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,.
You wrote:
“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.”
True. All Protestants like yourself came later. Hence, sects. Your sect is truly a Johnny-come-lately, however.
“Anyone who truly believed and had fatih were considered part of the church.”
That immediately excludes you because you do not have the faith of the Church, but the faith of a sectarian as you admitted when you acknowledged that you are a Protestant (Evangelical).
“Read the Bible, it’s there. Yours is a very recent definition ( thousands of
years after the fact ).”
No, ours is the Biblical one. God gave the Bible to us, not to any sect. There was only one Church not your sect. Your sect came many centuries later – perhaps even 1900 years later.
“And why am I not in the church founded by Christ ?”
You would have to answer that by expressing why you refuse to join Christ’s Church. The answer is only known to you. You admitted being a Protestant, thus you are no in Christ’s Church.
“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.”
He did not say that all who believed as they themselves saw fit were in His Church.
“And I am not part of the apostolic succession ? Why is that ?”
No, you are not part of it. Protestant sects cannot be for they have no maintained what was given – including Apostolic Succession. Your sect has no successors to the Apostles.
“I obey the words of St. Paul, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles.”
No, you do not – if you admit to being a Protestant it means you oppose the Church of ages.
“ In what way am I not part of the apostolic succession other than the fact that YOU SAID SO ?”
Simple. Your sect is a new Protestant sect. It probably does not even claim to have Apostolic Succession.
“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 do not seem to adhere to scripture. People who form or join sects simply do not.
“Sure that is what the scripture speaks of, but WHO is part of the Catholic Church ?”
Not you. And in these posts that is all that really matter regarding you. You admitting being in an Evangelical sect.
“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.”
What I repeat is the answer: an Evangelical cannot be a Catholic at the same time he is an Evangelical.
“Any other teaching ( e.g. yours for instance ) is extraneous.”
Evangelicalism is a sect. Sects are extraneous.
“Again, you keep assuming that I am part of a sect when you can’t even show from scripture how this is so.”
You admitted to being in a sect. End of story. All Evangelical sects are sects. End of story.
“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 ?”
We have already seen that you do not understand nor have a desire to understand scripture. You already admitted in your own post that you are in a sect. Scripture is not needed when you make the admission yourself.
“And I am not of the same Church ?”
No. You admitted being in a sect.
“ I am just as Cattholic ( not ROMAN ) as he is and I adhere to the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.”
No, you do not. That is easily seen. Read Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers and then tell me you actually adhere to the teachings of the Fathers. No one in a sect can say that truthfully.
“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).”
It is not necessary. You already admitted being in an Evangelical sect. I need not prove what you already admitted. Case closed. But I do think these words of St. Augustine do apply, in a sense, to you – especially after you admitted to attending sects and not attending a Catholic church: “And so, lastly, does the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.” Against the Epistle of Manichaeus.
“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.”
No, actually I know what I am talking about. You have already admitted being in an Evangelical (Protestant) sect.
“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.”
None of that expresses sola scriptura. Yours is a common mistake among sectarians.
“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….So, St. Paul is on my side, no yours. In this sense, in what way am I not Catholic and you are ?”
I am Catholic. Falsely claiming St. Paul believed in sola scriptura does not make you Catholic.
“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’re pluralistic and you are not Catholic. Your very claims are pluralistic.
“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.”
I have no reason to believe you will believe scripture presented to you.
“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.”
I don’t think you do. After all sola scriptura is no where in scripture yet you are insisting it is true. How ironic. You falsely claim to follow a self-refuting theory.
“You don’t even know the meaning of the term — relativistic and here you are using it.”
I know the meaning of the term and your following of it is clear.
“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 am not “Roman Catholic”. I am not in a denomination. Nor is there a denomination called “ROMAN”. I do deny that you are in the Catholic Church and you have admitted it when you said you belonged to an Evangelical sect.
“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.”
What scripture doesn’t back up is sola scriptura nor does it back up the idea that an Evangelical sect is the Catholic Church.
“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.”
No. You have admitted your membership in a sect. You, therefore, cannot be Catholic.
“Well, show me from scripture what is then... I am waiting...is yuor response to my request forthcoming ?????”
It is clear you are not interested in scripture and merely insist it means what it doesn’t say. St. Paul never said anything in support of sola scriptura for instance but you falsely claim he did.
“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.”
No, I am not making any mistake in this regard at all. I do not confuse God’s goodness to those even outside the Church with any supposed proof as to the Catholicity of those outside the Church. That is your mistake and it is a pretty common one among sectarians. Sectarians often feel the need to excuse their pluralism by citing the verses in question. They are just as confused about them as you are.
“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 ).”
I need not do so. Since you admitted being in a sect you therefore cannot be Catholic.
“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 ).”
No, actually we have your own admission that you are a sectarian. After you admitted that there simply was no reason for further disputation. Someone who is in a sect cannot be Catholic.
“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.”
Whether or not you take me seriously is completely immaterial. Once you admitted being a sectarian it was clear you are not a Catholic. The discussion is essentially over. All that is left is your apparent crying.
“There is another way around it — GOD’s WORD, not yours. I stand by that, not what you say.”
It makes more sense for you simply to accept your own word – you are a sectarian. You, therefore, cannot be a Catholic.
“And you have not shown how I have twisted and distorted things. In fact, the best description seems to fit your arguments, not mine.”
Actually I did show how you twisted things on one or two issues. That should suffice.
“I am Catholic and YOU ARE ROMAN CATHOLIC ( but if you believe in Jesus and Obey Him, you are also Catholic ).”
I am Catholic – you are a sectarian. I am not “Roman Catholic”.
“I do not belong to the ROMAN CATHOLIC church, but according to scripture I belong to the Catholic church.”
Incorrect. You belong to a sect of recent origin.
“You have not defined a sect scripturally, how can I take you seriously ?”
It doesn’t matter if you do. You’re in a sect.
“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....”
No sect believes what Jesus teaches in toto. Sects believe only portions.
“I find this amusing since you have thus far, not shown me ONE IOTA of scripture.”
Again, I have no reason to believe that you would understand or respect scripture since you have already shown that you use a heretical notion in regard to it: sola scriptura.
“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 admitted being in an Evangelical sect. Changing your story now simply won’t change the truth.
“Your post #67 DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION and your subsequent posts simply repeat the same statement without scriptural proof.”
The specific question you asked – and falsely claimed I never answered - was answered in post #67.
“What is that statement ? “you-are-not-in-the-church”.
Yeah, I read that already, but where’s your scriptural proof ? NADA.”
Again, you already admitted being in a sect. No further proof is needed. And in any case you were still making things up out of thin air.
“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.....”
I accused you of no “dirty word”.
“OK, I apologize. Let’s go back to Latin, in what sense is your knowledge of Latin proof that Patrick is solely yours ?”
I never claimed that. Again, you’re making things up.
“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.”
What I said was clear enough. The problem rests on your reading not my writing.
“ I await ( and if you can quote
scripture, so much the better because I hold that as my standard ).”
I don’t believe you do since sola scriptura is unbiblical.
“He was Catholic as Am I.”
He was Catholic. You’re not.
“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.”
Again, sola scriptura is not biblical.
“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 belong to a sect. Evangelical sects are sects. They are not the Catholic Church.
“I DO NOT admit to being in a sect as YOU DEFINE IT.”
You are a member of a sect.
“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 ?”
Again, why do you make things up no one claimed? I never claimed that my “knowledge of Latin” is proof that Patrick is “solely” mine. Being honest is not difficult. Try it.
“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 ).”
What I said was clear enough yet you are apparently incapable of even repeating the words or idea I expressed. What is the point of trying to explain what is so obvious that further explanation is not needed? Also, if you can’t get what I wrote right why should I assume you’ll understand anything written to you?
“You have a reason my friend — GO TO SCRIPTURE. Show me from scripture how I “obviously” ( your words, not mine ) distort the truth.”
There you go again distorting what the truth. I said, “Anyone who so obviously distorts what someone else said would certainly not seem to be predisposed to do so recognize the truth.” So, now you want me to “GO TO SCRIPTURE. Show me from scripture how I “obviously” ( your words, not mine ) distort the truth.” What you distorted was the truth of what I had written.
“If I were not predisposed to recognize the truth, I would not be asking you.”
I have no reason to believe that is the case. Someone predisposed to the truth would not continuously distort someone else’s words in post after post. That is what you have done.
“I have made this challenge to you several times but all I receive is silence — NO SCRIPTURE, NO EXEGESIS, NOTHING.”
None is required. You already admitted the truth: you’re in a sect.
“No wonder you’re not getting anywhere and have to resort to repetitions as in the following :”
What I posted is true: you’re in a sect.
“And the onus is to show me from Christ’s words how I am not a member of that one church. I am waiting....”
On such onus rests on me because you have already admitted being in a sect.
“( 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’re in a sect. You admitted it.
“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 ?”
You believe in a false gospel – the gospel of a sect.
“Again, show me from scripture ( you can start with the epistle to the Galatians since we are already there ).”
I need not show anything. You already being in a sect and of course a sect teaches a false gospel.
“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.”
No. Bishops routinely did not marry. It was not an option for St. Patrick as a bishop. And it was not an option for him after ordination to the priesthood.
“ 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 ?”
It is obvious. If you have to ask the question, then you won’t understand the answer.
“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)”
Once again you resort to distortions. I never said St. Peter was NOT married. I said, “If St. Peter was still married at the time.” St. Paul does not tell us St. Peter was STILL married. Neither does Mark tell us that. If you’re thinking of 1 Cor 9:5 you might want to look up the Greek before you make such an assumption.
“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.”
St. Patrick was celibate nonetheless. Catholic bishops were even before his time.
“Sorry, scripture does not teach that.”
It hints at it only. It is true nonetheless. This is what Catholic believe and we see once again that you are not Catholic.
“Mary and Joseph had 4 sons and AT LEAST 2 sisters.
It’s all there in scripture.”
Actually it isn’t. Your mistake is a common one among sectarians. Catholics don’t make that mistake. http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
“And so, what’s your point ?”
St. Patrick was Catholic and you are not.
“They were celiabte, what then ? How does that relate to whether I can claim that Patrick is my brother in the faith ?”
You are not Catholic. You admitted to being in a sect.
“So, what’s your point about celibacy ? Many church leaders and Bishops were married... So ? Because Patrick chose a different option ... then what ?”
Celibacy is common among Catholic clergy. Is it common in your sect?
“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.”
There you go again distorting things. They were all first generation converts. Christianity was new and their culture had been little affected by it.
“How long must one be a Christian in order to be considered not new ?”
They were still new Christians. You question is meaningless.
“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.”
And they were still new Christians and Christianity itself was new and had not yet affected the culture of the people to any great extent.
“Really ? You have not shown me where my arguments fail.”
I have. Mostly I simply let the failure speak for itself.
“Which Church is that ? That would be the ROMAN Catholic Church which made it a requriement HUNDREDS of YEARS after the fact.”
No, the Church always chose its servants. St. Patrick was Catholic. You’re in a sect.
“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.”
So you are a member of a modern sect? Once again we see your relativism.
“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 ).”
And yet they were all new Christians.
“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.”
And yet they were all new Christians.
“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.”
St. Patrick was celibate. He was Catholic. You’re in a sect. Nothing has changed.
“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.”
He is not an effective minister of the gospel. He is a sectarian. Sectarians do not teach the gospel. http://shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=169
“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.”
Taylor had to ship his own children home to England because he couldn’t be a missionary and take care of his own children. When his wife died he was so grief stricken that he became ill and had to return to England (so much for the mission!). He remarried there, started having children again and returned to China. He had to return to England AGAIN when the children lost their governess. I know his descendents still labor among the Chinese OUTSIDE of China, but the Catholic clergy in China never left because of problem with wives or children and are still there today.
“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,.”
I am not Roman. I am Catholic. So was St. Patrick. You are not Catholic. You are a sectarian. You admitted it as soon as you said you were part of an Evangelical sect.