Posted on 03/17/2010 12:58:48 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
“The Fundamentalist Protestant criticisms you so object to come from the right.”
Hardly. Catholic liberals agree with a lot of the things Fundementalist Protestants think about the practices of the Catholic Church. Here’s some things that right-leaning Protestants and left-leaning Catholics will almost always agree on: Authority of the Pope (don’t like it). Authority of the bishops (don’t like it). The True Presence (it’s not really Jesus). The discipline of Celibacy (isn’t valuable, liberal Catholics HATE this one). Birth Control inside of marriage (who is it hurting?). Divorce and remarriage(it’s not nice but ultimately it is acceptable). Necessity and worth of Confession to a priest.
This doesn’t make Fundementalist liberals, many of the things they agree with Catholic libs on they come to much differently than the Catholic lib, who will also dig things like “gay marriage”, abortion, and priestesses as well as the above, while the right leaning Fundementalist will be against these things (and I thank God they are!).
Freegards
So long as "orthodox Catholics" reject Genesis 1-11 as "mythology" or "didactic allegory," while hypocritcally interpreting John 6 literally, do not mention the "real presence" to me.
“do not mention the “real presence” to me.”
Just like a liberal Catholic, although they get there differently.
Freegards
You wrote:
“Good to know that “gay marriage” is no problem for “true conservatives.””
Where was gay marriage ever mentioned in your post? You can disagree with me, but making things up our of thin air is simply not honest.
You wrote:
“I don’t think that’s what vlad meant.”
It most definitely is NOT what I meant. I think ZC knows that too.
The comments about economics in w’s post that you reffered did not seem to be about you in particular but about certain ‘self-described fundamentalists’.
You wrote:
“I happen to attend an Evangelical Church today. But then when I go overseas or to another state, I attend any church that I believe is faithful to God’s word and truly believes and obeys the teachings of the apostles and Jesus Christ.
How is that, by your definition, OUTSIDE the communion ?”
It was never in the communion of saints. Evangelical sects are sects. Period. They all deny the communion of saints as understood by orthodox Christians. They deny it as St. Patrick would have known it.
“Well, you seem to be defining what Protestants believe for protestants. But I am not protestant as I don’t protest against what you believe in ( as long as it is based on what is SOUND Biblical Doctrine ).”
Sola scriptura and sola fide are Protestant doctrines. If you believe in them then you are a Protestant. Period.
“You seem to be defining communion outside of Biblical definition and that’s where I see the problem. The communion of saints is all people who believe in Christ crucified and risen from the dead, regardless of denomination or practice. It is our expression of the belief that God wants us to worship, pray, and receive Holy Communion with other believers, instead of just by ourselves. It is NOT EXCLUSIVE to those who are in the ROMAN Catholic or Greek Orhtodox Church.”
Actually it is exclusive. You are making the mistake of anachronistically reading Protestant pluralism back into scriptures. Sorry, but there was only the Catholic Church.
“Really ? I’d like for you to show me how in light of the fact that HIS BELIEFS was precedent over the party he belonged to.”
He was GOP. He was not a Democrat. If you have difficulty understanding that he was not a member of both parties at once then there is no hope for you intellectually. One cannot be a Catholic and a Protestant at the same time.
“And how does that make your point hold ? If the GOP were to abandon conservative principles and became just like the Democratic party, would Reagan still be a GOP member ? In light of what he did ( LEAVE his former party ), I would argue that we WOULD NOT.”
Again, he was GOP. He was not a Democrat. If you have difficulty understanding that he was not a member of both parties at once then there is no hope for you intellectually. One cannot be a Catholic and a Protestant at the same time.
“No I am not. Let me modify that by saying that are different organizations AT THIS POINT IN TIME.”
He was GOP. He was not a Democrat. If you have difficulty understanding that he was not a member of both parties at once then there is no hope for you intellectually. One cannot be a Catholic and a Protestant at the same time.
“There is no absolute guarantee that in the future they will be the same party that believes in the same conservative philosophy.”
He was GOP. He was not a Democrat. If you have difficulty understanding that he was not a member of both parties at once then there is no hope for you intellectually. One cannot be a Catholic and a Protestant at the same time.
“If the Democratic party suddenly became conservative and the GOP became liberal, I would say that Reagan would switch parties again and I would not blame him for that.
CONSERVATISM analogizes to ADHERENCE TO SCRIPTURE, not MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION.”
He was GOP. He was not a Democrat. If you have difficulty understanding that he was not a member of both parties at once then there is no hope for you intellectually. One cannot be a Catholic and a Protestant at the same time.
“Not if the organization abandons its belief in God, or if the organization does not conform to God’s word. It counts in so far as it is FAITHFUL to God’s word.”
God’s Church is always faithful because it is God’s faithful.
“Precisely my point — Christ church STANDS. But then your problem is you are narrowly defining membership in His church to ROMAN CATHOLICISM.”
I have never done so. The Church is Catholic. I have never defined it as “Roman Catholic.”
“I don’t and I don’t believe that scripture attests to that. Christ’s church is composed of those who TRULY BELIEVE in Him and OBEY Him.”
When the NT was written there was only the Catholic Church.
“Which means that there are those who claim to be Roman Catholic or Evangelical or what not who might be within the earthly organization but NOT in the Heavenly organization.
What counts is Christ’s TRUE CHURCH. “THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU” says the Lord Himself.”
When the NT was written there was only the Catholic Church.
“You may be a member of the Roman Catholic Church and also a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH )”
Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church. He only established ONE.
“You may be a member of the Roman Catholic Church but NOT be a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH ).”
Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church. He only established ONE.
“You may be a non-member of the Roman Catholic Church and also be a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH ). I know you disagree with this but that’s what I believe scripture teaches.”
Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church. He only established ONE.
“You may be a non-member of the Roman Catholic Church and NOT be a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH ).”
Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church. He only established ONE.
“Note in the above what is important — BEING A MEMBER OF CHRIST’s CHURCH, not being a member of one organization. What counts is what is IN YOUR HEART.”
He only established ONE. Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church.
“What is in your heart MANIFESTS ITSELF in the earthly organization that the world sees, not vice versa.”
Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church. He died to empower it to furter the mission given to Him by the Father. The Church manifests Christ’s grace through the faithful Christian.
“You keep repeating the same thing over and over again but fail to tell me what the word — CATHOLIC means. You keep equating the ROMAN Catholic Church to
the UNIVERSAL Catholic Church. That is NOT correct. Patrick was who he was and the church was what it was then. I don’t take what the Roman Catholic claims
as its own to be SOLELY its own. Patrick is for the ages and for every believer everywhere BY VIRTUE of our shared faith.”
St. Patrick was Catholic. He and I are members of the same Church. You are a member of a sect. If you don’t know what the Catholic Church is then that’s your problem.
“The Christians WERE Catholic ( as in members of Christ’s universal church by virtue of faith), I will admit, but ROMAN ? As in Christians everywhere adhering to the Bishop of Rome as their SUPREME head being superior in position to all other Bishops everywhere in the Roman world ? I don’t think history and scripture attests to that.”
St. Patrick was Catholic. He was not “Roman Catholic” and neither am I. “Roman Catholic” is a pejorative invented by Protestants in the 16th century. Look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary.
“Yes, and so am I , and so are those who believe and follow Jesus Christ REGARDLESS of whether they are members of the Roman Catholic Church or not. THAT
WAS MY POINT. If that is your point also, I don’t see where we differ.”
You are in a sect. St. Peter was not. I am not. You are. That is where we differ. St. Patrick had the fullness of faith. So do I. You do not. That’s where we differ.
“And how does one belong to His Church ? Scripture tells us that all who believe in Him and Follow Him ARE members of His Church. Which makes me and millions of
others ( who are not members of the Roman Cathlic Church ) part of His Catholic church too. In what sense then does St. Patrick belong solely to you ?”
You are making the mistake of anachronistically reading Protestant pluralism back into scriptures. Sorry, but there was only the Catholic Church.
“Well, I’d like for you to show me from scripture where it backs that view ( specifically that the Roman Catholic Church IS the sole equivalent of the Church of Christ ).”
I am not “Roman Catholic.” I am Catholic. So was St. Patrick.
“Yes you are with one proviso — You do not reject those who are NOT members of the Roman Catholic Church as being part of the CATHOLIC ( AKA UNIVERSAL ) Church of Christ.”
Those who are not Catholic are not Catholic. You are not Catholic. You cannot be in the universal Church and be in a sect. A sect is the opposite of the universal Church.
“Yes, as long as you give a distinction between Roman Catholic and Catholic ( as in Universal ).”
Since I am Catholic (as was St. Patrick) I need not make any distinction between Catholic and the artifical Protestant construct “Roman Catholicism”.
“The two are NOT EXACTLY the same. One can be baptized into the Roman Catholic Church and NOT be a member of the Catholic ( universal ) church by
virtue of NON-BELIEF or PERSONAL ABANDONMENT of the faith”
I am Catholic. So was St. Patrick.
“Yes, the Bible teaches us about the Priesthood of all believers. St. Peter calls the Christians everywhere in his epistle to Christians scattered everywhere then : “ A CHOSEN PEOPLE, A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD”
So yes, I do.”
No, you do not. The priesthood of the people is not the priesthood of the ordained ministers of the Church. St. Patrick was ordained.
“Yes I do. But I do not believe that it is limited to the Episcopacy of the ROMAN version.”
You do not believe in the episcopacy as St. Patrick did. He believed it to be passed down from the Apostles. He believed it to be an ordained ministry.
“Yes I do. Christians should consecrate their lives to Jesus Christ. How can one call Him Lord and not do that ?”
You have not done it as St. Patrick did. He was consecrated specifically as a bishop in the Catholic Church which meant he possessed authority over the sacraments you do not believe in.
“Celibacy as in not having sex outside marriage ? Of course.”
That is not celibacy. Celibacy is choosing not to marry for a purpose serving God. St. Patrick would understand it since it was common in his age. You clearly do not understand it.
“But I do not believe that Clergy who marry are disobeying God’s word. St. Paul himself advises Timothy ( the Bishop to Ephesus ) to consecrate Bishops who among other qualifications are HUSBANDS OF ONE WIFE.”
Because most men were NEW Christians and already married. St. Paul was not married. And neither was Jesus. In generations to come those who were raised as Christians were expected to be unmarried when they entered the priesthood.
“History tells us that Patrick was British by birth, the son of a town councillor-deacon and GRANDSON OF A PRIEST. NOTHING WRONG WITH HIS GRANDFATHER BEING A PRIEST AND MARRYING. THAT’s BIBLICALLY ACCEPTABLE THROUGH AND THROUGH.”
Yet St. Patrick was unmarried as missionaries were. He believed in celibacy. He was a slave and then a churchman. He was celibate.
“I know that, but Vatican II OPENED the door to non-Latin worship. They do not condemn this.”
Vatican II did not “open the door” to vernacular worship. It always existed.
“MOST masses today are NON-LATIN and for good reason -— it would be better for people to worship in a language they understand.”
They were never prevented from worshipping in the vernacular on their own or in groups. The liturgical use of language was best kept - as the resurgence of the Latin Mass is proving.
“As for Latin being superior, well the next question is WHY ?”
Who claimed it was superior?
“Where in God’s word does it tell us that Latin is superior, given that most people during the times of the early apostles spoke Koine Greek AND Latin
and given that the New Testament was originally written in Greek not Latin?”
Your point is moot since no one claimed what you falsely assert.
“My point is this -— you claim that you can speak to him in Latin. My response is — SO WHAT ?”
That was not my claim. My claim is that we use the same language and could communicate while you could not. He is of my Church and worshipped much as I do while you know nothing of his worship and worship in a way and manner completely foreign to him.
“That makes Him your own solely because he and you speak Latin ?”
No, but he is ours nonetheless.
“Does that mean that in order for me to claim Patrick as mine, I have to learn Latin too ?”
No, you must simply leave behind heresy and schism and becoma Catholic.
“What if I did and mastered the language better than you, That makes Patrick more MINE than yours ?”
Nope. Again, you must simply leave behind heresy and schism and becoma Catholic.
“Remember this — you brought the issue of Latin up, not me. For me, this is and should be a non-issue.”
All logical things are apparently a non-issue for you.
“Which brings us back to the same question — WHY NOT ?”
Because you are a sect member. You do not possess the faith.
“Because you said so ?”
Nope. Because it is simply that way.
“What you say is nothing, what
scripture teaches is what we should adhere to. Show me
from scripture that only you are and I am not.”
I have no reason to believe you will recognize the truth. You are making the mistake of anachronistically reading Protestant pluralism back into scriptures. Sorry, but there was only the Catholic Church.
“Where does it say that it was about ROMAN Catholics ALONE and NOT those who are NOT in the Roman Church but DO BELIEVE ?”
It was about the Catholic Church and not your sect.
“It doesn’t say that at all.”
Actually it does.
“Well, I am glad that you aren’t the authority as to who qualifies or not. God’s word is.”
And you still don’t qualify.
“I was quoting from the New Jerusalem Bible. It IS a Roman Catholic approved translation of the New Testament.”
No, it is a Catholic approved translation.
“And he said nothing about ROMAN (emphasis) Catholics either. He did emphasize BELIEF, FAITH, OBEDIENCE. These aren’t the sole virtues that ROMAN Cathilics have.”
He was speaking to Catholics in all his letters. It didn’t need to be said.
***********************
Unfortunately, I don't have the Oxford English Dictionary. I did my best to Google this, but couldn't find any real support for the above, although I do not doubt that it may well be so.
What I did find was that "Roman" and "Orthodox" were used when the east-west split occurred, and it is clear that "Roman Catholic" is intended by some even today to be an insult to Catholics. Do you have any more information on this?
Excellent post, btw.
Thanks for your post.
I find it a continually source of frustration that threads seem to turn into Catholic v Protestant on the turn of a dime. The real questions on this thread should be does reading about Patrick point us to Christ, and maybe, would Patrick and Christ claim any of us as their own the way we behave towards one another!
Blessings
Mel
The OED is partially quoted here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm
And this expresses many sentiments that I have: http://jloughnan.tripod.com/rom_cath.htm
Excellent! Thank you!
I will have to chop of certain portions of your response as it is getting long. I will separate them into different posts as a lot of them relate to different ideas.
YOU WROTE:
It was never in the communion of saints. Evangelical sects are sects. Period. They all deny the communion of saints as understood by orthodox Christians. They deny it as St. Patrick would have known it.
How are they sects ? You DEFINE them as sects but Christians who adhere to scripture and follow the Lord cannot be called sects by virtue of adherence to scripture. They are and should be considered part of the communion of saints regardless of what people like YOU think.
And the next question to ask is this — what is Orthodox Christianity ? It has to be what SCRIPTURE teaches, not what people like you say.
Also, how would you know what Patrick would have known ? Have you spoken to him lately ?
YOU SAID :
Sola scriptura and sola fide are Protestant doctrines. If you believe in them then you are a Protestant. Period.
Uhhh, I believe in scripture and faith, but I also believe that the church fathers from the time of the apostles have a lot of teachings that are useful we can learn from. In what way is that protestant ? That is simply adhering to what the CATHOLIC ( as opposed to the Roman version ) church traditionally taught.
YOU SAID :
Actually it is exclusive. You are making the mistake of anachronistically reading Protestant pluralism back into scriptures. Sorry, but there was only the Catholic Church.
What you call anarchrnistic I call SCRIPTURAL. I don’t believe in pluralism either, I believe in communion of saints but ONLY WITHIN THE FAITH.
Yes there is ONLY ONE CATHOLIC CHURCH, but it is MOST DEFINITELY NOT LIMITED TO YOUR DENOMINATION OR THE CHURCH YOU GO TO.
I have more say on the rest of your post. Watch this space.
We have all the time in the world for this.
Continued
YOU SAID :
Those who are not Catholic are not Catholic.
I agree, but our contention is who holds the title of CATHOLIC. You insist that only those who belong to your church can hold it. I contend that scripture and ancient tradition DENY THIS VIEW.
YOU SAID
You are not Catholic.
Yes, you’ve said this several times, but saying it does not make it so. Show me from scripture why...
YOU SAID:
You cannot be in the universal Church and be in a sect. A sect is the opposite of the universal Church.
But I do not belong to a sect, I belong to the CATHOLIC church by virtue of belief in Christ and obedience to His word. Those are HIS TEACHINGS and HIS WORD. NOT YOURS.
YOU SAID:
Since I am Catholic (as was St. Patrick
Yes, as am I ( despite your denial ).
YOU SAID:
I need not make any distinction between Catholic and the artifical Protestant construct “Roman Catholicism”.
It is not an artificial reconstruction, it is SCRIPTURAL DEFINITION. YOU ARE THE ONE GOING AGAINST SCRIPTURE ( which you claim to believe, not me ).
YOU SAID ( ACTUALLY REPEAT) :
I am Catholic. So was St. Patrick.
I’m glad to hear that. Welcome to the church that I belong to ( I hope ).
Continued
YOU SAID
That was not my claim. My claim is that we use the same language and could communicate while you could not.
And my question was — If I mastered Latin better than you could, would it make my claim better than yours ?
You have not answered the above question.
YOU SAID:
He is of my Church and worshipped much as I do
Well, I worship the same person Patrick does. What’s your point ? Abraham worshipped GOd but did not speak Latin, that makes his worship of God less acceptable ? Where in God’s word does it say that one must speak a certain language to lay claim to His acceptance ?
YOU SAID :
while you know nothing of his worship and worship in a way and manner completely foreign to him.
Your definition of acceptable worship to God is this — You must worship by using the Latin language. With that, you have just rejected every single believer in the Old and New Testament who do not speak Latin, and all based on what ? Your own definition, not scripture ( which was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the original ).
YOU SAID:
No, but he is ours nonetheless.
Oh I see, repetition seems to be your style of argument. If that is so, I can also repeat, He is ours as well.
YOU SAID:
No, you must simply leave behind heresy and schism and becoma Catholic.
But why ? I have never left the Catholic Church ( the church of Christ ). I adhere to every single doctrine taught by Christ’s apostles in scripture.
If I denied scriptural doctrine, you might have a point, but you don’t. You simply say it without showing it.
YOU SAID:
Nope. Again, you must simply leave behind heresy and schism and becoma Catholic.
Well then I don’t have to do anything, I don’t even have to “become” Catholic as I already am by virtue of adherence to what Christ taught.
YOU SAID:
All logical things are apparently a non-issue for you.
The Latin issue is logical ? How ?
You have not even shown how speaking Latin makes you closer to God. You seem to claim to be closer to God than Moses himself ( who did not speak Latin ). That’s logical ? I don’t think so.
TO BE CONTINUED IN THE NEXT POST....
CONTINUED
YOU SAID :
I have no reason to believe you will recognize the truth.
Actually I am now wondering whether or not you are interested in the truth. I pleased, nay demanded with you to show me from Scripture ( which you claim to believe ) how I am wrong and thus far, all I get are the same repetitions ( as the responses you give below and above have shown ). That’s recognizing the truth ? No you are AVOIDING the truth ( because Christ said — MY WORD IS TRUTH ).
YOU SAID :
You are making the mistake of anachronistically reading Protestant pluralism back into scriptures. Sorry, but there was only the Catholic Church.
I am making the correct understanding of what scripture teaches. There is ONLY ONE CATHOLIC CHURCH, I agree, and it is NOT LIMITED to the one you go to.
And that is NOT PLURALISM. Why ? because scripture tells us that he who does not believe does not have life ( Christ’s words again ). So, you can be a member of the Roman CAtholic Church yet NOT BELIEVE ( and I know many who don’t ). That’s not pluralism, that’s recognizing what Christ taught ? He is my authority, what’s yours ?
YOU SAID:
It was about the Catholic Church and not your sect.
Yes it is, but it is NOT JUST LIMITED to YOUR SECT ( since you like to use that word, I’ll use it ).
YOU SAID:
Actually it does.
No it DOES NOT. If you want, we can do this over and over again. I don’t mind at all.
YOU SAID:
And you still don’t qualify.
Yes I do, on the basis of scripture, not on the basis of the statement you made. What you say is nothing, what scripture says is truth.
YOU SAID :
No, it is a Catholic approved translation.
And approved by the Roman Magistrate. So, it is still a ROMAN CATHOLIC approved translation. And you have not even commented on what I said.
YOU SAID :
He was speaking to Catholics in all his letters. It didn’t need to be said.
Uh huh, He was speaking to Christians in Galatia, who are by definition, members of THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BY VIRTUE OF FAITH AND BELIEF AND OBEDIENCE. Since, I meet these requirements, He is speaking to me too.
And oh yeah, I know what your response will be since it has been very obvious after 3 or 4 rounds of this exchange. You are going to repeat your “no you are not” schitck. Well, OK, if you want to play this game and not quote scripture ( since I highly doubt your knowledge of it ), I will just say this “YES I AM” to every one of your “NO YOU’RE NOT”. If you want to play this game, I’ll indulge you until the moderator closes this thread.
YOU SAID:
That is not celibacy.
We seem to be having a new definition of celibacy here. To be celibate is to abstain from sex. How is my understanding wrong ?
YOU SAID:
Celibacy is choosing not to marry for a purpose serving God. St. Patrick would understand it since it was common in his age. You clearly do not understand it.
Of course you can choose to be celibate if you want to, but that is NOT a COMMAND in Scripture. St. Paul himself very clearly taught that He chose to be celibate but his brother Cephas ( St. Peter ) was married. Peter did not serve the Lord any less by being married.
YOU SAID:
Because most men were NEW Christians and already married. St. Paul was not married. And neither was Jesus.
Uh huh, but Mary and Joseph were married, were they any less servants of God ?
Moses, Abraham, St. Peter, were ALL MARRIED. How is that wrong ?
If Paul did not wish married people to serve as Bishops than why did he not tell Timothy to NOT CHOOSE those so called new Christians who were married to be Bishops ? Also, you neglect to look at the text, these people were NOT NEW CHRISTIANS. They were to be ordained because they were MATURE IN THEIR FAITH, not infants in the faith.
Your understanding is clearly unscriptural.
YOU SAID:
In generations to come those who were raised as Christians were expected to be unmarried when they entered the priesthood.
And that is most definitely *NOT* in adherence to scriptural teaching and church tradition.
That was an innovation that came much later centuries after the first apostles.
YOU SAID:
Yet St. Patrick was unmarried as missionaries were.
Yet, his grandfather was a priest and NOT CELIBATE and sired eventually Patrick. So, in what way does celibacy make you a member of the Catholic Church and not being celibate not ?
YOU SAID:
He believed in celibacy.
I DO TOO. BUT IT IS A CHOICE, NOT A SCRIPTURAL COMMAND. If you believe that it would be best to serve God by not marrying, Good for you. But the married person is not any less effective in his service.
YOU SAID:
He was a slave and then a churchman. He was celibate.
And what follows ? He belongs to you alone ? How does the argument follow ?
“I am sorry that you cannot understand my objection. The Fundamentalist Protestant criticisms you so object to come from the right. The criticisms of Fundamentalist Protestantism which you and your co-religionists continuously make on this forum (simple-minded, ignorant, bigoted, etc.) come from the left.”
1. Your objection is grounded in falsehood. To wit:
a. The protestant criticisms are unsupported other than by falsehood. Falsehood and leftism are both of and from Satan. Those false criticisms, therefore, are from the left.
b. Your statement that Catholics “continuously” call fundamentalist Protestantism simple-minded, ignorant, bigoted, etc. on this forum, is utterly and completely false.
“I very much object to being told I am a simple-minded fool”
Really? When somebody says something like that to me, the first thing I do is check to see if they’re right.
“Maybe you Catholics should try criticizing Protestantism from the right some day?”
We do. Truth is of and from God, and therefore of the right.
“I wonder if the Spanish Inquisition employed your liberal vocabulary when criticizing “heretics?”
Oh, good grief, don’t you have any respect for the truth?
You make yourself ridiculous when you imply that I am a liberal or use a liberal vocabulary. Not to mention dredging up the Inquisition again.
“They’re not your separated brethren. They are a completely different religion with a completely different worldview.”
That’s not for you to say. You have no standing in the matter, and, if you understand Protestantism no better than you understand Catholicism, no basis for an opinion.
“By their standards, you are not a Christian at all.”
Some of the fringe protestant denominations, operating solely on the basis of misunderstandings of Catholic doctrine, labor under that misapprehension. If there were some way to make them understand Catholic doctrine, they would admit that they have been mistaken.
“And by your standards they aren’t Christians at all.”
Stuff and nonsense. Just another area of Catholic teaching on which you are completely mistaken.
“The fact that Catholics trumpet their liberalism by considering Protestants their “brethren” is one of the things that shows how far to the Left Catholicism has slipped.”
It’s really sad that your view has become so distorted. To see that as “trumpeting liberalism” is a gross error.
“The idea that there is some amorphous concept called “historic orthodox Christianity” to which all self-identifying Christians other than Mormons belong is garbage.
Your sweeping misunderstanding of Catholicism and the rest of Christianity deprives you of the standing to make any such statement. An opinion grounded only in misprision is worthless.
“Perhaps you aren’t up to speed on the latest scientific discoveries, so let me clue you in: A “virgin birth” is a scientific impossibility.”
How sad it is that your intellectual development is arrested at such an early stage. Science deals with what exists in the physical universe. It is by definition inadequate to make any pronouncement whatsoever on the subject of miracles.
“So is resurrection from the dead. So is “transubstantiation.” So is bilocation.”
A God who can create an entire universe, replete with clusters of galaxies beyond counting, is quite capable of accomplishing those things.
Here’s the thing: You want science to be the ultimate arbiter of all things, without exception. The notion of a God who manipulates the laws of science at His whim is unacceptable. But science is only our effort to understand things within our physical universe. It cannot be used to discover anything regarding matters outside our physical universe.
“Yet you believe in them while in utter hypocrisy subjecting the creation of the world from nothing to the scientific laws that we know today.”
So, the definition of hypocrisy is just one more thing on which you are mistaken.
There is no contradiction between saying that scientific law seems to govern our universe on the one hand, and on the other admitting that God does what pleases him without regard to those laws. After all, He created them, but is not bound by them as we are.
“There is, and can be, only one reason for this inconsistency”
There is no inconsistency.
“the former scientific impossibilities are “Catholic miracles”
1. The are not “former” impossibilities. They remain scientifically impossible. And yet, they occurred. Kind of knocks science off its pedestal.
2. Where did you get this “Catholic miracles” stuff? Miracles are God’s.
“Young Earth Creationism is “Protestant” and therefore to be treated like a disease (after all, who wants to be associated with those people in the trailer parks?).”
Is that what this is all about? Do you suffer from some sense of inadequacy arising from humble beginnings?
We don’t treat YEC like a disease. We treat it as an error.
“It’s really great to know that the “inclusive” Catholic Church has room for every kind of simple-minded piety except for that of those awful rednecks.”
I, on the other hand, would be pleased to learn that some of your apparently inexhaustible store of mistaken opinions regarding Catholicism had been replaced by the truth.
There may be Catholics who feel like that about rednecks, but that is no part of legitimate Catholic theology.
“Your attitudes are straight from the Left. And so is that of your church.”
You have failed entirely to demonstrate, or even support, such an outlandish accusation.
Do you subscribe to that “false witness” thing?
“If American Catholics voted their theology this country wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in.”
That may be true.
“The only thing keeping this country—and you along with it—from the abyss is those “ignorant rednecks” you so look down on.”
You have absolutely no justification whatsoever for accusing me of looking down on rednecks.
You want to know what makes a redneck? How about getting sunstroke working in the Oklahoma red dirt at the age of five? How about firing a shotgun for the first time that same year? How about holiday feasts with nothing bought from the store except flour, coffee, and sugar? Fried squirrel? Catfish, beans, and cornbread? Quail brought down with your own shotgun, or illegally trapped with materials a boy can find lying around a truck farm? Getting good enough with a bow to hunt rabbits with success? Old people at the table who actually came to Oklahoma in covered wagons? Scores of fistfights between 1st grade and 12th? Owning every CD and DVD by Jeff Foxworthy, Larry the Cable Guy, Bill Engvall, and Ron White, together with a not inconsequential number of classic country CDs? Having rebuilt a car as a youth? Cases of beer and skinny dipping at the lake after football games? Knowing how to camp in heat, rain, or deep snow—comfortably? Having been called by all three names as a boy? (As in, “Elvis! Elvis Aaron Presley, you git in this house right this minute, or I’m going to have you cut a switch.”)
How about being taken to tent revivals that make “Elmer Gantry” look tame? Several hours in a 55 Ford through a tornado outbreak to hear little Marjoe Gortner give out with his signature line, “Glory jee to beezus,” and the fat guy who could sing all four parts. Gillian Welch could have written “Red Clay Halo” just for me.
Look down on rednecks? I *am* a fargin’ redneck. I can piss red dirt on command. I can slaughter a pig, produce a crop of corn, strawberries, green beans, etc., seine bait from a creek, run a trot line, and fix my own fargin’ car. When I’m fishing at night and a water moccasin goes for my minnow, I just shoot him through the head with a 22 pistol. I shake my boots out before I put them on, every day of my life.
Shame on me, for something so far off the mark that one begins to understand why you were called a simple-minded fool?
Hell no, bubba. Shame on *you* for assuming ill of someone you know not at all, and engaging in malicious calumny on that account.
Your remarks have nothing to do with anything I have said or think, and it’s getting worse. Checking out of this discussion now.
You wrote:
“I will have to chop of certain portions of your response as it is getting long. I will separate them into different posts as a lot of them relate to different ideas.”
I will continue to post in one post. That is logically the best way to do it.
“How are they sects ? You DEFINE them as sects but Christians who adhere to scripture and follow the Lord cannot be called sects by virtue of adherence to scripture. They are and should be considered part of the communion of saints regardless of what people like YOU think.”
All Protestants are in sects. They are not in the Church therefore, if they still believe in Christ, but are not in a Church founded by Christ, sent by Christ, or part of Apostolic Succesion they are in a man made sect. Most likely your sect isn’t even more than a century. At most it is less than 500 years old.
“And the next question to ask is this — what is Orthodox Christianity ? It has to be what SCRIPTURE teaches, not what people like you say.”
Incorrect. The orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, is exactly what scripture speaks of. There were no other Churches and your sect was still nothing more than a gleam in Satan’s eye.
“Also, how would you know what Patrick would have known ? Have you spoken to him lately ?”
We are of the same Church and he was a Catholic from the Early Church Father era. We know the teachings and practices of those fathers and we know none of them were Protestants since no Protestant would exist for another millennium.
“Uhhh, I believe in scripture and faith, but I also believe that the church fathers from the time of the apostles have a lot of teachings that are useful we can learn from. In what way is that protestant ? That is simply adhering to what the CATHOLIC ( as opposed to the Roman version ) church traditionally taught.”
Sola scriptura and sola fide are Protestant teachings and were unknown to the Christians of the Early Church Fathers’ era like Patrick.
“What you call anarchrnistic I call SCRIPTURAL. I don’t believe in pluralism either, I believe in communion of saints but ONLY WITHIN THE FAITH.”
You’re not in the faith. And your pluralism is anachronistic. You can call it anything you like, but it isn’t scriptural. Things are not what you call them, but are what they are. You are apparently as infected with relativism as much as you are pluralism.
“Yes there is ONLY ONE CATHOLIC CHURCH, but it is MOST DEFINITELY NOT LIMITED TO YOUR DENOMINATION OR THE CHURCH YOU GO TO.”
I am not a member of a denomination. I never have been. I am Catholic. And “Catholic” is most definitely limited to the Catholic Church.
“I agree, but our contention is who holds the title of CATHOLIC.”
We hold it. You can’t. You have already admitted you are in a Protestant sect. End of story.
“You insist that only those who belong to your church can hold it. I contend that scripture and ancient tradition DENY THIS VIEW.”
What you “contend” is not what is. No one in a sect can be Catholic at the same time. A person cannot hold opposing views (those of a sect and those of the truth) at the same time and be taken seriously.
“Yes, you’ve said this several times, but saying it does not make it so. Show me from scripture why...”
I have no reason to believe you will honor scripture and its true meaning. You’ve already distorted it. A person cannot hold opposing views (those of a sect and those of the truth) at the same time and be taken seriously.
“But I do not belong to a sect, I belong to the CATHOLIC church by virtue of belief in Christ and obedience to His word. Those are HIS TEACHINGS and HIS WORD. NOT YOURS.”
You belong to a sect. Anyone who belongs to a Protestant sect is in a Protestant sect. There’s no way around it.
“Yes, as am I ( despite your denial ).”
No, St. Patrick would not know or recognize your sect. He believed in things you have done your best to twist and distort but he instead believed as Catholics do and not a you do in your sect.
“It is not an artificial reconstruction, it is SCRIPTURAL DEFINITION. YOU ARE THE ONE GOING AGAINST SCRIPTURE ( which you claim to believe, not me ).”
Not in the least. And “Roman Catholic” is an artificial Protestant construct. I am Catholic. St. Patrick is Catholic. You are sectarian and nothing else.
“I’m glad to hear that. Welcome to the church that I belong to ( I hope ).”
You do not belong to any Church. You belong to a sect. Someone cannot both simultaneously be in a sect and in the Church at once since their beliefs are different. Only a sectarian could believe in something so illogical and unscriptural.
“And my question was — If I mastered Latin better than you could, would it make my claim better than yours ?”
No. You are in a sect.
“You have not answered the above question.”
I did. See post #67. Maybe you should pay more attention.
“Well, I worship the same person Patrick does. What’s your point ? Abraham worshipped GOd but did not speak Latin, that makes his worship of God less acceptable ? Where in God’s word does it say that one must speak a certain language to lay claim to His acceptance ?”
Why are you asking questions of a belief no one holds? Don’t you think it is dishonest to make up things out of thin air like that? Perhaps not. Perhaps that’s how people in sects often act?
“Your definition of acceptable worship to God is this — You must worship by using the Latin language. With that, you have just rejected every single believer in the Old and New Testament who do not speak Latin, and all based on what ? Your own definition, not scripture ( which was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the original ).”
Again, you claim I believe in things I do not. I guess sectarians just can’t be honest with what is posted.
“Oh I see, repetition seems to be your style of argument. If that is so, I can also repeat, He is ours as well.”
No, he is not. He was a Catholic. You are a sectarian.
“But why ? I have never left the Catholic Church ( the church of Christ ). I adhere to every single doctrine taught by Christ’s apostles in scripture.”
I have no reason to believe so because you admitting being in a sect. Sectarians do not adhere to scripture but instead twist it.
“If I denied scriptural doctrine, you might have a point, but you don’t. You simply say it without showing it.”
You already admitted being in a sect. Your own words convict you.
“Well then I don’t have to do anything, I don’t even have to “become” Catholic as I already am by virtue of adherence to what Christ taught.”
No, you are in a sect as you yourself admitted. You are not a Catholic. You never will be as long as you are a sectarian.
“The Latin issue is logical ? How ?”
It was perfectly logical as I stated it. That’s why you have been distorting it ever since.
“You have not even shown how speaking Latin makes you closer to God.”
Because I never claimed it. That is a straw man created by you. That is the strategy sectarians resort to.
“You seem to claim to be closer to God than Moses himself ( who did not speak Latin ). That’s logical ? I don’t think so.”
I never claimed what you say I did. It is a pity that you deliberately distort what I said. What I said was succinct and logical. It is easy to check. Go back and show where I claimed what you say I did. When you fail to find it – and you will – will you apologize? I bet not. I think you will act like sectarians commonly do and simply go on with the distortions.
“Actually I am now wondering whether or not you are interested in the truth. I pleased, nay demanded with you to show me from Scripture ( which you claim to believe ) how I am wrong and thus far, all I get are the same repetitions ( as the responses you give below and above have shown ). That’s recognizing the truth ? No you are AVOIDING the truth ( because Christ said — MY WORD IS TRUTH ).”
As I said, I have no reason to believe you will recognize the truth. Anyone who so obviously distorts what someone else said would certainly not seem to be predisposed to do so recognize the truth.
“I am making the correct understanding of what scripture teaches. There is ONLY ONE CATHOLIC CHURCH, I agree, and it is NOT LIMITED to the one you go to.”
There is one Catholic Church – and your in a sect instead.
“And that is NOT PLURALISM. Why ? because scripture tells us that he who does not believe does not have life ( Christ’s words again ). So, you can be a member of the Roman CAtholic Church yet NOT BELIEVE ( and I know many who don’t ). That’s not pluralism, that’s recognizing what Christ taught ? He is my authority, what’s yours ?”
Your authority is not Christ. Christ had one Church. You’re in a sect not founded by Christ and not sent by Christ.
“Yes it is, but it is NOT JUST LIMITED to YOUR SECT ( since you like to use that word, I’ll use it ).”
I am in the Church. You are in a sect. Your sect was founded recently, was not sent by Christ or founded by Christ. It is just a sect and there are many thousands like it. There is only one Catholic Church, however, and you are not in it.
“No it DOES NOT. If you want, we can do this over and over again. I don’t mind at all.”
I am in the Church. You are in a sect. Your sect was founded recently, was not sent by Christ or founded by Christ. It is just a sect and there are many thousands like it. There is only one Catholic Church, however, and you are not in it.
“Yes I do, on the basis of scripture, not on the basis of the statement you made. What you say is nothing, what scripture says is truth.”
You are not relying on scripture. You are distorting it. Christ founded ONE Church. Yours is not that Church. You are in a sect.
“And approved by the Roman Magistrate.”
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. There is no “Roman Magistrate” in the Catholic Church. You are apparently making the term up out of thin air.
“So, it is still a ROMAN CATHOLIC approved translation.”
No, it is Catholic approved and it is not approved by any “Magistrate” in Rome.
“And you have not even commented on what I said.”
There was no reason to. Your comment was simply not important and since you’ve completely bungled it anyway that became the more obvious concern. When someone claims to be Catholic but can’t discuss the bare minimum of Catholic things without exposing his lack of knowledge concerning Catholic things, quite frankly, that takes precedence over other comments on that issue.
“Uh huh, He was speaking to Christians in Galatia, who are by definition, members of THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BY VIRTUE OF FAITH AND BELIEF AND OBEDIENCE. Since, I meet these requirements, He is speaking to me too.”
Not as a Catholic since you are not a Catholic. St. Paul warned against false gospels yet you believe in one.
“And oh yeah, I know what your response will be since it has been very obvious after 3 or 4 rounds of this exchange. You are going to repeat your “no you are not” schitck. Well, OK, if you want to play this game and not quote scripture ( since I highly doubt your knowledge of it ), I will just say this “YES I AM” to every one of your “NO YOU’RE NOT”. If you want to play this game, I’ll indulge you until the moderator closes this thread.”
That’s fine. The difference is that what I say is true, while you post falsehoods. That’s why you repeatedly have made up things out of thin air about what I posted. It’s all you have.
“We seem to be having a new definition of celibacy here. To be celibate is to abstain from sex. How is my understanding wrong ?”
This goes back to whether or not you are Catholic. A Catholic would know what celibacy is for a priest or bishop as St. Patrick knew it. Chastity is not having sex outside of marriage and acting appropriately inside marriage. Celibacy is choosing to forego marriage to better serve God full time. If you use even a secular dictionary such as the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary you’ll see that the first definition for celibacy is the state of not being married. I suggest you purchase a dictionary.
“Of course you can choose to be celibate if you want to, but that is NOT a COMMAND in Scripture. St. Paul himself very clearly taught that He chose to be celibate but his brother Cephas ( St. Peter ) was married. Peter did not serve the Lord any less by being married.”
If St. Peter was still married at the time. Early in the Church bishops and priests realized they could better serve God by remaining celibate. Even before St Patrick’s time it was universally accepted that all bishops would be celibate. It has been that way ever since.
“Uh huh, but Mary and Joseph were married, were they any less servants of God ?”
No, but they also did not have conjugal relations. St. Joseph was a caretaker of Mary.
“Moses, Abraham, St. Peter, were ALL MARRIED. How is that wrong ?”
It wasn’t. It just wasn’t what St. Patrick and others in the early Church considered to be best in serving God in the New Covenant as clergy. This is why bishops like St. Patrick were celibate.
“If Paul did not wish married people to serve as Bishops than why did he not tell Timothy to NOT CHOOSE those so called new Christians who were married to be Bishops ?”
St. Paul worked with what he had. He encouraged people to embrace celibacy if they could. He told Timothy to choose those who had one wife. He would not tolerate polygamy and he knew most me of a responsible age were already married. Christianity was new. People were not yet raised as Christians so the people who had chosen celibacy as a lifelong choice were relatively few. That would change over time.
“Also, you neglect to look at the text, these people were NOT NEW CHRISTIANS. They were to be ordained because they were MATURE IN THEIR FAITH, not infants in the faith.”
They were new Christians. St. Paul was dead by AD 67. He only became a Christ in the 30s or 40s. Thus, not even one generation had passed since St. Paul had made his first converts. Thus, these were new converts. Most of them had probably been Christians for only a handful of years. You don’t seem to understand context as much as you apparently think you do.
“Your understanding is clearly unscriptural.”
No, not at all, but you plainly understand little of what you read. You continuously show yourself to be in a sect rather than in the Church St. Patrick was in.
“And that is most definitely *NOT* in adherence to scriptural teaching and church tradition.”
Actually it is. Just as St. Paul could tell Timothy to choose men only married to one wife, the Church could teach that only unmarried men could be ordained or consecrated. The Church chooses its servants.
“That was an innovation that came much later centuries after the first apostles.”
No, actually celibate men served God since the beginning of the Church: Christ and St. Paul were celibate for instance. It became more of an expectation over time and with good reason. Missionary activities and martyrdom were easier to handle when spouses were less likely to have to suffer. It is still that way today.
“Yet, his grandfather was a priest and NOT CELIBATE and sired eventually Patrick. So, in what way does celibacy make you a member of the Catholic Church and not being celibate not ?”
Why do you ask a question about something no one believes in? I think such dishonest twisting of someone’s words is pathetic. Why do you do it? Also, the issue is simple: St. Patrick was celibate. The Protestant sects do not historically embrace celibacy.
“I DO TOO. BUT IT IS A CHOICE, NOT A SCRIPTURAL COMMAND. If you believe that it would be best to serve God by not marrying, Good for you. But the married person is not any less effective in his service.”
As a missionary he is less effective. St. Paul could not have done what he did with a wife and children to worry about. Many Protestants have discovered that the celibate priesthood is simply more able to accomplish work than a married priesthood: http://michaeldubruiel.blogspot.com/2006/10/married-catholic-priest-extolls-gift.html
“And what follows ? He belongs to you alone ? How does the argument follow ?”
St. Patrick was Catholic. He belongs to no sect or sectarian.
And yet . . .
We don’t treat YEC like a disease. We treat it as an error.
G-d can do anything except create the world in six days 5770 years ago. And "there is no inconsistency!"
BTW wideawake, you're a heretic.
YOU SAID:
I will continue to post in one post. That is logically the best way to do it.
Be my guest.
YOU SAID
All Protestants are in sects.
Uhhh no, that is YOUR DEFINITION of sects. In the beginning of Christian history, there was no such thing. There were only BELIEVERS in Jesus Christ.
Anyone who truly believed and had fatih were considered part of the church. Read the Bible, it’s there. Yours is a very recent definition ( thousands of
years after the fact ).
YOU SAID:
They are not in the Church therefore,
I am in the Church, you can repeat that but that is just you saying it.
YOU SAID:
if they still believe in Christ, but are not in a Church founded by Christ,
And why am I not in the church founded by Christ ? Jesus said all who believe and are born again are children of God. Those are His words.
between what He said and your words, I’ll take His words thank you.
YOU SAID:
sent by Christ, or part of Apostolic Succesion they are in a man made sect.
And I am not part of the apostolic succession ? Why is that ? I obey the words of St. Paul, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles. In what way am I not
part of the apostolic succession other than the fact that YOU SAID SO ?
YOU SAID:
Most likely your sect isn’t even more than a century. At most it is less than 500 years old.
Most likely you have made things up as you go along because your statement is not scriptural, and scripture is the standard by which we all must adhere to ( at least
that was my impression until I read your statement ).
YOU SAID:
Incorrect. The orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, is exactly what scripture speaks of.
Sure that is what the scripture speaks of, but WHO is part of the Catholic Church ? That has been my question and you have not answered it, you simply repeat what you said over and over again. Scripture tells us that ALL WHO BELIEVE are children of God.
Any other teaching ( e.g. yours for instance ) is extraneous.
YOU SAID :
There were no other Churches and your sect was still nothing more than a gleam in Satan’s eye.
Again, you keep assuming that I am part of a sect when you can’t even show from scripture how this is so.
As for Satan, I’m glad you mentioned him because when he tried to tempt the Lord, the Lord quoted SCRIPTURE
against him ? Where is your scriptural basis ?
YOU SAID:
We are of the same Church and he was a Catholic from the Early Church Father era.
And I am not of the same Church ? I am just as Cattholic ( not ROMAN ) as he is and I adhere to the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.
Who do you want to quote in his era to show that I am not of the Catholic Church ? Ypu want to start with Ausgustine ( who was his
contemporaty ? ), Be my guest.... What did Augustine say for instance regarding who is part of the Catholic Church ? Since you don’t want to quote scripture, I believe you might want to quote a Church father. So, here’s my challenge, what did Augustine say ? ( Patrick had very
few things written down, but his contemporary Augustine had volumes. So maybe you might want to quote him to support your view).
YOU SAID
We know the teachings and practices of those fathers and we know none of them were Protestants since no Protestant would exist for another millennium.
YOU DON’T KNOW what their teachings and practices are, otherwise you would show me from their writings in what way people like me are not part of the catholic church. Yours are just WORDS FROM YOUR OWN KEYBOARD.
YOU SAID:
Sola scriptura and sola fide are Protestant teachings and were unknown to the Christians of the Early Church Fathers’ era like Patrick.
Why not ? Here is what St, Paul said :
“All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.” ( II TIMOTHY 3:16 ).
Did you read that ? ALL SCRIPTURE ! Is PROFITABLE FOR TEACHING US TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT.
If we don’t adhere to God’s word, what do we adhere to ? YOUR WORDS ( which thus far is all I have ). Not hank you.
“What you call anarchrnistic I call SCRIPTURAL. I don’t believe in pluralism either, I believe in communion of saints but ONLY WITHIN THE FAITH.”
So, St. Paul is on my side, no yours. In this sense, in what way am I not Catholic and you are ?
YOU SAID:
You’re not in the faith. And your pluralism is anachronistic.
Again I am not pluralistic and it is not anachronistic. Anyone who does not believe in Christ regardless of what church membership he is in
is NOT of the church. He might be by name ( just like a RINO is ), but he REALLY IS NOT. That’s pluralistic ? NOPE.
YOU SAID:
You can call it anything you like, but it isn’t scriptural.
I find this ironic from someone who refuses to show me from scripture how it supports his viewpoint.
First, show me scripture, then I’ll believe you but not until.
YOU SAID:
Things are not what you call them, but are what they are. You are apparently as infected with relativism as much as you are pluralism.
You have one of the most banal ways of using terms. If I were relativisitc, I would not have been grounded on a STANDARD to adhere to.
But I have a standard — AN ABSOLUTE IF YOU WILL -— SCRIPTURE.
You don’t even know the meaning of the term — relativistic and here you are using it.
YOU SAID:
I am not a member of a denomination. I never have been. I am Catholic. And “Catholic” is most definitely limited to the Catholic Church.
Again, you belong to a denomination -— ROMAN. I am not denying you membership of the Catholic Church. If you believe in Jesus and Trust Him for your salvation, you are a member of the Catholic Church. But please ROMAN CATHOLIC IS NOT NECESSARILY CATHOLIC.
I know of too many priests and nuns who are members of the Roman Catholic Church who have lost their faith. In some Roman Catholic Universities,there are even priests who favor abortion. They are Catholic because they are members of the Roman Catholic Church ? Unless they repent, they are NOT and scripture backs me up.
YOU SAID:
We hold it. You can’t. You have already admitted you are in a Protestant sect. End of story.
NOPE, You don’t hold it solely as your own. I have admitted that I am a follower of Jesus Christ and obeyer of his scripture, therefore I am a member of
His church. HE TAUGHT THAT, You ought to obey what he taught. End of story.
YOU SAID
What you “contend” is not what is.
Well, show me from scripture what is then... I am waiting...is yuor response to my request forthcoming ?????
YOU SAID :
No one in a sect can be Catholic at the same time.
You have used the word — SECT so many times but have thus far not defined it ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE.
Let me show you an example of Jesus Christ by quoting scripture ( since you seem to be averse to reading it ) :
Mark 9: 38-50 (September 27, 2009)
John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us. For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.
SO, in the above example, some people were not members of the inner circle of the apostles. They however were believers in Jesus and were casting out Demons in His name.
Did Jesus reject them ? I am not going to answer that for you because the answer is clear from scripture.
YOU MY FRIEND, ARE COMMITTING THE SAME MISTAKE THAT JOHN DID.
YOU SAID:
A person cannot hold opposing views (those of a sect and those of the truth) at the same time and be taken seriously.
Yes, we do hold opposing views, but you ahve not shown me how your views are correct in light of scripture ( which you claim to believe ).
In what sense shoudl YOU be taken seriously ? Without a basis for determining our authority, all we have are your opinion ( which you are entitled
to of course ).
YOU SAID:
I have no reason to believe you will honor scripture and its true meaning. You’ve already distorted it. A person cannot hold opposing views (those of a sect and those of the truth) at the same time and be taken seriously.
Really ? How about this — YOU AREN’T EVEN reading scripture. I find it hard to take YOU seriously when you accuse someone of distorting scripture when you yourself
refuse to refer to it.
YOU SAID:
You belong to a sect. Anyone who belongs to a Protestant sect is in a Protestant sect. There’s no way around it.
There is another way around it — GOD’s WORD, not yours. I stand by that, not what you say.
YOU SAID:
No, St. Patrick would not know or recognize your sect.
How do you know that ? Have you spoken to him in person lately ?
YOU SAID:
He believed in things you have done your best to twist and distort but he instead believed as Catholics do and not a you do in your sect.
And you have not shown how I have twisted and distorted things. In fact, the best description seems to fit your arguments, not mine.
YOU SAID:
Not in the least. And “Roman Catholic” is an artificial Protestant construct. I am Catholic. St. Patrick is Catholic. You are sectarian and nothing else.
Nope, St. Patrick is Catholic. I am Catholic and YOU ARE ROMAN CATHOLIC ( but if you believe in Jesus and Obey Him, you are also Catholic ).
YOU SAID:
You do not belong to any Church.
I do not belong to the ROMAN CATHOLIC church, but according to scripture I belong to the Catholic church.
YOU SAID:
You belong to a sect.
You have not defined a sect scripturally, how can I take you seriously ?
YOU SAID:
Someone cannot both simultaneously be in a sect and in the Church at once since their beliefs are different.
Only if the sect does not believe what Jesus teaches. You have NOT shown that I do not believe in what Jesus teaches, Show me first, and then maybe you have a point but not until. We should first start from something we both claim to adhere to — SCRIPTURE. Start there. I await....
YOU SAID:
Only a sectarian could believe in something so illogical and unscriptural.
I find this amusing since you have thus far, not shown me ONE IOTA of scripture.
YOU SAID:
No. You are in a sect.
Shall we play this child’s game ? OK, I will indulge you — NO I AM NOT IN A SECT ( Ihave already preprogrammed this in my macro so that I just hit a button everytime I read the above statement ).
YOU SAID:
“You have not answered the above question.”
I did. See post #67. Maybe you should pay more attention.
Your post #67 DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION and your subsequent posts simply repeat the same statement without scriptural proof.
What is that statement ? “you-are-not-in-the-church”.
Yeah, I read that already, but where’s your scriptural proof ? NADA.
YOU SAID:
Why are you asking questions of a belief no one holds?
Don’t you think it is dishonest to make up things out of thin air like that? Perhaps not. Perhaps that’s how people in sects often act?
And what belief is that that I hold that St. Patrick does not hold ? You accuse me of every dirty word in the book without showing any single scriptural proof and then
you go on and claim that Patrick would do this or that without even having spoken to Patrick, much less cited anything he wrote or said to back up your claim and oh how you would drone on.....
YOU SAID:
Again, you claim I believe in things I do not. I guess sectarians just can’t be honest with what is posted.
OK, I apologize. Let’s go back to Latin, in what sense is your knowledge of Latin proof that Patrick is solely yours ?
I am askign a question IN ORDER to understand your logic. If what I said is not what you believe, the least you could do is explain to me how Latin comes into the picture regarding how one can claim closeness to someone’s faith. I await ( and if you can quote
scripture, so much the better because I hold that as my standard ).
YOU SAID
No, he is not. He was a Catholic. You are a sectarian.
He was Catholic as Am I.
YOU SAID:
I have no reason to believe so because you admitting being in a sect. Sectarians do not adhere to scripture but instead twist it.
You don’t have to belive it, I am not worrying myself to sleep over what you believe. I only worry about disobeying God’s word, which thus far, you have not
shown have.
YOU SAID:
You already admitted being in a sect. Your own words convict you.
Let’s clarify things YOU call it a sect, I don’t. I challenged you many times to show me from scripture how I belong to a sect and you have thus far not shown anything. How can I be convicted of something you have not proven ?
Just because YOU SAID SO, DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.
YOU SAID
No, you are in a sect as you yourself admitted. You are not a Catholic. You never will be as long as you are a sectarian.
I DO NOT admit to being in a sect as YOU DEFINE IT.
YOU SAID:
It was perfectly logical as I stated it. That’s why you have been distorting it ever since.
OK, let’s have some logic.
YOU SAID:
Because I never claimed it. That is a straw man created by you. That is the strategy sectarians resort to.
OK, let me repeat my question and please do not answer me with a one liner :
Let’s go back to Latin, in what sense is your knowledge of Latin proof that Patrick is solely yours ?
I am asking a question IN ORDER to understand your logic. If what I said is not what you believe, the least you could do is explain to me how Latin comes into the picture regarding how one can claim closeness to someone’s faith. I await ( and if you can quote scripture, so much the better because I hold that as my standard ).
YOU SAID
As I said, I have no reason to believe you will recognize the truth. Anyone who so obviously distorts what someone else said would certainly not seem to be predisposed to do so recognize the truth.
You have a reason my friend — GO TO SCRIPTURE. Show me from scripture how I “obviously” ( your words, not mine ) distort the truth.
If I were not predisposed to recognize the truth, I would not be asking you.
I have made this challenge to you several times but all I receive is silence — NO SCRIPTURE, NO EXEGESIS, NOTHING.
No wonder you’re not getting anywhere and have to resort to repetitions as in the following :
“There is one Catholic Church – and your in a sect instead.”
YOU SAID:
Your authority is not Christ. Christ had one Church. You’re in a sect not founded by Christ and not sent by Christ.
And the onus is to show me from Christ’s words how I am not a member of that one church. I am waiting....
( NOTE, I CUT THE REST OF YOUR STATEMENTS BECAUSE THEY ARE SIMPLY THE SAME REPETITIONS OVER AND OVER AGAIN
AS IN : I-am-in-the-Church. You-are-in-a-sect. )
YOU SAID:
Not as a Catholic since you are not a Catholic. St. Paul warned against false gospels yet you believe in one.
Which brings us to an interesting question — What gospel did St. Paul preach and in what way do I not believe in the gospel he preached ?
Again, show me from scripture ( you can start with the epistle to the Galatians since we are already there ).
YOU SAID:
That’s fine. The difference is that what I say is true, while you post falsehoods. That’s why you repeatedly have made up things out of thin air about what I posted. It’s all you have.
Uh huh, and your accusations have not been proven, that’s fine for me too.
YOU SAID:
This goes back to whether or not you are Catholic. A Catholic would know what celibacy is for a priest or bishop as St. Patrick knew it.
St. Patrick practiced it but his grandfather ( A PRIEST ) chose not to. So, St. Patrick also knew that it was an option granted by God. He had the gift of celibacy
and I recognize that, but St. Paul clearly said that not everyone has that gift. St. Peter did not have it, yet that did not stop him from being an effective minister for
Christ.
YOU SAID:
Celibacy is choosing to forego marriage to better serve God full time. If you use even a secular dictionary such as the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary you’ll see that the first definition for celibacy is the state of not being married. I suggest you purchase a dictionary.
OK, we both agree on that definition, but let’s go back to the beginning of how celibacy became an issue — you ask me a question about celibacy, I believe I answered it,
which is to say -— St. Paul gave Christians the FREEDOM ( within the constraints of the Law ) to practice it. I admire people who are celibate, but I do not begrudge those who want to be celibate from practicing it, just as I do not condemn those who do not have this gift from marrying.
SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT ? Patrick was celibate... what follows ?
YOU SAID:
If St. Peter was still married at the time. Early in the Church bishops and priests realized they could better serve God by remaining celibate. Even before St Patrick’s time it was universally accepted that all bishops would be celibate. It has been that way ever since.
What do you mean IF St. Peter was married ? HE WAS !!
St. Paul mentioned that he was. The gospels mentioned his mother in law ( see Mark 1:29-31)
Here is what St. Paul says about how to ordain Bishops and what their qualification are :
“A bishop must have a good reputation. He must have only one wife, be sober, use good judgment, be respectable, be hospitable, and be able to teach. “ ( 1 Timothy 3:2 ).
If Bishops want to be celibate, good for them, they have the gift. But please, NO SCRIPTURE tells us that those who are married are any less qualified to be Bishops.
YOU SAID:
No, but they also did not have conjugal relations. St. Joseph was a caretaker of Mary.
Sorry, scripture does not teach that.
Matthew 1:25 tells us, “He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.” He, Joseph, did not have sexual relations with her, Mary, UNTIL after she bore a son, Jesus.” The meaning of this Scripture is abundantly clear. Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations until after Jesus was born.
Matthew 13:55-56 declares this about people who heard and were amazed when they heard Jesus preach:
“Is He not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not His sisters all with us?”
Mary and Joseph had 4 sons and AT LEAST 2 sisters.
It’s all there in scripture.
YOU SAID:
It wasn’t. It just wasn’t what St. Patrick and others in the early Church considered to be best in serving God in the New Covenant as clergy. This is why bishops like St. Patrick were celibate.
And so, what’s your point ?
They were celiabte, what then ? How does that relate to whether I can claim that Patrick is my brother in the faith ?
St. Paul taught that celibacy is an option, they chose the option... therefore what follows ??
YOU SAID:
St. Paul worked with what he had. He encouraged people to embrace celibacy if they could. He told Timothy to choose those who had one wife. He would not tolerate polygamy and he knew most me of a responsible age were already married.
Christianity was new. People were not yet raised as Christians so the people who had chosen celibacy as a lifelong choice were relatively few. That would change over time.
But again, note that he encouraged people but did not condemn those who were not celibate. That is what we have in Christ — LIBERTY.
You have the power ( given to you by the spirit ) to decide whether this way of life is effective for you or not.
If you believe celibacy is the best option for you, BE CELIBATE. If you believe that having a family is the best option for you, CELEBRATE.
Note the advantage of being married -— St. Paul tells Timothy in that same letter that a married Bishop can be an example to other married people by showing how he
can manage his household.
According to Wikipedia ( an article which is very heavily sourced ) :
It is undisputed that the earliest Christian leaders were very largely married men. The mention in Mark 1:30 of Saint Peter’s mother-in-law indicates that he had married. In 1 Corinthians 7:8 Paul the Apostle indicates that he was unmarried: either single or a widower.[5] In 1 Corinthians 9:5 he contrasts his situation with that of the other apostles who were accompanied by believing wives. St. Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History Book III, Chapter 30, says Paul did not take his wife about with him “that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry”.
There is record of a number of early-century married bishops in good standing, even in the West. They included: Passivus, bishop of Fermo; Cassius, bishop of Narni; Aetherius, bishop of Vienne; Aquilinus, bishop of Évreux; Faron, bishop of Meaux; Magnus, bishop of Avignon. Filibaud, bishop of Aire-sur-l’Adour, was the father of St. Philibert de Jumièges, and Sigilaicus, bishop of Tours, was the father of St. Cyran of Brenne ( Not to mention the grandfather of St. Patrick ).
So, what’s your point about celibacy ? Many church leaders and Bishops were married... So ? Because Patrick chose a different option ... then what ?
IN OTHER WORDS — What’s your point as it relates to whether I belong to the church or not ?
YOU SAID:
They were new Christians. St. Paul was dead by AD 67. He only became a Christ in the 30s or 40s. Thus, not even one generation had passed since St. Paul had made his first converts. Thus, these were new converts. Most of them had probably been Christians for only a handful of years. You don’t seem to understand context as much as you apparently think you do.
NOPE, they were to be MATURE Christians. Read what St. Paul wrote again to Timothy in his first epistle VERSE 6 : He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil.
READ THAT ? HE MUST NOT BE A RECENT CONVERT.
How long must one be a Christian in order to be considered not new ?
St. Paul was with the Ephesian Church ( which Timothy pastored ) for over 3 years. Timothy took over years later. ENOUGH TIME FOR BELIEVERS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED NEW.
So, your point does not hold. St. Paul’s own words and history tells us that these Bishops (who must be the husband of one wife ) MUST NOT BE A RECENT CONVERT.
YOU SAID:
No, not at all, but you plainly understand little of what you read. You continuously show yourself to be in a sect rather than in the Church St. Patrick was in.
Really ? You have not shown me where my arguments fail.
YOU SAID:
Actually it is. Just as St. Paul could tell Timothy to choose men only married to one wife, the Church could teach that only unmarried men could be ordained or consecrated. The Church chooses its servants.
Which Church is that ? That would be the ROMAN Catholic Church which made it a requriement HUNDREDS of YEARS after the fact.
But that is not what scripture teaches. I do not adhere to what happened and develop hundreds of years later, I WANT WHAT GOD INSPIRED THE
APOSTLES TO TEACH. What happened hundreds of years later could be man-made. The further you are from the early church, the more the tendency for your opinions to take precedence.
YOU SAID
No, actually celibate men served God since the beginning of the Church: Christ and St. Paul were celibate for instance.
Well St. Eusebius seems to give us doubt on that.
See here :
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm ( Read chapter 30 ).
But let’s say St. Paul was celibate and Eusebius was wrong, what then ? THE FACT IS HE DID NOT MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT FOR ALL CLERGY TO BE CELIBATE. HE CLEARLY TAUGHT THAT BISHOPS SHOULD BE THE HUSBANDS OF ONE WIFE ( and oh yeah, don’t give me that argument about New Christians again because Paul also gave the requirement that they should NOT BE NEW CONVERTS ).
Hence 3 requirements you should note from the celibate Paul : 1) MUST BE THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE; 2) MUST BE ABLE TO MANAGE HIS CHILDREN AND HOUSEHOLD WELL; 3) MUST NOT BE A RECENT CONVERT.
YOU SAID:
Why do you ask a question about something no one believes in? I think such dishonest twisting of someone’s words is pathetic. Why do you do it? Also, the issue is simple: St. Patrick was celibate. The Protestant sects do not historically embrace celibacy.
Therefore what follows ? I don’t see how that supports your argument at all given that celibacy is AN OPTION, given that many Bishops in the past were married,
given that St. Peter was married.
YOU SAID:
As a missionary he is less effective. St. Paul could not have done what he did with a wife and children to worry about. Many Protestants have discovered that the celibate priesthood is simply more able to accomplish work than a married priesthood: http://michaeldubruiel.blogspot.com/2006/10/married-catholic-priest-extolls-gift.html
Well, good for them. As St. Paul said -— celibacy is an option, some have the gift, some do not. I do not look down on those who do not have it as they can
also be effective ministers in their own way.
I also note that many former Roman Catholic priests have been blessed by having families and as a result of their experience, have been effective ministers of
the Lord as well. I know one named Anthony Pezzota, formerly of the Salesian order who is a very effective minister of the gospel who is now married.
St. Peter was married and yet, it did not stop him from being a leader in the Christian Church.
Great missionaries such as Hudson Taylor ( who brought the gospel to most of China ), Adoniram Judson, who brought the gospel to Burma, and many hundreds of
others were married. I do not see how being married prevents one from being effective in the Lord given that the ability to manage one’s household is ONE PROOF according to St. Paul of ability to manage the church.
SCRIPTURE is the standard and St. Paul ( writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit ) gave us very clear teachings on this.
YOU WROTE:
St. Patrick was Catholic. He belongs to no sect or sectarian.
I already agreed to that, you’re just repeating what I said.. The only difference we have is in the DEFINITION of Catholic.
I maintain that it is NOT LIMITED to those of the ROMAN persuasion,.
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.