Replies

"Sure there can be a Protestant caucus thread. If you post a thread about the doctrines of, say, the Methodist or Baptist or Presbyterian sects, then that would be a Protestant caucus."

Is that list exclusive? Or maybe you should just post a list of the topics the Catholics will allow Protestant caucus threads on. The confession which this thread posted was pretty much consistent with the Westminster Confession which IS the "doctrine of Presbyterian (and most reformed)sects". Or maybe Protestants should just ask your permission before designating any topic a caucus. As I said, this thread was a very eye-opening experience and asnwered a lot of questions.

The confession which this thread posted was pretty much consistent with the Westminster Confession which IS the "doctrine of Presbyterian (and most reformed)sects". Or maybe Protestants should just ask your permission before designating any topic a caucus.

You weren't on this thread from the beginning.

The OP attempted to label this thread a caucus for Protestants who believe in the five solas and all Eastern Orthodox.

The confession was purported to express Orthodox belief, but it actually was firmly rejected by the Orthodox. The Orthodox DO NOT subscribe to the doctrine of sola scriptura and have been totally clear on that matter.

Moreoever, Chapter 10 of this confession makes a clear and negative reference to the Catholic Church and that alone negates the caucus status.

If Protestants (or just the Baptists or Calvinists or Methodists, etc.) want a caucus, all they need to do is post threads which speak of their beliefs WITHOUT mentioning disparaging beliefs. If that is so difficult to do then maybe they should take a look at what their beliefs are actually based on.

I just gave you a simple example. The rules here are not difficult to comply with. If you find them overwhelming, perhaps you should go elsewhere.

You wrote:

“The confession which this thread posted was pretty much consistent with the Westminster Confession which IS the “doctrine of Presbyterian (and most reformed)sects”.”

The caucus idea at the top of this thread was nonsensical to start with. And what was done was done in such a way that it allowed Catholics to post in the thread.

“Or maybe Protestants should just ask your permission before designating any topic a caucus.”

Or maybe Protestants should just follow the rules which are pretty simple. How about that?

“As I said, this thread was a very eye-opening experience and asnwered a lot of questions.”

I found it eye-opening too. The fact that someone would post something like this, “Roman Catholics please do not trash our thread. We’re trying to have a friendly dialogue here” was very telling. The thread was a bad idea from the beginning.

Catholics don't have the right to allow or to forbid Caucus threads. This Catholic wouldn't want that right. But I'd like to be able to argue that this or that thread deserved or did not deserve the status.

The principle applied here was that a caucus thread cannot [explicitly] attack a group of Christians not included in the Caucus 'set'.

So the question to argue is "Whether Chapter 10 is an [explicit] attack on the [so-called] Catholic Church."

And a related question, or an approach to the discussion might be "Whether the "if the shoe fits, wear it" standard means something is an attack or not."

In things like the Creed or the Chalcedonian Definition, I do not recall (not that that's a reliable standard) any "And they that say X are to be held accursed," or "As the so-and-so do falsely boast." But of course such language appears in later Conciliar canons.

It would be interesting to analyze the 39 articles to see if they could qualify for Caucus status. N any event the burden placed, whether fairly or not, on at least some non-Catholic groups APPEARS to be that they may have to argue that some of their statements or confessional chapters or whatever are not intended as being 'against' those Churches in communion with the See of Rome.