Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

BereanBeacon.Org ^ | Richard Peter Bennett

[Natural Law]

"When I was catholic I attended maybe a dozen or so High Masses."

You don't have a documented 10 year history of habitual lying so your postings are not automatically presumed to be false and rejected.

[Mad Dawg]

Well, the so-called apocryphal books become an issue, and one early canon (I read somewhere) included the Letter of Hermas.

Whether this is true I don’t know, but I was told in seminary that one strong impetus toward defining the canon was that the heresiarch Marcion decided HE was going to define a very limited canon.

So, once again, it was a matter of a controversy crying out for some kind of resolution.

[Mad Dawg]

It seems to me the term "denomination" as applied to those 'rites' that are all in communion with the Holy See and all agree on the basic articles (whatever THOSE might be) of the Catholic faith is applied differently to the different non-Catholic, non-Orthodox groups, where there are differences about articles of faith -- as I believe.

I know the new Anglican Rite will have to make declarations of conformity and have its rites and ceremonials approved and all that sort of thing. And the clergy will have to be ordained.

So I think the term is ambiguous.

[bkaycee]

There has not been one single post addressing the numerous and powerful points made in the Patrick Madrid article on 1 Cor 4:6, in which he demolishes the Protestant tenet of sola scriptura. The only reply was a muddled attempt to take issue with his use of two prepositions in one sentence of the article.

Madrid does not appear to understand what Sola Scriptura is and is not and for such a well known name is kinda surprising. It could be he is just torching a straw man.

What Sola scriptura is not.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby. http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html

[OLD REGGIE]

Many believe that Wayne had converted to Roman Catholicism in 1979 shortly before his death. This was based on information by now deceased journalist Alan Dumas. When Dumas was pressed for further information, he admitted that he had invented the story... However, I now understand that Patrick Wayne claims that his father did convert as a Roman Catholic, but only two days prior to his death.

And, according to his daughter:

John Wayne died of stomach cancer on June 11, 1979, and was interred in the Pacific View Memorial Park cemetery in Corona del Mar. Rumours regarding Duke's death bed conversions to Catholicism circulated for a brief while following his death. However, many close to John Wayne including Dave Grayson and Duke's daughter Aissa have dismissed these allegations stating that Duke was not conscious when the alleged conversion actually took place.

The alleged conversion of John Wayne

It's truly amazing how many conversions take place with no witnesses.

[small voice in the wilderness]

Even those in RED?

[OLD REGGIE]

Many believe that Wayne had converted to Roman Catholicism in 1979 shortly before his death. This was based on information by now deceased journalist Alan Dumas. When Dumas was pressed for further information, he admitted that he had invented the story... However, I now understand that Patrick Wayne claims that his father did convert as a Roman Catholic, but only two days prior to his death.

And, according to his daughter:

John Wayne died of stomach cancer on June 11, 1979, and was interred in the Pacific View Memorial Park cemetery in Corona del Mar. Rumours regarding Duke's death bed conversions to Catholicism circulated for a brief while following his death. However, many close to John Wayne including Dave Grayson and Duke's daughter Aissa have dismissed these allegations stating that Duke was not conscious when the alleged conversion actually took place.

The alleged conversion of John Wayne

It's truly amazing how many conversions take place with no witnesses.

[Mad Dawg]

Very clear. Nicely done.

[Mad Dawg]

Hey, I’m red-green color blind. I cain’t tell the red ones from the black ones. So, sure, let ‘em all go.

[Quix]

I just think its part an parcel of kill the messenger tactics.

---

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

AND, IT’S STATION #13 OF THE STATIONS OF THE WHITE HANKY:

13. ICON TO THE KILL-THE-MESSENGER-IN-WORSHIPFUL-BEHALF-OF-MARY STRATEGY

[bkaycee]

Interestingly, that source used for the misleading 33,000 “denoms” also scores the Catholic church as 5th on the all-time murder list, with roughly 5 million killed.

[Quix]

1. PRIOR to HIS earthly birth.

2. IF said period is encapsulated and lain aside in some multiverse construction on reality—whenever such Timelessness of God decreed it.

3. Y’all seem stubbornly determined to build an eternal major MARIAN EDIFICE on that temporary fact.

4. I say temporary because I do not think we time-bound finite creatures can have a definitive, omniscient, all inclusive view of such a thing given that our only frame of reference is within said linear time constraints.

5. We seem incapable of construing reality OTHER THAN as linear time with a ‘once a mother, always a mother’ mentality.

6. What if MOTHERHOOD like MARRIAGE is just not any part of our eternal reality or abode?

7. What an embarrassingly huge edifice of blasphemous idolatry to then have to toss in the garbage.

[Quix]

I’m comfortable with Holy Spirit being the arbiter of such things . . . HOWEVER HE WILLS

NOT

AS SOME POLITICAL POWER-MONGERING MAGICSTERICAL WILLS.

[Natural Law]

"It's truly amazing how many conversions take place with no witnesses."

I already posted that I knew an eye witness; Fr. Robert (Bob) Curtis who was in attendance when Archbishop McGrath baptized Wayne.

Add to that the numerous family members and close personal friends like John Ford who recount the same story and you have more proof than the one UK website you found after sifting through who knows how many.

It is pitiful that the conversion of one man, regardless of his fame, has become a cause celeb worthy of the anti-Catholics lies.

[OLD REGGIE]

There are some 30,000 denominations on your side, many of them pitted against one another on doctrine, discipline, etc. The disputes are often very bitter and some of the major arguments have been raging for centuries.

OK, you vehemently deny you were speaking of "Protestant" denominations with your "33,000 denominations" claim

This "30,000 denominations" claim is directed to those on the side of "small voice in the wilderness". Surely you don't mean "Protestant" do you?

[Quix]

So I think the term is ambiguous.

---

Slightly sorry . . . but I think a lot of Proddys would be eager to hear . . .

what percentage of words in the Vatican Daffinitionary

are NOT ambiguous????

2%? 3%?

[Quix]

AMEN! AMEN!

WELL STATED.

[Quix]

It’s truly amazing how many conversions take place with no witnesses.

---

AND WITHOUT CONSCIOUSNESS . . .

LDS baptisms for the dead come to mind.

Authoritarian cultish systems seem to have a lot in common.

[Quix]

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html

AMEN!

[bkaycee]

Removing books from the Bible by Martin Luther and successive generations of Reformers is heretical and worthy of excommunication from the Church.

Actually, Jerome's Canon did not include the apochrypha as God breathed scripture.

While there were some who followed Augustine and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in accepting the Apocryphal books, the vast majority of theologians, bishops and cardinals throughout the Middle Ages followed Jerome. This is seen in three major historical examples: the express statements of the Glossa ordinaria-the official Biblical commentary used during the Middle Ages, the teaching of major theologians who cited Jerome as the authority for determining the authoritative canon of the Old Testament, and Bible translations and commentaries produced just prior to the Reformation.

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html

Even Cardinal Cajetan, Luther's foe, did not subscribe to the apochrypha being scripture. Which was certainly fine, Trent had not officially included it yet.