The Joys of Catholicism

[7djengo7]

Surely the oxymoronic Roman Catholicism didn't start until there was widespread disagreement. The popes appear to have heightened that disagreement over the years.

Before then it was just called the Church.

When did the head of "the Church" begin calling himself "the Bishop of Rome"? Before then, did he just call himself "the Bishop"?

---

I Googled "why don't romanists like to be called roman catholics". One of the pages given by the search was a Quora thread, Some Roman Catholics don't like to be called Roman. Why?

On that page, one Romanist wrote:

Because Roman applies to those from Rome. Unless you are actually Roman, nobody should be calling you Roman. In ecclesial contexts, this can apply to the diocese or province of Rome. Far more follow the Roman Rite, but that does not make them “Roman”.

I wonder if he's going to start also complaining that people from Central America and South America are called "Latin-American", despite the fact that they are not from anywhere near Latium.

 

[Idolater]

Romans, back in the first century, complaining about the Church's claim that Jesus rose from the dead:

Why is it that miracles always seem to happen to people out in the middle of nowhere in places no one who's supposed to believe the miracle happened has ever been or has any means to get there or any access to anyone who was supposedly there. In short, there's never any means by which to confirm or establish that it actually happened. It's always supposed "eye witness" testimony from people you don't know and have no way of verifying what they saw or even whether they were actually there.

 

[Right Divider]

God's city on the earth is Jerusalem and not Rome. Rome is a counterfeit.

That's why the 12 apostles were told to wait in Jerusalem and not any other city on the earth.

 

[Clete]

Romans, back in the first century, complaining about the Church's claim that Jesus rose from the dead:

Your counter argument is literal blasphemy, Idolater!

Jesus' death had first person witnesses that people actually interacted with and knew the character of. Both Jesus' death and resurrection were attested to, not merely by those who stood to benefit from it, but from many who had no direct personal interest in it whatsoever, as well as by those who were or had been hostile to it, not the least of whom was the Apostle Paul!

In addition to that, at least dozens and perhaps hundreds of people who would have been in positions that insured their knowledge of the actual truth went to their death proclaiming the resurrection of Christ. Can you name even one single person who was executed because they proclaimed as true one of these so called miracles that you've presented? The only reason you even might have a name to give in answer to such a challenge is because you are willing to believe anything anyone tells you, so long as they wear the right robe. The same robe wearing liar who told you a miracle happened gives you the name of some martyr who died in the miracle's defense. Liars will lie!

The point here, aside from the fact that you cannot think your way out of a wet paper bag, is that just because I do not believe your so-called miracles actually happened, just because I make arguments against them that you are unable to refute and therefore ignore, and just because I observe that all such alleged miracles are always presented in ways that are entirely unfalsifiable, does not mean that I reject the concept of miracles altogether or deny that any real miracles have occurred, or that they are central to the Christian faith.

What your counterargument actually reveals is that you do not truly believe in the resurrection. Deep down, you know as well as I do that these pathetic lies you parade as miracles are as fake as a three-dollar bill. Yet you place the most well-attested miracle in all of history, the resurrection of Christ, on the same level as these frauds. In doing so, you undermine not only your beloved Catholicism as a whole, but your very own personal faith. That is the real danger of treating obvious fakes as genuine miracles. It has the same effect on true miracles as counterfeit currency has on real money. When people begin circulating fake hundred-dollar bills, it does not lead them to believe the counterfeits are genuine, it leads them to suspect that the genuine bills are no more real than the ones they printed themselves.