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?
Your information was incorrect, plain and simple. The deflection is yours.
Do you have children?
That’s not relative to the fact that your information was incorrect.
They are heresies; but the point here is different. Boatbums and I were discussing whether when St. Ignatius of Antioch used the word “catholic” he meant any believer in Christ, or he meant someone who is Catholic in the sense that he also obeys the bishops and worships Christ in the Eucharist. I pointed out to her that that latter is the case.
So, if an Excommunicated Catholic - and I am pretty sure a "venial" sin is never grounds for it (I could be wrong) - is not in communion with the Church, cannot receive the sacraments, and dies before they are reconciled ARE THEY DAMNED?
Your turn.
Do you have children?
It's not a difficult question and most people would be more forthcoming than you in answering this simple question.
And she pointed out to you, that after reading the epistle, and researching the short history (106 AD) of the church at that point, there were bishops (spiritual leaders) all over the place. Ignatius was one, as was one in Smyrna he referred to. His admonition was to the believers there to accept the authority of their local ministers of the gospel in regards to scriptural doctrine especially concerning the heresy of Docetism and Gnostism.
He would never even know that nearly 300 years later the bishop in Rome would be named the head kahuna over all the other local spiritual leaders and, I don't doubt he would have been one of the many who rejected that idea had he been present at that council.
In regards to the Eucharist, the local churches gathered together in the mornings for fellowship, called Agape, or Love, Feasts. The breaking of the bread and drinking of the wine was done as Christ had done at the Last Supper, after the Resurrection, and as explained by Paul in the letter to the Corinthians. All in "remembrance of Him".
Do I, as a Christian participate in Communion? Yes. Do I believe it miraculously changes into the physical flesh and blood of Jesus as a reenactment of the sacrifice on the cross every time I partake? No. And neither did the early Christians. When I accepted Jesus Christ as savior, I "received" his body and blood for the remission of my sins. My act of faith was the spiritual equivalent of eating his body and drinking his blood. And when I did this, just as Jesus said, I will never hunger or thirst again. That this was a spiritual concept is obvious. Did people gag and freak out when they first heard Jesus say this? Yep. Did he explain the concept to the ones who believed in him and stuck around? Absolutely!
I follow what Jesus told his disciples, "Do this in remembrance of me." and Paul to the Corinthians, "When you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show the Lord's death until he comes again."
So, the point is, Ignatius was the first to use the word "catholic" and he was without doubt speaking to the entire body of believers in Christ. It's too bad some feel they must copyright words in order to assert their superiority over others.
The fact that you are asking Lorica questions like this in a debate thread you are clearly losing is really creepy.
I showed that your post had factual errors. That you deny it is of no concern to me; what’s important is my providing the actual facts for others to research if they want.
Do you have children?
It's not a difficult question and most people would be more forthcoming than you in answering this simple question.
Because you think it relevant doesn't make it so. There is absolutely no good reason to personalize the discussion, whatever you think "most people" would do. I prefer to focus on correcting factual errors.
It's a way to shift focus when one's facts aren't in order. As in, "Look over yonder! That poster declined to offer personal information to a complete stranger! Let's talk about that instead of my humdinger of a factual error!"
Tone it down. Antagonism is not allowed on “ecumenical” Religion Forum threads.
Whether or not someone has children is very germane to the discussion. Because someone who does not have children is merely talking in hypotheticals, whereas a parent understands what it means to protect their child.
At least all parents should know that.
So, do you have children?
Your “corrections” were incorrect.
Do you have kids?
Ah, so the problem is not the RCC's religion but the RCC's culture. It looks to me like you're playing a shell game here.
... Rose does not indict the Church, but identifies and condemns the outside influences that is harming it.
From what I've read, Rose is optimistic about the future and has high hopes that BXVI will be able to clean out the Augean stables that is the RCC in America. However, the fact that moral rot is present means that the influence is not only outside, it is inside (and has been for a long time). Or are you claiming that the RCC is without sin? I imagine that a lot of molested boys and girls would take issue with that claim.
From the editors notes...
From what I can see, the "assault from without" by antinomianism and nihilism and sin -- of course, such things were NEVER found within the RCC (or any other communion) before 1950...or 1789...or... -- has been successful, and what we're seeing now is a more visible counteroffensive by traditionalists. WITHIN the RCC. I wish the traditionalists success, but if they continue to rely upon just making new rules and protocols, and by scapegoating "culture" and conspiracies, I'm not optimistic about what the results might be.
That disbelief is what St. Ignatius' letter directly condemns, so if you want to play "catholic" Christian, don't call on him as evidence.
He wrote about the Church of Rome, too:
Please cease with your needlessly creepy questions. I am under no obligation to answer them.
You said:
In 2001, in his role as chief Inquisitor, Ratzinger authored the letter “Crimen Sollicitationis”
I said:
Crimen Sollicitationis was written by Cardinal Ottaviani in 1962.
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.