You may pick off the uncatechized stragglers but we still bring in the Robert Borks, the Senator Brownbacks, the Lew Lehrmans, the Bernard Nathansons and a lot of other converts, famed and modest. Seminary training, in most American seminaries claiming Catholicism without evident cause means little or nothing in the credentialing of students who will exercise authority. They are cesspools of heterodoxy.
Your late and great Rev. Dr. Criswell of Dallas, though certainly reformed, was more of a Catholic in many ways than the half vast little army of anti-Catholic Catholics in anti-Catholic AmChurch who are forever seeking to undermine doctrine in favor of novelty for its own nefarious sake.
As I recall, Rev. Dr. Criswell was the truly brilliant and admirable teacher at Dallas Theological Seminary who said something to the effect that: "A church begins to die when its throat is grasped by the palsied hand of liberalism."
If he is still alive, the AmChurch "Catholic" Dallas "Pink Palace" Seminary which raised such AmChurch molestation exemplars as Fr. Rudy "Jailbird" Kos, now cosmetically defrocked in a vain attempt to protect the rest of the guilty, would do well to hear that principle of the Rev. Dr. Criswell from his own lips and, after he passes, from the lips of those of his faith thouroughly knowlegdable as to and loyal to the prudential principles of Rev. Dr. Criswell.
I might add that, if Sinkspur comes to your assistance, as you have requested, you will be in even more trouble with the Catholics at FR. He reliably posts articles from the various AmChurchian publications like the National "Catholic" Reporter, America and Commonweal. What he posts are reliably the speculations of the usual , aging and dying religious revolutionaries of yesteryear and their handful of youthful sycophants, each and every one praying to "God if there is a God" to send a "progressive" pope before it is too late and the revolution is entirely lost. Just a bit of whistling past their own graveyard, so to speak.
You should be familiar with his bishop: Bishop Joseph Delaney of Fort Worth who imported a lavender priest, his "old pal'", already thoroughly discredited in Rhode Island for buying a car for a teenaged boy and taking other teenaged boys on Caribbean vacations without other adults, to be, voila, the Fort Worth diocesan Boy Scout director. What else? Maybe next time, Fort Worth will get an actual Catholic and prudent bishop to restore the Faith in that sad diocese.
Itchy, restless "Catholic" liberals would find authority in a Mickey Mouse Comic book if it supportwed the trend du jour in opposition to Vatican authority.
First of all, BlackElk, thank you for your kind response. I don't mean to denigrate anyone but this is the first intelligent post representing your view that I've seen on this thread.
Peter was pope. Paul was not. Peter wrote Scriptures and so did Paul. The Scriptures are God's word written through individual human beings and their validity has nothing to do with the ecclesiastical positions of the human scribes of the respective Scriptural works.
That's encouraging. The poster calling Paul a mere "trusted adviser" to Peter -- who didn't have to take Paul's advice -- was disturbing. If you'll check Galatians 2:11-14 you'll note that Paul -- the last of the apostles to be called -- openly rebuked Peter and Peter submitted to the rebuke. Peter didn't seem to have much of a choice in the matter either.
The Scriptures (not YOPIOS or MOPIOS) AND tradition in the form of the Teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church are the Catholic sources of authority. No attempt by one who wishes to set up impossible opposition between Scripture (which we gave your spiritual predecessors four hundred eighty-five years ago) and Roman Catholic authority as established by Jesus Christ is likely to succeed with any adequately catechized Catholic.
- The Magisterium is the only body that can determine the meaning of scripture.
- The Magisterium is the only body that can determine correct tradition (which varies according to what day it is and, in many cases, was not "remembered" until many, many centuries after the birth of the church).
- Thus, it all boils down to the fact that the Magisterium is the sole authority for the Catholic church. The scriptures and traditions are just niceties.
Believing that the scriptures and tradition truly play any meaningful role in the Catholic church is like believing that Ahmad Alaa is really the prime minister of Palestine and that Yasser Arafat just plays an advisory role. It may play well with the unwashed masses but it just doesn't pass the intellectual smell test.
Regardless, you might be surprised to find out that the Catholic church in Divino Afflante Spiritus (1943) states that only a very few biblical passages have been definitively interpreted in defending traditional doctrine and morals. I believe that the passages number only seven: John 3:5, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24, John 20:22, John 20:23, Romans 5:12, and James 5: 14. There's a lot more leeway for YOPIOS than you think.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,2Ti 3:16
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be proficient, having been thoroughly equipped for every good work.
You may pick off the uncatechized stragglers but we still bring in the Robert Borks, the Senator Brownbacks, the Lew Lehrmans, the Bernard Nathansons and a lot of other converts, famed and modest. Seminary training, in most American seminaries claiming Catholicism without evident cause means little or nothing in the credentialing of students who will exercise authority. They are cesspools of heterodoxy.
That's nice, but we still bring in the C.S. Lewis's, the G.K. Chesterton's, and the Billy Graham's. I've been a long-time reader of First Things and am impressed by its intellectual standards though.
Your late and great Rev. Dr. Criswell of Dallas, though certainly reformed, was more of a Catholic in many ways than the half vast little army of anti-Catholic Catholics in anti-Catholic AmChurch who are forever seeking to undermine doctrine in favor of novelty for its own nefarious sake.
As I recall, Rev. Dr. Criswell was the truly brilliant and admirable teacher at Dallas Theological Seminary who said something to the effect that: "A church begins to die when its throat is grasped by the palsied hand of liberalism."
I am also more of a Catholic than you might believe. Were it to throw off its man-made doctrines I would gladly join up. However, I think that it is evident that the Catholic church is just like the Jewish "church" of Jesus' day, who had their own version of infallibility and believed that they had an oral tradition passed down to them from Moses which superseded scripture. Jesus didn't have kind words for them. Remember the frequent phrase, "You have heard it said .... but it is written that ...?" Jesus was confirming that a supposed oral tradition does not override what the scriptures say. He also heavily chastised the Jewish leaders for elevating man-made traditions above scripture.
As I said: History repeats itself.
I agree that a church begins to die when it is infiltrated by liberalism. However, I don't think it is correct to label liberalism something that means returning to the practices of the early church, as with the notion of priestly celibacy. God clearly permits it and Paul called it a heresy that would enter the church in latter days. We're paying the price for it now.
I might add that, if Sinkspur comes to your assistance, as you have requested, you will be in even more trouble with the Catholics at FR.
LOL! I don't need the assistance of sinkspur as I'm perfectly capable of handling these discussions on my own. In truth, he's been the only Catholic I've run into that seems to actually have a knowledge of the scriptures and church history. He may or may not agree with me on this issue but at least he's capable of an intelligent discussion and knows the subject matter.
All I've gotten on this subject is (1) some vague tradition that maybe Peter's wife had died by the time Peter was called by Christ; and (2) another vague tradition that if Peter's wife were really alive, they would have taken a vow of permanent continence. This despite that the fact that Paul, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius clearly refer to Peter's wife being alive and with him during the apostolic period and the fact that Paul clarified that continence was only to be practiced for a limited amount of time -- not permanently. That's the plain reading of the scripture, not MOPIOS. When a sign says STOP, I don't need an interpretation.
He reliably posts articles from the various AmChurchian publications like the National "Catholic" Reporter, America and Commonweal. What he posts are reliably the speculations of the usual , aging and dying religious revolutionaries of yesteryear and their handful of youthful sycophants, each and every one praying to "God if there is a God" to send a "progressive" pope before it is too late and the revolution is entirely lost. Just a bit of whistling past their own graveyard, so to speak.
I haven't noticed any of what you said in sinkspur's posts, though I only run into him occasionally. I would argue also that the notion of priestly celibacy -- which was unknown in the early church -- is itself a progressive doctrine. A truly conservative pope who wanted to restore the Catholic beliefs and practices of the apostolic days would lift the requirement of priestly celibacy in a heartbeat.
I find that "conservative" Catholics often oppose all or portions of Vatican II. If the Catholic church is inerrant in terms of faith and morals, then how could Vatican II have been a bad thing?
If the next pope lifts the ban on priestly celibacy, will you support it? If not, then why not? Wouldn't it be an infallible ruling?
You should be familiar with his bishop: Bishop Joseph Delaney of Fort Worth who imported a lavender priest, his "old pal'", already thoroughly discredited in Rhode Island for buying a car for a teenaged boy and taking other teenaged boys on Caribbean vacations without other adults, to be, voila, the Fort Worth diocesan Boy Scout director. What else? Maybe next time, Fort Worth will get an actual Catholic and prudent bishop to restore the Faith in that sad diocese.
I don't judge sinkspur on who his bishop is. For what it's worth, Dallas isn't much better when it comes to bishops.
One of the reasons I am so anxious for the Catholic church to purge itself of pervert priests and the bishops who protect them is because I'm familiar with the property that the Catholic church had to sell in Dallas to settle the lawsuit several years back. It could have been used for much good but it (plus the hard-earned money of a lot of parishioners) went to atone for the sins of someone who should never have been a priest at all.