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?

[Mad Dawg]

We also will understand what it means: “he who talketh much cannot avoid sin”.

uh oh. I'm in trouble.

Here's an interesting anecdote about Dominic. He went barefoot as he travelled, except when he was in town. I'm not sure but it's as if, while we was interested in doing penance, he didn't want to be all flashy with it.

[Petronski]

...they have institutionalized the pagan practice of directing spirits through their doctrine of ex opere operato.

If you don't know what it means, you should educate yourself before posting about it.

You have the doctrine exactly backwards. Even wikipedia understands it better than you.

[Petronski]

I certainly would never take communion at a Romanist Mass because that is clearly idolatry.

Thank God you're not describing the Catholic Church.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your kind words of encouragement, dear brother in Christ!

[the_conscience]

Is wikipedia now the official catechism of the Roman Church?

[Petronski]

We are commanded by God not to construct statues and bow down before them and pray to them, regardless whether we think we are bowing down to the wooden tree itself or to the person that dead tree represents.

Ah yes, sola Eckleburg.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your testimony and concerns!

[wagglebee]

I guess walls don't count as statues.

[1000 silverlings]

wikipedia. And they complain about the movies.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your insights and that beautiful passage, dear brother in Christ!

[Petronski]

I have no idea.

I’m not Roman.

[the_conscience]

LOL

[Petronski]

What is that? The Politburo?

[Petronski]

Indeed wikipedia is a sophomoric source.

Given that, how stupid would a person have to be to get wrong what even wikipedia can get right?

That would represent either invincible pig-ignorance or willful misrepresentation.

[wagglebee]

What source do you use?

Do you use Crystalinks (that seems to be a favorite) or do you head straight for the comic books?

[Quix]

You may need to remind me.

I’ll print that post off and try to keep it in plain site until I can get to the refs etc.

Off the top of my head . . . Certainly Paul makes clear that there is leadership in the church . . .

Pastors, Teachers, Evangelists, Prophets . . . are Biblical roles and offices.

Personally, I have found it function best when folks’ callings are recognized by a local congregation . . . and ordained by a local congregation. I think when things get larger than the local congegation . . . all kinds of pride and power mongering get really overblown.

Anyway—This weekend is a busy one getting ready for first class of the new sem on Tues. Still have to wind up my course guide revisions and print off the new 3 section version of what was 32 pages! LOL.

Later.

[wagglebee]

Most members of the Politburu eventually repented and returned to Orthodoxy. Nope, the wall shown is a tribute to Europe’s only theocratic dictator.

[Quix]

FOYF = Folks Of Your Flavor.

What could be mutually more inoffensive than that???

LOL.

[Quix]

I have . . . many times.

And, besides, they did the best they knew.

AT least they grounded me in God and Scripture—which is of infinite eternal value.

Super thankful to them for that.

[Mad Dawg]

Sorry, that seems like a "shoot and move." You made reference to a text which you adduced to argue against prayers like the Rosary and the Divine Mercy Chaplet, and so forth.

We took your argument seriously and respoonded to it. We addressed the argument you raised and pointed out that the text itself mentions "VAIN" repetitions and thinks that the repetitions will somehow cause our being heard. That was sort of the "negative" side of our response. Then I referred to Psalm 136 to show that repetitive prayer is found in the Bible.

All I look for in a conversation of this kind is that at least there be some acknowledging that the text you brought forward was able to do the task you gave it to do. There might be other ways to argue against the Rosary, but it seems that when somebody brings up the classic anti-Rosary text and it is addressed, possible even effectively, some kind of notice should be taken.

Speaking loosely: Say I have an idea and then go looking in the Bible for support for the idea. TO me that might be something like rationalization. It's not clearly the Bible that taught me, it's me looking in the Bible for confirmation of an idea I got elsewhere.

This impression is strengthened when I bring forth what I think is my "proof" from the Bible, and have it demolished, and respond by restating my notion in a way which suggest my hearers are lacking in some capacity.

So what do you think of the verse you cited in the light of Psalm 136?