According to the Religion Forum Guidelines,
“Closed” threads on the Religion Forum include devotionals, prayer threads and caucuses. The header of the thread should make it obvious that the thread is closed, i.e. like a church meeting behind closed doors. Such assemblies will not be disturbed. Any challenges or ridicule will be removed. Any thread can be designated a caucus - e.g. labeled as a “[Catholic Caucus]” or “[LDS Caucus]” - provided that neither the article nor any of the posts challenge or ridicule any other confession. These are “safe harbors” for those who are easily offended or are ill equipped to defend their own confession.
In post #10, Verga is challenging someone on their poor understanding of church teaching. In her response, she suggests the individual consider seeking another church more in keeping with her personal views.
In post #26, Verga remains on topic, lamenting the fact that many Catholics do not read the catechism.
In post $43, another freeper is simply relating the reaction received for citing scripture.
None of these comments qualifies as a disparaging remark. The topic of this thread is Catholic and regards Church teaching. There is nothing here that disparages any other denomination; hence, the Catholic Caucus remains.
I’m not Protestant, but if I were I might take issue with post #30?
Heck, I’m just happy that I can now post here even though I’m not considered Catholic here.
I'll say it again, it's very similar to how liberals react to conservatives.
That’s from post 26. That isn’t a disparaging remark?
Sounds like a management problem!
Why not have a test every few years, like the BMV does, to make sure that ONLY the partyline gets parroted?
Wrong answers?
Is the level of deceit really that bad?
In post NYer: #10, Verga is challenging someone on their poor understanding of church teaching. In her response, she suggests the individual consider seeking another church more in keeping with her personal views.
In post 10, other denominations are referenced by name. Post 10: " I hear the Anglicans and Presbyterians have made some interesting changes to their teachings lately. " That alone, in and of itself, disqualifies this from being a caucus thread.
NYer: In post #26, Verga remains on topic, lamenting the fact that many Catholics do not read the catechism.
In post 26, the poster says no such thing but rather goes off topic by making comments about another non-Catholic FReeper and bringing in a topic across threads.
Post 26:Sadly certain anti-Catholic bigots like to ask: "Who interprets the CCC?, it's turtles all the way down." That is a direct quote.
NYer:In post $43, another freeper is simply relating the reaction received for citing scripture.
That is not simply *relating a reaction*. That is taking the opportunity to make a cheap shot at another religious group.
Post 43: I got beat up but good by the proddies last week for telling them the same thing.
In post #26, Verga remains on topic, lamenting the fact that many Catholics do not read the catechism.
That is frankly absurd, another example of the "defend-at-any-cost-to-credibility" response we so often have seen here by RCs. For that fact is that in post #26 rather than Verga lamenting Catholics, he (she?) responds,
Sadly certain anti-Catholic bigots like to ask: "Who interprets the CCC?, it's turtles all the way down." That is a direct quote.
But you either seem to see what you want to see or misconstrue the response to avoid impugning a RC. Yet Verga has commendably confessed his error,
And outside relegating those who ask the question as being "bigots," mistaking this for an open thread is easy to do, but making RCs out to be victims because if it is the problem. However, look at how many more hits it received.