Posted on 07/22/2010 11:01:11 AM PDT by the_conscience
Edited on 07/23/2010 8:45:24 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
It certainly is. Just the other day, non-Catholics were saying that Catholic caucus threads were for those who weren't able or didn't want to defend their beliefs. Now they're complaining because their own caucus designation, having broken the rules, has been removed.
Irrespective of the pyschobabble, the evidence is that a Caucus was formed and article placed which clearly fits within the guidelines. Immediately, without provocation, Romanists began violating the rule. Some merely provided fact, others merely asked question, and, of course, the gnat-strainers made their appearance. Irregardless of their motives the rule was broke. And, irregardless of my motives, the Caucus fit the guidelines. If the rule of law was being followed then the Caucus designation should stand.
Frankly, I thought the designation would fall for a more obvious technicality which I don’t believe has been brought up yet.
Here you’ve been straining for gnats and there’s a big horsefly buzzing around.
I’m a little disappointed in you, dawg. I thought you were a better Canon lawyer than that.
I’m also discovering some other interesting intrigue. The Jesuits must be running this place!
LOL!
For instance, a Catholic Caucus may discuss the "Our Father" prayer without threat of disruption by non-Catholics who also pray the same words.
In a "Protestant/Orthodox Caucus" - the members are free to discuss both the beliefs they share and the ones they don't, provided they do not speak against/to the beliefs of non-members because once they do, the non-members have an interest in speaking for themselves.
The underlying principle is that the caucus must not be used as cover to attack the beliefs of non-members.
The caucus may have discussed the five Solas, icons, Christ, etc. But once they say "Catholics believe" or "we disagree with the Catholic doctrine of" or the "LDS teaches" etc - then the caucus is broken.
The article of this thread would have been appropriate for a Protestant/Orthodox Caucus were it not for Chapter 10 which is a thinly veiled reference to Papal Primacy, a belief of Catholic non-members.
The moderators are responsible for making judgment calls. This one is on me. I found the reference apparent even though it did not specifically say "Papal Primacy."
On other caucus threads which were in dispute, I have made similar judgment calls, e.g. whether a statement made concerning non-members was merely history or whether it was an attack against or representation of what the non-members believe in contrast to what the members believe.
The way the rule is being interpreted all Protestant caucus threads "break the rules" by definition. Many of not most of the Protestant distinctives are antithetical to Catholic dogma, thus the term "PROTESTant". Thus, by the definition being thrown around here any statement of Protestant doctrine violates caucus rules. Which in practice means Protestant caucus threads will be hounded and tossed out. It's just a matter of when the torches and pitchforks show up.
The above statement is refuted by your first post on this thread, when you said "Roman Catholics please do not trash our thread." Flamebait, in the first post.
And, irregardless of my motives, the Caucus fit the guidelines.
No, it didn't.
The first caucus was an "Atheist Caucus" and we have had a "Non-Denominational Caucus." Protestants are welcome to caucus provided they do not use the label as cover to attack the beliefs of non-members.
Wow. Thanks for posting that.
I would guess that statements like these from Chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession would probably not pass:
and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.
I've seen Catholic caucus threads which go on and on about the authority of tradition.
Yes, but do they reference Protestantism? Because if they do not, there is nothing wrong. Protestants can have a caucus on the five solas, they just need to do it without saying that those who don't adhere to the five solas are members of "synagogues of Satan."
The hypocrisy and venom is breathtaking.
Can you actually post a link to a Catholic Caucus thread which references Protestantism in a negative way?
For instance, saying that the Protestant Reformation began when Martin Luther posted the 95 Theses is a statement of historical fact and not negative; however, saying that Martin Luther was an agent of Satan who posted Satan's creed would be negative. (For the record, those here who know me know that I greatly respect and admire Martin Luther. I do not agree with all of his methods, but I understand his motivations and I do not believe that he set out to harm Christianity.)
A caucus, by definition, is composed of willing members. You attempted to make a five sola-adhering Protestant/Orthodox caucus. Can you show me a post of a SINGLE Orthodox FReeper who supported this caucus you tried to put together?
If it's not possible for certain Protestants to present their beliefs in a positive evangelization, it tells me two things:
--This is not the fault of Catholics, although it's being presented that way.
--It reinforces my observation that the only evangelization technique being used by *frequent* non-Catholic posters in the religion forum is a negative, or attack form of evangelization, as you have just acknowledged.
Which in practice means Protestant caucus threads will be hounded and tossed out. It's just a matter of when the torches and pitchforks show up.
Any caucus designation which is removed is done so by the judgment of the religion mod. See post 103.
If memory serves me there was a Rapture Caucus thread here recently that was quite successful. I didn’t post to it, but I read most of it and it was quite informative. The LDS have caucus threads on here all the time and they don’t seem to have a problem with it.
The overwhelming majority of non-Catholic posters are great, there is a small cadre of ANTI-Catholics who seem to have few interests other than attacking Catholicism.
Dear Lorica,
You failed to mention that I also warned the non-sola Protestants. Was I flame-baiting them?
And I had good reason to warn the Romanists because in the thread discussing the idea of a Protestant/Orthodox caucus the gnat strainers were already devising ways to break the caucus.
It is my understanding that when the Pope and various Catholic cardinals and bishops have said mass together with Orthodox bishops and patriarchs that the Filoque is not recited in the Creed.
your tagline is so incredibly true, yet something I keep forgetting... thanks for it
LOL. Thank you for allowing me to highlight the difference in tone:
If you are Protestant and do not subscribe to the five solas please do not participate.
vs
Roman Catholics please do not trash our thread.
I'm not entirely sure that you've said something in disagreement with what I previously posted. But to me, there appears to be a discontinuity in what you've stated. I'll try my best to lay it out coherently.
“Non-members of a caucus may have many of the same beliefs as members of a caucus. But having those beliefs mentioned without reference to non-members does not grant the non-members a right to disturb the caucus.
“For instance, a Catholic Caucus may discuss the ‘Our Father’ prayer without threat of disruption by non-Catholics who also pray the same words.”
As far as this goes, it's how I understand things.
“In a ‘Protestant/Orthodox Caucus’ - the members are free to discuss both the beliefs they share and the ones they don't, provided they do not speak against/to the beliefs of non-members because once they do, the non-members have an interest in speaking for themselves.”
That is what I've understood.
“The underlying principle is that the caucus must not be used as cover to attack the beliefs of non-members.”
That's how I've understood the RF rules.
“The caucus may have discussed the five Solas, icons, Christ, etc.”
Not sure that fits with what precedes it.
If there were a Protestant/Orthodox caucus thread that was started to discuss differences between the two groups, and the Protestants were to generally argue against the acceptability of icons, how would that not be “speak[ing] against/to the beliefs of non-members...”? It would be speaking against the views of the Orthodox, who are included in the caucus, but it would also be speaking against the views of the Catholics, who are excluded from the thread.
Let's come up with a more stark example - a “Oneness Pentecostal/Catholic Caucus” thread.
Oneness Pentecostals, as I recall, don't believe in the Trinity. Catholics do. So, in this thread, the Oneness Pentecostals could make arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity. And Catholics could make arguments in favor of it, and against the doctrines of the Oneness Pentecostals.
But Trinitarianism is also a fundamental proposition of Orthodox - and most PROTESTANT - faith. An attack on Trinitarianism would be an attack on the beliefs of all Orthodox and the overwhelming number of Protestants.
Would all those folks - all the Orthodox and all the Protestants be excluded from such a thread??
If not, then how could one exclude Catholics from a Protestant/Orthodox caucus thread where the Protestants argued against the Orthodox on issues like icons, the Theotokos, the Real Presence, the nature and number of the Mysteries/Sacraments? Or on the nature and the authority of the Ecumenical Councils?
And, if defense of the solas turned into an explicit argument against the Orthodox theology of Scripture and Tradition, how could one exclude Catholics?
sitetest
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.