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?
John 14:6.....read much?
B.J. Harrison: What if he dies?
Frederick Keinszig: Then, as you Americans say, all bets are off.
Michael Corleone: Oh, God, you hate me. You hate me.
Prayers to Mary and assorted saints also heap praise of gratitude, glory and (what looks pretty darn close to) worship on entities other than the Triune God.
This is basic Christianity and still RCs flunk it. They must not be doing the reading.
They are reading the wrong stuff.
Dr. E,
I want to concur with what Cronos said. The use of the term "catholic" with the lower case "c" is absolutely without comment and should be without comment by any "Catholic" (upper case "C").
In that case, the word is being used as an adjective, modifying the noun "church." It is used to describe the "invisible, universal" church that is being taught in your ecclesiology. (If I'm wrong on that, please set me straight)
While the use of the upper case "C" in "Catholic" is part of a proper noun that refers to the particular churches that are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. (Having said that, from an ecclesiological view, it would include all particular churches with a valid apostolic succession, especially Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, but that is not how the term is used in the English language)
Having said that,
All Protestants are Trinitarian Christians. Mormons (as well as Unitarians) are not Protestant. Mormons do not call themselves Protestant. Protestants don't call Mormons Protestant. Nobody calls Mormons Protestant but Roman Catholics who incorrectly use the term as an umbrella for all non-RC churches.
One time, a few years ago, Alex Murphy called me out on making that same mistake. I asked him how they should be broken out and he provided the following breakout:
"Reformed/Protestant" (16th century, those that trace denominational and creedal roots back to the Reformation),
"Evangelical" (17th century, like xzins' Wesleyans/Methodists or the Baptists, largely anabaptist, that arose after the Reformed groups);
"Restorationist" (19th century, independent "first century style" churches / denominations that can be traced back to the Stone/Campbell movement in NY's Hudson River valley); and
"Charismatic" (20th century, any "Spirit-led" but anti-creedal church or denomination that followed or appeared alongside the Restorationists, but especially those that originated with the "baby boomer" generation i.e. the Calvary Chapel/Vineyard churches).
Those terms seem to be fairly workable. Of course, you have other Restorationist groups that aren't descendents of Stone-Campbell, such as the LDS, the Millerites, and the Russelites.
And then you have other outliers, such as the Unitarian-Universalists, an outgrowth of Congregationalists. While technically an outgrowth of the Reformed movement, they can't be called Christian anymore (in fact, I don't even think they call themselves Christian).
But the real question comes in with groups that claim the Scriptures as an authority (and who would call themselves Christian), but are non-Trinitarian in their view of the Godhead. Of course you have the JW's, who embrace an Arian view (and, of course, there are other groups that hold that Arian view, such as the Iglesia ni Cristo, Christadelphians, as well as a number of other smaller groups). But you also have Oneness (or Jesus' Name) Pentacostals, who hold a Modalist view. There are even a few "binitarians" out there who identify themselves as Christian. I know that Catholics would hesitate to acknowledge somebody who denies the Trinity as Christian, but I would be curious to hear a 'reformed' view on the subject.
A brother is no less a brother for being in grievous error, IMHO.
Repeating lies do not make them true - but they cement a reputation as a liar. Can you give me an AMEN!!!!!
It keeps getting more bizarre.
Dr. E,
I want to concur with what Cronos said. The use of the term "catholic" with the lower case "c" is absolutely without comment and should be without comment by any "Catholic" (upper case "C").
In that case, the word is being used as an adjective, modifying the noun "church." It is used to describe the "invisible, universal" church that is being taught in your ecclesiology. (If I'm wrong on that, please set me straight)
While the use of the upper case "C" in "Catholic" is part of a proper noun that refers to the particular churches that are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. (Having said that, from an ecclesiological view, it would include all particular churches with a valid apostolic succession, especially Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, but that is not how the term is used in the English language)
Having said that,
All Protestants are Trinitarian Christians. Mormons (as well as Unitarians) are not Protestant. Mormons do not call themselves Protestant. Protestants don't call Mormons Protestant. Nobody calls Mormons Protestant but Roman Catholics who incorrectly use the term as an umbrella for all non-RC churches.
One time, a few years ago, Alex Murphy called me out on making that same mistake. I asked him how they should be broken out and he provided the following breakout:
"Reformed/Protestant" (16th century, those that trace denominational and creedal roots back to the Reformation),
"Evangelical" (17th century, like xzins' Wesleyans/Methodists or the Baptists, largely anabaptist, that arose after the Reformed groups);
"Restorationist" (19th century, independent "first century style" churches / denominations that can be traced back to the Stone/Campbell movement in NY's Hudson River valley); and
"Charismatic" (20th century, any "Spirit-led" but anti-creedal church or denomination that followed or appeared alongside the Restorationists, but especially those that originated with the "baby boomer" generation i.e. the Calvary Chapel/Vineyard churches).
Those terms seem to be fairly workable. Of course, you have other Restorationist groups that aren't descendents of Stone-Campbell, such as the LDS, the Millerites, and the Russelites.
And then you have other outliers, such as the Unitarian-Universalists, an outgrowth of Congregationalists. While technically an outgrowth of the Reformed movement, they can't be called Christian anymore (in fact, I don't even think they call themselves Christian).
But the real question comes in with groups that claim the Scriptures as an authority (and who would call themselves Christian), but are non-Trinitarian in their view of the Godhead. Of course you have the JW's, who embrace an Arian view (and, of course, there are other groups that hold that Arian view, such as the Iglesia ni Cristo, Christadelphians, as well as a number of other smaller groups). But you also have Oneness (or Jesus' Name) Pentacostals, who hold a Modalist view. There are even a few "binitarians" out there who identify themselves as Christian. I know that Catholics would hesitate to acknowledge somebody who denies the Trinity as Christian, but I would be curious to hear a 'reformed' view on the subject.
We have a very strong intellectual tradition which not only encourages care in the use of language but also has laid down a sort of theological and spiritual lexicon.
One of the burdens of some strains of US Protestantism is having to make it up as one goes along, when it comes to expressing what one believes and what one thinks about what one believes.
Let me stipulate that I am not as good a person as I wish I were, far from it. All I can do with myself is hold me up to the Father through the Son and say, "Papa, fix?"
BUT having said that, I try to remember that "lilies that fester" and all, and that what motivates or Protestant brethren is in some sense good. I try to find and affirm that good, at least sometimes. Sometimes one has to listen extra hard to hear what lies behind the words.
Besides, anybody who writes ibn our Lady's color ... how bad can he be?
Francis crossed enemy lines for the chance to preach to the Islamic general who, thinking he was an 'innocent' gave him safe passage.
It is not entirely the fault of our accusers that what we are, what we preach, and whom we adore are not known. All these attacks are an opportunity for us to do penance and offer things up for reparation.
If I were as good as I talk I'd be in heaven already.
Free Republic is ostensibly a forum dedicated to the preservation of the ideals that founded this country. That being the case, the hierarchy should reflect those religions that directly conceived those ideals.
A hearty "Amen!" to that statement!
So Alex, are you thus advocating that only Calvinism should be discussed on this forum? Perhaps only Calvinists should be accepted for membership on this forum, as well? (They might accept others on suffrage, as long as they keep their religion to themselves, of course)
That's what that sounds like you're advocating, to me. I would just like to make sure I'm not misreading you.
Lotta Puritans in Virginia, were there?
In other words, your answer to Lorica’s question is,”No.”
And in related news, when an anti-Catholic cites a text in an argument against a Catholic practice, he probably and usually ought to read and consider the whole text. And before arguing against all repetitions he probably ought to read psalm 136, "For His mercy endures forever."
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure...." It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. "He is the all," but at the same time "he is greater than all his works." He is "the author of beauty."
2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.
2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.
2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."70 The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. the movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.
But I hope those who take refuge in lies and fussing about our nomenclature don't think that their doing so makes me take their thinking more seriously. I take THEM seriously (despite Psalm 2:4), but not the silliness they speak, not any more.
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.