Replies

Great post. Worth a repost.

This is not a forum to school you on the absolute truths of Catholicism. I have purposely avoided citing the writings of renowned Catholic theologians like Augustine, Aquinas, Newman Benedict (after whom colleges and universities have been named and their writings form part of the standard theological curriculum even in Evangelical colleges.).

I have tried to present in summary form those Protestant theologians who after years of study and scholarship, some trying to prove that Catholicism is wrong, actually ended up converting to Catholicism. In fact the preeminent Lutheran theologian of his times, Rev. Richard Neuhaus not only converted to Catholicism, he became a Catholic priest.

But all this is of not avail. DeprogrammerLiberalism attempts his hand at playing internet theologian with disparate scriptural quotes as do many of the others whose singular tact appears to be to let loose waterfalls of scriptural quotes. From this premise they argue that Catholic doctrine is wrong, or worse that “their” interpretations of scripture is the correct one.

What these Bible Christian don’t appear to understand is that is exactly what proves my point. This is why we Catholics have Petrine authority and a Catholic Catechism, and a Catholic Mass, and a Catholic veneration to the Mother of God that is for all, in all nations, and for all times.

Despite written historical references by the early Church fathers, and the Synod of Rome in AD 382, a full eleven centuries before the heresy of Protestantism and its thousands of variants washed ashore, and whose beliefs have been vindicated by some of the greatest theological minds known to making, we still have amoreperfectunion naively telling us that he is still “waiting for a list of authoritative traditions.” The answer is easy.

We have several traditions such as the Catholic sacraments. These traditions complement scripture as do ritual and practice. We have Petrine authority. We have the Catholic Mass. These are cogently explained in the Catholic Catechism, but if you don’t care to spend serious time reading this, there is not much we can do here.

Deprogrammerliberalism captures the sheer shallowness of Bible Christianity by supply a menu of scriptural quotes, and providing us with “his” definitive interpretation of these passages.

Here’s an example of sheer nonsense. He tells us:

“Why would Jesus say, “For God so loved the world” - past tense? Why would He not have said, “For God so loves the world” - present tense? Would it not make more sense, if God does indeed love the world?”

It does not occur to Deprogrammerliberalism that when we discuss God doing an action from outside time, we are often stuck with either using past tense or present tense when really God’s actions are not past, present or future, they are all of them and none of them.

But this is what happens when Bible Christians don’t have an Augustine or Aquinas or Newman, or the early Church fathers. They rush to third-rate bloggers for a quick cut and paste argument.

metmon; smvoice, elsie;and wvkayaker essentially keep telling us that they are unable to make the intellectual leap between the personal lives of saints, sinners, random utterances of individuals, and official belief.

We are speaking here of the latter. Formal beliefs. Billy Graham may be a nice and honorable man, but his heresy is no different from Joel Osteen or David Koresh in their failure to admit to Catholic belief based on scripture, the sacred oral tradition (John 21:25); and ritual and practice and most of all revelation in the Church’s choosing of God’s authentic written word against the gnostic writings.

elsie apparently expects the Nicene Creed to contain all the elements of belief. So she writes:

“Nothing in there about Mary except and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, Nothing in there about Canonizing ‘Saints’”
You may now understand the rut of Protestantism.

The dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as set forth in the profession of faith of Trent (cf. Denz. 1867) has as its correlative the power to canonize. . . . St. Thomas Aquinas says, “Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err” (Quodl. 9:8:16).

But now at least we know where wvkayaker “cult theory” is coming from. He writes:

“It is a group of people indoctrinated into the “traditions” that have been told to ignore what they see in Scripture.”

“Group of people!” “indoctrinated!” This is beyond breathtaking. Thus all the great Catholic thinkers, and Protestant scholars are just a “group of people’ who have been “indoctrinated”?

May be you should go down this illustrious list of Catholic converts that include Judge Robert Bork, Judge Thomas, Robert Novak (Jewish). But here’s an A-Z List of CONVERTS to Catholicism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Catholicism
I repeat this is not a place to offer Bible Christians a comprehensive schooling in Catholic theology. So here’s a work below (under $15 on Amazon) written by a former evangelist who converted to Catholicism.

It is written by Dave Armstrong (a former Protestant campus missionary) and is aptly titled: “A Biblical Defense of Catholicism.”

You may try reading and absorbing this before you again keep posting blogger’s versions of scripture.
http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Defense-Catholicism-Dave-Armstrong/dp/1928832954
http://shop.sophiainstitute.com/Assets/ProductImages/prodpdf/954.pdf

>>>Great post. Worth a repost.<<<

Well then, maybe you can help Steelfish out. You see, I have been trying to get some official RC church doctrines about the epistle of James out of Steelfish for a couple of weeks, but he obviously doesn't know where to look. Perhaps you do. I'll just imitate you and do a repost:

James insists that Christians must keep the OC Law, but Peter and Paul disagree. Please tell me the official RC church position on this conundrum. You don't even have to use Scripture - any old official theological blather will do.
James insists that keeping the OC Law provides freedom, while Peter and Paul again disagree, instead teaching that keeping the OC Law is akin to slavery. I would appreciate knowing the official RC church explanation for this discrepancy. Again, Scripture is completely optional.
Was Abraham credited with righteousness by God when he believed God in Ge.15 as claimed by Moses and Paul, or was it not until the Ge.22 Isaac incident, as James insists? Again, any old theological explanation will do, as long as it is the official RC church position.
Are rich people automatically condemned in the RC church as James insists, or is it just a little more difficult for them to be saved, as Christ taught? Please provide the official RC explanation on James' contradiction of Christ, and the position of the RC church as to which one is correct.
James insists that God is not tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone with evil. Does the RC church official position support this contention of James and reject the discourse on the temptation of Christ in the desert as a lie, or does the RC church official position reject this contention of James?

Please provide the official RC church positions on these conundrums. Again, Scripture is completely optional. Use Scott Hahn or Augustine or any of your favorite theologians - as long as they espouse the official positions of the RC church.

Perhaps you could also explain another conundrum that Steelfish seems not to be able to do. From your repost of him:

>>>

Here’s an example of sheer nonsense. He tells us:

But this is what happens when Bible Christians don’t have an Augustine or Aquinas or Newman, or the early Church fathers.

<<<

Augustine called God the eternal-now-god. His explanation is that God can see everything in all of the past and all of the future as if it were all present tense. So why did Christ say, “For God so loved the world” - past tense? Was he not as informed as Augustine?