Posted on 02/26/2010 1:08:31 AM PST by Gamecock
So I have a question about terminology.
Some of our Catholic FRiends get upset when we Prods use the term Roman Catholic, insisting that the term is derogatory, insulting, etc.
What I would like to discuss is why do Catholics complain about the term Roman Catholic, when the term is in such wide use inside of the Catholic church?
Thoughts?
??????
My post #218 was not addressed to you, Judith Anne.
What ARE you talking about?
This is an ecumenical thread. Antagonism is not permitted.
From the guidelines:
Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
I recognize again the practice of not letting the 8th Commandment get in the way of a good anti-Catholic smear. You should be as concerned at what some have left out as what you thing the Catholics have added. Intellectual honesty requires that you make an effort to address your ignorance before you proclaim.
Every Protestant poster in these threads claims the right to individually interpret scripture or choose whose interpretation (Calvin, Luther, Rev. Billy-Bob Rolex, etc.) but denies this right to Catholics. Catholics hold that the same Apostolic Tradition that established canon and brought the written portion of the Revealed Word also continues through Tradition by that right denied to us by Protestants.
"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."
"And Sacred Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."
As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."
"THEY EXPECT YOU TO BLINDLY FOLLOW WHERE THEY LEAD."
This is the most ignorant of your proclamations. Unlike those who teach predestination and the Solas, the Catholic Church teaches that God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him. Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.
"God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel (cf. Sir 15:14), so that he might of his own accord seek his creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him"
Freedom is the power to act or not to act, and so to perform deliberate acts of one's own. Freedom attains perfection in its acts when directed toward God, the sovereign Good.
Freedom characterizes properly human acts. It makes the human being responsible for acts of which he is the voluntary agent. His deliberate acts properly belong to him.
The imputability or responsibility for an action can be diminished or nullified by ignorance, duress, fear, and other psychological or social factors.
The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in religious and moral matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of man. But the exercise of freedom does not entail the putative right to say or do anything.
"For freedom Christ has set us free" (Gal 5:1).
Once again, Judith Anne: I don’t see the relevance of addressing this matter to me.
Indeed. You thank God for an oathbreaking heretic who advocate, as an official position, bigamy for royalty. How very odd.
And then several people joined in agreement
Just who is antagonizing who here with off topic posts ?
This Religion Forum thread is labeled “ecumenical” meaning no antagonism is allowed on this thread.
It helps if we stay on topic ...thanks for the heads up
The word "catholic" (Greek: katholikos) means "universal" or "worldwide." In this sense, as in the Nicene Creed, all true Christians are "catholic," with a little "c."
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." -- Mark 16:15
The patristic usage is in agreement with St. Ignatius. It is, indeed, related to "universal" but it is not reduced to commonality of basic Christian belief, as credal Protestants would have it. "Catholic", for example, means episcopal authority, common Eucharistic practice, valid sacraments, etc. It is universal in the sense that it is not local: ritual forms,devotions, vestments, languages might differ from one local Catholic Church to another, but the common theological and ecclesiological core remains.
The Eastern Orthodox use the term in its correct sense as well. Russian "sobornost" means something gathered together as to a Cathedral ("sobor" means both cathedral and gathering), and used where the Latins say "Catolica[m]".
It happens through history that a word gets reused with changes in meaning. Then you have a tension between older and newer meaning. It becomes problematic when some Protestant denominations reuse not just a word (like they reuse "church") but a formulaic prayer, the Creed, and then claim that it does not mean what the writer of the Creed, St. Athanasius meant.
I think those Protestant groups that do not say the Creed at all, or say something they themselves wrote instead are on firmer ground.
But it is not a big deal to me personally. I am not inclined to argue over words, same as whether "Roman" should necessarily be added in front of "Catholic". I only use it to draw a distinction between the Latin Church and other Catholic Churches, but others use it nearly all the time. It is not hard to disambiguate.
I have freedom in Christ and Him alone. NO church could do that, only a relationship with Jesus delivers one from the ravages of sin.
Do what you will regarding your beliefs but we feel that these beliefs and rites lead into bondage and not freedom. That’s why we speak up about them.
IT SEEMS THAT CATHOLICS DID THE SAME...
Without you ever having actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church your statements about its positions are nothing more than wild-ass (Equus africanus) guesses. The Church does not intercede or interfere in Salvation, it guides, nurtures and facilitates a personal relationship with Christ and with it Salvation.
By the way, in your version of Christianity isn't breaking the 8th Commandment a sin, even if it is to slur the Catholic Church?
May I pose a question? I'll use a (hopefully) neutral example:
If an "ecumenical" thread includes a Buddhist, and in response to the Buddhist's claims about the truth and goodness of Buddhism someone posts that Gautama Buddha was a liar, a thief, an adulterer and (in general) a moral monster, then is the poster who is attacking the person of Gautama Buddha being "antagonistic"?
IOW, are ad hominem attacks directed against persons who are not participants on FR allowed?
You wrote:
“vlad, don’t play the poor Catholic routine. I’ve not come to expect that from you.”
It’s good that you don’t expect that from me. I also am not doing it so you were right the first time.
Ummm..I seem to remember something about the reformation being around, oh, some 1400 YEARS after this letter was written. There WAS no "Protestant" anything...duh. Context - good word to know!
Not at all, the Church has NEVER taught bigamy as acceptable. Nor divorce. Nor abortion. Nor “alternative” lifestyle ‘marriages’ as do even the Lutherans now.
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.