Posted on 02/26/2010 1:08:31 AM PST by Gamecock
So I have a question about terminology.
Some of our Catholic FRiends get upset when we Prods use the term Roman Catholic, insisting that the term is derogatory, insulting, etc.
What I would like to discuss is why do Catholics complain about the term Roman Catholic, when the term is in such wide use inside of the Catholic church?
Thoughts?
The only thing I know along those lines concerns an elite of so-called Asian Liberation Theologians, the foremost of whom was Tissa Balasuriya, who was excommunicated for his errors by Pope John Paul II. Later, as I heard, he retracted his offensive published materials, and the excommunication was lifted.
I don't know that he has millions, thousands, or even hundreds in his following. His supporters are "the usual subjects" who are surprisingly non-Asian, and have mostly been disciplined by the CDF and/or have excommunicated themselves: Rosemary Radford-Ruether, Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Leonardo Boff, Matthew Fox, Edward Schillebeeck, Karl Rahner, Raimondo Pannikar and Raymond Brown.
As I said, the expected aging-academic-apostate Rogue's Gallery.
If you want to say the discipline in such cases has been neither swift, clear, not comprehensive--- then regrettably you're right.
However Asian Liberation/pluralism supporters accuse the present pope, Benedict, of being a "fascist" for opposing Balasuriya, and say Benedict is attempting to lead the Catholic Church in a "fundamentalist" direction.
:o)
Cause for renewed hope!
In the midst of a worldwide battle.
During the hiccup there, I attempted to post this three times.
I obviously don’t want or need it to be posted three times. Please delete two of them.
That is worth repeating.
Doctrines of men.
It is no wonder you have such a bleak, dreary and joyless demeanor and outlook on life. At least I can better understand your resentment of the joy and cheer Catholics enjoy.
Thank you for yet another a fine—albeit extremely literal—example of Dr. Eckleburg posting doctrines of men.
I refer to myself as “Roman Catholic” to proudly emphasize my union with the Holy Father.
“It is no wonder you have such a bleak, dreary and joyless demeanor and outlook on life. At least I can better understand your resentment of the joy and cheer Catholics enjoy.”
Not as sorry as I am that you and yours have such crappy holidays.
You wrote:
“Differences of opinion on church matters have resulted in many church splits but that is not the same as claiming a leader is “satanic” which is patently offensive to a lot of protestants.”
I suggest you learn to read. I never said Luther was satanic I CLEARLY wrote, “His views on the Catholic Church were certainly more supportive of Satan than Christ.”
“There is no purpose in your comment other than to enflame.”
No. The purpose was to post the truth. I did so. Everything I said was true. Period. Whether or not you’re “enflamed” by it is completely irrelevant to me.
Largely because the Protestants who do so frequently confuse the Latin Rite and the entire Catholic Church.
(sigh)
I don’t know when it was that I first realized it - a decade ago perhaps - but it seems to me that anti-Catholics really don’t know how to read. Case in point:
you wrote:
“It seems your words would offend the Pope.”
Nope.
“I’ve been told here frequently that Vatican 2 recognized someone can be a Christian without being ‘Roman Catholic’.”
First, where did I ever say that someone CANNOT be a Christian unless he is a Catholic? Where did I say that? I’ll help you: I have never, ever said that anywhere, anytime. Never. Not even once. Second, the Church has ALWAYS recognized that there are people outside the Church who believe in Christ. Always. It was not suddenly hit upon at Vatican II or any Church council for that matter. It was ALWAYS believed. Donatists were not Catholics? Were they considered Christians? Yes. Lutherans are not Catholic. Are they Christians though? Yes. Has the Church always recongnized this? Yes. Third, anyone who has ever made anything even approaching a serious study of the Catholic faith would have to know this. You did not. What does that tell us? Fourth, you are apparently completely unaware about Dominus Iesus. It was written under then Cardinal Ratzinger (the current pope) and issued by Pope John Paul II. In it you’ll see that the Church recognizes Protestant Christians as Christians but also acknowledges that they are not in the Church but in sects instead. This means your comment, “It seems your words would offend the Pope” is silly and ill-informed to say the least. You apparently have never heard of this document, never read it and have no familiarity with what’s in it. No surprise there.
“Were the folks who posted that lacking in understanding?”
You are. You are so lacking in understanding that I cannot even necessarily believe you have gotten right what other posters have told you in the past.
Why can’t anti-Catholics READ?
Hey Vlad - you said
“This fooled even Martin Luther who claimed to have visited the Vatican as the basis for his innumerable Satanic slanders:”.
Luther didn’t agree with the Catholic Church and you call them “satanic slanders”. There is no need for that kind of talk here. Take it somewhere else.
You wrote:
“Hey Vlad - you said “This fooled even Martin Luther who claimed to have visited the Vatican as the basis for his innumerable Satanic slanders:”.”
I did not say that. Dangus said that in post #15.
“Luther didn’t agree with the Catholic Church and you call them “satanic slanders”. There is no need for that kind of talk here. Take it somewhere else.”
1) Again, I didn’t write it. 2) There can be no doubt that Dangus has correctly described Luther’s slanders of the Church. Even the libtards at PBS got this right:
“Martin Luther’s criticism of the Church initially was that the Church was sending the wrong message, that the Church was ... giving to people the sense that they could save themselves by using the various things the Church offered, including indulgences. ... But when the Church did not listen, he came reluctantly to the conclusion that the Church, especially the office of the papacy, was the Antichrist, and that what it was doing was deliberate. It was the devil’s attempt to subvert, to submerge the good news, the gospel. The devil was working within the Church. And once he was convinced that that was happening, the papal office was the office of the Antichrist, and he saw the end time near. ... “
And...
“When Martin Luther first translated and published the New Testament, he thought that Revelation should not have the same status or authority as the gospels or the letters of Paul or Peter. ...But what’s interesting, even though he felt that way, it’s the one book that he illustrated, where he put woodcuts, because Revelation allowed him to make one of his central points, which was that the papacy was the Antichrist, and the end of the world was coming. And so there you see the only woodcuts in the New Testament. You see the whore of Babylon wearing a papal crown. You see the seven-headed beast wearing a papal crown. The message was clear. You didn’t have to read (as most people didn’t). You got the message. The papacy, the papal office—not the individual popes but the papal Church—was where Satan was working to undermine Christendom. And the fact that Satan was there meant the world was coming to an end soon. ...”
And..
“The pope claimed to be Christ’s representative on earth. Luther became convinced that the pope was the devil’s representative on earth. And that took graphic form very early in the Reformation ... with one of the most effective pieces of propaganda in the early Reformation: a series of 26 woodcuts that juxtaposed some action in Christ’s life with something in the papacy. Christ carrying his cross to be crucified; the pope being carried in his throne on the backs of people ... . Christ washing the feet of the disciples; the pope having his feet kissed. And over and over again, scenes from Christ’s life juxtaposed with scenes from the papacy. ... Christ was always humble and serving; the papacy, the pope was always lordly and [lording] over others. Christ is Christ; the pope is Antichrist.”
“At the end of his life, Martin Luther decided he had to issue his final testament against all the enemies of the gospel. And he published treatises, he encouraged people, but words were not sufficient. He also had to use images. And so he asked his friend, the painter Lucas Cranach, to do a series of woodcuts, and Luther wrote the verses for them. And these woodcuts were designed to show as graphically as possible, to those who could read and those who couldn’t, what Luther thought of the papacy. So for example, there’s a woodcut which shows the pope on his throne and peasants with their tongues out, their trousers down, farting in the pope’s face. Another one shows the pope riding an ass, holding a pile of dung in his hands, saying “The pope is offering a counsel.” And another that shows the German emperor lying on the ground with the pope with his foot on the emperor’s neck, which shows, once again graphically, Luther’s belief that the papacy was trying to control secular authority throughout the world. These were all actions of the Antichrist, and Luther wanted to make it clear what he thought of the pope. ...”
This sort of slander was always part and parcel of Protestantism: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9602fea1.asp
Luther’s slanders were satanic. Period.
Luther didn't agree with the Catholic Church in a lot of areas. One of those was the Jews in which he was repeatably slanderous as his books will attest:
On the Jews and Their Lies
Vom Schem Hamphoras
Warning against the Jews
“Why can’t anti-Catholics READ?”
More to the point, why can’t someone read his own words? Here is what you wrote:
“There is only one Church, and it is not your sect. You belong to a sect invented sometime after 1500. You, therefore, cannot be Catholic and cannot hold a faith that could possibly be called “catholic” because it belongs to nothing but a particular sect founded in the last few centuries with a new gospel, no history beyond 1500, and no mandate from Christ Himself. Do my words offend you? The truth often does offend people.”
Now, can someone who is not part of the true church be a Christian? If the church is Christ’s body, can someone not a part of the body be in Christ?
Can someone who believes “a new gospel”, not the one preached by the Apostles, be saved? What did Paul say?
“8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” - Gal 1
Can someone accursed be united with Christ?
“4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” - Ephesians 4
V: “It was not suddenly hit upon at Vatican II or any Church council for that matter. It was ALWAYS believed. Donatists were not Catholics? Were they considered Christians? Yes. Lutherans are not Catholic. Are they Christians though? Yes. Has the Church always recongnized this? Yes.”
Really? A church that killed heretics by the thousands recognized them as Christians? That is a strange sort of brotherly love...
and what does any of that have to do with Satan? The original vanity had to do with the Roman Catholic church. Some have used this as an opportunity to blast protestants and blast Luther as satanic. It’s just not necessary to do that here.
the Catholics of the reign of Elizabeth and James I were by no means willing to admit any other designation for themselves than the unqualified пащр Catholic
That "пащр" is still a mystery; it is not in the source, provided you took it from Roman Catholic, where the innocent word "name" appears instead. (This is a meaningless combination of Cyrillic letters in my browser, but I have the cyrillic characters installed. May be it looks different in yours).
Once the post uses characters from non-Latin character set, you have to insert paragraph tags manually.
Martin Luther’s Satanic Slanders refers to his writings against Satan, which are very graphic, earthy, and vulgar.
Here is a discussion of what is meant:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=750
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.