On Being an 'Ultra-Catholic'

Inside Catholic ^ | December 7, 2009 | Rev. James V. Schall, SJ

[Petronski]

For example, there is no support for a "pope".

I will happily grant that there is no support for a pope in your own personal interpretation of Scripture.

So what?

[Petronski]

They are as unbiblical as Rome's errant sacerdotalism and superstitious mechanisms for salvation...just in a different arena.

Thank God you're not describing the Catholic Church.

[Petronski]

The grave trouble with Rome is that their theology of "traditions" has supplanted the very Scripture that they claimed to have delivered to the world.

Nope, doesn't describe the Catholic Church.

Of course, the rest of us know this is another self-aggrandizing pipe dream that the men in bathrobes and Prada shoes foist on the public.

Not the Catholic Church either.

However, if they would read the Book, they would see that their cult was debunked centuries ago.

Thank God you're not describing the Catholic Church.

[Petronski]

With regard to the claim, actually any normal reader would interpret the clear meaning of the text exactly as the believers in Christ do, rejecting Rome and embracing biblcal Christianity.

Catholics are Biblical Christians. Not clear what "rejecting" the capital city of Italy would have to do with that, but, whatever...

Two thousand years of Scriptural teaching would have helped Rome recognize its own self-serving, self-aggrandizing, ego-maniacal superstition had it bothered to listen to the text it purported to provide. But, tradition supplants text. Repent Rome, if you can.

Yes Rome, capital municipality of Italy, repent, and come home to the Catholic Church founded by Christ!

[Petronski]

No, there isn't or instead of a protracted pile of mush, you would have cited book, chapter and verse proving that the Scriptures say, "You should have a pope based in Rome."

Instead of your protracted piles of mush posted over the months and years, you would have cited book, chapter and verse proving that the Scriptures say sola Scriptura.

[Dutchboy88]

Someday, perhaps Rome will let its sheeple learn how to read. Perhaps not.

[Dutchboy88]

"No, there isn't or instead of a protracted pile of mush, you would have cited book, chapter and verse proving that the Scriptures say, "You should have a pope based in Rome."

Waiting....

[wagglebee]

Someday, perhaps Rome will let its sheeple learn how to read. Perhaps not.

Is it really that difficult to at least not make it APPEAR personal?

[Dutchboy88]

Last, you wrote...

"Is it really that difficult to at least not make it APPEAR personal?

But,earlier you wrote...

"Everything else you wrote is nothing more than another recitation of bigoted talking points...

There appears a grave difficulty with the RCC not allowing it constituency to own mirrors. But, that comports with their unwillingness to allow the words of the very Scriptures they claim to have delivered to repudiate their darkened theology.

[Mad Dawg]

So where is the "book, chapter and verse proving that the Scriptures say," "Sola Scriptura?"

What happens next is that your side adduces a bunch of verses which might be construed as supporting the idea or as almost saying it. And our side adduces "Tu es Petrus," and a bunch of other stuff. And nobody's mind is changed.

And a little while later the same charges are met with the same responses. I'm not clear what purpose is served by this exercise.

[Mad Dawg]

I’ve mentioned, have I not, my notion that the very traditional names of “hillbillies” suggest a catholic heritage? Clem(ent), Fud (= Ferdinand), etc? My neighbor, a pronounced redneck in the best sense of the phrase is “BL,” which stands for Bernard Louis. Tell me that ain’t Catholic.

[wagglebee]

Saying that a person is reciting bigoted talking points IS NOT saying that they are a bigot and therefore not personal.

Saying that Catholics cannot read IS personal.

[Mad Dawg]

I don’t know much about Rome and sheeple. I do note, though, that when I read what some Protestants say the Catholic Church teaches it’s tempting to that they don’t read.

Whether that is from a lack of will or of ability I wouldn’t know.

I do think it interesting to speculate about the Reverend Mr. Newman’s ability to read before he became a Catholic. Am I to suppose that Oxford dons don’t or can’t read?

[Mad Dawg]

don't take what people post that is against the Catholic religion as personal attacks against you. They are not.

Here's a speculation for both sides: Language like that which Vlad quotes may not semantically be a personal attack literally. But the extravagant and contemptuous rhetoric is not going to clarify the matter under discussion or assist rational thought. It is hard to believe that it is NOT intended as at least a vent for anger and possibly an attempt to cause pain to those who find not only reason but beauty and consolation in the things that are mocked.

That is not against, probably could not be against, any rules. But if I am to suppose that it is motivated by an attempt to conform oneself to the ideal of Christian charity, I'm going to decline.

The fallout is rough. For example, some time back I was trying to articulate the difference between the approach to reason exemplified by Aquinas and other Scholastic realists.

This was not considered as an opinion to be discussed but as a slur to be rebuffed. But I think it's a reasonable contention that not only do Prots and Papists have different ideas about the role of reason in the life of faith, but scholastic realists and scholastic nominalists differ.

In other words, the atmosphere of abuse and rhetorical hyperbole not only presents a totally lousy witness to the unconverted but makes thoughtful, reasonable discussion more difficult than it needs to be.

[Dutchboy88]

"And a little while later the same charges are met with the same responses. I'm not clear what purpose is served by this exercise.

I cannot speak for your frame of mind. The purpose of speaking out about the rampant error of Rome is to inform the public that RCC theology is a man-made conglomeration of superstition and tradition. The very tenets of the the message delivered by Paul are continuously mangled by Rome until its followers believe a different "gospel". This, as Paul said, should be anathema. It matters little if you approve, agree, or change your mind. That is entirely up to you.

[Petronski]

Instead of your protracted piles of mush posted over the months and years, you would have cited book, chapter and verse proving that the Scriptures say sola Scriptura.

Waiting....

[Petronski]

"Everything else you wrote is nothing more than another recitation of bigoted talking points...

Unless you are a talking point, the adjective "bigoted" in this sentence does not refer to you.

There appears a grave difficulty with the RCC not allowing it constituency to own mirrors.

Radio-controlled Car Club?

[Petronski]

The purpose of speaking out about the rampant error of Rome is to inform the public that RCC theology is a man-made conglomeration of superstition and tradition.

Thank GOD you're not describing the Catholic Church.

[bdeaner]

Hey what’s up homies? Bdeaner is back after a long and needed break from last summer’s intense conversation. I hope everyone is doing well. Good to see the Catholic threads still going strong! God bless.

[bdeaner]

May God give us some Ultra Catholic Candidates for Political Office in 2010 and 2012 and beyond. AMEN.

AMEN!!!!