It appears that the Catholic caucus in the FR Religion Forum simply could not resist injecting themselves into any discussion where Protestants might have an ecumenical discussion that the caucus could not spray their graffiti all over, and so they trudged out the usual "THEY'RE BASHING OUR FAITH!!!" charge just because the historical document cited happened to contain "thinly veiled" attacks on the Roman Catholic Church...even though that miniscule bit of content amidst the whole was never highlighted, referenced or presented as the topic of discussion.
Is this the point we're at? On a site that promotes itself as being thoroughly conservative, is FR now so obsessed with political correctness and catering to the whining victimhood of those wanting to shove their opinions into every single discussion that a thread like this that could have simply allowed "friendly dialogue" between these two groups must instead be treated this way?
Fru is back with his incredible ability to dissect a situation in a clear and concise masterpiece!
I believe this deserves a ping list!
Where you been, man! :)
Doomed from the get go because of the ridiculous nature of the original article.
Is this the point we're at? On a site that promotes itself as being thoroughly conservative, is FR now so obsessed with political correctness and catering to the whining victimhood of those wanting to shove their opinions into every single discussion that a thread like this that could have simply allowed "friendly dialogue" between these two groups must instead be treated this way?
That sounds rather like the same whining to which you're objecting. The only whining I see is coming from your side along the lines of "Protestants can never have a caucus coz the Romanists keep butting in!" Imagine that! Catholics actually wanting to present the truth. What an inconvenient pain! You'd think they'd just let people post their nonsense uncontested, wouldn't you?
Speaking of truth:
1) There never was nor is any Orthodox/Protestant caucus on this thread nor at any other time.
2) The original article was selectively cut and pasted by the poster to exclude a critical passage which made it clear that the Orthodox had already condemned this piece as a fraud and heresy. This is the real issue on this thread and it has unfortunately been lost due to all the bickering about what constitutes a "caucus".
The poster himself has yet to explain why he did so. It's not as if the piece which was omitted was at the end of the article and so could perhaps have been missed. It's right at the very beginning and was obviously edited. Is this the basis for a serious discussion? The gentleman who posted this article on the sourced website thought it important to point out to his readers that this is a very controversial document whose authenticity is contested. And rightly so. That's something of which a reader should be aware.
The poster of this thread, on the other had, decided to edit out that information. That's understandable. I mean how is one to get a "caucus" thread up and running when you tell your prospective "caucus" partners up front that their Church has already ruled that said document is heretical and fraudulent?
Uh........best leave that bit out.
This thread was a total scam from the get go and the poster was called on it.
You mean like this, from a recent Catholic Caucus thread?
As a side note, approximately 1200 years after this decision was made, Martin Luther and the Protestant reformers removed 7 books from the Old Testament. As a result, most Protestant Bibles are still missing these 7 books.
Objection!
The guidelines set forth on the RM homepage clearly state that The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
Because the above article clearly compares beliefs it should not be granted "Caucus" status. At best it should be changed to an Ecumenical thread.
I will now withdraw and await the RM's ruling.