Posted on 08/10/2006 12:22:56 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
If you want to post something evidentiary from an authoritative Christian scholar (Roman Catholic or otherwise) -- either responding to my own posted evidence from Dr. Sungenis (that would be favorite), or at least buttressing your own ad hominem Argument by showing that authoritative Christian scholars direct "respectable Christians" to "shun" Dr. Sungenis as a "venomous Anti-Semite", then I'll read your evidence and respond thereto. Otherwise, I must remind you that I am citing Dr. Sungenis in his capacity as a Patristic scholar, in which area he is recognized as a competent authority (one among many, but no slouch):
As far as Sungenis' geo-centrism, that I will grant you for the sake of argument (with the reservation that Sungenis' position on the subject is actually a bit more subtle and Einsteinian-Relativistic than you portray -- "Einstein told us there is no center, that any point in the universe can serve as the center" -- Sungenis, Newhouse News Service, 3/28/06... as I understand it, Sungenis chooses Earth as the center of relativistic observation, and develops his argument from there).
However, while I disagree with Sungenis' geo-centrism, I am only maginally more interested in his opinions on Astro-Physics than I am in his opinions on hair-care products.
I am citing Sungenis in his capacity as a Patristic scholar, an area in which he is recognized as a competent authority. You must either respond to his arguments in that area, or I must respectfully dismiss your Postings as irrelevant to the Article under discussion -- "And you should travel to all those Catholic churches in Europe and destroy those statues that depict exactly that which you say Rome has never taught." (GWB's excellent #238)
Best, OP
Is it really too much to ask you gentleman to learn what the Church actually teaches so you won't continue to make false accusations based upon your errors about what you think we believe?
I have concluded it is too much to ask.
There is a schismatic paper called Catholic Family News. Its editor, John Vennari wrote this ...
There is little doubt that the Vatican's new Guardian of the Faith at the CDF is permeated with the error that the Old Covenant was not superseded by the New Covenant. This theological bankruptcy, sadly, also extends to Pope Benedict XVI, who announced he will perform a Wojtylian-like visit to a synagogue when he travels to Cologne for World Youth Day
Here is the response from Catholic Answers
He's not describing supercessionism at all. Supercessionism would be saying that Catholics are NOT Jews, but rather replace Jews. He is saying that Catholics are the inclusion of Gentile blood in Jewish practice and belief, a view expounded upon by Paul himself. The Church IS the real continuation of Ancient Judaism, and this has been and continues to be the teaching of the Church. It does NOT replace Judaism, but rather completes it; that is entirely different from supercessionism.
+++++++++++end of quotes+++++++++++
*Mr. Vennari referred to the CDF. That is the Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith. Its Prefect is Cardinal Levada.
You gentleman appear to lack the capacity for any fruitful dialogue because you repeatedly refuse to take the time to learn what the Catholic Church teaches.
Even when corrected you do not cease the false accusations.
Exactly what sort of Christiantiy is it you practice?
I provided you the links that expose his virulent antisemitism. That you don't immediately distance yourself from him speaks volumes to me.
I don't go about smashing statues or icons. That is a prot-thing
I much prefer the far easier act of destroyimg your haughty errors
I done with this thread.
In that case, it is clear that you are calling the God of Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas a "hateful, insane lunatic", as James Akin (the director of apologetics and evangelization for Catholic Answers) establishes that the only critical theological difference between Calvinism and Thomist-Augustinianism (laying aside, for the moment, our disagreement over venerating the Bishop of Rome as "Christ's Vicar on Earth", eucharistic differences, etc.) is that Calvinists believe in the "Preservation of the Saints" (the doctrine sometimes poorly-described as "Once Saved, Always Saved") whereas Thomist-Augustinians believe in the "Preservation of the Elect" (believing that some Saved Christians will fall away, but none of the Elect to whom God gives the Grace of Perseverance).
Now, you can weasel out of your hasty words by claiming that you consider the particular contested point of "Preservation of the Saints" alone amongst the Doctrines of Calvinism to be a "hateful, lunatic" doctrine, and believe that it is far more "Loving and Sane" to believe, as James Akins does, in a God who "lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus" (to use the Reverend Charles Spurgeon's description of Roman beliefs on the matter).
But let's be Honest, shall we? Your hatred of Calvinism is NOT really based upon any objection to the Calvinist belief that God spreads around the "Grace of Perseverance" a bit more generously within the Church than according to the Roman Catholic system; rather, you hate the Calvinist doctrines of Absolute Predestination -- Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement and the like, ALL of which James Akins establishes as fully-traditional Thomist-Augustinian Roman Catholic doctrines.
In short, you are calling your own God a "hateful, insane lunatic".
What's the Penance for Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost these days, "bornacatholic"?
I thought Paul covered all this in Romans 9-10-11.
Having said that, I'm a Reconstructionist/ Dominion type who fully supports Israel.
Not only that, I believe the only solution to violent Islam is either mass slaughter or mass conversion to Christ.
You posted some blog.
Anyone can write a blog.
Post something authoritative in defense of your contention that Dr. Robert Sungenis is "shunned by respectable Christians due to his venomous antisemitism". Even one Bishop will do.
You've got nothing. Nada, zilch, zero.
Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
Best, OP
Quite some time ago, I read Mr. Akin's attempt to put a Thomistic spin on TULIP in This Rock. It was an interesting attempt :) It is also obvious you don't agree with him
*However, as I leave this thread for good, I want to post some cut and paste material which I read that, imo, is an excellent explanation of the problem y'all have with understanding who God is. All that follows are the words of others describing Calvinism......
The Calvinists do not worship the God of the Bible but their own pagan demiurge that I call "Goid." The real problem with Calvinism is that it seeks to extoll the power of Goid at the expense of his goodness. Goid is permitted to make purely arbitrary decisions about whom to save and whom to damn just because he is Goid. And the horrifying thing is that the Calvinists believe that human actions are all predetermined by Goid to begin with. So Goid makes us all evil, determines who will persevere in evil (the majority) and who won't (a minority), then he eternally tortures the ones whom he has predestined to be evil as if it were their own fault!
Indeed, ... And I attribute the formulation of the Protestant "Goid" ;-) to three essential things:
1) The fact that Protestantism was formed in a northern European, Germanic mindset. While the Germanic peoples (the English included) have always been faithful and dynamic Catholics when completely in-tune with the Catholic Faith (e.g. the Bavarians), they also (in my opinion, and seen from my cultural Greco-Latin perspective) suffer from an over simplistic mentality when it comes to things theological or philosophical. For example, ... Unlike the Hebrew mind, which tends to weight both sides of an issue (e.g., "On one hand, X is true, but on the other, Y is also true"), and unlike the Greek and Latin mentality, which tends to view things (and perhaps too much so) in "gray area," the Germanic mentality tends to see everything in a "black-or-white," "good-or-bad," "right-or-wrong," German-or-foreign" :-) context (e.g. "Scripture-or-Tradition"; "faith-or-works," etc.). This is the first aspect that leads us to the Protestant "Goid."
2) The second aspect is a lingering remnant of Arianism in the Germanic mentality. Here, one must remember that, with the exception of the Franks and, later, the Anglo-Saxons, all the ancient Germanic nations (e.g. the Visigoths, Orstrogoths, Vandals, Burgundians, Sueves, Alamanni, etc.) had originally embraced the **Arian** form of Christianity, and not the orthodox Catholic form. Only through centuries of assimilation (and intermarriage) did these Germanic peoples (in particular, the Alamanni, from whom Luther and most of his fellow Germans are descended) arrive at the Catholic Faith. Now, the reason that Arian Christianity, as opposed to Catholic Christianity, was so attractive to these early Germanic peoples was because it was closer to their own native paganism, in which the chief god (Odin / Wodin) interacted with his son, and lesser god, Thor. The 4th Century Greco-Roman pagans had originally favored Arianism for the very same reason --because it mirrored their own Zeus-Hercules paradigm (and, indeed, in formulating his theology, Arius was actually playing off the modified state religion proposed by the Emperor Diocletian a generation earlier, which sought to reconcile the Father-Son relationship of Christianity with the Zeus-Hercules relationship of the Empire's own religious tradition). Yet, for the German pagans, it was very easy to understand the Trinity in this Arian mode --a mode in which "Goid the Father" (i.e., Odin / Wodin) was taken to be some kind of wrathful sky god, and "Goid the Son" (i.e., Thor) was our heroic savior sent to satisfy the demands of that wrathful sky god. And, this cultural impression seems to haunt the Germanic peoples all through the medieval period and up to the age of Luther. Indeed, this kind of mentality pervades the writings of both Luther and Calvin ...and even Calvin, who was nominally French (and so might be classified as a cultural Latin), was actually from the north-eastern Picardy region of France ...which is why he attended the "College de la Marche" ("College of **the Border**). In other words, he was ethnically and culturally **Germanic** (as are most people of the Lorraine region).
3) The third aspect that leads us to the Protestant "Goid," and the one that affected Calvin most conspicuously, is an overly-simplistic ("black-and-white," Germanic) approach to the Old Testament literary style ...especially when comparing it to New Testament literary style. Interestingly enough, Arius himself (like several Gnostics before him), made exactly the same presumptuous mistake; and argued that the God of the Old Testament (the Father) could not possibly be the same God as the Christ of the New Testament because their natures are so different. :-) And, indeed, ... If you're going to read these Scriptures (as Gnostics, Arians, and Protestants all do) independently of any living cultural or Liturgical understanding of the Church (a living Covenant people with living Traditional insights into both these works **and** the nature of the God they worship ), then it's quite understandable why an Arius, or a John Calvin, might arrive at their respective conclusions. For example, ... Given Calvin's point of view (one he formulated via sola Scriptura), the God of the Old Testament is clearly depicted as the cause of **both** good and evil. Indeed, in the Jewish literary Tradition, He is depicted as so transcendent that it is He (and no one else) who "hardens Pharaoh's heart," thus originating the very obstacle that His miracles must overcome in order to free the Chosen People from Egyptian slavery.
Now, ... :-) It is true that God Himself "hardened Pharaoh's heart"? Does God operate in such ways? Not according to either the Jewish or the Catholic tradition, both of which (unlike Lutheranism or Calvinism) recognize the existence of human free will. So, what is the author of Exodus trying to do when he records God saying, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart." ...Or what is the author of the Psalm saying, when he tells us that God is the originator of both good and evil??? :-) Well, for a 16th Century German with a black-and-white mentality and a sola Scriptura perspective, this can only mean what it says ...thus giving us a "Goid" who can, because he's so transcendent, predestine people to hell. Yet, for an Catholic or an ancient Jew, who reads these Scriptures with an eye to our Traditional understanding, it is quite easy for us to say, with St. Augustine, "God does not cause evil, but causes evil not to be the worst."
Yet, "How," asks the Calvinist, "can that be possible?! ...You Catholics are clearly ignoring the plain teaching of Scripture!" Ah! :-) But, we are not. Rather, we are appreciating Scripture in context because our Traditional, cultural understanding goes back to when those Scriptures were written; and we understand them according to their original intent.
For example, ... When, in Exodus, God says, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart," ... What needs to be appreciated here is the ancient Jewish agenda. At this time, the Jews were lone monotheists in a sea of pagans --all of whom saw the dynamics of the universe originating from ***the tension*** between different groups of gods. Thus, in order to establish Yahweh as the One and only God (even in the minds of their own Israelite people, who were semi-pagans themselves at this point), it was necessary for Moses and his successors to depict God as the singular, ultimate cause of all things. In other words, nothing occurs independently of His will.
Now, ... The Calvinists (like the Arians before them) would certainly agree with us this far. Yet, what they would still fail to appreciate (due to their face-value, sola Scriptura perspective) is the Traditional / cultural sensibilities of ancient Semites, who did not necessarily equate "God as the ultimate Source of all things" with "God as the willing initiator of all things." For example, ... There is a HUGE difference between **causing*** evil to happen and **allowing** evil to happen. If we look at the Book of Job, God **allows** "ha-satan" (the Enemy / the Devil) to torment Job. Yet, God does not cause or initiate these trials Himself.
So, THIS is the sense in which Exodus is speaking, when it depicts God saying, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart." The author of Exodus is pushing an extreme monotheist agenda at this time. ...And he is doing this to present God as the ONLY God --the true and ultimate sovereign over all earthly activity. Indeed, ... Given the mentality of the people of the day, if the author of Exodus put it in any other way (e.g. "I will allow satan to harden Pharaoh's heart"), then the Israelites (who were so easily distracted by that Golden Calf, remember :-) would have yet another "god" to turn to (Satan) --another "divine personality" in their spiritual pantheon. And this is **precisely** the reason why the **literary** style of Exodus never mentions any other angels, but speaks only of "the Lord" in the course of what Jewish tradition would later characterize as angelic activity (e.g. Exodus 4:24-26, Exodus 13:21-22).
So, these three things are, in my view, responsible for replacing the Catholic God with the protestant "Goid." .... The Calvinists do not worship the same God we worship, since they do not know, understand, or appreciate His nature (e.g. 1 John 4:16).
What is wrong with you?
Sungenis has plagarised NAZI's, he has used lies about the Talmud, he has raised the "Protocols of the Elders of Zionsim" as a way to defame Jews, for Lord's sake.
What Christian in their right mind needs to have a Bishop publicly denounce such actions before they shun him?
I really am done with this thread. This is absolutely insane. Goodbye, Sir
Oh, and thanks for revealing for all to see what you really think about Jews
He did.
Having said that, I'm a Reconstructionist/ Dominion type who fully supports Israel.
I'm a Nymeyer/Reformed-Libertarian type who also fully supports the State of Israel's right to self-defense from an International Law (not Dispensationalist) perspective. Right there with you, kemosabe.
Not only that, I believe the only solution to violent Islam is either mass slaughter or mass conversion to Christ.
Naturally, I would hope for and prefer the second option.
At any rate, I don't think that "Mass Slaughter" is something any Christian should contemplate as a worthy option at any time. "Wise as serpents, but harmless as doves", neh?
Personally, my belief is that we should vacate the Middle East tomorrow and let the Sunnis and the Shi'ites sort it out amongst themselves. Hopefully the Turks (the least-insane of Muslim countries, near as I can tell) would move into the power vaccuum; but I've really no objection to buying Oil from any of them.
Upon vacating the Middle East, I'd establish the "OP Policy":
At that point, no Moslem will be able to perform the Fifth Pillar of Islam, the hajj to Mecca, because there won't be a Mecca. It's kinda hard to Worship the "Holy Big Black Rock" (the Kaaba) when it's been vaporized into the ionosphere. It will be impossible for the Latter-Day Mahdi, the Messianic Twelfth Imam, to arise from Medina and make pilgrimage to Mecca in fulfillment of the Islamic Prophecies, because there won't be a Medina or Mecca.
In short, we will make it physically impossible to practice the Islamic Religion.
What the Muslims do with their lives from there is up to them. But the practice of the Religion of Islam would become physically impossible, in an absolute sense.
Personally, I don't think that's a "game of chicken" that the Muslims are willing to play. Threaten their "House Idols" (to use Old Testament terminology), and I think you'll be amazed how quickly they'll see reason.
Best, OP
Sounds like a plan to me. Check my homepage, about halfway down. I have a nice pictorial strategy for winning this war.
Meanwhile, I'm praying for mass conversions too.
Sorry, James Akin stands as the Superior Authority in Evidence. As such:
What's the Penance for Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost these days, "bornacatholic"?
Evidentiary Citations would be nice. I already stated that:
Absent any evidentiary citations on your part, I've got nothing to go on but your own Assertions. Sorry, but un-evidenced Assertions count for zilcho-squat in formal Argumentation.
Oh, and thanks for revealing for all to see what you really think about Jews
Yes, I believe that those Jews who reject Christ are lost Sinners who need to be Preached the Gospel and hopefully (by God's Grace) Converted to Christianity and thereby Saved from Hell.
Yep, I am preaching traditional, orthodox Christian Doctrine.
You caught me. You've got me dead to rights, copper.
Best, OP
If memory serves, back in the "old days" of FR (so long ago now, I think I was still using my Uriel1975 screen name at the time), I used to be a die-hard Forbes Flat-Taxer who went round and round against you and "pigdog" and "CHIEF Negotiator" (RIP; but at least he is now immediately-present with Our Lord) trying to knock down the "Fair Tax" which at the time I believed would be disproportionately burdensome on the poor and working-class.
As I recall, you treacherously employed my own Libertarian sensibilities against me, posting Evidence from CATO Institute proving that my concerns were over-wrought. Faced with superior Evidence, I was forced (as a Rationalist) to concede the debate and convert to the Fair Tax position.
Well, at least it stuck. A "Fair Tax" Convert I remain to this day (allowing only that I think that the $2 Trillion-dollar Existing-Home market should also be included in the Sales Tax -- expand the Tax Base broadly enough, and I bet we could get the rate well below 23%).
Long time no see -- and good to be on the same side of things (this way, you won't have to convert me. Saves us both trouble).
Best, OP
I'm not sure that Brave Sir Robin ("bornacatholic") even recognizes the Ecclesial Authority of Bishop Bruskewitz.
As far as I can tell, Brave Sir Robin's mode of Argumentation is to post some screed from some no-name Blogger with a keyboard and a dial-up connection, proclaim it (upon his own autonomous personal authority as an Un-Ordained Layman) as "what the Catholic Church teaches", and then Bravely Runs Away from any counter-argumentation which authoritatively cites nationally-recognized Roman Catholic apologists, Roman Catholic Bishops, Patristic Tradition, or historic Roman Catholic Iconography as counter-evidences.
He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge...
Brave, Brave, Brave Sir Robin!
Best, OP
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.