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?

[daniel1212]

At least one sanctioned teaching believes that they should not even be engaged in such correspondence:

“The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question.” “The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit.” ( John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, p. 35, 1904; Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

If they do say so themselves.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"Your honor, my client is clearly innocent. As the evidence plainly shows, he never DISPENSED drugs to his customers, he merely OBTAINED drugs for his customers."

ROTFLOLOLOL!!!

[Mad Dawg]

I will stand here because I can do no other: It just gives me the willies when giving birth is described or alluded to as “dispensing.” Go ahead, build the fire. I’m ready.

[Mr Rogers]

“Post whatever thread you want, but you were the one who asserted there was nothing in Scripture to say we were first given our faith. / But from the verses I posted we see that is not true. EVERYTHING we have is from God.”

Gracious as always, Dr E! Your reputation of a loving heart precedes you!

In one sense, everything we have comes from God, for we have no life - not physical and certainly not spiritual - apart from him. That really isn’t an eye-opening concept.

However, what you have asserted is that God causes us to be born again first, and only then is belief possible. Only THEN does he give us belief, and he gives it to us with no possibility of rejection on our part. It is that whole ‘irresistible’ thing.

What I have asserted is that men can respond to God’s revelation. God in his grace reaches out and seeks us out, and we can respond. I argue Jesus was not mocking us when he taught “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Jesus wasn’t lying, but proclaiming the will of God.

“Because challenges to God’s sovereignty to name His own family according to His will and purpose are as old as time.”

No, at oldest they would date to 400 AD, and Calvin’s doctrine - even as taught by Augustine - wasn’t accepted as doctrine by any church prior to the 1500s.

Nor is anyone challenging God’s sovereignty, other than to say that Dr E & Calvin do not get to dictate to God what His will must be. In that, we honor God’s sovereignty.

[wagglebee]

In all candor Dr. E, I could care less what you find amusing.

Here is the statement I posted in #7936:

"Your honor, as the evidence clearly shows, the milk maid merely obtained the milk, the cow dispensed it."

If you can come up with an actual response to this feel free to ping me, if not don't bother.

[Mad Dawg]

I think the interpretation of Ps 65:2 is bogus twice. First there's nothing restrictive about it. He hears prayer, maybe others do to. Second it's a religious POEM. Which means only that it ain't theology as such.

So to argue from that text to hearing requests is incommunicable is weak. Could be, but it hasn't been shown.

As the highlighted parts of your texts show, Mary gives nothing she has not received. clearly God delegates the giving of gifts, since, well, mother's milk is a good gift and therefore it comes from on high, but Moms get in the product flow, so to speak.

There is no explicit statement that the 'departed' can hear prayers. There are two reasons for people not making some things explicit. One is that they're not true. The other is that they're not only true but so widely known that they're not thought to need saying. To us in full communion who have thought deeply on what it means to be united by the Spirit in one body, it goes without saying.

The second paragraph can not really be argued. If it's not true, it is at least presumptuous. If it IS true, well, as Rush says, "It ain't bragging if you can do it." There is ample demonstration in the OT that the "queen mother" has a position of honor and respect. This of course does not constitute proof, but it might deflect some of the charges of being unscriptural. Our Lord is Not only God but also a descendant of King David. His progenitors honored their mothers highly. So, we think, does He.

As to the Mormon thing, the critical difference is this. In our (simplified) account, through the disagreements and divisions of the first several centuries, the Catholic church persisted. Through it the NT Scriptures were written and the canon was compiled. AS this was going on, the Church was worshipping, praying, teaching, serving, and so forth. Her thought began its development, her teaching began their unfolding in the same context as that in which the Scriptures were delivered (dispensed? gack!) to us.

Consequently, our attitude to Scripture is different from yours. The idea of Sola Ssciptura seems deformed and artificial, and as this thread shows it tends to a kind of contentious anarchy and fiisiparation of different groups.

I mean, for example, we settled the Trinity in a few centuries. Nograyzone, not trusting the Spirit to instruct the Church as Scriptures say it does, starts the whole thing de novo. He is currently reproducing a version of the Arian heresy. I cannot imagine which of the several Christological heresies will eat up his time if he works through to the correct answer on the Trinity.

And the whole scene of someone thus starting de novo is kind of sad. So much of the work has been done! The councils whose major conclusions the Reformers accepted are, for him, a dead letter, a non-event.

God may have acted in the history of Israel. Sometimes it seems that your side thinks that rather than act more intimately and effectively in the history of the new Israel he was somehow crippled and muted after the Resurrection and Pentecost.

We disagree.

[wagglebee]

The Mother of Elizabeth's Lord is NOT the Mother of Elizabeth's God...

So, are now saying that our Lord, Jesus Christ IS NOT God, is this correct? Or do you have some convoluted notion that He was not born of the Blessed Virgin Mary?

[Mad Dawg]

WHERE did you find that, please? I'd like to see the context, if I may.

And help me determine what conclusion you are drawing from it.

[Mad Dawg]

your appeal to subjective feelings to affirm a doctrine

Wait, where do I appeal to subjective feelings (and what other kind of feelings are there?) to affirm a doctrine?

[wagglebee]

Chapter 23:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18438/18438-h/18438-h.htm

[blue-duncan]

“Gracious as always, Dr E! Your reputation of a loving heart precedes you!”

If you really knew Dr. E you would know just how gracious, loving and patient she is, otherwise she would not waste her time trying to educate lurkers to the truth. God is sovereign; rejoice and be content that your name is written in the Book of Life and stop trying to help Him out.

Psa 115:1-3, “Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, [and] for thy truth’s sake. Wherefore should the heathen say, Where [is] now their God? But our God [is] in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.”

Psa 135:3-6, “Praise the LORD; for the LORD [is] good: sing praises unto his name; for [it is] pleasant. For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto himself, [and] Israel for his peculiar treasure. For I know that the LORD [is] great, and [that] our Lord [is] above all gods. Whatsoever the LORD pleased, [that] did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.”

[MarkBsnr]

The 2nd person of the trinity, Christ had a fully human nature and a fully divine nature , So God , the son has a mother and her name is mary

Point taken; although most Catholics capitalize Son, and Mary.

[wolfcreek]

Thanks for the history lesson. Pretty amazing. However, we were disussing modern times and the adjustments different religions are making to gather more flock.

[MarkBsnr]

Either Mary is the Mother of God or else she isn't. Either the Gospels are correct or else they are not.

No, either you are correct or you're not...And you are not correct...Mary was never called the Mother of God in the Gospels or any other place in the scriptures...

I suppose that the entire first chapter of Luke doesn't count. Elizabeth calls Mary explicitly the mother of her Lord. Kyrios. More?

Matthew 2: 10 They were overjoyed at seeing the star, 11 5 and on entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother. They prostrated themselves and did him homage. Then they opened their treasures and offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. 12 And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed for their country by another way. 13 6 When they had departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt, 7 and stay there until I tell you. Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him." 14 Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt.

Mary is the mother of Jesus.

[wagglebee]

I've never quite understood what the confusion is.

Do they deny that:
A. Jesus Christ is God
or
B. That the Blessed Virgin Mary is His mother.

There really aren't any other choices.

[MarkBsnr]

Man's purpose is to love God, his neighbour, and to imitate Christ. That is what God wishes for us. God's glory does not depend on creating and then crushing ants under His heel

Rightly put -- God is LOVE. God has no use for robotons

The Catholic Church desires that the Scriptures be understood so that the Lord might be revealed to man, and man, due to this revelation, in return might fulfill his reason for existence: to know, love, and serve God in this life and be happy with Him forever in the next.

from http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/misc/eric-scripture.htm

[daniel1212]

Just to set the record straight, as far am informed, most who hold to Sola Scriptura do not reject history as a supplement to understanding the Bible, nor that the “word of God” encompasses more than what is written (Jn. 21:25; Rev. 10:4), though it is hard to find where that term refers to revelation that was not subsequently recorded, nor do they reject that God can “speak” to souls today (esp. during the offering); but they hold that the Scriptures are the ultimate authority by which all is tested, it being the only tangible class of revelation that we are assured is wholly inspired of God. (2Tim. 3:15,16)

Adherents of SS also hold to a degree of formal sufficiency of Scripture, which most essentially refers to salvific truth being comprehensible enough that a seeker of truth could normally be saved thru reading the Bible alone, and live a life of holiness (i would restrict it to a basic degree, not maturity). In addition, their position on material sufficiency includes the church and other helps to holiness and Bible interpretation, but which are subject to Scripture as far as authority.

In contrast, the RCC essentially holds to what has been termed “sola ecclesia,” that of the church being the ultimate authority, as they claim to be the sole authority which infallibly defines both the extent and meaning of authoritative sources of spiritual truth, and thus the authority by which such truth may be infallibly known, (versus private judgment, that of one’s own searching the Scriptures). Thus, that a conclusion could be correct which does not conflate with what Rome has infallibly defined is held to be untenable. As is the use of “private judgment” as an authoritative means of determining truth. The viability of the RC Magisterium is seen in authoritatively defining the Bible, and its superiority is evidenced by the uniformity of belief among Catholics, versus Protestants, broadly defined.

Rome rejects the formal sufficiency of Scripture, and its material sufficiency sanctions its own authority and church traditions, and that which proceeds from it.

The questions then would be:

1. How is a person to know for sure that the RCC is infallible?

2. Upon what basis did the RCC infallibly declare itself infallible?

3. To what degree does unanimous consent of the Father have to be to in order to be unanimous?

4. Can Catholics know for sure they are interpreting correctly the infallibly defined teachings of the Catholic church?

5. To what degree do Catholics disagree with their churches teaching, and where is this allowed, how does this compare with evang. Prots in general?

6. What is the longest thread ever on FR?

Thanks

[Forest Keeper]

JPII: "The motherhood of Mary in the order of grace," as the Second Vatican Council explains, "lasts without interruption from the consent which she faithfully gave at the annunciation and which she sustained without hesitation under the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. In fact, being assumed into heaven she has not laid aside this office of salvation but by her manifold intercession she continues to obtain for us the graces of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she takes care of the brethren of her Son who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into their blessed home."

I haven't seen the entirety of the websites in question, and cannot speak to how "official" either of them is, but this quote is quite unobjectionable. In fact something similar, less the reference to the Assumption, can be said of the Church itself, or of any saint. This is what the Church is doing sunset to sunset, obtain for me and you the graces of salvation.

To us the "grace of salvation" would be God granting grace which then results in the salvation of the individual. What do you mean by "graces of salvation"? If it is anything similar then it would appear to either put Mary, the Saints, and the Church on the same level as God, or it would make them all at the very least dispensers of grace. Salvation would then not be received by God directly, but rather through these "mediators". (By definition how could they not be mediators?) These ideas would all contribute to the labels "co-mediatrix" and "co-redemptrix". The CCC says:

1407 The Eucharist is the heart and the summit of the Church's life, for in it Christ associates his Church and all her members with his sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered once for all on the cross to his Father; by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his Body which is the Church.

Here, Christ is directly dispensing graces of salvation upon the people. But according to the above it appears that Mary, the Saints, and the Church are also individually doing the same thing. I would guess that a response might include that Christ is still the ultimate source of the graces, but that would not obfuscate the apparent belief that our direct reception of salvific graces is from multiple sources, only one of which is Christ. Does the Bible teach anywhere that we ever directly receive Divine salvific grace from anyone other than God?

[wagglebee]

Here is ONE of the longest threads (there could be others):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1163131/posts

65,535 posts is the limit (you can post more, but they don’t show up). I’m not sure of the exact reason (it has something to do with 16 bit encryption), but it is 2 to the 16th power minus 1.

[Mad Dawg]

I thought we were dealing with the proposition that Marian dogmata were developed as marketing. So my argument was based on the cornerstone articulations of Marian dogmata being Ephesus and Chalcedon. There is a sense that both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were promulgated in response to market demand. They'd been discussed for a LONG time-- centuries -- but there was a real ground up push to get them defined, or so I hear. So a sort of kind of "market' argument, might be made there. However I do think that, since the Reformation the average pope lives in the fear of God.

Anybody got a plural of dogma that doesn't sound so weird? Sometimes I can't being myself to say dogmas

The History Lesson is courtesy of the wonderful Penguin Atlas of Medieval History which I got decades ago for UNDER $3.00!!!!!!!!!

I wish one of you all would buy one so we could see what it costs now.

I'm off to engage in cultic behavior and idolatry. I'll be back in a few hours. Try to play nicely while I'm gone.