Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Apostle to the Irish (Who is the REAL St. Patrick ?)
Christian Post ^ | March 17 | Charles Colson

Posted on 03/17/2010 12:58:48 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

If you ask people who Saint Patrick was, you're likely to hear that he was an Irishman who chased the snakes out of Ireland.

It may surprise you to learn that the real Saint Patrick was not actually Irish—yet his robust faith changed the Emerald Isle forever.

Patrick was born in Roman Britain to a middle-class family in about A.D. 390. When Patrick was a teenager, marauding Irish raiders attacked his home. Patrick was captured, taken to Ireland, and sold to an Irish king, who put him to work as a shepherd.

In his excellent book, How the Irish Saved Civilization, Thomas Cahill describes the life Patrick lived. Cahill writes, "The work of such slave-shepherds was bitterly isolated, months at a time spent alone in the hills."

Patrick had been raised in a Christian home, but he didn't really believe in God. But now—hungry, lonely, frightened, and bitterly cold—Patrick began seeking out a relationship with his heavenly Father. As he wrote in his Confession, "I would pray constantly during the daylight hours" and "the love of God . . . surrounded me more and more."

Six years after his capture, God spoke to Patrick in a dream, saying, "Your hungers are rewarded. You are going home. Look—your ship is ready."

What a startling command! If he obeyed, Patrick would become a fugitive slave, constantly in danger of capture and punishment. But he did obey—and God protected him. The young slave walked nearly two hundred miles to the Irish coast. There he boarded a waiting ship and traveled back to Britain and his family.

But, as you might expect, Patrick was a different person now, and the restless young man could not settle back into his old life. Eventually, Patrick recognized that God was calling him to enter a monastery. In time, he was ordained as a priest, then as a bishop.

Finally—thirty years after God had led Patrick away from Ireland—He called him back to the Emerald Isle as a missionary.

The Irish of the fifth century were a pagan, violent, and barbaric people. Human sacrifice was commonplace. Patrick understood the danger and wrote: "I am ready to be murdered, betrayed, enslaved—whatever may come my way."

Cahill notes that Patrick's love for the Irish "shines through his writings . . . He [worried] constantly for his people, not just for their spiritual but for their physical welfare."

Through Patrick, God converted thousands. Cahill writes, "Only this former slave had the right instincts to impart to the Irish a New Story, one that made sense of all their old stories and brought them a peace they had never known before." Because of Patrick, a warrior people "lay down the swords of battle, flung away the knives of sacrifice, and cast away the chains of slavery."

As it is with many Christian holidays, Saint Patrick's Day has lost much of its original meaning. Instead of settling for parades, cardboard leprechauns, and "the wearing of the green," we ought to recover our Christian heritage, celebrate the great evangelist, and teach our kids about this Christian hero.

Saint Patrick didn't chase the snakes out of Ireland, as many believe. Instead, the Lord used him to bring into Ireland a sturdy faith in the one true God—and to forever transform the Irish people.


TOPICS: General Discusssion; History; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: apostle; catholic; churchhistory; colson; ireland; stpatrick
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-118 next last

1 posted on 03/17/2010 12:58:48 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What?!
A religious tradition not based on fact?
Now that’s a miracle.

Will


2 posted on 03/17/2010 1:06:00 PM PDT by will of the people
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Excerpt from “Patrick’s Confession”

“I, Patrick, a sinner, a most simple countryman, the least of all the faithful and most contemptible to many, had for father the deacon Calpurnius, son of the late Potitus, a presbyter, of the settlement of Bannaven Taburniae; he had a small villa nearby where I was taken captive. I was at that time about sixteen years of age. I did not, indeed, know the true God; and I was taken into captivity in Ireland with many thousands of people, according to our deserts, for quite drawn away from God, we did not keep his precepts, nor were we obedient to our presbyters who used to remind us of our salvation. And the Lord brought down on us the fury of his being and scattered us among many nations, even to the ends of the earth, where I, in my smallness, am now to be found among foreigners.

“And there the Lord opened my mind to an awareness of my unbelief, in order that, even so late, I might remember my transgressions and turn with all my heart to the Lord my God, who had regard for my insignificance and pitied my youth and ignorance. And he watched over me before I knew him, and before I learned sense or even distinguished between good and evil, and he protected me, and consoled me as a father would his son.

“Therefore, indeed, I cannot keep silent, nor would it be proper, so many favours and graces has the Lord deigned to bestow on me in the land of my captivity. For after chastisement from God, and recognizing him, our way to repay him is to exalt him and confess his wonders before every nation under heaven.

“For there is no other God, nor ever was before, nor shall be hereafter, but God the Father, unbegotten and without beginning, in whom all things began, whose are all things, as we have been taught; and his son Jesus Christ, who manifestly always existed with the Father, before the beginning of time in the spirit with the Father, indescribably begotten before all things, and all things visible and invisible were made by him. He was made man, conquered death and was received into Heaven, to the Father who gave him all power over every name in Heaven and on Earth and in Hell, so that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and God, in whom we believe. And we look to his imminent coming again, the judge of the living and the dead, who will render to each according to his deeds. And he poured out his Holy Spirit on us in abundance, the gift and pledge of immortality, which makes the believers and the obedient into sons of God and co-heirs of Christ who is revealed, and we worship one God in the Trinity of holy name.”


3 posted on 03/17/2010 1:06:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Geez, not another Patrick was a Baptist thread! ;)


4 posted on 03/17/2010 1:21:06 PM PDT by Carpe Cerevisi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carpe Cerevisi
Geez, not another Patrick was a Baptist thread! ;)

Patrick was who he was. Not sure if anyone can claim him solely for his own denomination.
5 posted on 03/17/2010 1:36:24 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

We most definitely claim him and he is ours. We don’t mind the Eastern Orthodox laying claim to him too, however. Nobody else has anything like a valid claim - especially Protestants.

I think Colson is being very generous here. I remember seeing that great bigot Pat Robertson air a segment on his TV program talking about the coming of Christianity to Ireland. “Oh,” I thought to myself, “he’s going to have something on St. Patrick. How cool!” Nope. The segment was about hos Methodists brought the gospel to Ireland for the first time in its history (in the 18th century!!!!). I couldn’t believe it. What an idiotic bigot!


6 posted on 03/17/2010 3:36:47 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
We most definitely claim him and he is ours. We don’t mind the Eastern Orthodox laying claim to him too, however.

I don't know how anyone can "claim" a person as their own. How is it possible to do that ? Are we supposed to ask St. Patrick himself ?

This statement is as odd as claiming St. Peter or St. Paul is yours or even Jesus Himself is yours or mine.
7 posted on 03/17/2010 5:30:57 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

You wrote:

“I don’t know how anyone can “claim” a person as their own.”

Perhaps you do not understand the communion of saints well enough to understand it. We do.

“How is it possible to do that ?”

He’s family. We claim him. I could post more words, but it’s the very idea that you don’t get.

“Are we supposed to ask St. Patrick himself ?”

No.

“This statement is as odd as claiming St. Peter or St. Paul is yours or even Jesus Himself is yours or mine.”

St. Peter is ours too. St. Paul is ours too. And yes, Jesus is ours too. I don’t doubt that a man outside of the Church can know them, can love them and want to be with them, but we actually have them. They are in the communion of saints. Quite frankly we feel a kinship with them that most non-Catholics (other than our Orthodox brethren) don’t. We are one family.


8 posted on 03/17/2010 6:28:22 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; wideawake
I think Colson is being very generous here. I remember seeing that great bigot Pat Robertson air a segment on his TV program talking about the coming of Christianity to Ireland. “Oh,” I thought to myself, “he’s going to have something on St. Patrick. How cool!” Nope. The segment was about hos Methodists brought the gospel to Ireland for the first time in its history (in the 18th century!!!!). I couldn’t believe it. What an idiotic bigot!

Catholics make a big noise about anti-Catholicism being "the only respectable prejudice," but whenever push comes to shove, it seems they know who the low man on the totem pole really is. It's always those Anglo-Saxon Southern Protestants--the very people who are an embarrassment to chr*stianity because of their Biblical literalism.

I wish there were more "bigots" like Robertson. This country would be better off if all those liberal urban Catholics were "bigoted" Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The "one true church" sure toots its own horn, but it's useless at actually changing anything. After all, they're intellectuals, not "bigots."

While not a Protestant myself, I at least know something you don't: that to a Protestant Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) simply make no sense whatsoever. Why shouldn't Protestants consider eighteenth century Methodists the people who brought chr*stianity to Ireland if they don't even recognize your religion as chr*stianity at all?

It takes some gall for a religion that spent fifteen hundred years attacking Torah observance and claiming that G-d changed His mind about everything He had commanded to turn around and denounce anti-nomianism when it is opposed to a fake Judaism of your own invention.

I am disappointed in you.

All the nasty little accusations of "bigotry" (a liberal word, btw) can't change the fact that the "one true church" is way, way, way on the Left and into modernism on almost every issue. I'm sorry this frustrates you, but I refuse to allow you to take your frustration out on someone else unchallenged.

9 posted on 03/17/2010 7:03:01 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vayiqra' 'el-Mosheh; vaydabber HaShem 'elayv me'Ohel Mo`ed le'mor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
“I don’t know how anyone can “claim” a person as their own.”

Perhaps you do not understand the communion of saints well enough to understand it. We do.


Who is "we" in the above statement ? Surely you're not saying that only you are a believer in Jesus and are in the communion and others who are believers but are not in your denomination are out of it. I hope you're not saying that.

“How is it possible to do that ?”

He’s family. We claim him. I could post more words, but it’s the very idea that you don’t get.


Well, explain it to me so that I can get it because I surely don't get how you can claim St. Patrick as your own.

That would be as odd as some Republican claiming Ronald Reagan as his own and then denying others the same claim simply because he does not belong to the GOP.

“Are we supposed to ask St. Patrick himself ?”

No.


If not, how then can you know that he belongs solely to you and not to others who share his faith ?

“This statement is as odd as claiming St. Peter or St. Paul is yours or even Jesus Himself is yours or mine.”

St. Peter is ours too. St. Paul is ours too. And yes, Jesus is ours too. I don’t doubt that a man outside of the Church can know them, can love them and want to be with them, but we actually have them. They are in the communion of saints.


You seem to be saying that he who does not belong to your denomination or church but believes in Jesus and His words cannot claim St. Paul, Peter or Jesus as his own. On what basis do you make such a claim ??

Quite frankly we feel a kinship with them that most non-Catholics (other than our Orthodox brethren) don’t. We are one family.

Well, good for you, but I ( who am not Roman Catholic ) feel as much kinship with St. Patrick on the basis of the faith we share as well. I see no reason why you should claim him solely as your own. If I share Patrick's faith, I am his brother in Christ am I not ?


10 posted on 03/17/2010 7:12:03 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

You wrote:

“Who is “we” in the above statement ?”

Catholics.

” Surely you’re not saying that only you are a believer in Jesus and are in the communion and others who are believers but are not in your denomination are out of it. I hope you’re not saying that.”

I am not in a denomination. I never have been. I never will be. And only those who are in sacramental communion with the Body of Christ can know Christ in the fullest sense.

“Well, explain it to me so that I can get it because I surely don’t get how you can claim St. Patrick as your own.”

I don’t think any amount of explaining will work. You deny the communion of saints. Perhaps you should read up on that.

“That would be as odd as some Republican claiming Ronald Reagan as his own and then denying others the same claim simply because he does not belong to the GOP.”

I don’t see that as odd at all when you consider that RR was a GOP member and leader. Now, it would be odd for a Democrat to claim RR as his own - especially if he were pro-abortion, a taxer and spender and wanted us to be weak compared to our foreign enemies. Protestantism teaches things that are not in keeping with traditional, historic Christianity.

“If not, how then can you know that he belongs solely to you and not to others who share his faith ?”

We are the only ones who share his faith. He was not a Protestant. He was not a Baptist Protestant. He was Catholic. He and I could share the same the Eucharist, live under the same pope, under the same bishop, etc. He shares none of that with you. St. Patrick and I would even share the same liturgical language - Latin. We could even communicate with one another while you would - most likely - be unable to do so.

“You seem to be saying that he who does not belong to your denomination or church but believes in Jesus and His words cannot claim St. Paul, Peter or Jesus as his own. On what basis do you make such a claim ??”

Christ is ONE. He has only ONE bride. It is not your sect. The bride is the Church.

“Well, good for you, but I ( who am not Roman Catholic ) feel as much kinship with St. Patrick on the basis of the faith we share as well.”

You don’t share a faith with St. Patrick. You only say you do. He was consecrated bishop. You don’t believe in consecrating bishops. He taught his people to hold to the sacraments - as seen in the abiding tradition that Celtic Christians (Catholics) held to. Protestants do none of that. None of it.

“I see no reason why you should claim him solely as your own. If I share Patrick’s faith, I am his brother in Christ am I not ?”

You do not share St. Patrick’s faith. You reject it. You cannot reject it and share in it at the same time.


11 posted on 03/17/2010 8:19:35 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

You wrote:

“I am disappointed in you.”

I certainly won’t lose sleep over that. You’re no longer a disappointment to me. I ceased being disappointed at your almost constant beating of a single drum beat about biblical literalism in thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread.

“All the nasty little accusations of “bigotry” (a liberal word, btw) can’t change the fact that the “one true church” is way, way, way on the Left and into modernism on almost every issue.”

An accusation can’t be nasty if it’s accurate. Mine was. Robertson is a bigot. Period. Whether or not you consider it a liberal word quite frankly doesn’t matter. Whether or not you consider the Church to be on the “Left and into modernism on almost every issue” also doesn’t matter. None of that changes the fact that Robertson is a bigot.

“I’m sorry this frustrates you, but I refuse to allow you to take your frustration out on someone else unchallenged.”

And your challenge will amount to exactly what? Your post to me will do exactly what? Make you feel better? Give you a few warm fuzzies? Roberston will still be a bigot and you will still have only one drum beat. I will still be right. I can live with that. I bet you will too.


12 posted on 03/17/2010 8:29:16 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

13 posted on 03/17/2010 9:12:04 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Can you show me exactly where I read his mind?


14 posted on 03/17/2010 9:17:42 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
You wrote:

You don’t share a faith with St. Patrick. You only say you do. He was consecrated bishop. You don’t believe in consecrating bishops.


15 posted on 03/17/2010 9:19:10 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

16 posted on 03/17/2010 9:22:16 PM PDT by narses ("lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

AMEN! AMEN!

May The Lord God imprint HIS TRUTH ON ALL THOSE WHO SEEK HIM FIRST AND FOREMOST.


17 posted on 03/17/2010 9:25:23 PM PDT by Quix (BLOKES who got us where we R: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Okay, and where in there did I read his mind? It seems to me you could only guess I was reading his mind if you read his mind. After all, based on what he wrote he clearly does not share the same Catholic faith that St. Patrick had. He says he does, but he doesn’t. Where’s the mind reading?

Aren’t you essentially saying Catholics can no longer support the objective truth and de facto must accept all protestant assertions as if they were true merely because they were made?

Also, based upon his Protestant beliefs he cannot believe in consecrating bishops. He didn’t refuted my statement either.

We can always ask him if he does believe in the consecration of bishops and see what he says?


18 posted on 03/17/2010 9:26:11 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Don't tell another Freeper what he believes. That is mind-reading and often provokes flame wars.

If he has stated his beliefs, simply quote what he said.

If you believe he logically must believe a certain thing, then ask him.

19 posted on 03/17/2010 9:35:24 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Thanks for the thread. Here's more information:

St. Patrick
Apostle to the Irish (Who is the REAL St. Patrick ?)
Patrick: Deliverer of the Emerald Isle

Breastplate of St Patrick [Poem/Prayer]
Confessions of St. Patrick (In his own words)
Feast of Saint Patrick, the Enlightener of Ireland
St Patrick's 'day' moved to March 15th (in 2008)
St. Patrick’s Breastplate Prayer

St. Patrick (Erin Go Bragh!)
History of St. Patrick's Day
Patrick: The Good, the Bad, and the Misinformed
The Lorica of St. Patrick
Orthodox Feast of +Patrick, the Enlightener of Ireland

St. Patrick
St. Patrick's Breast Plate
Orthodox Feast of St Patrick, the Enlightener of Ireland, March 17
The Lorica of St. Patrick
To Truly Honor Saint Patrick, Bishop and Confessor

Apostle to the Irish: The Real Saint Patrick
St. Patrick
Saint Patrick [Apostle of Ireland]
Was St. Patrick Catholic?....Of Course!! [Happy St. Pat's Day]

20 posted on 03/17/2010 10:43:21 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

**Not sure if anyone can claim him solely for his own denomination. **

Definitely can. A Catholic Bishop!!!!


21 posted on 03/17/2010 10:44:21 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

“Catholics make a big noise about anti-Catholicism being “the only respectable prejudice,” but whenever push comes to shove, it seems they know who the low man on the totem pole really is.”

Really? So, what Catholic clergyman is on the television saying equivalent things about Protestantism? God had to establish His own TV network to get any Catholic programming at all, and yet you would have it that we are higher on the totem pole than protestants?

There is one point to be made there, though: protestants also suffer the abuse of non-believers for our Lord’s sake. It makes me wish our separated brethren were less violent in their attacks on us.

“It’s always those Anglo-Saxon Southern Protestants—the very people who are an embarrassment to Christianity because of their Biblical literalism.”

So, do you disagree with Saint Thomas Aquinas when he says, “The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”?

“This country would be better off if all those liberal urban Catholics were “bigoted” Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestants.”

No, the truth is always better.

“The “one true church” sure toots its own horn, but it’s useless at actually changing anything.”

Here on FR, Catholics discuss the Church pretty much exclusively in response to attack, and do it for the most part moderately and modestly (excepting myself, I guess).

“While not a Protestant myself, I at least know something you don’t: that to a Protestant Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) simply make no sense whatsoever.”

Why do you think we don’t know that? As Archbishop Sheen said, “There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church—but there are millions who hate what they mistakenly think the Catholic Church teaches.”

You see, it looks like there is something of which you are unaware: the reason it makes no sense is because they misunderstand it, and many are conditioned to reject all reasoned discussion and explanation.

(Here’s a “what-do-you-call” joke.)

What do you call a protestant who understands Catholicism?

A catechumen.

“Why shouldn’t Protestants consider eighteenth century Methodists the people who brought Christianity to Ireland if they don’t even recognize your religion as Christianity at all?”

Facts are stubborn things. A story is told of Abraham Lincoln examining a witness in a trial, a man who was known to play word games and who had only a nodding acquaintance with the truth.
“How many legs does a horse have?” Lincoln asked in exasperation.
“Four,” the witness replied.
“And if one were to call the horse’s tail a leg, then how many legs does a horse have?” Lincoln pressed.
“Why, I suppose the horse would have five legs,” the witness said.
“No,” Lincoln said, turning to the jury. “Calling the tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. A horse has only four legs, no matter what you call the tail.”

Protestants can “consider” and “recognize” as they will; the horse has four legs, and only four legs.

“It takes some gall for a religion that spent fifteen hundred years attacking Torah observance and claiming that G-d changed His mind about everything He had commanded to turn around and denounce anti-nomianism when it is opposed to a fake Judaism of your own invention.”

That’s some pretty confused argumentation there, but you should be aware that antinomianism is no part of Catholic theology.

Another thing: a person is entitled to accuse an institution only of actual transgressions, and only to the degree they actually occurred. The fact that bad things happened is not a license to exaggerate without limit.

“All the nasty little accusations of “bigotry” (a liberal word, btw)”

Taken over by the libs now, but a perfectly cromulent English word. For example, “The KKK members who committed acts of violence against Catholics because they hated their religion without understanding it could with justification be called bigots.”

“can’t change the fact that the “one true church” is way, way, way on the Left and into modernism on almost every issue”

Rather, you can’t change that into a fact through any amount of repetition. There is a contingent of Catholics, those whom Saint Pope Pius X called “enemies of the Church,” that fits your description, and would like to drag the Church to the left. However, the Church is not subject to that sort of dragging at the hands of mortal men.

They will soon be gone, and the men who take their places will right the Church once again.

“I’m sorry this frustrates you”

Is it in some way odd or disreputable that a person should be frustrated by continual false witness in a place that should be the home and refuge of clear thinkers?


22 posted on 03/18/2010 5:08:48 AM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Definitely can. A Catholic Bishop!!!!

Anyone can make that claim, heck, even the ordinary Christian on the street can make that claim, but is it LEGITIMATE ?

That is and always has been the point of contention.
23 posted on 03/18/2010 6:57:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

YOU WROTE :

Catholics.

As in what ? Roman Catholics or the catholic ( universal church established by Christ ) ? I would say it is the later. I don’t equate ROMAN catholics as the sole heir of the catholic ( universal ) church.

YOU WROTE :

I am not in a denomination. I never have been. I never will be. And only those who are in sacramental communion with the Body of Christ can know Christ in the fullest sense.

Well, welcome to the club then. I who do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church but am a believer in Jesus Christ consider myself to be in sacramental communion with the body of Christ IN THE FULLEST SENSE as well. Which means I am in sacramental union with St. Patrick, Peter and Paul.

YOU WROTE:

I don’t think any amount of explaining will work. You deny the communion of saints. Perhaps you should read up on that.

I Don’t deny the communion of saints. I AFFIRM IT. Anyone who believes in Jesus Christ and follows His word IS WITHIN THAT COMMUNION regardless of whether others verbally deny them that communion. Oh, and in regards to reading about it — why do you ask as if I am ignorant ? I DO READ ABOUT IT. It’s all there in HIS WORD — SCRIPTURE ( which St. Patrick treasures as well ).

YOU WROTE :

I don’t see that as odd at all when you consider that RR was a GOP member and leader. Now, it would be odd for a Democrat to claim RR as his own - especially if he were pro-abortion, a taxer and spender and wanted us to be weak compared to our foreign enemies. Protestantism teaches things that are not in keeping with traditional, historic Christianity.

RR Was a GOP member and leader but MORE IMPORTANTLY, his beliefs TRANSCENDS party lines. He was a conservative first, GOP second. How do I know that his personal beliefs trancends party lines ? Simple — HE USED TO BE DEMOCRAT until the Dem party abandoned Conservative principles. He said : “I did not leave the Democratic Party, the democratic Party left me.”.

It is BELIEF THAT COUNTS, not membership in an organization. You can be a member of group, church, org or institution X, but if ( God forbid ), that institution abandons its core beliefs, and you stand firm in yours, you don’t have to be a member of that group anymore.

YOU WROTE :

We are the only ones who share his faith.

SAYS WHO ? Millions of us share Patrick’s faith in Jesus Christ as well. What makes you think you are the one who exclusively shares Patrick’s faith ?

YOU WROTE:

He was not a Protestant. He was not a Baptist Protestant.

I never said he was ( read my original response ). Patrick was Patrick -— a Christian in the Roman world who believed in Jesus Christ and was faithful to His words.

YOU WROTE :

He was Catholic.

Again, Catholic as in what ? ROMAN ? or Catholic in the Universal sense of the word ?

I would say there is a difference between the two. You can be baptized into the ROMAN Catholic church and grow up to be an atheist/agnostic/denier of the faith ( and I know many who are ). Conversely, you may NOT be a member of the ROMAN catholic church and be a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. Which one of the two above examples belongs to the CATHOLIC ( note the non-use of the word — ROMAN ) church ?
I would say the later and scripture ( the same one St. Patrick treasures ) backs me up.

I would say that Patrick is CATHOLIC in the real sense of the word — he, like millions of us, are members of Christ’s UNIVERSAL ( AKA CATHOLIC, not ROMAN ) church.

YOU WROTE:

He and I could share the same the Eucharist, live under the same pope, under the same bishop, etc.

You are assuming that living under a pope equates to being a member of Christ’s church and this is where we differ.

Popes ( in the past ) and Bishops ( even today ) can be unfaithful to Christ as well and when they are, those who are FAITHFUL TO CHRIST are closer to His teachings than popes or bishops who are not.

IT IS OBEDIENCE TO CHRIST AND HIS WORDS THAT COUNTS.

“IF you Love Me, Obey My Commandments” — those are His words.

YOU WROTE:

He shares none of that with you.

And why not ? He believes in Christ, I do. He believes in Scripture, I do. He believes in the baptism of all who believe, I do. He believes in the Trinity, I do. NONE OF THAT ? Do you even know the meaning of the word — NONE ?

YOU WROTE:

St. Patrick and I would even share the same liturgical language - Latin.

And where is it written in Scripture ( God’s word)that one must use Latin in Liturgy ? I hasten to remind you that Vatican II ALLOWS worship to be held in NON-LATIN languages and thousands of masses worldwide are being held today in NATIVE NON-LATIN languages.

YOU WROTE:

We could even communicate with one another while you would - most likely - be unable to do so.

Who is “we” and what kind of communication are you talking about ? I am writing to you in ENGLISH ( a language God allowed to be almost universal in the world and which is prevalent everywhere), aren’t we communicating now in this tongue ?

YOU WROTE:

Christ is ONE. He has only ONE bride. It is not your sect. The bride is the Church.

THANK YOU. We agree at least on this one area. The only question remains — WHO IS A TRUE MEMBER OF HIS CHURCH ?

Scripture would tell us that ALL WHO TRULY BELIEVE HIM AND OBEY His teachings are members of His church.

St. Patrick is by virtue of meeting that requirement. You and I and anyone else qualify too if we all meet that requirement.

St. Paul ( who preceded Patrick ) said this clearly after he wrote about faith and obedience in his own epistle :

“There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither slave nor freeman, there can be neither male nor female — for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And simply by being Christ’s, you are that progeny of Abraham, the heirs named in the promise. “ ( Galatians 3:28-29 : ROMAN CATHOLC NEW JERUSALEM TRANSLATION )


24 posted on 03/18/2010 7:36:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Dear Mr/Miss Moderator :

I posted this thread on St. Patrick’s Day to EDIFY Christians of all denominations everywhere.

I never intended this to degenerate into an argument as to whether St. Patrick was a Protestant or Roman Catholic or who can lay claim to his work.

Unfortunately, some people are spoiling for an argument.

If you wish to close this thread that I started, feel free to do so. If you wish to continue this thread, I will be happy to oblige as well.

I will as always, try to be civil and logical and coherent in my response.

Thanks for listening.


25 posted on 03/18/2010 7:40:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
I certainly won’t lose sleep over that. You’re no longer a disappointment to me. I ceased being disappointed at your almost constant beating of a single drum beat about biblical literalism in thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread.

That being the case, I will simply state that were I to tell you what you could do with your literal interpretation of John 6, the virgin birth, and the resurrection narratives I would probably be banned from this forum.

An accusation can’t be nasty if it’s accurate. Mine was. Robertson is a bigot. Period. Whether or not you consider it a liberal word quite frankly doesn’t matter. Whether or not you consider the Church to be on the “Left and into modernism on almost every issue” also doesn’t matter. None of that changes the fact that Robertson is a bigot.

Yes, he's a bigot. He's also a homophobe, a neanderthal, an ignoramus, a nativist, and a nose-picking redneck. But then again, so am I, and so are all real conservatives. If you're against those things, I recommend you check out the American Civil Liberties Union. They might be more to your liking.

26 posted on 03/18/2010 8:41:10 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vayiqra' 'el-Mosheh; vaydabber HaShem 'elayv me'Ohel Mo`ed le'mor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
But then again, so am I, and so are all real conservatives

All real conservatives are like you? To use a term from Ireland, malarkey!

27 posted on 03/18/2010 8:45:33 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If you know how not to pray, take Joseph as your master, and you will not go astray." - St. Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

You wrote:

“As in what ? Roman Catholics or the catholic ( universal church established by Christ ) ? I would say it is the later. I don’t equate ROMAN catholics as the sole heir of the catholic ( universal ) church.”

It doesn’t matter what you equate with what. St. Patrick was catholic. Period. I’m not “Roman Catholic” and neither was he.

“Well, welcome to the club then. I who do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church but am a believer in Jesus Christ consider myself to be in sacramental communion with the body of Christ IN THE FULLEST SENSE as well. Which means I am in sacramental union with St. Patrick, Peter and Paul.”

So you claim. At this point I have no reason to believe your claim. What Church or sect do you attend?

“I Don’t deny the communion of saints. I AFFIRM IT. Anyone who believes in Jesus Christ and follows His word IS WITHIN THAT COMMUNION regardless of whether others verbally deny them that communion. Oh, and in regards to reading about it — why do you ask as if I am ignorant ? I DO READ ABOUT IT. It’s all there in HIS WORD — SCRIPTURE ( which St. Patrick treasures as well ).”

No. The communion of saints is a specifically Catholic and Orthodox doctrine. Protestants, for instance, do not believe in the communion of saints. They believe in a specifically protestanized version of it. They do not believe, for instance, that there is actual communion between the saints in heaven and those on earth. If someone does not believe in communion between saints, then he doesn’t believe in the communion of saints. It’s just that simple.

“RR Was a GOP member and leader but MORE IMPORTANTLY, his beliefs TRANSCENDS party lines.”

He was a GOP member. To now say his beliefs transcend the party is to strech the lines of the analogy you yourself chose. When you are defeated with your own analogy you change the analogy.

“He was a conservative first, GOP second. How do I know that his personal beliefs trancends party lines ? Simple — HE USED TO BE DEMOCRAT until the Dem party abandoned Conservative principles. He said : “I did not leave the Democratic Party, the democratic Party left me.”.”

And thus my point still holds no matter what. The GOP is still not the Democrat party. Period. They are different organizations and have differing philosophies and history. Also, conservatism is still a different thing from liberalism. You are proving my point either way.

“It is BELIEF THAT COUNTS, not membership in an organization. You can be a member of group, church, org or institution X, but if ( God forbid ), that institution abandons its core beliefs, and you stand firm in yours, you don’t have to be a member of that group anymore.”

The organization counts because it is from God. Belief does indeed count, but no one can claim fully correct belief in Christ and Christianity and yet reject what Christ sent into the world - the Church. That’s one of the reasons why the Church is called Christ’s body.

“SAYS WHO ? Millions of us share Patrick’s faith in Jesus Christ as well. What makes you think you are the one who exclusively shares Patrick’s faith ?”

Because he was Catholic and so are we. The faith is not merely a belief in Jesus. The millions who share the faith with St. Patrick are all Catholic.

“I never said he was ( read my original response ). Patrick was Patrick -— a Christian in the Roman world who believed in Jesus Christ and was faithful to His words.”

He was a Catholic - that’s what the Christians in the Roman world were.

“Again, Catholic as in what ? ROMAN ? or Catholic in the Universal sense of the word ?”

Catholic. He wasn’t from Rome and neither am I. But we are from the same Church and are both Catholic.

“I would say there is a difference between the two. You can be baptized into the ROMAN Catholic church and grow up to be an atheist/agnostic/denier of the faith ( and I know many who are ). Conversely, you may NOT be a member of the ROMAN catholic church and be a faithful follower of Jesus Christ.”

No. First of all, I’m not and have never been a “Roman Catholic”. Neither was he. He was Catholic and so am I. Period. Also, to truly be a fully faithful follower of Christ, one must belong to His Church which He sent into the world. Membership in a later sect was not what He intended.

“Which one of the two above examples belongs to the CATHOLIC ( note the non-use of the word — ROMAN ) church ?
I would say the later and scripture ( the same one St. Patrick treasures ) backs me up.”

Actually scripture backs the Catholic Church. St. Patrick was Catholic and so am I.

“I would say that Patrick is CATHOLIC in the real sense of the word — he, like millions of us, are members of Christ’s UNIVERSAL ( AKA CATHOLIC, not ROMAN ) church.”

Nope. St. Patrick was Catholic and so am I.

“You are assuming that living under a pope equates to being a member of Christ’s church and this is where we differ.”

I am assuming that being a Catholic is being a Catholic. And I am correct in my assumption.

“Popes ( in the past ) and Bishops ( even today ) can be unfaithful to Christ as well and when they are, those who are FAITHFUL TO CHRIST are closer to His teachings than popes or bishops who are not.”

And yet all of them are still Catholics.

“IT IS OBEDIENCE TO CHRIST AND HIS WORDS THAT COUNTS.”

A Catholic is still a Catholic.

“And why not ? He believes in Christ, I do. He believes in Scripture, I do. He believes in the baptism of all who believe, I do. He believes in the Trinity, I do. NONE OF THAT ? Do you even know the meaning of the word — NONE ?”

He believed in the priesthood. Do you? He believed in the episcopacy. Do you? He believed in consecrations? Do you? He believed in celibacy. Do you?

“And where is it written in Scripture ( God’s word)that one must use Latin in Liturgy ? I hasten to remind you that Vatican II ALLOWS worship to be held in NON-LATIN languages and thousands of masses worldwide are being held today in NATIVE NON-LATIN languages.”

Actually Vatican II reaffirmed the primacy of place of Latin. Apparently you didn’t know that. And as to your other comments there is no point in responding since I suggested NOTHING like what you assert.

“Who is “we” and what kind of communication are you talking about ? I am writing to you in ENGLISH ( a language God allowed to be almost universal in the world and which is prevalent everywhere), aren’t we communicating now in this tongue ?”

St. Patrick didn’t know English. I can’t believe I have to tell you that.

“THANK YOU. We agree at least on this one area. The only question remains — WHO IS A TRUE MEMBER OF HIS CHURCH ?”

St. Patrick was. I am. You aren’t.

“Scripture would tell us that ALL WHO TRULY BELIEVE HIM AND OBEY His teachings are members of His church.”

That was about Catholics, not Protestants. None existed and scriptural references to the Church did not include them.

S”t. Patrick is by virtue of meeting that requirement. You and I and anyone else qualify too if we all meet that requirement.”

I have no reason to believe you qualify.

“St. Paul ( who preceded Patrick ) said this clearly after he wrote about faith and obedience in his own epistle :
“There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither slave nor freeman, there can be neither male nor female — for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And simply by being Christ’s, you are that progeny of Abraham, the heirs named in the promise. “ ( Galatians 3:28-29 : ROMAN CATHOLC NEW JERUSALEM TRANSLATION )”

It’s not a “Roman Catholic” translation. Also, St. Paul said nothing about Protestants in Galatians 3. Period.


28 posted on 03/18/2010 8:51:54 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

You wrote:

“That being the case, I will simply state that were I to tell you what you could do with your literal interpretation of John 6, the virgin birth, and the resurrection narratives I would probably be banned from this forum.”

Then say it in a way that won’t get you banned. I suggest you just save it for a thread about that rather than popping in at every thread that you do to post about your own drum beat.

“Yes, he’s a bigot. He’s also a homophobe, a neanderthal, an ignoramus, a nativist, and a nose-picking redneck. But then again, so am I, and so are all real conservatives.”

Actually I don’t think “real conservatives” are any of those things.

“If you’re against those things, I recommend you check out the American Civil Liberties Union. They might be more to your liking.”

No, maybe yours. They are just as irrational as you are these days.


29 posted on 03/18/2010 8:54:26 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dsc; wideawake
Really? So, what Catholic clergyman is on the television saying equivalent things about Protestantism? God had to establish His own TV network to get any Catholic programming at all, and yet you would have it that we are higher on the totem pole than protestants?

I am sorry that you cannot understand my objection. The Fundamentalist Protestant criticisms you so object to come from the right. The criticisms of Fundamentalist Protestantism which you and your co-religionists continuously make on this forum (simple-minded, ignorant, bigoted, etc.) come from the left. I don't object to being told I'm "going to hell." I don't object being told that I am "of my father the devil." I very much object to being told I am a simple-minded fool by some over-intellectualized higher critical snob with the same attitude as an Ivy League elitist. Maybe you Catholics should try criticizing Protestantism from the right some day?

I wonder if the Spanish Inquisition employed your liberal vocabulary when criticizing "heretics?"

There is one point to be made there, though: protestants also suffer the abuse of non-believers for our Lord’s sake. It makes me wish our separated brethren were less violent in their attacks on us.

They're not your separated brethren. They are a completely different religion with a completely different worldview. By their standards, you are not a chr*stian at all. And by your standards they aren't chr*stians at all. The fact that Catholics trumpet their liberalism by considering Protestants their "brethren" is one of the things that shows how far to the Left Catholicism has slipped.

The idea that there is some amorphous concept called "historic orthodox chr*stianity" to which all self-identifying chr*stians other than mormons belong is garbage.

So, do you disagree with Saint Thomas Aquinas when he says, “The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”?

Perhaps you aren't up to speed on the latest scientific discoveries, so let me clue you in: A "virgin birth" is a scientific impossibility. So is resurrection from the dead. So is "transubstantiation." So is bilocation. None of these things is scientifically possible. Yet you believe in them while in utter hypocrisy subjecting the creation of the world from nothing to the scientific laws that we know today. There is, and can be, only one reason for this inconsistency: the former scientific impossibilities are "Catholic miracles" and are therefore all right. Young Earth Creationism is "Protestant" and therefore to be treated like a disease (after all, who wants to be associated with those people in the trailer parks?).

Cosmogony is beyond the realm of science altogether. It is strictly theological. Science has nothing to say about cosmogony.

I wonder why it is that good Catholic intellectuals are never embarrassed by peasant folk Catholicism? Even that notorious Biblical critic Hans Kung refuses to criticize it (since it's so "quaint"). It's really great to know that the "inclusive" Catholic Church has room for every kind of simple-minded piety except for that of those awful rednecks. And you know what? This attitude is no different from the attitude of liberals who laugh at redneck creationists while swooning in ecstasy at the thought of the superstitions of "indigenous pipples."

Your attitudes are straight from the Left. And so is that of your church.

If American Catholics voted their theology this country wouldn't be in the mess it's in. The only thing keeping this country--and you along with it--from the abyss is those "ignorant rednecks" you so look down on. Shame on you.

“This country would be better off if all those liberal urban Catholics were “bigoted” Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestants.”

No, the truth is always better.

You take Nancy Pelosi and the truth. I'll take Pat Robertson and good intentions.

Here on FR, Catholics discuss the Church pretty much exclusively in response to attack, and do it for the most part moderately and modestly (excepting myself, I guess).

Here on FR, Catholics respond to Protestant attacks by engaging in liberal rhetoric about "bigotry" and "intolerance" and other similar leftist buzzwords because apparently it's the only way they know how to react. Say what you will about Fundamentalist Protestants, at least they aren't liberals.

“Why shouldn’t Protestants consider eighteenth century Methodists the people who brought Christianity to Ireland if they don’t even recognize your religion as Christianity at all?”

Facts are stubborn things.

Yes they are. And it is a fact that by Fundamentalist Protestant standards, Catholicism isn't chr*stianity. And the only reason that you can accommodate Fundamentalist Protestants (while despising them) into your definition of chr*stianity is that your a multicultural leftist. And btw, people who have been trying to convert Jews for two thousand years have no business condemning Protestants for wanting to convert the Irish.

Why do you think we don’t know that? As Archbishop Sheen said, “There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church—but there are millions who hate what they mistakenly think the Catholic Church teaches.”

I spent six years in the Catholic Church and nearly went nuts trying to have it make sense. It doesn't.

You see, it looks like there is something of which you are unaware: the reason it makes no sense is because they misunderstand it, and many are conditioned to reject all reasoned discussion and explanation.

There is no reasonable defense of the position that Biblical law and ceremonial was abolished and replaced with "better" ones. Either the Biblical law and ceremonial are still in place or (G-d forbid!) they were abolished and replaced with an antinomian loophole. Every argument against the Torah works against Catholic ceremonial, and every defense of Catholic ceremonial is equally valid when applied to the Torah.

I apologize for having been born into the wrong ethno-culture and inheriting a belief in the wrong miracles. Had I been born into a family of illiterate Mayan peasants in Guatemala, doubtless you would look on my simplicity as a beautiful thing. But alas, I am a redneck, and mighty science must be marshalled in a vain attempt to turn the Book of Genesis (that awful anti-Catholic tract!) into a metaphor. I guess it's a good thing no illiterate Mayan peasant in Guatemala has ever heard of Young Earth Creationism. So their charming folk beliefs remain unadulterated.

30 posted on 03/18/2010 9:13:44 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vayiqra' 'el-Mosheh; vaydabber HaShem 'elayv me'Ohel Mo`ed le'mor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
All real conservatives are like you? To use a term from Ireland, malarkey!

I'm sorry I don't use your beloved liberal buzzwords. I'm sort of allergic to them. You know, the way Catholics are allergic to rednecks?

31 posted on 03/18/2010 9:15:25 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vayiqra' 'el-Mosheh; vaydabber HaShem 'elayv me'Ohel Mo`ed le'mor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
“Yes, he’s a bigot. He’s also a homophobe, a neanderthal, an ignoramus, a nativist, and a nose-picking redneck. But then again, so am I, and so are all real conservatives.”

Actually I don’t think “real conservatives” are any of those things.

Good to know that "gay marriage" is no problem for "true conservatives."

32 posted on 03/18/2010 9:18:03 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vayiqra' 'el-Mosheh; vaydabber HaShem 'elayv me'Ohel Mo`ed le'mor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator; Religion Moderator

“Malarkey” is a “liberal buzzword”? LOL! I was trying to be polite and abide by the RM’s rules to not use “potty language.”

Oh, btw, the ancestors of all those “rednecks” that are near and dear to your heart were all Catholic until Knox and his ilk sang their siren song. It’s not about ethnicity, as you wildly claim.


33 posted on 03/18/2010 9:21:26 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If you know how not to pray, take Joseph as your master, and you will not go astray." - St. Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator; vladimir998
Good to know that "gay marriage" is no problem for "true conservatives."

I don't think that's what vlad meant.

34 posted on 03/18/2010 9:22:19 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If you know how not to pray, take Joseph as your master, and you will not go astray." - St. Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480; Religion Moderator
Why are you pinging the RM? Are you threatening me with banishment? What have I said that is against the rules?

Oh, btw, the ancestors of all those “rednecks” that are near and dear to your heart were all Catholic until Knox and his ilk sang their siren song. It’s not about ethnicity, as you wildly claim.

Then why are Catholics so allergic to "redneck" beliefs in Biblical inerrancy? Why is Biblical inerrancy stupid while the superstitions of illiterate peasants from Catholic ethnic groups is so beautiful?

If the higher critics turned their scorn on the beliefs of the Catholic peasantry Catholics would complain in no uncertain terms. But so long as they restrict their attacks to that awful Judaeo/Protestant (and perhaps Masonic?) book the Bible all is well.

35 posted on 03/18/2010 9:33:36 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vayiqra' 'el-Mosheh; vaydabber HaShem 'elayv me'Ohel Mo`ed le'mor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Good to know that "gay marriage" is no problem for "true conservatives."

I don't think that's what vlad meant.

He said that "true conservatives" aren't (among other things) homophobes.

Good to know he and the bishops are in agreement on this issue. Would that Catholic outreach had the same sensitivity to "literalist persons" that they do for "homosexual persons." But of course, homosexuality pales into nothingness in comparison to that ultimate insult to all things Catholic, Biblical literalism!

Again, I wonder if Catholic bishops have always opposed "homophobia."

36 posted on 03/18/2010 9:37:09 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vayiqra' 'el-Mosheh; vaydabber HaShem 'elayv me'Ohel Mo`ed le'mor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Why are you pinging the RM? Are you threatening me with banishment?

No, I was following standard protocol of pinging the person being mentioned.

But so long as they restrict their attacks to that awful Judaeo/Protestant (and perhaps Masonic?) book the Bible all is well.

The Bible IS a Catholic book. I'm not following you here.

37 posted on 03/18/2010 9:41:59 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If you know how not to pray, take Joseph as your master, and you will not go astray." - St. Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator; vladimir998
But of course, homosexuality pales into nothingness in comparison to that ultimate insult to all things Catholic, Biblical literalism!

Homosexual acts (sodomy) are one of the four sins that cry out the heaven for vengeance, a list which the Church teaches!

Vlad is right. You do exhibit an "almost constant beating of a single drum beat about biblical literalism in thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread." And, given your pattern of behavior, you know what's going to end up happening? You're going to end up regretting all of this.

You desperately need to break yourself free of this pattern you've caught yourself in.

38 posted on 03/18/2010 9:45:44 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If you know how not to pray, take Joseph as your master, and you will not go astray." - St. Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
But so long as they restrict their attacks to that awful Judaeo/Protestant (and perhaps Masonic?) book the Bible all is well.

The Bible IS a Catholic book.

You ignorant bigot! [/humor] It's a Jewish book.

I'm not following you here.

::Sigh:: Perhaps I had best just give up.

I pointed out that Catholic higher critics never criticize the simple folk beliefs of illiterate Catholic peasants. Instead they rip the Bible to shreds. And "orthodox Catholics," who would scream bloody murder if someone questioned some saint's cult, silently condone attacks on the integrity of the Bible.

If it's your book why don't you defend it? If it's your book, why do your theologians attack it?

They attack it because it's not theirs, because they feel threatened by it, and because it is tainted by association with "those awful people" whose ancestors were Catholic but who are now considered the lowest form of life.

39 posted on 03/18/2010 9:47:40 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vayiqra' 'el-Mosheh; vaydabber HaShem 'elayv me'Ohel Mo`ed le'mor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480; wideawake
Homosexual acts (sodomy) are one of the four sins that cry out the heaven for vengeance, a list which the Church teaches!

That's funny. I hear/read a lot more attacks on "Biblical literalism" from Catholic circles than I do on homosexuality. In fact, the Catholic Church has a certain compassion for homosexuals--an attitude never shown to Biblical Fundamentalists.

Vlad is right. You do exhibit an "almost constant beating of a single drum beat about biblical literalism in thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread."

Well, this is a conservative forum, is it not? Is defense of the Bible from its critics not a legitimate position to take on a conservative forum? After all, you just called it a "Catholic book," and now you dismiss it as unworthy of attention.

And, given your pattern of behavior, you know what's going to end up happening? You're going to end up regretting all of this.

I have never regretted defending the Word of G-d--especially from hypocrites who believe in every medieval miracle tale known to man but who suddenly become Ivy League skeptics when the Bible is an object of discussion.

You desperately need to break yourself free of this pattern you've caught yourself in.

I think you're awfully hung up on this J*sus fellow. Why don't you give up your fixation?

40 posted on 03/18/2010 9:53:58 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vayiqra' 'el-Mosheh; vaydabber HaShem 'elayv me'Ohel Mo`ed le'mor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
If it's your book, why do your theologians attack it?

Those same "theologians" want defend abortion, want to "ordain" women, and think homosexuality is just dandy. Of course, they attack the Bible.

I, on the other hand, rely on two saint popes who singled out and condemned such errors.

From Blessed Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors:

7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth.

Pope Saint Pius X's Lamentabili Sane is basically one big condemnation of biblical higher criticism.

41 posted on 03/18/2010 9:57:06 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If you know how not to pray, take Joseph as your master, and you will not go astray." - St. Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Then why do you condemn me for having the same "hang-up" as your "two saintly popes?" Does one have to be a "saintly pope" in order to have the right to defend the Bible? Why do I need to be "cured" of my obsession if your "two saintly popes" shared it?

And why do so many Catholics--including those here on FR--sound a lot more like liberal theologians than they do "two saintly popes?"

Face it. Like Pavlov's dogs, Catholics have developed a gag reflex whenever the word "Bible" is mentioned (especially in a Southern accent).

I wish you would make up your mind. First you condemn me for my attitude, then you claim to share it. I'm sorry if the Bible isn't a "Catholic thing" like the rosary is, but it's my thing. Live with it.

42 posted on 03/18/2010 10:01:52 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vayiqra' 'el-Mosheh; vaydabber HaShem 'elayv me'Ohel Mo`ed le'mor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

YOU WROTE:

“So you claim. At this point I have no reason to believe your claim. What Church or sect do you attend?”

I happen to attend an Evangelical Church today. But then when I go overseas or to another state, I attend any church that I believe is faithful to God’s word and truly believes and obeys the teachings of the apostles and Jesus Christ.

How is that, by your definition, OUTSIDE the communion ?

YOU WROTE :

No. The communion of saints is a specifically Catholic and Orthodox doctrine. Protestants, for instance, do not believe in the communion of saints. They believe in a specifically protestanized version of it. They do not believe, for instance, that there is actual communion between the saints in heaven and those on earth. If someone does not believe in communion between saints, then he doesn’t believe in the communion of saints. It’s just that simple.

Well, you seem to be defining what Protestants believe for protestants. But I am not protestant as I don’t protest against what you believe in ( as long as it is based on what is SOUND Biblical Doctrine ).

You seem to be defining communion outside of Biblical definition and that’s where I see the problem. The communion of saints is all people who believe in Christ crucified and risen from the dead, regardless of denomination or practice. It is our expression of the belief that God wants us to worship, pray, and receive Holy Communion with other believers, instead of just by ourselves. It is NOT EXCLUSIVE to those who are in the ROMAN Catholic or Greek Orhtodox Church.

YOU SAID:

He was a GOP member. To now say his beliefs transcend the party is to strech the lines of the analogy you yourself chose. When you are defeated with your own analogy you change the analogy.

Really ? I’d like for you to show me how in light of the fact that HIS BELIEFS was precedent over the party he belonged to.

YOU SAID:
And thus my point still holds no matter what. The GOP is still not the Democrat party. Period.

And how does that make your point hold ? If the GOP were to abandon conservative principles and became just like the Democratic party, would Reagan still be a GOP member ? In light of what he did ( LEAVE his former party ), I would argue that we WOULD NOT.

YOU SAID:
They are different organizations and have differing philosophies and history. Also, conservatism is still a different thing from liberalism. You are proving my point either way.

No I am not. Let me modify that by saying that are different organizations AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

There is no absolute guarantee that in the future they will be the same party that believes in the same conservative philosophy.

If the Democratic party suddenly became conservative and the GOP became liberal, I would say that Reagan would switch parties again and I would not blame him for that.

CONSERVATISM analogizes to ADHERENCE TO SCRIPTURE, not MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION.

YOU SAID:
The organization counts because it is from God.

Not if the organization abandons its belief in God, or if the organization does not conform to God’s word. It counts in so far as it is FAITHFUL to God’s word.

YOU SAID:
Belief does indeed count, but no one can claim fully correct belief in Christ and Christianity and yet reject what Christ sent into the world - the Church. That’s one of the reasons why the Church is called Christ’s body.

Precisely my point — Christ church STANDS. But then your problem is you are narrowly defining membership in His church to ROMAN CATHOLICISM. I don’t and I don’t believe that scripture attests to that. Christ’s church is composed of those who TRULY BELIEVE in Him and OBEY Him.

Which means that there are those who claim to be Roman Catholic or Evangelical or what not who might be within the earthly organization but NOT in the Heavenly organization.
What counts is Christ’s TRUE CHURCH. “THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU” says the Lord Himself.

Hence, lets’ put it this way :

* You may be a member of the Roman Catholic Church and also a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH )

* You may be a member of the Roman Catholic Church but NOT be a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH ).

* You may be a non-member of the Roman Catholic Church and also be a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH ). I know you disagree with this but that’s what I believe scripture teaches.

* You may be a non-member of the Roman Catholic Church and NOT be a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH ).

Note in the above what is important — BEING A MEMBER OF CHRIST’s CHURCH, not being a member of one organization. What counts is what is IN YOUR HEART.

What is in your heart MANIFESTS ITSELF in the earthly organization that the world sees, not vice versa.

YOU SAID:
Because he was Catholic and so are we. The faith is not merely a belief in Jesus. The millions who share the faith with St. Patrick are all Catholic.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over again but fail to tell me what the word — CATHOLIC means. You keep equating the ROMAN Catholic Church to
the UNIVERSAL Catholic Church. That is NOT correct. Patrick was who he was and the church was what it was then. I don’t take what the Roman Catholic claims
as its own to be SOLELY its own. Patrick is for the ages and for every believer everywhere BY VIRTUE of our shared faith.

YOU SAID:
He was a Catholic - that’s what the Christians in the Roman world were.

The Christians WERE Catholic ( as in members of Christ’s universal church by virtue of faith), I will admit, but ROMAN ? As in Christians everywhere adhering to the Bishop of Rome as their SUPREME head being superior in position to all other Bishops everywhere in the Roman world ? I don’t think history and scripture attests to that.

YOU SAID:
Catholic. He wasn’t from Rome and neither am I. But we are from the same Church and are both Catholic.

Yes, and so am I , and so are those who believe and follow Jesus Christ REGARDLESS of whether they are members of the Roman Catholic Church or not. THAT
WAS MY POINT. If that is your point also, I don’t see where we differ.

YOU SAID:
No. First of all, I’m not and have never been a “Roman Catholic”. Neither was he. He was Catholic and so am I. Period. Also, to truly be a fully faithful follower of Christ, one must belong to His Church which He sent into the world. Membership in a later sect was not what He intended.

And how does one belong to His Church ? Scripture tells us that all who believe in Him and Follow Him ARE members of His Church. Which makes me and millions of
others ( who are not members of the Roman Cathlic Church ) part of His Catholic church too. In what sense then does St. Patrick belong solely to you ?

YOU SAID:
Actually scripture backs the Catholic Church. St. Patrick was Catholic and so am I.

Well, I’d like for you to show me from scripture where it backs that view ( specifically that the Roman Catholic Church IS the sole equivalent of the Church of Christ ).

“I would say that Patrick is CATHOLIC in the real sense of the word — he, like millions of us, are members of Christ’s UNIVERSAL ( AKA CATHOLIC, not ROMAN ) church.”

YOU SAID:
I am assuming that being a Catholic is being a Catholic. And I am correct in my assumption.

Yes you are with one proviso — You do not reject those who are NOT members of the Roman Catholic Church as being part of the CATHOLIC ( AKA UNIVERSAL ) Church of Christ.

YOU SAID:
A Catholic is still a Catholic.

Yes, as long as you give a distinction between Roman Catholic and Catholic ( as in Universal ).
The two are NOT EXACTLY the same. One can be baptized into the Roman Catholic Church and NOT be a member of the Catholic ( universal ) church by
virtue of NON-BELIEF or PERSONAL ABANDONMENT of the faith

YOU SAID:
He believed in the priesthood. Do you?

Yes, the Bible teaches us about the Priesthood of all believers. St. Peter calls the Christians everywhere in his epistle to Christians scattered everywhere then : “ A CHOSEN PEOPLE, A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD”
So yes, I do.

YOU SAID:
He believed in the episcopacy. Do you?

Yes I do. But I do not believe that it is limited to the Episcopacy of the ROMAN version.

YOU SAID:
He believed in consecrations? Do you?

Yes I do. Christians should consecrate their lives to Jesus Christ. How can one call Him Lord and not do that ?

YOU SAID:
He believed in celibacy. Do you?

Celibacy as in not having sex outside marriage ? Of course.

But I do not believe that Clergy who marry are disobeying God’s word. St. Paul himself advises Timothy ( the Bishop to Ephesus ) to consecrate Bishops who among other qualifications are HUSBANDS OF ONE WIFE.

History tells us that Patrick was British by birth, the son of a town councillor-deacon and GRANDSON OF A PRIEST. NOTHING WRONG WITH HIS GRANDFATHER BEING A PRIEST AND MARRYING. THAT’s BIBLICALLY ACCEPTABLE THROUGH AND THROUGH.

YOU SAID:
Actually Vatican II reaffirmed the primacy of place of Latin. Apparently you didn’t know that.

I know that, but Vatican II OPENED the door to non-Latin worship. They do not condemn this.

MOST masses today are NON-LATIN and for good reason -— it would be better for people to worship in a language they understand.

As for Latin being superior, well the next question is WHY ?
Where in God’s word does it tell us that Latin is superior, given that most people during the times of the early apostles spoke Koine Greek AND Latin
and given that the New Testament was originally written in Greek not Latin?

YOU SAID:
St. Patrick didn’t know English. I can’t believe I have to tell you that.

My point is this -— you claim that you can speak to him in Latin. My response is — SO WHAT ?

That makes Him your own solely because he and you speak Latin ?

Does that mean that in order for me to claim Patrick as mine, I have to learn Latin too ? What if I did and mastered the language better than you, That makes Patrick more MINE than yours ?

Remember this — you brought the issue of Latin up, not me. For me, this is and should be a non-issue.

YOU SAID:
St. Patrick was. I am. You aren’t.

Which brings us back to the same question — WHY NOT ? Because you said so ? What you say is nothing, what
scripture teaches is what we should adhere to. Show me
from scripture that only you are and I am not.

YOU SAID:
That was about Catholics, not Protestants. None existed and scriptural references to the Church did not include them.

Where does it say that it was about ROMAN Catholics ALONE and NOT those who are NOT in the Roman Church but DO BELIEVE ?

It doesn’t say that at all.

YOU SAID:
I have no reason to believe you qualify.

Well, I am glad that you aren’t the authority as to who qualifies or not. God’s word is.

YOU SAID:
It’s not a “Roman Catholic” translation.

I was quoting from the New Jerusalem Bible. It IS a Roman Catholic approved translation of the New Testament.

YOU SAID:
Also, St. Paul said nothing about Protestants in Galatians 3. Period.

And he said nothing about ROMAN (emphasis) Catholics either. He did emphasize BELIEF, FAITH, OBEDIENCE. These aren’t the sole virtues that ROMAN Cathilics have.


43 posted on 03/18/2010 10:02:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
That's funny. I hear/read a lot more attacks on "Biblical literalism" from Catholic circles than I do on homosexuality.

Depends on which circle. The most prominent circle - the Holy See - has been demonstrably quite affable toward Protestantism over the past two generations.

The fact is, ZC, the circle of fundamentalist Protestants on FR has been pretty unrelentingly nasty to Catholics on FR for the past decade - and they seem to especially delight in pushing the buttons of Catholics in a deliberately trolling fashion.

If my only knowledge of fundamentalist Protestants was what I learned on FR, I would have to conclude that they are as honest and principled and charitable as the average Muslim internet troll.

The witness of the Biblical fundamentalist contingent on FR is almost uniformly disedifying.

If all rural Bible Christians in the US behaved as they do, they would deserve to be a reviled minority.

However, having spent plenty of time in the American South I know from personal experience that they are - in general - far more decent and morally upright than many of the crew on FR that purportedly represents them.

44 posted on 03/18/2010 10:12:19 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The fact is, ZC, the circle of fundamentalist Protestants on FR has been pretty unrelentingly nasty to Catholics on FR for the past decade - and they seem to especially delight in pushing the buttons of Catholics in a deliberately trolling fashion.

It's a good thing that Catholics never push Fundamentalists' buttons, say, by constantly defending evolution and restricting Biblical inerrancy while flaunting every alleged post-Biblical supernatural phenomenon in history. Or (say again) by calling them "Cletus," "Billy Bob's Glory Barn," and "brain dead bibliolators" while swooning at the "simple childlike faith" of illiterate peasants who believe some saint lives in a local well. Nope, no button-pushing there.

If all rural Bible Christians in the US behaved as they do, they would deserve to be a reviled minority.

So . . . condemning Protestantism from the Right is a no-no for Catholics? It can only be condemned in the vocabulary of an Ivy League liberal?

45 posted on 03/18/2010 10:19:44 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vayiqra' 'el-Mosheh; vaydabber HaShem 'elayv me'Ohel Mo`ed le'mor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
It's a good thing that Catholics never push Fundamentalists' buttons, say, by constantly defending evolution

While there are plenty of self-identified Catholics on FR who buy into evolution, I don't really know of any who see it as a defining issue: i.e. "if you don't believe this silly notion then you cannot be considered a Christian."

And there are plenty of Protestants on FR who buy into it as well.

Or (say again) by calling them "Cletus," "Billy Bob's Glory Barn," and "brain dead bibliolators" while swooning at the "simple childlike faith" of illiterate peasants who believe some saint lives in a local well.

I rarely see a thread that begins with such epithets - what I see are threads that begin as an insulting challenge to Catholicism and then some Catholic posters, forgetting their obligation under Matthew 5:44, indulging in equally disedifying stupid taunts of the kind you mention.

And I know that you've definitely noticed that there is a mutual contempt here between urban FReepers and rural FReepers that goes beyond religion.

So . . . condemning Protestantism from the Right is a no-no for Catholics? It can only be condemned in the vocabulary of an Ivy League liberal?

Catholics should not be in the business of condemning Protestantism - for the reasons that (1) it's not a particularly Christian attitude to adopt and (2) there is much of value to be found in Protestantism despite its fatal flaws - no matter how much FR Protestants tempt us to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

46 posted on 03/18/2010 10:49:41 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
While there are plenty of self-identified Catholics on FR who buy into evolution, I don't really know of any who see it as a defining issue: i.e. "if you don't believe this silly notion then you cannot be considered a Christian."

They don't make it a necessity of chr*stianity, but they most certainly do make at least an openness to evolution a distinguishing (and therefore mandatory) aspect of Catholicism, as you and I know right well. How many Catholic articles, publications, or Bishops' statements insist that "we Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally," or that total Biblical inerrancy is a concept with no roots in the chr*stian past that was invented out of whole cloth by "certain Protestant traditions?" You're my hero, but you and I both know that on this issue I am right. And at least two FReepers criticize me for my "mania" of defending the Bible, implying that it's not a Catholic thing to do so--therefore a distinguishing mark of Catholicism.

I rarely see a thread that begins with such epithets - what I see are threads that begin as an insulting challenge to Catholicism and then some Catholic posters, forgetting their obligation under Matthew 5:44, indulging in equally disedifying stupid taunts of the kind you mention.

My friend--I see them. And every time I do I think of my mother and my beloved deceased relatives who did not have the "good fortune" to be born Irish or Italian or Aztec. And it makes my blood boil.

Catholics should not be in the business of condemning Protestantism - for the reasons that (1) it's not a particularly Christian attitude to adopt and (2) there is much of value to be found in Protestantism despite its fatal flaws - no matter how much FR Protestants tempt us to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Protestantism has no more in common with Catholicism or Orthodoxy than either does with mormonism. Protestantism and Catholicism can both be false, but they cannot both be true.

Catholics say "Protestants are chr*stians" because of certain creedal commonalities. Yet as you know Fundamentalist Protestantism is not a creedal religion at all. What FPism calls "salvation" is what Catholicism condemns as "presumption." In fact, this "presumption" is the whole point of Fundamentalist Protestant chr*stianity and why Catholics are not and cannot be chr*stians in its view. No assurance? No presumption? Why did J*sus die, then? Apparently only to but an end to the Torah, because under the "new covenant" one's life is as much a tightrope walk over the "pits of hell" as it ever was under the "old covenant"--indeed, it is more so. This is the "good news?" I'm sorry, there's nothing "good" about it. Either a means was created to insure salvation or else nothing happened and the Torah (and Noachide Law) is still in full force for its original purpose.

Furthermore, you are missing my point that Catholics condemn Protestantism (or at least Protestants) all the time--only they do so in leftist liberal terms. Is this the unchanging attitude of the unchanging Church? Did the Spanish inquisition condemn "heretics" as "intolerant bigots?" Anyone who can condemn Protestantism from the Left can condemn it from the Right--unless one is a Leftist.

And yet again, there is absolutely no difference between the Catholic double standard that sees Fundamentalist devotion to Genesis as ignorance and Mexican peasant devotion to Juan Diego as beautiful and the liberal double standard that condemns Genesis while exalting the aboriginal "dream time" (or the qur'an). No difference whatsoever.

I don't believe you can understand this. I have come to believe only someone who has experienced it can understand it, and that pretty much makes any attempt to explain it useless.

Wideawake, I love you dearly, but on this matter you are wrong.

47 posted on 03/18/2010 11:15:18 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vayiqra' 'el-Mosheh; vaydabber HaShem 'elayv me'Ohel Mo`ed le'mor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Then why do you condemn me for having the same "hang-up" as your "two saintly popes?"

No, that is an oversimplification of your hang-up, ZC. You left out, "Oh, a bunch of heterodox Catholic were mean to me, so I'm going to go on every FR religion thread and harp about that and post gross exaggerations about Catholicism."

48 posted on 03/18/2010 11:21:10 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If you know how not to pray, take Joseph as your master, and you will not go astray." - St. Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Catholics should not be in the business of condemning Protestantism

Why not? Past popes did just that.

49 posted on 03/18/2010 11:23:57 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If you know how not to pray, take Joseph as your master, and you will not go astray." - St. Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Why not? Past popes did just that.

Two points:

(1) There is a difference between someone who invents an error (John Calvin) and someone who was raised in an error (my Presbyterian neighbor).

(2) From 1648 to 2009, the Popes proved quite unsuccessful in getting any Protestant communion to agree with the Church and rejoin her. Most of those Popes didn't even really bother discussing the matter.

The current Pope, whose strategy has been to persuade, now has a large chunk of the Anglicans preparing to enter into communion with the Church in full agreement with the magisterium.

Telling people that their grandma who taught them the basics of Christianity was a malignant heretic isn't useful - the goal is to save souls, not score points.

50 posted on 03/18/2010 11:36:13 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-118 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson