The term "Roman Catholic"

[user1234]

But humility and choosing our words is.

Goad much? Yes, not grovelling, and not being a boy-wonder to somebody's caped-crusader.

 

[Imalive]

-

 

[Lamb]

It would be great to see this thread get back on topic instead of using it as a punching bag against Catholics.

 

[user1234]

It would be great to see this thread get back on topic instead of using it as a punching bag against Catholics.

I love the RomanCathoLICS. I have many friends and family members that are in that denomination. At least one I know is saved.

There's a difference between loving a person, and not loving, or even hating a doctrine, or a particular teaching or practice.

I pointed that out in an earlier post, perhaps it was overlooked.

Ppl are entitled to their opinions, or at least they SHOULD be. Its when a the RCdenominations teachings are used to bash christians with, claiming to be the one true church on earth, etc, that some of us have a problem with.
Its the 'ism' of RomanCatholicISM, not the 'ics'.

I agree, PEOPLE should not be 'bashed' .
A PERSON that believes in certain things should not be bashed.
One person believes in baby baptism, another does not. The PEOPLE should not bash each other, but the DOCTRINE should be fair game to discuss.

One person believes in osas, another does not.
The PEOPLE should not bash each other over it.

One person believes in 'sign gifts' (tongues or healings, for example) another does not.
The PEOPLE shouldnt bash each other about it.

One person believes in Transubstantiation, another does not.
The PEOPLE should not bash each other.

But ANY doctrine or practice (true or false) should be open to scrutiny in the light of scripture, and false teachings exposed and the truth put forth.

The above case in point ... I have family members that are RC and believe in Transubstantiation.
I have no problem telling them that doctrine is a lie. They pray the rosary and believe in asking their Mary to pray for them when they die. Repeatedly.
I tell them theyre believing a lie, for their own sake.
I'm not bashing THEM. I love them dearly. Enough even to tell them the truth, even tho they might hate me and cut off communication with me.

And believe me, it has happened, and continues to, and not just with family, and not just RCs, and the latest case hurts like hell, I cant describe.

But if exposing false teaching is off limits, where are we as a body...what does it matter what we believe?

But is it any different than saying homosexuality or lets say pedophilia is a lie or an abomination?Are you bashing homos? No, youre helping them.

There are certain things ... Religious doctrines and practices, that Jesus hates, and so should we.

He obviously loved the Pharisees, but hated some of what they taught and practiced, and let it be known. Pretty boldly, too. It doesnt mean He was bashing them.

Here's what I wrote in the earlier post to make a distinction, if anyone cares to read, and I'm starting to wonder:
Oh well, let them with ears...
→
Meanwhile, it's astonishing to me how many ppl cant seem to distinguish between exposing false teaching and practice ... And personal attacks.
Pointing out the fallacies of the RomanCatholic denomination does not mean a personal attack on a RomanCatholic practitioner.←

 

[Andrew]

It would be great to see this thread get back on topic instead of using it as a punching bag against Catholics.

I apologize little lamb (sorry snerfle lol )

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

It would be great to see this thread get back on topic instead of using it as a punching bag against Catholics.

That's fair to say, Lamm. On the other hand, what more is there to say...if we stick to the topic (origin and use of the Roman Catholic name) ?

 

[Andrew]

That's fair to say, Lamm. On the other hand, what more is there to say...if we stick to the topic (origin and use of the Roman Catholic name) ?

I used to own a most interesting book called "ancient history", a very old book, but it went into detailed events of law, structure, civil, social, government, religious, all emperors and militant + more. It had a non bias view on Christianity at the time and talked about how "Rome" became the center of Christian belief (expressed belief), all prior to the universal or Holy Roman era... none the less "Roman" just meant "citizen" and "world" meant the known and very dominant "roman" influence before all the hoopla... Wish I still had that book.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk
I

 

[Albion]

I used to own a most interesting book called "ancient history", a very old book, but it went into detailed events of law, structure, civil, social, government, religious, all emperors and militant + more. It had a non bias view on Christianity at the time and talked about how "Rome" became the center of Christian belief (expressed belief), all prior to the universal or Holy Roman era... none the less "Roman" just meant "citizen" and "world" meant the known and very dominant "roman" influence before all the hoopla... Wish I still had that book.

Yeh. Some of those old books put the newer ones to shame. But I think that 'Rome' in the name or as a version of the name, like "the Church of Rome," does also point to the obvious--that the city of Rome is the headquarters of the church and the Pope is the bishop of Rome.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

...not being a boy-wonder to somebody's caped-crusader.

Please explain what you mean. I'm quite serious.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I used to own a most interesting book called "ancient history", a very old book, but it went into detailed events of law, structure, civil, social, government, religious, all emperors and militant + more. It had a non bias view on Christianity at the time and talked about how "Rome" became the center of Christian belief (expressed belief), all prior to the universal or Holy Roman era... none the less "Roman" just meant "citizen" and "world" meant the known and very dominant "roman" influence before all the hoopla... Wish I still had that book.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk
I

It reminds me of a book I picked up not to far back on Christian history, with a copyright in the 20's or 30's. It seems rather scholarly, and the introduction presents it as geared toward university students. I've enjoyed what I've read so far, and I can imagine it has some good insight into Catholic church history and various schisms as well. I ought to pick it back up soon.

 

[hedrick]

There are actually several churches in communion with Rome. The others are Eastern. Technically Catholic refers either to the Christian Church as a whole, or to all of those churches. The Roman Catholic Church is thus like the Melkite Catholic Church (for example), one of several churches that are in communion with each other, and together make up the Catholic communion.

In its agreement with the PCUSA on Baptism, the Catholic partner identified itself as the Roman Catholic Church. I've assumed that is because the agreement was specifically with that body, and not with the entire Catholic communion. (Though one hopes the other Catholic churches would respect it.)

 

[Albion]

The Catholic Church is not in communion with those bodies. It may have some kinds of agreements, but it does not have full communion or "altar and pulpit fellowship" with even the Eastern Orthodox churches, let alone the twenty-odd Eastern jurisdictions that are part of the church headed by the Pope and required to hold the same beliefs as any Roman Catholic layperson in an American parish is.

These are simply different branches of the Church of Rome, existing as concessions to the cultural differences of various ethnic groups. And the Papacy does not have full communion with the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht, either.

What it does have are 1) several statements of agreement with a couple of Protestant churches on aspects of the ministry and the sacraments, 2)a policy by which Eastern Orthodox people are permitted to commune in Roman Catholic churches on an emergency basis only, and 3) recognition of the Apostolic Succession of Old Catholic orders (priests and bishops). None of those constitutes "full communion " or "inter-communion. "

 

[Josiah]

I have NEVER understood why a FEW Catholics object to the name "Roman Catholic."

In my Catholic days, Catholics themselves often used that name. The sign out front of our parish said in big, lit letters: "A Roman Catholic Community."

Catholics often call other denominations by names that (at least originally) were derogatory - and that's okay. They use names like "Protestant" "Lutheran" "Calvinist" "Methodist" "Mormon" "Quakers" etc. and it doesn't matter to them ONE BIT if those name are (or were) derogatory and disliked - insisting "but those ARE the commonly used names!" Okay. Jesus' "log/speck" point comes to mind.... I think we find some pointing one finger at others while pointing 3 back at themselves. Truth is - most eventually get over it and accept that names are typically GIVEN rather than chosen, and what is just is. Get over it. Don't take offense when none is meant. And virtually every Catholic I know of has - long ago. So I just don't "get" those FEW Catholic who whine about this, TOO.


- Josiah (a former ROMAN Catholic, lol)




.

 

[Albion]

I have NEVER understood why a FEW Catholics object to the name "Roman Catholic."

In my Catholic days, Catholics themselves often used that name. The sign out front of our parish said in big, lit letters: "A Roman Catholic Community."

Catholics often call other denominations by names that (at least originally) were derogatory - and that's okay. They use names like "Protestant" "Lutheran" "Calvinist" "Methodist" "Mormon" "Quakers" etc. and it doesn't matter to them ONE BIT if those name are (or were) derogatory and disliked - insisting "but those ARE the commonly used names!"

That's very true. And the ever-popular "non-Catholic." I cannot remember the last time I heard anyone called a "non-Lutheran" or "non-Presbyterian." LOL

As you know, the RCC and the Vatican refuse to refer to other Christian churches as churches. They are "ecclesial communities" as though the United Methodist Church was nothing but a couple of families meeting in the living room in order to study the Bible.

 

[user1234]

That's very true. And the ever-popular "non-Catholic." I cannot remember the last time I heard anyone called a "non-Lutheran" or "non-Presbyterian." LOL

As you know, the RCC and the Vatican refuse to refer to other Christian churches as churches. They are "ecclesial communities" as though the United Methodist Church was nothing but a couple of families meeting in the living room in order to study the Bible.

Might not be a bad idea sometimes though, lol, to counter some of the oppression and authoritarianism that can come out of denominationalism and breed so much division, and get back to the bible. (Man, can we invent some shorter words?? lol)

Anyway, Im not against 'denominations' per se, but some of them have some horrendous doctrine and practices, some things that Jesus hates, but unfortunately, members are often expected/required to accept all their denom says ....

Some do so willingly, but I think some just resign themselves to accepting whatever it might be, because 'Oh well, thats what the denom decided', and theyre a member, so might feel like they dont have much choice.

More home study/fellowship might help with discernment and growth.
I could use more of it in my own life, no doubt, but I'm still grateful Jesus saved me from alot of religionism ... Some denominations might have some good things, for sure, but I also see first hand how much damage it can cause as well.

 

[Albion]

Anyway, Im not against 'denominations' per se, but some of them have some horrendous doctrine and practices, some things that Jesus hates, but unfortunately, members are often expected/required to accept all their denom says ....

Frankly, my friend, I do not get this line of argument that so many people post. It is not as though different church bodies hold people in chains and force them to belong. If you don't agree with one of the teachings of any one of them--sincerely disagree for good, Scripture-based reason--then choose another one! But do follow Jesus' instructions about his church which cannot be followed without fellowshipping, hearing the word of God preached, receiving the Lord's Supper, etc.

 

[user1234]

Frankly, my friend, I do not get this line of argument that so many people post. It is not as though different church bodies hold people in chains and force them to belong. If you don't agree with one of the teachings of any one of them--sincerely disagree for good, Scripture-based reason--then choose another one! But do follow Jesus' instructions about his church which cannot be followed without fellowshipping, hearing the word of God preached, receiving the Lord's Supper, etc.

Didnt you read my whole post? You chop-quoted it, which may have caused your confusion.

Many ppl are long-term members of this or that denom.
The denom makes decisions, adds this, subtracts that, and some things might be readily, gladly received by some folks, but other things might not sit too well with some folks...but it's not so easy to just up and leave when you have family/friends from years of fellowship together.

And even if they might want to leave, they might find themselves having to find an entirely new denomination, not just a different building to worship in. And if youre a senior citizen or have health concerns, you may find yourself in a position of just resigning yourself to the dictates of the denomination, depending on how autonomous the different congregations are under the denoms umbrella.

Im not saying its easy, or even 100% unavoidable.
I like the saying, 'Dont look for the perfect church...as soon as you join it, you'll ruin it'. Lol.
It's just that I see so much division over denominationalism. Im not sure what the solutiin is, but again...getting back to what the bible says and away from what the denominations/catechisms etc, say, in home bible studies, etc, would probably help.

 

[Albion]

Didnt you read my whole post? You chop-quoted it, which may have caused your confusion.

No confusion. That was the part I wanted to respond to, and I quoted you properly.

Many ppl are long-term members of this or that denom.
The denom makes decisions, adds this, subtracts that, and some things might be readily, gladly received by some folks, but other things might not sit too well with some folks...but it's not so easy to just up and leave when you have family/friends from years of fellowship together.

Then that would be their choice, but the implication that a denomination is somehow like a cult and the people all so dumb that they'll believe anything is unwarranted.

 

[user1234]

No confusion. That was the part I wanted to respond to, and I quoted you properly.

Then that would be their choice, but the implication that a denomination is somehow like a cult and the people all so dumb that they'll believe anything is unwarranted.

So who made the implication that a denomination is like a cult and the ppl so dumb theyll believe anything?
Thats a really asinine implication...who made it, did you?
Because I see nothing even closely resembling that implication in your accusation. Either you must have read that on another thread, forum, or chatsite or maybe you're just making things up? Please try to be more careful to read what is written...it will help avoid strawman arguements and you being confused again.

 

[Albion]

So who made the implication that a denomination is like a cult and the ppl so dumb theyll believe anything?
Thats a really asinine implication...who made it, did you?
Because I see nothing even closely resembling that implication in your accusation. Either you must have read that on another thread, forum, or chatsite or maybe you're just making things up? Please try to be more careful to read what is written...it will help avoid strawman arguements and you being confused again.

We can talk when you are not so agitated. In the meantime, read through all the previous posts on this and related threads and you may be able to answer your questions for yourself.