Replies

The question merely centered around who could claim the language that implied that their particular CAUCUS was the default Church.

Merely?

I'm guessing:

There are two ways the question will be addressed. Some will take what you are calling the Augustinian Visible/invisible view. To them, I would think, NO organization could call itself Catholic (or Orthodox or any thing other than about comparative accidental matters like Anglican, Lutheran, Wesleyan .....

Others would take a view sort of in our ball-park: that while the furthest boundaries of the Church are not known, and wheat and tares grow in one field, still some visible shoppe can be thought of as the Full or blue-ribbon or sho' 'nuff real deal Church.

So there will be two arguments:
(1)Are the "invisible" people right; and
(2)if they're not which of the many contenders for "read deal" is right?

This question will not be settled any time soon. So in the meantime there is the question of what to call the Caucuses. Nobody will agree with all the designations of all the caucuses, and since we make the most outrageous claims we will take the most hits.

I think to call the question "mere" is optimistic.

and since we make the most outrageous claims we will take the most hits.

It's not only that the Romanists make the most outrageous claims it's also the fact that the Romanists on this forum dominate the discussion in shrill terms.

I suggested to another Romanists that since Free Republic is ostensibly a forum dedicated to the preservation of the ideals of the founding of this country that those religions from which those ideals originally sprang should in some way be recognized in a way that acknowledges those contributions and CONSERVES that acknowledgment.

I'm happy that through Vatican II the Roman Church has moved towards our position. I'm also fine with Romanists being able to speak freely about their beliefs because that is one of the fundamental ideals. I received a freepmail from one of your co-religionists asking that I lock this thread because people were quitting Free Republic because of it. Since I'm not an Administrator on this site I have no authority to lock a thread and why would I want to quench free speech because some people can't accept the free speech of others in opposition to the ideal?

Frankly, if we want to conserve the ideals of the founding of this country then we better have a pretty good idea where those ideals came from and the basis of those ideals.