Posted on 04/28/2015 6:01:54 PM PDT by Salvation
I was ready to comment on this, got distracted for a couple of hours, and came back to see that it had rubbed others the wrong way, too.
This constant belittling of Protestants, along with puffing up the credentials of Catholics and former Protestants, is getting really tiresome for several reasons. First, it comes across as incredibly arrogant - perhaps you should review the book of Proverbs to see how frequently humility is praised. Second, people who resort to personal insults usually have weak arguments and wish to intimidate the opposition into silence. Third, you personally haven't shown a superior spiritual understanding. Your posts are typically cut and post jobs with you personally adding little content. You really haven't shown that you are somehow "swimming in the deep end of the pool." Fourth, lavishing praiseful adjectives on someone to puff up their credentials does not make them some heavy-hitter in the theological world. Finally, it simply comes across as childish and unbecoming to someone who claims the name of Christ.
There is nothing ad hominem about holding to the One Truth of Christ anymore than Christ Himself spoke of “fools, hypocrites, blind guides, whited sepulchers, murderers, a generation of snakes.” Now, if you insist on polite language we can do that and gently treat the scriptural interpretations of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Joel Osteen, and Creflo Dollar.
But at the heart of all this, are Protestant interpretations in clear conflict with the teaching of Christ and of His ONE Church that infallibly assembled the canonical texts in the Synod of Rome in AD 382 and the Church’s infallible authority was so for ELEVEN centuries until the curse of the Reformation that spawned in Hillaire Belloc’s famous words, “a cluster of heresies.”
The ONE teaching and ONE authority extended to Peter and his successors were never questioned. They included the early Church fathers, some of whom were contemporaries of the evangelist John; the early saints and martyrs, and a renowned array of Catholic theologians from Augustine to Aquinas to Newman to Benedict XVI -known as the theological Einstein of our times.
Is this your version of the “herd”?
You ask for some proof of Catholic teaching, and we provide you with the writings of an extraordinary Protestant scholar who sought o show Catholicism was all wrong, and then after several years of careful study ended up converting to Catholicism. He is not alone. These are several other eminent Protestant theologians like him who converted to Catholicism as soon as they waded deep into scripture and theological history.
One must gather from all this that your inquiries are not serious.
Instead, we are asked to accept from a menu of different scriptural interpretations ranging from Billy Graham to Jim Jones and reject the teachings of Catholic and eminent Lutheran theologians who converted to Catholicism, the early Church fathers, the infallibility of Petrine authority that assembled the canonical texts, and of course the early saints and martyrs.
The “herd”?
You can now see the comments I offered about shallow Bible Christianity in the context of all of this.
The term “Bible thumpers” came about from Protestants like TD Jakes and others who rain down cascades of scriptural quotes, give it “their” own interpretation, wave the Bible in the air with a sense of foreboding authenticity.y This is no more like the vapid preachings of Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggart or Al Sharpton all offering”their” interpretations of scripture, as being the one truth, the one “they” believe.
Now, If you must insist that we use polite terms and not follow the lingo of Christ, well that may be possible too. But we know how Christ referred to such hucksters.
Oops sorry, I used an ad hominem term again. Maybe I should have just gone with “herds” to refer to Peter and his successors.
Very observant comments. Thank you.
I appreciate your perseverance in this matter. Bravo!
No ad hominem - just observation and advice.
I haven’t seen you respond to any of my posts. So no substance to me.
I explained the early Church fathers. They preached keeping the OC Law for the first twenty years of the Church - they were wrong.
Lutherans who convert to Catholicism do not impress me. Lutherans ignore the Bible almost as much as do Catholics.
Yes, you sound like someone who responds with rage driven by paranoia. I deal with this attitude everyday.
Who is shallow? The person who defends what elite visionaries require them to believe, or the person who researches the Bible for them self?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I apologize. I am most certainly willing to discuss issues. May others stick to the same.
The epistle of James insists that Christians must keep the OC Law. Because the “Sacred Magisterium” of the OP claims that the epistle of James is canonical, this proves that it is bunk. Let those who support the “Sacred Magisterium” prove me wrong.
Why don't you show us where anyone besides YOU invoked these people? You're the ONLY one who brings them up?
But at the heart of all this, are Protestant interpretations in clear conflict with the teaching of Christ and of His ONE Church that infallibly assembled the canonical texts in the Synod of Rome in AD 382 and the Church’s infallible authority was so for ELEVEN centuries until the curse of the Reformation that spawned in Hillaire Belloc’s famous words, “a cluster of heresies.” The ONE teaching and ONE authority extended to Peter and his successors were never questioned. They included the early Church fathers, some of whom were contemporaries of the evangelist John; the early saints and martyrs, and a renowned array of Catholic theologians from Augustine to Aquinas to Newman to Benedict XVI -known as the theological Einstein of our times.
You asserting something over and over and over like a broken record doesn't make it true.
You ask for some proof of Catholic teaching, and we provide you with the writings of an extraordinary Protestant scholar who sought o show Catholicism was all wrong, and then after several years of careful study ended up converting to Catholicism. He is not alone. These are several other eminent Protestant theologians like him who converted to Catholicism as soon as they waded deep into scripture and theological history.
For every Protestant theologian like this, there are thousands who don't swim across the Tiber. I suppose their testimony is to be ignored. What about the Catholics who become Protestants? Their testimony doesn't count, either, right?
One must gather from all this that your inquiries are not serious.
Or that the evidence that you once again provide is not compelling.
You can now see the comments I offered about shallow Bible Christianity in the context of all of this.
So were you showing us "deep end of the pool" analysis? Sorry, I must have blinked and missed it.
But we know how Christ referred to such hucksters.
"Get behind me, Satan"? Oh, wait a minute, that was the First Pope, shortly after his "coronation." Everyone, including you, needs to be careful about presumption - Christ is going to tell some "depart from me, I never knew you."
>”Get behind me, Satan”? Oh, wait a minute, that was the First Pope, shortly after his “coronation.” Everyone, including you, needs to be careful about presumption - Christ is going to tell some “depart from me, I never knew you.”<
Applause...
There is a big difference between infallible and impeccable.
Peter was not impeccable — he sinned. But the power of the Holy Spirit given to him by Jesus Christ made him infallible.
People tend to get those two words mixed up.
So where in Scripture do I find this?
Common English, sir, common English.
Apparently you Protestants are not asserting your own “broken record” despite the fact that many leading and eminent Protestant theologians after years of careful and extensive study, some deliberately setting out to prove the Catholic Church wrong, have not only converted to Catholicism but have reached the obvious conclusion what Dr. David Anders, a former Protestant theological scholar sums up thus:
“I also realized that Protestantism was a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic. Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged. The more I studied, the more I realized that my evangelical heritage had moved far not only from ancient Christianity, but even from the teaching of her own Protestant founders.”
Enough said. You can see for yourself now why you don’t like us Catholics bringing up the rotten and vacuous mass of Protestant scriptural interpretations from Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, and Billy Graham right down to your corner street Fousquare Church pastor. These folks use religion to amass a nice personal fortune for themselves and their families because there are always enough shallow-minded Protestants to fill up the pews long after their theologians have branded Protestantism an embarrassment.
This goes for all the black AME Churches (an utter joke) to all the Evangelicals who offer us “their” own varied and contradictory twisted interpretations of scripture.
Yet Protestants have the gall to question the very Petrine infallibility that gave us the canonical texts and as understood by the early Church fathers, saints and martyrs.
Steelfish,
You can, of course, post however you wish. It just fails to be persuasive to anyone who does not already pre-believe all the Catholic stuff.
Are you only trying to speak to Catholics?
I spoke to you kindly. I tried to help you view your posts from another’s point of view. I’m guessing you are not aware of how you come across.
Since you fail to use evidence, logic and facts, I conclude you have none.
Your posts are filled with truth claims you do not back up. We watch. We ask. They just fall to the ground like deflated Christmas lawn art when dawn comes.
FRiend, you refer to your converted champion as a “extraordinary Protestant scholar”. Not only is this not true, but it is a logical fallacy of argument. An appeal to authority instead of evidence, logic and facts. As such, it is rejected. I’ve already given you my reasons specific to him, but of course it remains a logical fallacy.
That and ad hominem are the “arguments” of the post.
Already recognized as just air.
Is that all you have???
Kindest regards.
Well, I have set forth the findings of a former Protestant historian who sought to show why Catholicism was wrong and after several years of scholarly study at Wheaton College ended up converting to Catholicism.
Is this ad hominem?
Dr. David Anders in his own words:
“I also realized that Protestantism was a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic. Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged. The more I studied, the more I realized that my evangelical heritage had moved far not only from ancient Christianity, but even from the teaching of her own Protestant founders.”
Blessings,
Steelfish
BTW, in addition to Appeal to Authority, I think you have your facts wrong...
He studied as an undergrad at Wheaton College. He became a Catholic when he was doing his PhD at Iowa State. Nothing about Iowa State that will convince anyone he is an authority on Christian matters, even if they accepted the fallacy of the argument itself.
(It’s late and I’m headed to bed, but that is how I remember what I read in your earlier post.)
Best.
<There is a big difference between infallible and impeccable.
Peter was not impeccable — he sinned. But the power of the Holy Spirit given to him by Jesus Christ made him infallible.
People tend to get those two words mixed up.<
I could care less about your word nuances.
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.