The Reality of Romanism

The Riddleblog ^ | May 10, 2007 | Kim Riddlebarger

[Gamecock]

Reading Francis Beckwith's interview with David Neff in Christianity Today, reminded me of how idyllic the Roman church can seem in the minds of those who embrace it (Click here: Q&A: Francis Beckwith | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction).

But then this news report appeared today which gives a much different picture of the supposed glories of Romanism (Click here: Pope to canonize first Brazilian saint - Yahoo! News).

All discussion of justification, the authority of Scripture, and reciting the Creed aside, the Pope is heading to Brazil to canonize Antonio de Sant'Anna Galvao, a Franciscan monk who is credited with 5000 miraculous healings. Over 1 million people are expected to be in attendance. The healings supposedly come as a result of swallowing rice paper pills prepared by the monk over two hundred years ago. According to the AP news report . . .

"The Vatican has officially certified the medical cases of two Brazilian women as divinely inspired miracles that justify the sainthood of Galvao. Both of these women spoke of their faith with The Associated Press, claiming that their children would not be alive today were it not for the tiny rice-paper pills that Friar Galvao handed out two centuries ago.

Although the friar died in 1822, the tradition is carried on by Brazilian nuns who toil in the Sao Paulo monastery where Galvao is buried, preparing thousands of the Tic Tac-sized pills distributed free each day to people seeking cures for all manner of ailments. Each one is inscribed with a prayer in Latin: `After birth, the Virgin remained intact. Mother of God, intercede on our behalf.'

Sandra Grossi de Almeida, 37, is one such believer. She had a uterine malformation that should have made it impossible for her to carry a child for more than four months. But in 1999, after taking the pills, she gave birth to Enzo, now 7. `I have faith," Grossi said, pointing to her son. I believe in God, and the proof is right here.'

Nearly 10 years before that, Daniela Cristina da Silva, then 4 years old, entered a coma and suffered a heart attack after liver and kidney complications from hepatitis A. `The doctors told me to pray because only a miracle could save her,' Daniela's mother Jacyra said recently. `My sister sneaked into the intensive care unit and forced my daughter to swallow Friar Galvao's pills.'"

So, if you "return home" to Rome, you get the whole ball of wax, including the beatification of saints who give out Tic-Tac size rice-paper pills which supposedly heal. And Pope Benedict XVI will be there to bless it all.

By the way, confessional Protestants affirm the historical evangelical doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, and the full authority of Scripture. And yes, we even recite the Creed every Lord's Day and we use a biblical-text based liturgy which is quite similar to that described by Justin Martyr in the second century.

Too bad Dr. Beckwith didn't consider a confessional Protestant church before embracing Romanism. Now he's stuck with Antonio de Sant'Anna Galvao and his rice-paper healing pills.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

What could be more personal than Christianity and why would you be willing to try to tell Catholics that their church is wrong but you aren’t willing to answer what you believe about the Bible? I don’t understand your hesitation. You seem so sure of what we should believe or disbelieve.

Once again, I will not engage these persistent attempts to make things personal.

Have a nice day.

Further pings will be ignored.

[adiaireton8]

Ok, I won't ask you why you are avoiding my question. I will simply point out that you are avoiding answering my question.

-A8

[Religion Moderator]

Saying that a person is "avoiding" is "attributing motives" and thus "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

Ok, I won't ask you why you are avoiding my question. I will simply point out that you are avoiding answering my question.

As stated numerous times before, the question has been answered. A personal dis-satisfaction with the answer does not negate the fact of it being answered.

Further pings will be ignored.

Have a nice day.

[adiaireton8]

If a person knows whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative, why hide it from others (especially those wanting to know whose interpretation is authoritative)? Why deprive them of knowledge of the interpretive authority? But if a person doesn't know whose interpretation is authoritative, why hide that from others? Why hide from others that all of one's theological claims have been made while in ignorance/uncertainty about the identity of the interpretive authority? Either way, hiding one's answer to this question does not make any sense.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

Ok, I didn't know that. Thanks.

-A8

[tiki]

I’m LOL.

[adiaireton8]

As stated numerous times before, the question has been answered. A personal dis-satisfaction with the answer does not negate the fact of it being answered.

Do you think the following two questions are identical?

(1) Whose interpretation of Scripture is not authoritative?

(2) Whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?

-A8

[MarkBsnr]

I attempted to illustrate the nature of your point.

Walking away from an institution, repudiating it and, with varying levels of vehemence, insisting that it is wrong and that another institution, newly created, is the correct one (among many thousands of newly created institutions all insisting that they are the only correct one), normally does not carry the licence of carrying the name along with you.

Taiwan is not China; neither are breakaway man made religions the One Holy and Apostolic Church of Christ. Here are some denominations, year founded, and founder.

Faith Group or tradition Founder Date (CE) Location
Roman Catholic Jesus, Circa 30 Palestine
Orthodox churches Jesus, Circa 30 Palestine
Lutheranism Martin Luther 1517 Germany
Swiss Reformed Church Zwingli 1523 Switzerland
Mennonites No single founder 1525 Switzerland
Anglican Communion King Henry 8 1534 England
Calvinism John Calvin 1536 Switzerland
Presbyterianism John Knox 1560 Scotland
Baptist Churches John Smyth 1605 Holland
Dutch Reformed Michaelis Jones 1628 Netherlands
Amish Jakob Ammann 1693 Switzerland
Methodism John Wesley 1739 England
Quakers George Fox 1647 England
Moravians Count Zinendorf 1727 Germany
Congregationalism John & Charles Wesley 1744 England
Brethren John Darby 1828 England
Latter-day Saints Joseph Smith 1830 NY, USA
Seventh Day Adventists Ellen White 1860 NH, USA
Salvation Army William Booth 1865 England
Jehovah’s Witnesses Charles Russell 1870 PA, USA
Christian Science Mary Baker Eddy 1879 Pleasant View, NH USA
Pentecostalism Charles Parham 1900 CA, USA
Worldwide Church of God Herbert W. Armstrong 1933/1947 OR, USA 3

You might want to distinguish between the “you” of you - Risky-Riskerdo - and the you of “you all” either all readers in general or just those called out in the context of the sentence. It could lead to better discussion, and a little less heartburn.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

If a person knows whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative, why hide it from others (especially those wanting to know whose interpretation is authoritative)? Why deprive them of knowledge of the interpretive authority? But if a person doesn't know whose interpretation is authoritative, why hide that from others? Why hide from others that all of one's theological claims have been made while in ignorance/uncertainty about the identity of the interpretive authority? Either way, hiding one's answer to this question does not make any sense.

I've looked around to see if FR has an ignore feature like other boards do to prevent the reception of posts from posters who insist on making things personal regardless of instructions not to, and become harassing, but I cannot find one.

Is there an ignore feature that I am not aware of? I prefer not to receive pings from a poster who persistently tries to make things personal.

[Religion Moderator]

No, there is not an “ignore” feature in the software.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

No, there is not an “ignore” feature in the software.

Drats. Thanks for the reply.

I guess I'll just have to employ a mental ignore feature.

Would it be a rules violation if I composed a tagline with those I am ignoring on it so they are aware of it?

[Religion Moderator]

If you do not want another poster to post to you, let him know. And then, never again post to him or about him - that includes any mention in a tagline, because it would be a provocation.

[adiaireton8]

R-R, I'm quite willing not to ping you if you so request. But if you criticize Catholicism here, then I reserve the right to respond by pointing out how my question remains unanswered. Whether or not my response will include you in the ping list depends on whether or not you request me not ever to ping you. By default I would include you in the ping list, because it is a courtesy to do so. But if you ask that I not do so, then I will not ping you even to my critical responses to your anti-Catholic posts.

-A8

[Religion Moderator]

If you are responding to an assertion made by a poster who has asked that you not ping him, it is important to also not mention him in your reply. Speak at arms length, third party, addressing the issue raised objectively as if you had no idea where it originated.

[tiki]

Did you get in over your head? Do you not have an answer? If the question was actually answered by you in an earlier post just let him know the number and he can go back and read it himself.

I too ignore a lot of posters on FR but I've never found the need to run to the moderator because someone was talking to me.

[adiaireton8]

Ok, thanks. That is good to know. (I think I need to go back and review the rules.)

-A8

[Risky-Riskerdo]

If you do not want another poster to post to you, let him know. And then, never again post to him or about him - that includes any mention in a tagline, because it would be a provocation.

Thanks for that clarification, it's greatly appreciated.

I'm not trying to be a pest, or use up any more of your valuable time than is necessary, I know Mods have a tough job and not enough time to do it all, but if you will indulge me on one more question I would be much appreciative.

What if the person instructed not to post to me ignores that request?

The reason I ask is that after your instruction to not make things personal, which I took seriously and followed, there were others who did not, so naturally, I would wonder why someone who disregarded a Mod's instruction would follow mine, a fellow poster, and what recourse there would be to insure the request is honored?

FYI, I would prefer that none of this exchange and questions were necessary.

Thanks again for your indulgence and patience.

[tiki]

I'm still laughing, have your ever painted yourself into a corner? And Catholics were supposed to listen to his "erudite" writings which were just grabbed from the internet. A really cool little blurb that lets Catholics know that 67 of 70 early fathers didn't believe in the pope. It was pretty typical that they took Augustine's Retractions to make the point and ignored Augustine ending the paragraph, "Which of these two interpretations is the more likely to be correct, let the reader choose."

I guess there's no law against impersonating a theologian on the internet.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

Did you get in over your head? Do you not have an answer?

I consider that to be immature harassment, and request that it stop in favor of common decency.

I too ignore a lot of posters on FR but I've never found the need to run to the moderator because someone was talking to me.

Unfortunately this post is an example of the point I was making in my last post to you. In spite of your instructions, and my personal following of that instruction, "tiki" and "adiaireton8" have persistently continued to make personal attacks and attempted to make the discussion one a personal nature.

If they will not follow your instructions, why would they follow my request not to ping me or address me? And what recourse do I have to prevent to these harassing, personal posts?