Addendum: Jan. 9, 2015
Dave (it seems) has taken down our discussion sometime yesterday, January 8, 2015.
Actually, it seems Dave just blocked me out from making further comments. Oh well, at least others can see the full discussion, as long as he keeps it there.
(See addendum 2 also below, with more comments that I and another Roman Catholic made.)
Dave Armstrong: “You keep calling me “Roman Catholic” and I NEVER call myself that. Eastern Catholics are just as Catholic as I am, and they ain’t “Roman.” “
2 hrs · Like
Ken Temple : Yes, it is more accurate than yours and you are Roman Catholic.
54 mins · Like
Ken Temple: Eastern Catholics have to be in submission to the Pope in Rome, therefore, they are Roman Catholic also.
53 mins · Like
Ken Temple: Why do you not like your own name of your church? The Roman Pontiff Boniface VIII said in Unam Sanctum in 1302, “Every living creature must be in submission to the Pope in Rome in order to be saved.” (a clear contradiction to everything in the New Testament)
40 mins · Like
Dave Armstrong – “So now you are defining our terms for ourselves for us, while objecting to terms applied to you, that are used by countless scholars: Christian scholars of various sorts, historians, and sociologists.
That’s rich. But we’ve come to expect such double standard nonsense from you, Ken.
”January 5 at 4:31pm · Edited · Like
Paul Hoffer — Ken, when we refer to “Roman” in our name, we are referring to the rite of the Divine Liturgy that we use (nore appropropriately called the Latin Rite). Eastern Catholics have their own rite of Divine Liturgy. Hence, that is the distinction. When you use the term “Roman” Catholic, you are not referring to the rite we use in the Liturgy, you are using it as a perjorative label to deny that the Church is in fact “Catholic”. TYhe perjorative use of the term “Roman” has softened over the years since anti-Catholic Protestants started attaching the label and it is less offensive than Romanist or Papist, but nevertheless your use of the term is different than the way it is used in the Church. January 5 at 9:36pm · Like · 1
Ken Temple – Hi Paul, yes I understand that distinction; however, all the eastern Catholics must submit to the Pontiff in Rome, as the bishop over all other bishops, therefore it is accurate to call you Roman Catholics. “The Eastern Rite Catholics are part of the Roman Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church.” father William Saunders –
You guys should not be ashamed of your own name!￼
January 5 at 11:17pm · Like · Remove Preview
Paul Hoffer — Ken, I am not ashamed of the name Catholic, but apparently you feel the need to add a label perhaps due to a hiddden shane of not feeliong a part of Christ’s Chruch. Rest assured, whether you acknowledge it or not, if you are baptized and and call yourself a Christian, you are a member of the Body of Christ which you call Roman Catholic regardless of the labels. You may not share the fullness of faith that I have by acknowledging I am a member of the Catholic Church, but as the Second Vatican Council teaches, you are my brother.
As far as submission goes, my allegiance is to Christ Jesus. Since the Pope administers Christ’s Church, I acknowledge him as Christ’s representative here on earth. The bridge maker or pontiff, is a title from Ancient Roman times referred to a group of individuals who were obligated to administer the divine laws entrusted to them by their gods. The Church co-opted the title referring to a group of individuals who were appointed to serve Christ by administering His laws. Since you do not acknowledge the pope as someone who adminsters Christ’s laws, you might want to refrain in using the title or James White might make a YouTube about you like he did Rev. Warren.
Yesterday at 12:24am · Edited · Like
Ken Temple –I appreciate the intention and motive of kindness calling us “brothers”, but doctrinally and historically, Vatican 2 is a clear contradiction to previous history – the Council of Trent and Vatican 1 and the whole tradition of “no salvation outside the Church (of Rome)” . Also, you wrote, “I am not ashamed of the name Catholic”; but both of you seem ashamed of “Roman Catholic”. That is what you are; Roman Catholic. The title reflects the late development of the Papacy – non-existent until the beginning of the influence and power of Leo I (440 AD) and Gregory ! (600 AD), even then, it was not understood as total jurisdiction of “bishop over all other bishops”. (The EO still disagrees with all of those claims.) [Arguably, we could logically say the the Papal claims did not exist in their fullest form until 1054 when the split with the Eastern Orthodox happened. The infallibility dogma was not until 1870. Very clearly, there is no Pope or Papacy in earliest times of Christian History.] All historic Protestants also are “catholic” – believers in all nations, cultures (Revelation 5:9). Since we accept the first 4 ecumenical creeds as rightly reflecting Biblical doctrine about Jesus and His two natures, the Trinity, we are there. We are in the early church also; you don’t own history and Newman’s famous statement is wrong. 86 bishops with Cyprian in 258 AD condemning bishop Stephen of Rome is enough to prove the whole RC claim of Papacy wrong. I did not write “my Pope” or “our Pope” as Warren said. Warren was rightly rebuked for that; he is not “our Pope” and that kind of history of arrogance (Boniface VIII on down, especially Pius IX – “I am the tradition!” (ha!). Boniface VIII ‘s statement in Unam Sanctum is so contradictory to all of the NT that it proves all of Roman Catholicism wrong. 15 hrs · Like