence to truth, what small escalation would be needed to do other kinds of violence?

[Running On Empty]

Yes.

[Mad Dawg]

I see only only three possible explanations for such a post:

1. stupidity
2. loss of control of one's intellecitve faculty owing to injury, drugs or demonic activity
3. Malice

[Petronski]

Are we voting? I suspect item 3.