Replies

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.”

“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.