History questions not worth their own thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Etna was where Typhon was confined; Lemnos was where Hephaestus had his forge. Vulcanalia was the god's festival in late August and it was then that Vesuvius erupted spectacularly in AD 79, burying Pompeii and Herculaneum and claiming many lives, including that of Pliny the Elder.
 
Since a papist can't be in the line of monarchial succession does this mean an Eastern Catholic could since papists are Roman Catholics?
 
Since a papist can't be in the line of monarchial succession does this mean an Eastern Catholic could since papists are Roman Catholics?

Eastern Catholics recognize the Papacy as the valid vicar of Christ. Presumably you mean Eastern Orthodox, and the answer to that is yes, although technically he's supposed to swear an oath to protect the established Church of Scotland.
 
Eastern Catholics recognize the Papacy as the valid vicar of Christ. Presumably you mean Eastern Orthodox, and the answer to that is yes, although technically he's supposed to swear an oath to protect the established Church of Scotland.

Darn, I thought papist only referred to Roman Catholics.
 
The stereotype of popery is Roman Catholic because the majority of Catholics belong to the Latin-rite. But there's others.
 
The stereotype of popery is Roman Catholic because the majority of Catholics belong to the Latin-rite. But there's others.

Exactly, which is why I asked about Eastern Catholics
 
No, because you apparently didn't know that Eastern Catholics have the same loyalty to the Pope as Roman Catholics do.
 
I'm pretty sure the monarch has to be a member of the Church of England. That would mean it also excludes more than just Catholics.
 
No, because you apparently didn't know that Eastern Catholics have the same loyalty to the Pope as Roman Catholics do.

I do know they recognize the Pope as the valid Vicar of Jesus, but the definition of papist is "a Roman Catholic"
 
The Act of Settlement specifically only removes current and former members of the "Church of Rome" and their spouses from the line of succession, however the monarch also must be a member of the Church of England.
 
I do know they recognize the Pope as the valid Vicar of Jesus, but the definition of papist is "a Roman Catholic"

No, it's not. The definition of "Papist" is "one who pledges loyalty to the Pope."
 
No, it's not. The definition of "Papist" is "one who pledges loyalty to the Pope."

clearly my New Oxford American Dictionary is unsatisfactory then, I need to get a new one then. Can you recommend me one?
 
Words (and for that matter dictionaries) should be used intelligently and, most of all, with due regard for their etymologies, and LightSpectra's right.
 
Words (and for that matter dictionaries) should be used intelligently and, most of all, with due regard for their etymologies, and LightSpectra's right.

as a noun the definition is "Roman Catholic" and as an adjective it means "of, relating to, or associated with the Roman Catholic Church"
 
There's more to the Catholic Church than the Roman Church. There's 23 churches that are in communion within Rome, and thus are called "Catholic." The Latin Rite ("Roman Catholic") is only one of them.

I know, Eastern Catholics aren't Roman Catholics. That was the definition the dictionary gives. Maybe I'm giving the writers of the dictionary too much credit presuming that they know the difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Church.
 
I know, Eastern Catholics aren't Roman Catholics. That was the definition the dictionary gives. Maybe I'm giving the writers of the dictionary too much credit presuming that they know the difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Church.

There was a time in my life when I thought that journalists, people who write encyclopedias and book reviewers could be trusted, since all you need to really understand a subject is a general knowledge of it, and access to raw facts.

Now I trust nothing, unless it's written by somebody who has a doctorate on that specific subject. Even then I scrutinize it, because I've read plenty of people with Ph.Ds in philosophy that haven't the faintest clue of what they're talking about (one of my professors assigned works by E. A. Goerner on Thomism; the prompt was to identify a least three factual or logical errors per page).
 
Then why post here, chief? :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom